So is selling guns to idiots.

It's always funny to hear the "murder is never ok, but here's a list of things it's ok for" in the abortion debate.

also funny to hear the king of "THE SKY IS FALLING, OVERPOPULATION WILL END HUMANKIND" talking about how we need to save every life.

you're as consistent as rice pudding old man.

Amen.

Also we have the death penalty and fight wars all over the planet. Murder is one of our strongest values as a warrior-culture.

America is badass, nobody wants it. Only the Arab nations, Israel, and Russia are bout it like we are.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 31 2019 03:24pm

He literally said there were items in the report that were damning and tried to argue that if this were against the Dems everyone would be losing their shit.

How is America run this poorly?

somebody dropped the ball.

1. Yes, the texts are bad. But they don't exist in a vacuum. Trump was an incredibly mean and vulgar candidate, willing to insult war heros and gold star families. There was an unprecedented resistance in the Republican party to Trump, and it wasn't because of his policies. Pretending that fervent opposition to him automatically means you can't run an investigation properly is stupid. It's also a ridiculous comparison with Obama/Islam. Trump had obvious ties to Russia and couldn't utter a cross word about Putin. It's just not the same thing.
2. The idea that because Mueller didn't find conclusive evidence of a conspiracy, means that the investigation was started without a proper predicate, is insane. If Barr wants to be consistent about this, and change the rules for how much evidence is needed to start a federal investigation, go ahead.
3. I'm confused. I thought Barr was an indict or not indict person. Why is he fueling the hoax/witch hunt narrative? If he has evidence that officials committed wrongdoing, present it. Otherwise, what are you doing talking to Fox News about it?
4. Not every pundit is a journalist. Some are former DOJ/intel officials who care about these agencies.
5. The media is questioning this stunt because they think you're going to be a Trump hack and selectively declassify. Because you act and sound like a Trump hack who would selectively declassify.

When Barr was in confirmation, I thought the Democrat worries were almost entirely misplaced. I was wrong. He's basically an average Fox News viewer.

Good thing Trump hired him to be his lawyer.

Your English comprehension is lacking. The 'damning' is referring to the FBI's conduct.

Automatically assuming that the investigation was corrupted by partisan feelings is indeed stupid. But those texts nonetheless throw a shade on the neutrality of those investigators whose job it was to investigate Trump in a nonpartisan, politically neutral fashion.



Obama had obvious ties with figures like Louis Farrakhan and couldnt utter a cross word about Islam. The comparison might not be perfect, but it certainly has more substance than you give it credit for.



This "unprecedented resistance" was complete weaksauce. When Trump waltzed onto the political stage, the entire GOP turned into stunned, disoriented pushovers. Trump emasculated them and exposed their lack of resolve to the whole world.



Agreed.



Because he has to create enough public, and in turn political, momentum to launch such an "investigation of the investigators".



Ah, so when a seasoned and reputable politician like Barr refuses to go along with the common anti-Trump narrative that you want to hear, he all of a sudden turns into "an average Fox News viewer" (which you unmistakenly mean in the sense of "nutty, easy to manipulate, low information")...

Perhaps Barr sounds like what you call "a Trump hack" on this issue because Trump was in the right from the very beginning when it comes to the core points of the whole Russia investigation.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 31 2019 06:29pm

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/06/01/robert-mueller-purposely-edited-phone-call-trumps-legal-team-make-seem-like-obstruction-justice/



The Mueller Report selectively edited the call from John Dowd to Flynn's lawyer, conspicuously dropping just a few sentences- the one where he specifies that Dowd wanted a heads up “not only for the president, but for the country” and wasn’t asking for “any confidential information”
This is pretty troubling.



Why would Mueller's team take Dowd's quote out of context and remove the two exculpatory lines, leaving a false impression that it could be considered obstruction?
This reeks of Andrew Weissmann. Dowd specifically cautioned his request twice to make it clear he wasn't asking for anything improper, and Mueller simply chopped out those two lines.
The report was 400+ pages long, why are two lines excluded?