Trump may have gone too far now.

[idhawkman]

SDNY and tax/financial crimes are their best bet. Some powerful Democrats in New York pushing this. It would be smart of Trump to start pushing back on these Dems if he can, though I think the combined wealth of the New York Dems is more than Trump. So that will be a very, very insane game of wealthy people going after each other. Bloomberg and his supporters versus Trump and his supporters. This is likely being heavily pushed by the New York Democratic machine, one of the most powerful in the nation. That's why Hillary was a New York Senator. They are one of the seats of Democratic power in America.

As you point out, NY is one of the democrat's power seats and I can't imagine that they haven't already seen the state tax returns for Trump and his businesses. Not only that, but if you believe Trump, (I know River won't believe this) he's been audited every year since mid 2000s. So "if" he passed all those audits, what do the dems really think they will find? The only think they are looking for is who he donated to, how much, etc to try and smear his name.

They won't be able to get his federal tax returns as I'm sure those are under very close security (e.g. the only way to get a look at them is to login with a set of credentials which will identify anyone who then leaks them so they can be prosecuted and ruined.) In order to subpoena those, there would have to be an underlying crime or predicate to investigate which there is none.

[RiverDog]

C-bob]/b], [b]hawktawk, obiken and the like hate Trump. You won't convince them of anything. I watched this trash with Bush Jr. where they all insisted he started an illegal war and yet he wasn't touched for any of that stuff by either party or anyone, but they insisted it was true because that was the narrative they wanted to believe. This is the same situation.

Riverdog dislikes Trump, but will be more reasonable if the evidence fits. I don't care for Trump, but at this point I don't see any impeachable offenses. I could literally write an entire list of things Trump has done that has been done by previous administrations. The main difference I see between Trump and previous administrations is Trump is louder and more obnoxious than most presidents. As far as the womanizing and the rest, business as usual for American politicians.

I think that's a fair characterization of my POV. FYI I've said on a number of occasions that I haven't seen anything that I would consider impeachable and that my preference is that Trump be voted out of office vs. overturning an election. But of course, it's not my opinion or anyone else's that counts. Spitting on the sidewalk can be an impeachable offense if you could get 218 Representatives and 67 Senators to agree.

[c_hawkbob]

Stop that Asea. Please don't to refer to me in third person. If you've got something to say about me, say it to me.

Yes I hate Trump, just as you are a hard core Trump apologist. No we won't ever change each other's minds. So what? It seems to bother you a lot more than it bothers me.

[burrrton]

Yes I hate Trump

This seriously baffles me. You're using the word "hate", and I think you're a thoughtful enough commenter to mean it.

He's a dorky, not-too-bright (IMO) reality TV show guy who's been in the media limelight most of his life. He's thin-skinned and an embarrassing dick on social media.

What policy or personality trait gets you from there to literal *hate*?

[RiverDog]

Yes I hate Trump

This seriously baffles me. You're using the word "hate", and I think you're a thoughtful enough commenter to mean it.

What policy or personality trait gets you from there to literal *hate*?

I can't blame Cbob for the use of the term in the context he's using it because he's not the only one, indeed, it seems to be the norm these days. That's one of the things that IMO has caused this great divide in our country: We throw terms like "hate" around far too frequently and our definition is way too broad and encompassing.

I don't know if I've ever met someone in person that I truly "hated", but I can imagine the type of person that would evoke such an emotional response out of me: Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Ted Bundy. There are others, but basically they are people with no respect whatsoever for human life. I also "hate" inanimate objects, like I "hated" math or I "hated" the crabs.

Perhaps the term "despise" would better fit my sentiments towards DJT.

He's a dorky, not-too-bright (IMO) reality TV show guy who's been in the media limelight most of his life. He's thin-skinned and an embarrassing dick on social media.

Nailed it!

[Aseahawkfan]

Stop that Asea. Please don't to refer to me in third person. If you've got something to say about me, say it to me.

