Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Release the FULL story
Comments
-
Yeah but now the voters who are positive it's a slam dunk drumpf is done are rabid. So any Dem who goes against that is toastcreepycoug said:
It has to be the part of this that Christie mentioned on This Week when he was debating someone about redacting the report where necessary. His point, for which he invoked the Comy/Hillary example in support, is that sometimes, when you have a report that concludes with no formal anything, there can be content in the report that could harm someone for really no point (at least no point relevant or compelling to the underlying investigation that the report is about). He used Hillary by pointing out that Comey "killed her without killing her" because of dicta in the report and timing. We've all argued about that and I'm not trying to re-litigate here.Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?!
That said, I have no idea if there is any other 'good stuff' in the report, same as all of you. The suggestion has been that, while the formal bar for bringing charges was not cleared, there could be a lot of other chintresting stuff. It could be chintresting for either partisan group ... we just don't know.
So, at this point, despite all that is being said and alleged about the origins of this chinvestigation, I would say it's a coin flip, and everyone should be careful what they wish for. Who knows what else is in there.
If I were a D strategist, I'd want to keep it sealed. First and foremost, Trump is not a clean guy, and barely tries to pass himself off as such. Even his most ardent defenders here take a view of focusing on what he does and not on who he is. So if there's some skinny in the report that casts Trump in a bad light, so what? It's just not likely to be the kind of shit that would cause him to lose support. So I see the upside for the Ds as being very limited. The odds of there being something in there that would truly take Trump down seem to me to be entirely remote, or Mueller would have pushed the red button. Second, if nobody ever sees it, the Ds can forever speculate about it.
The risk for the Ds that it really is an entirely nothing sandwich is too great in my view. In all liklihood, there's some shit in there that would raise some questions about Trump and, more likely (I'm guessing here) his baboon sons; but nothing that would torpedo his Presidency. If you're a D, that's not enuff upside to risk total and complete defeat, which is also entirely plausible. -
At their own peril. Any Democrat who's really sure there's some incendiary shit on Trump or Trump affiliates in that report is more a gambler than I.Pitchfork51 said:
Yeah but now the voters who are positive it's a slam dunk drumpf is done are rabid. So any Dem who goes against that is toastcreepycoug said:
It has to be the part of this that Christie mentioned on This Week when he was debating someone about redacting the report where necessary. His point, for which he invoked the Comy/Hillary example in support, is that sometimes, when you have a report that concludes with no formal anything, there can be content in the report that could harm someone for really no point (at least no point relevant or compelling to the underlying investigation that the report is about). He used Hillary by pointing out that Comey "killed her without killing her" because of dicta in the report and timing. We've all argued about that and I'm not trying to re-litigate here.Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?!
That said, I have no idea if there is any other 'good stuff' in the report, same as all of you. The suggestion has been that, while the formal bar for bringing charges was not cleared, there could be a lot of other chintresting stuff. It could be chintresting for either partisan group ... we just don't know.
So, at this point, despite all that is being said and alleged about the origins of this chinvestigation, I would say it's a coin flip, and everyone should be careful what they wish for. Who knows what else is in there.
If I were a D strategist, I'd want to keep it sealed. First and foremost, Trump is not a clean guy, and barely tries to pass himself off as such. Even his most ardent defenders here take a view of focusing on what he does and not on who he is. So if there's some skinny in the report that casts Trump in a bad light, so what? It's just not likely to be the kind of shit that would cause him to lose support. So I see the upside for the Ds as being very limited. The odds of there being something in there that would truly take Trump down seem to me to be entirely remote, or Mueller would have pushed the red button. Second, if nobody ever sees it, the Ds can forever speculate about it.
The risk for the Ds that it really is an entirely nothing sandwich is too great in my view. In all liklihood, there's some shit in there that would raise some questions about Trump and, more likely (I'm guessing here) his baboon sons; but nothing that would torpedo his Presidency. If you're a D, that's not enuff upside to risk total and complete defeat, which is also entirely plausible. -
blob:
“We will and then you'll still deny the facts. Just like after the Obama Admin said there was no conspiracy cover up the facts in the Mike Brown shooting, you ignored there response and latched onto another line of bullshit. The one thing we know with certainty is that you'll never admit you were wrong O'Keefed. Your fragile ego won't allow for it.”
You just made something up in order to display your sturdy ego, I guess. -
Being a Dem politician would suck.creepycoug said:
At their own peril. Any Democrat who's really sure there's some incendiary shit on Trump or Trump affiliates in that report is more a gambler than I.Pitchfork51 said:
Yeah but now the voters who are positive it's a slam dunk drumpf is done are rabid. So any Dem who goes against that is toastcreepycoug said:
It has to be the part of this that Christie mentioned on This Week when he was debating someone about redacting the report where necessary. His point, for which he invoked the Comy/Hillary example in support, is that sometimes, when you have a report that concludes with no formal anything, there can be content in the report that could harm someone for really no point (at least no point relevant or compelling to the underlying investigation that the report is about). He used Hillary by pointing out that Comey "killed her without killing her" because of dicta in the report and timing. We've all argued about that and I'm not trying to re-litigate here.Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?!
That said, I have no idea if there is any other 'good stuff' in the report, same as all of you. The suggestion has been that, while the formal bar for bringing charges was not cleared, there could be a lot of other chintresting stuff. It could be chintresting for either partisan group ... we just don't know.
So, at this point, despite all that is being said and alleged about the origins of this chinvestigation, I would say it's a coin flip, and everyone should be careful what they wish for. Who knows what else is in there.
If I were a D strategist, I'd want to keep it sealed. First and foremost, Trump is not a clean guy, and barely tries to pass himself off as such. Even his most ardent defenders here take a view of focusing on what he does and not on who he is. So if there's some skinny in the report that casts Trump in a bad light, so what? It's just not likely to be the kind of shit that would cause him to lose support. So I see the upside for the Ds as being very limited. The odds of there being something in there that would truly take Trump down seem to me to be entirely remote, or Mueller would have pushed the red button. Second, if nobody ever sees it, the Ds can forever speculate about it.
The risk for the Ds that it really is an entirely nothing sandwich is too great in my view. In all liklihood, there's some shit in there that would raise some questions about Trump and, more likely (I'm guessing here) his baboon sons; but nothing that would torpedo his Presidency. If you're a D, that's not enuff upside to risk total and complete defeat, which is also entirely plausible.
Half the country hates you, and the most rabid people on your side hate you even more. -
What did I make up? You’re lying O’KeefedHHusky said:blob:
“We will and then you'll still deny the facts. Just like after the Obama Admin said there was no conspiracy cover up the facts in the Mike Brown shooting, you ignored there response and latched onto another line of bullshit. The one thing we know with certainty is that you'll never admit you were wrong O'Keefed. Your fragile ego won't allow for it.”
You just made something up in order to display your sturdy ego, I guess. -
Some truth to that. When you really boil it down, we need four parties. The Rs could easily be split in 2, and I firmly (hi @PurpleThrobber ) believe that the D party is hopelessly divided as well. Speaking to that rabid side is what lost Hillary the election. I wonder if she still doesn't get it.Pitchfork51 said:
Being a Dem politician would suck.creepycoug said:
At their own peril. Any Democrat who's really sure there's some incendiary shit on Trump or Trump affiliates in that report is more a gambler than I.Pitchfork51 said:
Yeah but now the voters who are positive it's a slam dunk drumpf is done are rabid. So any Dem who goes against that is toastcreepycoug said:
It has to be the part of this that Christie mentioned on This Week when he was debating someone about redacting the report where necessary. His point, for which he invoked the Comy/Hillary example in support, is that sometimes, when you have a report that concludes with no formal anything, there can be content in the report that could harm someone for really no point (at least no point relevant or compelling to the underlying investigation that the report is about). He used Hillary by pointing out that Comey "killed her without killing her" because of dicta in the report and timing. We've all argued about that and I'm not trying to re-litigate here.Pitchfork51 said:I can't get over it.
Do they think the report is the direct opposite of what was summarized?
Like how can you get your hope up again?!
That said, I have no idea if there is any other 'good stuff' in the report, same as all of you. The suggestion has been that, while the formal bar for bringing charges was not cleared, there could be a lot of other chintresting stuff. It could be chintresting for either partisan group ... we just don't know.
So, at this point, despite all that is being said and alleged about the origins of this chinvestigation, I would say it's a coin flip, and everyone should be careful what they wish for. Who knows what else is in there.
If I were a D strategist, I'd want to keep it sealed. First and foremost, Trump is not a clean guy, and barely tries to pass himself off as such. Even his most ardent defenders here take a view of focusing on what he does and not on who he is. So if there's some skinny in the report that casts Trump in a bad light, so what? It's just not likely to be the kind of shit that would cause him to lose support. So I see the upside for the Ds as being very limited. The odds of there being something in there that would truly take Trump down seem to me to be entirely remote, or Mueller would have pushed the red button. Second, if nobody ever sees it, the Ds can forever speculate about it.
The risk for the Ds that it really is an entirely nothing sandwich is too great in my view. In all liklihood, there's some shit in there that would raise some questions about Trump and, more likely (I'm guessing here) his baboon sons; but nothing that would torpedo his Presidency. If you're a D, that's not enuff upside to risk total and complete defeat, which is also entirely plausible.
Half the country hates you, and the most rabid people on your side hate you even more. -
The full story includes the origin story
No way in hell Democrats join Graham on that
They're dirty as hell on it
The full Mueller report will match the conclusions
Most redactions protect the investigation from embarrassment. There are no secret means and methods. They took a phony dossier and lied to a FISA court -
I'm guessing that, if the report includes evidence or information of those things to which you allude, then Barr will release it.RaceBannon said:The full story includes the origin story
No way in hell Democrats join Graham on that
They're dirty as hell on it
The full Mueller report will match the conclusions
Most redactions protect the investigation from embarrassment. There are no secret means and methods. They took a phony dossier and lied to a FISA court -
Mueller wont have that in his reportcreepycoug said:
I'm guessing that, if the report includes evidence or information of those things to which you allude, then Barr will release it.RaceBannon said:The full story includes the origin story
No way in hell Democrats join Graham on that
They're dirty as hell on it
The full Mueller report will match the conclusions
Most redactions protect the investigation from embarrassment. There are no secret means and methods. They took a phony dossier and lied to a FISA court
That wasn't his investigation -
The information on things I allude to is already out there thanks to Congress and so far is widely ignored because the Democrats wont vote 420 to 0 to see that
