Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

The facts and nothing but the facts....

If you put all the pieces together here's what you get. The DNC rigs the Democratic Primary Election against Bernie Sanders so Hillary can win the nomination. Obama's administration starts to request surveillance on Trump, his family, his transition team, and anyone associated with him. Donna Brazil gives Hillary the questions to a debate. The DNC pays Christopher Steele to come up with a smear dossier about Trump. The mainstream media releases a taped conversation about Trump talking about grabbing women parts. After all this Trump still wins the General Election. Obama orders an investigation into Russia meddling in our elections. Obama changes Executive Order 12333 to allow more agencies to have access to surveillance data. The Democratic Party comes up with a scandal that Trump Colluded with Russia to win the election with no evidence or proof. This wild claim is backed up by the mainstream media. Obama hold overs start unmasking Trump's transition team and staff members then release the classified information to the mainstream media. Why? Because the DNC and the Obama administration colluded with the intelligence community to thwart Trump's campaign efforts to get him elected president. All this Russia collusion is an attempt to cover up the fact that the Obama administration, the intelligence community, the DNC, along with the mainstream media used our nations surveillance as a political tool to try to get Hillary elected President. This makes Watergate look like a kindergarten play.

There's just one thing missing there, Greg.
The facts...

Let's begin, shall we, with my favorite Trump whopper of the evening. The Russian adoption meeting at Trump tower. The one in which Trump Jr thought he was going to get dirt on Hillary Clinton and gleefully exclaimed, "I love it"!  Trump Sr initially denied knowing about the meeting, when, in fact, he actually concocted the cockamamie cover story that it was for Russian adoptions.(Creative, wasn't he?)
For his other equally profane whoopers, read on:
http://time.com/5574120/mueller-report-trump-truth/
And, yes, the media did get it right:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-russia-mueller-report-mainstream-media-20190419-story.html

Well I'm just glad it all worked out and it's good to know that Giuliani's message that it's ok to get your info from Russia passes the Rich Davis sniff test with flying colors.
Making me equally happy is Trump's meeting in Trump towers to discuss Russian adoptions may very well bear fruit and allow someone like Rich Davis to adopt a little one like Shotketvesky (shot for short) Nikolai Gunakov (nick named "Gunner" into his own home. There he will learn the fine art of firearms (at age 2) and the differences between "leftists" and right wingers so he can fulfill his destiny and live up to his nick name. Can't wait to see the little tyke with Ar 15 (instead of an AK). We all know Rich will take care of it...  

My favorite part of the Democratic spokesman response to the Clinton campaign funding the Steele Dossier:
Brian Fallon, who served as a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, on Tuesday wrote on Twitter that he did not know that Mr. Steele had been working on behalf of the Clinton campaign before the election.“If I had, I would have volunteered to go to Europe and try to help him,” Mr. Fallon wrote.
And who does Trump side with in determining whether or not Russia interfered with the 2016 election? It's not our own intel agencies, it's his comrade, Vlad...


 

"Fusion had been hired to get information on Trump during the primaries by a Republican media firm, Washington Free Beacon. When Trump became the Republican nominee, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party began picking up the tab for the Fusion research. Fusion owner Glenn Simpson hired Steele, a Russia expert, to gather information from his sources in Russia."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/fbi-releases-documents-showing-payments-trump-dossier-author-steele-n897506
I see the FBI picked up some of the tab for paying Steele, too. But Steele eventually backed out of the deal. So there were multiple payors in this party. 
But I see certain cons have cherry picked the one they want and developed selective amnesia about the rest...  

"The facts are these: More than a week after Barr received Mueller's letter expressing concern about how the AG's summary letter had characterized the obstruction evidence -- and talked to Mueller on the phone about it -- he appeared before Congress. And he had this exchange with Florida Democratic Rep. Charlie Crist:
CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately portray the report's findings. Do you know what they are referencing with that?
BARR: No, I don't.
Asked about that moment on Wednesday, Barr explained what looks like willful obfuscation -- basically -- this way: I didn't know what specific "reports" Crist was referring to or who on the special counsel's team he was talking about. Therefore, my answer is accurate.
Which is, well, whoa. Or, better put, it is a hugely legalistic answer to the question of whether Barr misled Crist and the broader country. Common sense dictates that, when asked about whether he was aware of any frustrations from the special counsel regarding his four-page letter, the letter from Mueller -- and their subsequent phone conversation -- would jump immediately to mind
Barr can make a lawyerly argument that he didn't understand what Crist was specifically referring to in his question. But that doesn't pass the smell test."

CNN put it very accurately in the above. Mueller had already communicated his overt concerns about the report to Barr and Barr knew it. Oh, I forgot, in Barr's word, Mueller was just being "snitty"... Yeah, right...

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Rod:

CNN, in my opinion, is intentionally misleading viewers with selective editing.  Listen to the entire exchange between Barr and Crist here:  https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4795192/charlie-crist-questions-ag-barr-april-9-2019

Barr says, "No, I don't" but then he describes at length that the Mueller team wanted him to release the summaries right away.  Then Barr explains why he did not do that and probably couldn't, given the timing of the legally mandated redaction process.  When CNN edits out the entirety of Barr's comments after "No, I don't" they are trying to make it look like he is stonewalling.  When you listen to Barr's entire comment, his later explanation of, "I didn't know what specific "reports" Crist was referring to or who on the special counsel's team he was talking about" is very plausible, given that Barr openly explained the gist of Mueller's letter in it's entirety immediately after saying "No, I don't"

This non-scandal is going nowhere. 

Jim

Jim,
I've heard the entire exchange and I don't believe Barr's "explanation" of it anymore than I do his dismissal of Mueller's letter as some sort of a staffer's commentary...

Does Barr take lessons from Trump? He evidently takes his marching orders from him...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/politics/william-barr-robert-mueller-mueller-report/index.html

Originally Posted by Darian Rachal

Boy, what are you two going to do if Trump wins reelection in 2020? 

Continue to deal in facts, unlike you:
"I know there are some people who don’t think this March 27 letter is a big deal. Some opinion people, some opinion people who appear on this network, who may be pushing a political agenda. But, you know, we have to deal in facts."
Chris Wallace in response to the pro-Trump political agenda meted out daily of Fox:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fox-news-chris-wallace-slaps-his-network-for-pushing-a-political-agenda-with-the-mueller-letter-2019-05-02

Originally Posted by Darian Rachal

Rod, I don't think you and many in the Democrat Party have ever come to grip with the fact that Trump was legitimately elected President of the United States. 

Darian, I accept the fact that he was legitimately elected president but I don't believe many CONS accept the fact that he lost the popular vote...