Yes I hate Trump, just as you are a hard core Trump apologist. No we won't ever change each other's minds. So what? It seems to bother you a lot more than it bothers me.

You keep saying I'm a Trump apologist. Which is just another example of your Trump hate ignoring nearly everything else I've written about the guy and the problem with our politics, which you constantly ignore.

I call Trump as it is. He's a narcissistic prick that used his money and celebrity to win the White House. Is he a Russian spy? No. Have I seen anything impeachable? Nope, not if we compare it to past administrations.

I don't care for Trump as president. I've made this known and clear. I didn't vote for him. I don't like him. I'll be happy if he loses next election. Doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the complete horse crap the Democrats pulled this election or that they are digging and digging and digging to find something on this guy like no president in history. If you can't admit this, not sure what to tell you. It's happening.

Vote the guy out next time. I don't care. This country is off the rails as far as what it believes. Right or left, who cares. Both sides are off the rails looney. I guess this is what happens when you become the richest, most powerful nation in history. I don't know. I've actually contemplated moving to Switzerland myself. They are doing America better than America.

[Aseahawkfan]

It does look like they accomplished one of the goals of this investigation: regulating and taxing social media. The government has been looking for a reason to have greater control of social media, so they manufactured a reason and pushed more regulation. One of their missions accomplished. The biggest loser in this Russian spy investigation is one against the American people for footing the build and giving the government a good reason to regulate and go after one of their remaining free mediums for communication. I knew that was one of their targets when they started to say Russia used social media to "mind control" people to vote for Trump. Heh.

[Hawktawk]

I hate trump . No surprise . Can’t accept such a literal foul objectionable dumb as a rock addersl snorting lunatic as leader of the free world . #f#trump# there is plenty of reasons to hate him. His little lackey ( well fat as F lackey Barr’s 3 page summary of a 700 plus page report isn’t cutting it either . Polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans don’t believe he’s been exonerated and even more want the entire report made public . What a corrupt den of thieves . Every patriotic American should hate him

[RiverDog]

I hate trump . No surprise . Can’t accept such a literal foul objectionable dumb as a rock addersl snorting lunatic as leader of the free world . #f#trump# there is plenty of reasons to hate him. His little lackey ( well fat as F lackey Barr’s 3 page summary of a 700 plus page report isn’t cutting it either . Polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans don’t believe he’s been exonerated and even more want the entire report made public . What a corrupt den of thieves . Every patriotic American should hate him

Even Barr's summary specifically says that the report does not exonerate Trump, at least not from the obstruction of justice allegation:

Although the “‘report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,’” as Barr writes, quoting Mueller, “‘it also does not exonerate him.’” Barr continues that he and Rosenstein weighed the evidence presented in the report, and found it “insufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

I still just shake my head and laugh when I hear people, including Trump, spin this as a full exoneration.

They're going to have to release the full report or else the Dems will use their failure to do so against Trump in 2020. Heck, even Trump himself has said that he doesn't have a problem with a full release.

[idhawkman]

Even Barr's summary specifically says that the report does not exonerate Trump, at least not from the obstruction of justice allegation:

Although the “‘report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,’” as Barr writes, quoting Mueller, “‘it also does not exonerate him.’” Barr continues that he and Rosenstein weighed the evidence presented in the report, and found it “insufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

I still just shake my head and laugh when I hear people, including Trump, spin this as a full exoneration.

They're going to have to release the full report or else the Dems will use their failure to do so against Trump in 2020. Heck, even Trump himself has said that he doesn't have a problem with a full release.

So someone says that you beat your wife every night. The police have launched an investigation into you and have interviewed every one who knows your wife, your friends, your family, put video cameras in your house watched every move you've made for two years and they come out and say, "we can not conclude that you beat your wife but we do not exonerate you from this either. We just couldn't prove that you do do it." Would that be the same? Yes. You can't prove a negative or prove that something "didn't happen". You can only prove that it DID happen.

[c_hawkbob]

If Janet Reno was the only person to have been given access to the Starr Report, and she put out a 4-page synopses based on her private reading that concluded that there was no evidence that Clinton committed any crimes would you have been satisfied with that?

[idhawkman]

If Janet Reno was the only person to have been given access to the Starr Report, and she put out a 4-page synopses based on her private reading that concluded that there was no evidence that Clinton committed any crimes would you have been satisfied with that?

Apples and Oranges, Bob and you KNOW that. Independent counsel's and Special Counsel's are under totally different guidelines, laws and even who appoints them. C'mon, be serious.

[idhawkman]

Also, it is disingenuous to suggest that the 4 page summary is all that is coming is pretty bad. You know that the dems were calling for something to be released immediately and that their concern was that the report would be shared with the Administration before it the gist was shared with the public. The 4 pages is the best they can do without risk of putting out classified information is the summary you saw.

Barr has already stated that the full report with only that stuff that is legally required to be withheld will be released in "weeks, not months". That's much quicker than anything you saw come out of the govt. with regards to Hilliary's emails or DOJ document requests to date.

[RiverDog]

If Janet Reno was the only person to have been given access to the Starr Report, and she put out a 4-page synopses based on her private reading that concluded that there was no evidence that Clinton committed any crimes would you have been satisfied with that?

Apples and Oranges, Bob and you KNOW that. Independent counsel's and Special Counsel's are under totally different guidelines, laws and even who appoints them. C'mon, be serious.

It's not apples and oranges at all. The genesis of the two investigations is irrelevant. The comparison of summarizing their findings by an AG appointed by the very person they were investigating is valid. Republicans would have been outraged if the AG released just a summary of an investigation with as many political ramifications as the Starr report entailed.

In addition, prior to his appointment as AG, Barr was extremely critical of Mueller and the investigation, so there's a matter of trust and credibility that demands a validation of his summary.

[c_hawkbob]

Besides, I wasn't comparing the two sets of circumstances I was asking you a hypothetical question.

[Aseahawkfan]

We knew this hypocrisy would occur. I don't even know why anyone would try to reason with the other. Folks like Idhawkman would defend Trump if he took a dump on national television and threw it on a baby. Folks that despise Trump like c-hawkbob would criticize and hate him if he found the cure for cancer. That's just the way American politics go times 10 with Trump in office.

[c_hawkbob]

Hypocrisy's a nasty word, which you seem to be using for shock effect, cause I don't see it as applicable here ... either way, I ain't putting up with it. See ya.

[Hawktawk]

The 4 page (well more like 3 of *subsance*) was purely for political fodder for trump as a gift from his hand picked lackey Barr. The throwing in of the summary shooting down the evidence of obstruction was even more so. It’s like a divorce or a lawsuit . File first , it’s going to make the biggest impression.

The dropping of Rosensteins name in this conclusion is especially curious and reminds of Trump ordering him to draft a letter critical of the handling of the Clinton e mail scandal to fire Comey. Either Rosenstein is a pawn or he’s caught Lindsay Graham’s and virtually every Republicans illness of going from indignant critics to fawning sheep of the trump party.

Mueller is described by associates as “surprised” at Barr’s actions regarding commenting on obstruction and quite frankly I want to hear what he has to say to congress, not the lying weasel Barr. As little as I agree with the Democratic Party policy wise I am in complete agreement that the report in full should be delivered to the intelligence committee immediately. As I’ve said if it’s completely exculpatory the WH would want it out in full ASAP. It’s clearly politically damaging

[idhawkman]

It's not apples and oranges at all. The genesis of the two investigations is irrelevant. The comparison of summarizing their findings by an AG appointed by the very person they were investigating is valid. Republicans would have been outraged if the AG released just a summary of an investigation with as many political ramifications as the Starr report entailed.

In addition, prior to his appointment as AG, Barr was extremely critical of Mueller and the investigation, so there's a matter of trust and credibility that demands a validation of his summary.

It IS apples and oranges. Congress specifically did away with the Independent counsel statute because of what happened with STARR giving the report to congress and it then being shared with the world. Nadler himself stated that it was unfair as it was a one sided report and that there should be a "process" to release the report in the future. Thus we now have Special Prosecutor by the Administrative branch as opposed to independent counsel by the Congressional branch of our govt. How do you not see that this is apples and oranges? Barr MUST follow the current statutes and law otherwise these "gotcha" dems will press charges against him for "Leaking" classified info.

[idhawkman]

Besides, I wasn't comparing the two sets of circumstances I was asking you a hypothetical question.

Fair enough but it is an irrelevant question since that is not what happened.

[idhawkman]

The 4 page (well more like 3 of *subsance*) was purely for political fodder for trump as a gift from his hand picked lackey Barr. The throwing in of the summary shooting down the evidence of obstruction was even more so. It’s like a divorce or a lawsuit . File first , it’s going to make the biggest impression.

The dropping of Rosensteins name in this conclusion is especially curious and reminds of Trump ordering him to draft a letter critical of the handling of the Clinton e mail scandal to fire Comey. Either Rosenstein is a pawn or he’s caught Lindsay Graham’s and virtually every Republicans illness of going from indignant critics to fawning sheep of the trump party.

Mueller is described by associates as “surprised” at Barr’s actions regarding commenting on obstruction and quite frankly I want to hear what he has to say to congress, not the lying weasel Barr. As little as I agree with the Democratic Party policy wise I am in complete agreement that the report in full should be delivered to the intelligence committee immediately. As I’ve said if it’s completely exculpatory the WH would want it out in full ASAP. It’s clearly politically damaging

Yeah right. That's why Mueller is helping Barr and Rosenstein go through the report to determine what must be redacted and what is ok. You can take the tin foil off now.

[c_hawkbob]

Fair enough but it is an irrelevant question since that is not what happened.

A hypothetical is never about what did happen, then it would be “what did you do” instead of what would you do. It’s only irrelevant because you’re choosing not to answer it.

[RiverDog]

Fair enough but it is an irrelevant question since that is not what happened.

A hypothetical is never about what did happen, then it would be “what did you do” instead of what would you do. It’s only irrelevant because you’re choosing not to answer it.

It is a fair question, and I suspect that the reason you are concocting this "two different types of investigations" excuse is because you are uncomfortable with giving us an honest answer.

The truth is that if a Democratic administration controlled a report compiled by a special investigator of which the primary subject was the POTUS and his charges and refused to promptly release it in its entirety that every single Republican Senator, Congressman, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, even most moderates would have been outraged and demanded to see the full report immediately, if not sooner.

Even 68% of Republicans want the results of the Mueller report released in its entirety:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/m ... -poll-says

[idhawkman]

A hypothetical is never about what did happen, then it would be “what did you do” instead of what would you do. It’s only irrelevant because you’re choosing not to answer it.

LOL, most people don't answer hypotheticals especially when talking politics. Its where you get yourself in trouble about a problem or situation that didn't exist.

Usually, when my kids ask me a hypothetical question I ask them, "What if the moon came spinning off its axis and crashed to Earth? What then?"

[idhawkman]

It is a fair question, and I suspect that the reason you are concocting this "two different types of investigations" excuse is because you are uncomfortable with giving us an honest answer.

The truth is that if a Democratic administration controlled a report compiled by a special investigator of which the primary subject was the POTUS and his charges and refused to promptly release it in its entirety that every single Republican Senator, Congressman, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, even most moderates would have been outraged and demanded to see the full report immediately, if not sooner.

Even 68% of Republicans want the results of the Mueller report released in its entirety:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/m ... -poll-says

Where did you read that I didn't want it released? I don't want Grand Jury or other classified information released but I want as much as is lawful released. It just takes time to get to what's legal to release and what is not. I think it is great that Mueller is helping the DOJ to review any and all redactions for accuracy and validity.

[RiverDog]

It is a fair question, and I suspect that the reason you are concocting this "two different types of investigations" excuse is because you are uncomfortable with giving us an honest answer.

The truth is that if a Democratic administration controlled a report compiled by a special investigator of which the primary subject was the POTUS and his charges and refused to promptly release it in its entirety that every single Republican Senator, Congressman, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, even most moderates would have been outraged and demanded to see the full report immediately, if not sooner.

Even 68% of Republicans want the results of the Mueller report released in its entirety:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/m ... -poll-says

Where did you read that I didn't want it released?

Must have been the same place where you read that I said that you didn't want it released.

I said that you didn't want to answer Cbob's question, which you have yet to do.

[idhawkman]

Must have been the same place where you read that I said that you didn't want it released.

I said that you didn't want to answer Cbob's question, which you have yet to do.

LOL, when did you stop beating your wife?

[Hawktawk]

[quote="idhawkman"
Yeah right. That's why Mueller is helping Barr and Rosenstein go through the report to determine what must be redacted and what is ok. You can take the tin foil off now.[/quote]


I've not heard a word from Rosenstein or Mueller about whether in fact they are helping Barr or not. I've heard their names dropped by fat walrus Barr whose 19 page unsolicited essay about how presidents are basically unable to be charged with obstruction is why hes here. What is their level of participation and decision making ability in terms of whats released and isn't ? I want to see Mueller under oath, screw Barr hes a lying POS. The leaks from the Mueller team tell me all I need to know which i already suspected. The initial letter was a political dishonest document to set a narrative and the investigators are not happy about it.

Not buying it. Lets see the report or at least lets see it un redacted in the hands of the senate and house intelligence committees.

Oh wait I forget the senate doesn't want to see it or have anyone else see it its so good for Trump .


One more time for you Mr tinfoil man. If it was the exoneration the walrus said it was with his 4 page dissertation on it we wouldnt need 3 or 4 weeks with Mueller and Rosensteins name as cover to redact it into oblivion.It would have already been released to the public or at a minimum the summaries would have.

Its bad for Trump, very bad but we may never know how bad if Trump and his henchmen and his willing idiots have anything to do with it.

[RiverDog]

Must have been the same place where you read that I said that you didn't want it released.

I said that you didn't want to answer Cbob's question, which you have yet to do.

LOL, when did you stop beating your wife?

Not funny. Say hello to the ignore list, at least for awhile.

[burrrton]

Not funny. Say hello to the ignore list, at least for awhile.

Huh?

[idhawkman]

I've not heard a word from Rosenstein or Mueller about whether in fact they are helping Barr or not. I've heard their names dropped by fat walrus Barr whose 19 page unsolicited essay about how presidents are basically unable to be charged with obstruction is why hes here. What is their level of participation and decision making ability in terms of whats released and isn't ? I want to see Mueller under oath, screw Barr hes a lying POS. The leaks from the Mueller team tell me all I need to know which i already suspected. The initial letter was a political dishonest document to set a narrative and the investigators are not happy about it.

Not buying it. Lets see the report or at least lets see it un redacted in the hands of the senate and house intelligence committees.

Oh wait I forget the senate doesn't want to see it or have anyone else see it its so good for Trump .


One more time for you Mr tinfoil man. If it was the exoneration the walrus said it was with his 4 page dissertation on it we wouldnt need 3 or 4 weeks with Mueller and Rosensteins name as cover to redact it into oblivion.It would have already been released to the public or at a minimum the summaries would have.

Its bad for Trump, very bad but we may never know how bad if Trump and his henchmen and his willing idiots have anything to do with it.

You could fill volumes of what you don't hear. That's probably because the media outlets you've been listening to don't report what is actually happening but instead dream up negative stuff and report it as facts. Bummer for you.

I'm not the one with tinfoil on my head. Many of your former peers are abandoning the MSM now because they've been lied to. At some point, you may come to the same conclusion and have to ask yourself if you want to continue to be lied to.

You call Barr a liar already without seeing what he releases? You praise the felony acts of the Mueller team in leaking? The ethical behavior of the Mueller team by leaking should tell you that the whole thing was a hoax and yet you think I have the tinfoil on.

You are now calling on the AG to commit a crime that you will then turn around and want to charge him with to try and impeach him.

You have no idea the red tape it takes to get approvals for unclassifying any document and 3-4 weeks is warp speed for a 300 to 400 page report. The State department still hasn't released all of Hilliary's emails and texts. The DOJ hasn't released the FISA documents or 301 files.

[idhawkman]

Not funny. Say hello to the ignore list, at least for awhile.

Huh?

He didn't want to answer a hypothetical question that has no answer because it is not a true accusation. Sometimes you have to point out the absurd by being absurd.

[c_hawkbob]

Sorry, but "when did you stop beating your wife" is not a hypothetical, it's just absurd.

And there is nothing inherently absurd about a hypothetical, they are used all the time a many different contexts. I wouldn't be able to hire or train someone at my plant without using them.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

He didn't want to answer a hypothetical question that has no answer because it is not a true accusation. Sometimes you have to point out the absurd by being absurd.

Sorry, but "when did you stop beating your wife" is not a hypothetical, it's just absurd.

And there is nothing inherently absurd about a hypothetical, they are used all the time a many different contexts. I wouldn't be able to hire or train someone at my plant without using them.

Despite the serious tone of the exchange, I find the bold portions of the statements humorous.

[RiverDog]

Sorry, but "when did you stop beating your wife" is not a hypothetical, it's just absurd.

It's reassuring to know there's at least one person out there that didn't appreciate the 'humor' in such a statement.

That statement is not only absurd, it's personal, inflammatory, and begs for a response that would likely escalate the exchange by being even more absurd, personal, and inflammatory. That's why rather than dignifying the comment by responding, I chose to put the offending party on ignore, and likely reduce the degree to which I've been participating.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

River, I do apologize. Wasn't my goal to trivialize the question. Not something I or anybody else would or should ask a man, and, having met you, I certainly know better. I'll put the shovel down now.

[idhawkman]

As we've discovered, hypotheticals can and are used in many situation. One to insult, one to ensnare and one to gather info (although the hypotheticals you ask CBob are probably in the area of actual past events when interviewing a candidate - I'm sure you are not asking off the wall stuff in those). Nonetheless, all of them are around events that have not nor necessarily will occur - so why ask them and then try to hold someone to the answer.

If you ask a job applicant how they would act if the xxx blew up and yyy was all over the place and endangering zzzz many people what would you do, you could ascertain what the book answer is that they would feed back to you. But until the actual event happens you really don't know how they would react. I've seen it too often with the soldier who portrayed themself as the John Rambo type or the case officer who thought they were James Bond in that when the xxxx really hits the fan, they are usually the first to hit the door. Hypotheticals are bunk and that's why NO politician worth their salt will answer them.

[RiverDog]

River, I do apologize. Wasn't my goal to trivialize the question. Not something I or anybody else would or should ask a man, and, having met you, I certainly know better. I'll put the shovel down now.

Thanks, Mack.

[burrrton]

Sorry, but "when did you stop beating your wife" is not a hypothetical, it's just absurd.

I must have missed the exchange the question was in response to. It's usually presented as an example of a question that can't be answered without admitting guilt, implying the original scenario was a 'no win' on some level.

Maybe that wasn't the case here.

Either way, I doubt it was meant to seriously imply anyone mistreats women.

[idhawkman]

Sorry, but "when did you stop beating your wife" is not a hypothetical, it's just absurd.

I must have missed the exchange the question was in response to. It's usually presented as an example of a question that can't be answered without admitting guilt, implying the original scenario was a 'no win' on some level.

Maybe that wasn't the case here.

Either way, I doubt it was meant to seriously imply anyone mistreats women.

It is exactly the case. You got it right. I'm sure everyone here has heard that before and if not, I'll be absolutely astounded.