Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Collusion!

  1. #21
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,012
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Collusion!

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Thanks for agreeing. The support is appreciated.
    Uh, sure, no problem...

    Now if you could just show the significance of:
    the truth being revealed
    and/or
    the Donald not being shown to have committed a crime (in this case).

    IOW, how was the US injured?

    (and before you comment about "my side" or some such nonsense, please keep in mind:
    1. I am not a fan of the Donald, nor have I ever been.
    2. I did not vote for him. (Actually I voted for QEII since I could not, in good conscience vote for either the Rep/Dem candidates. The American people should demand more from our leaders, but what Kim Kardashian (or whoever) is doing is sooooo much more interesting!
    3. It is very unlikely I would vote for the Donald in 2020
    4. I am not a republican.
    5. That I think liberalism is lost (as in "feelings are as important as facts when making discussions or "it is more important to be morally right than factually correct", does not mean the only other choice is that I am part of the "republican team", nor does it mean I agree with what the rep's are doing!)

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Collusion!

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Uh, sure, no problem...

    Now if you could just show the significance of:
    the truth being revealed
    and/or
    the Donald not being shown to have committed a crime (in this case).

    IOW, how was the US injured?
    I'd suggest reading the report as you have misconceptions.

    Trump was not found to have not committed a crime, they couldn't prosecute. On conspiracy for lack of enough evidence and on obstruction because he's the President.

    Further, you can look to the indictments and convictions for what laws were broken. IOW how the US was injured.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #23
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,012
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Collusion!

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I'd suggest reading the report as you have misconceptions.
    Ok...., except I don't see any charges being filed against the Donald. When I do, you have a great point. Until then, not so much, or at all...

    I say,:
    "if a politician gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they get a spank!"

    and I don't care who the politician is!!!

    I would like to know if you would make the same commitment??
    No funky work arounds.
    For instance:
    if Hillary were proven to have committed a felony, your reaction/take/response would be?

  4. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Collusion!

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ok...., except I don't see any charges being filed against the Donald.
    and I explained why. Don't believe me? Read the report.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,012
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Collusion!

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    and I explained why. Don't believe me? Read the report.
    or you could support you contention...

    I am not seeing what you "explained" being expressed in the news?

  6. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Collusion!

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    or you could support you contention...

    I am not seeing what you "explained" being expressed in the news?
    It's all over the news. Probably not Fox News.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,012
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Collusion!

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    It's all over the news. Probably not Fox News.
    BTW, I never, ever, watch Fox news.

    So, IOW, you don't have support for your position than your opinion?

  8. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,012
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Collusion!

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Barr is definitely acting as the President's personal lawyer instead of the country's chief law enforcement office. What a hack.
    I'm curious, what do you mean when you say "hack"?
    Would you define that for me please?

  9. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Collusion!

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I'm curious, what do you mean when you say "hack"?
    Would you define that for me please?
    A sycophant.

    From dictionary.com : "a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment:
    a political hack." [italics mine]
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,012
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Collusion!

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    A sycophant.

    From dictionary.com : "a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment:
    a political hack." [italics mine]
    Is it only for "professional?" or can the average Joe public qualify?

  11. #31
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Collusion!

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Is it only for "professional?" or can the average Joe public qualify?
    You could be a hack in any situation.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,012
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Collusion!

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You could be a hack in any situation.
    Then some one that said something like:

    "the Clintons aren't even capable of doing wrong"

    would be a "hack" since no human can meet that perfect bar?
    Even if they never did wrong, all humans are capable of doing wrong are they not?

  13. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Collusion!

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Then some one that said something like:

    "the Clintons aren't even capable of doing wrong"

    would be a "hack" since no human can meet that perfect bar?
    Even if they never did wrong, all humans are capable of doing wrong are they not?
    Consciously? I suppose so.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. Thanks Squatch347, Belthazor thanked for this post
  15. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Collusion!

    This explains why Trump wasn't indicted as I was earlier asked and the current situation with AG Barr:


    May 1, 2019

    Attorney General William Barr said that during a March meeting with special counsel Robert Mueller, Mueller "reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion he would have found obstruction."

    This was the latest in a series of statements from Barr in which he downplayed the role of the Justice Department guidelines against indicting a president. Barr made the same claim at his press conference before releasing the Mueller report in April.

    Why this matters: Internal Justice Department policies say that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The policy comes from the OLC and it dates back to the Nixon administration. It is binding on all Justice Department employees, including Mueller and his team of prosecutors.

    But despite Barr’s comments, Mueller's report directly explains how this had a major impact on his internal deliberations. In effect, Mueller framed his entire obstruction investigation around the notion that he couldn't bring any charges against Trump even if he found ironclad evidence against him, because of the OLC opinion.

    "Given the role of the special counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the special counsel regulations... this office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction," Mueller wrote in the report.

    That appeared on the very first page of the volume that addressed obstruction of justice. This framework is a far cry from Barr's public pronouncements that the OLC opinion had no bearing on obstruction endgame.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •