US Politics 2

Owning the libs.

Cuttooth wrote:

twitter.com/ddale8/status/1109903685843341312

Well... gooseberry fool.

Doesn't really explain why everyone in Trump's orbit has connections to Russia or its agents.

I don't buy Barr's summary. Let's set the full report.

He did say no collusion.

I'm shocked. SHOCKED! :lol:

Hopefully the Dems and the Media will start doing some real work now. At least Rachel Maddow has like the most viewed show on cable thanks to peoples obsession with Russia.

twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1109913008996782080

It's incredible to believe that Trump's hand picked AG has decided he's not guilty. :fp:

Teflon Don strikes again.

I seriously hope Barr isn't correct. If he is :dread:

I think a lot of the liberal Dems were so committed to Russiagate because it was one way of avoiding having to actually offer some alternative to beat Trumpism. There are a lot of people in that party, like those who put Clinton on the ballot in 2016, who would probably rather lose to a Republican candidate than help a genuine progressive like Sanders into office. Not much difference between them and New Labour actually.

Oh America. You strawberry floated up sunshine

I mean, if The Avengers couldn’t stop him...

Who can?.

Suspect these headlines are about as good as they get for Donny. It will only get murkier from here.

Firstly, the letter suggests that Mueller investigation on Russia was very limited in scope. Just whether conspired with Russia government. Which means other issues, including Trump Tower and wikileaks still open question.

And obviously there is evidence of obstruction but Barr is ruling for Mueller.

Last edited by Squinty on Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

It's possible they put this statement out in order to spread misinformation.

I suspect the same thing.

Firstly, the full report needs to be released. Apparently the letter doesn't provide a single full sentence taken directly from it, just a bunch of out of context quotes.

Secondly, as mentioned, from what we can tell the report explicitly does not exonerate Trump, it simply states that, although helped by Russia, there is not enough evidence to prove there was a conspiracy within the Trump campaign to actively work with the Russian government.

Also also, what is clear, and has always been clear, is that Trump employed multiple people now convicted of multiple crimes to his team. That point is kind of being glossed over today.

Barr has done what Trump handpicked him to do. Give him enough cover.

What is almost certain from Barr's letter to Congress is that Donny will still be in power in 2020 and he won't get successfully challenged from within the GOP. There may still be a primary challenge, but it won't go anywhere. Whoever the Dems pick, they'll be running against Trump.

The parsing of language is going to be key moving forward. This is the key sentence for "collusion".

Barr wrote:Did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities

Now beyond the obvious narrow scope, the language is key.

The Atlantic wrote:When prosecutors say that an investigation “did not establish” something, that doesn’t mean that they concluded it didn’t happen, or even that they don’t believe it happened. It means that the investigation didn’t produce enough information to prove that it happened. Without seeing Mueller’s full report, we don’t know whether this is a firm conclusion about lack of coordination or a frank admission of insufficient evidence.

Or expressed differently

twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1110012474697441282