Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
The next few months will be very interesting. My belief is that Mueller has all angles covered. Congress will decide on the report and take it from there but in the meantime he's passed all the tax fraud/etc cases to other districts to pursue.
Barr and Mueller are friends and have worked together for a long time. Wait for the report but the good news is that Barr quoted from the report in stating that there was NO EVIDENCE of collusion. Mueller punted the obstruction question to the DoJ and both Barr and Rosenstein BOTH said there was NO obstruction case to be answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Sorry to be a disappointment to you DaH but I’m not concerned about how disappointed you are in me - at all. I am comfortable in my own skin and with the values I hold. And I am happy to debate opposing ideas and values in a respectful manner, preferably without resorting to some of the labels you have thrown at me in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Am I a Trump supporter? Compared to many on here I would be although I a) do not agree with his position on a certain issues, b) think he is obtuse and bombastic and c) think he is a flawed individual. Most politicians I can think of would not score remarkably highly in any of those categories either.
I’ve always qualified my support for his presidency with the above but no-one cares - if you agree with even one thing he says or does then you’re a big bad Trump supporter. That’s all anyone hears. I think he deserves a chance to govern without all this manufactured outrage and I am absolutely delighted - positively giddy - that “Russia-gate” has come crashing down around the DNC and their media lackeys. If crimes have been committed by “the other side” during this last 2.5 years, I really, truly hope they get their comeuppance.
Interesting take. As far as I know, Mueller has already confirmed that there are no more indictments coming as a result of his investigation (see below). I also think anything of this nature would have been leaked and we’d be hearing all about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lofty9
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...re-indictments
My take on the next few weeks and months being interesting is based on the assumption that some/all of following happen and the fall out that results.
1) Declassification (FISA)
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...rlying-mueller
2) Horowitz Report (Inspector General)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...s-still-active
3) Huber Report (US Attorney for Utah)
https://thehill.com/policy/national-...-investigation
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
The probe into Russian involvement is what Team Trump is focusing on and language used for me anyhow indicated it was only Russian involvement that was closed. The report is being kept well under wraps and that for me is more telling and as there has been nothing leaked, do you not find that more intriguing? Why not release the full report unless it would jeopardise ongoing investigations? At federal and state level we have prosecutors working on some of Meullers work beyond what was already brought. Other prosectors within Justice Dept may take over criminal cases. New York is already chomping at the bit to 'do him' with Manhattan District Attorney taking on Manafort and further investigate the Trump foundation's financials.
All speculation of course, but I'm of the belief they'll go after his family one by one and he'd probably let them all go down before his financials are exposed. Interestingly, New York have subpoenaed Trump's insurers Aon and the House oversight committee have requested financial statements from his accountants as a result of Cohens evidence.
Back on topic... just for RAM! :D
https://www.dailywire.com/news/45465...aign=dwtwitter
I don’t know what this really means about the state of cable news stateside :) but it made me laugh. Ignoring the usual posturing, these are crazy times!
Leaving Politics aside - I've often wondered if another 'right wing' news was set-up in the states it would it make hay. It seems Fox news has a monopoly on that side of the fence over there. Their ratings have been tops for years. I find CNN hard enough to watch tbh. Prefer local news channels when I'm in the states and some PBS - Frontline is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
There are some decent right-leaning news outlets but they have tiny market share and are online platforms. For example, OANN (One America News Network) is decent (from my perspective). Jack Posobiec seems to get a lot of scoops and is someone I would consider balanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
CNN is truly atrocious to watch, I agree. I try watching in hotels when I am out of town with work and I can rarely make it more than 5-10 minutes. AC the best of a horrendous bunch.
I used to watch CNN when I lived abroad, and it was appalling stuff. They had some guy called Aaron Brown then who was supposed to be some hard-hitting truth spewer, but it was just terrible quality stuff. He was eventually replaced by the bland Anderson Cooper (who wasn't too bad to be fair). Wolf Blitzer was another faker, and there was some English guy on sports who was just a kind of satire of what American seem to think English people are.
It was so different, and I think other US stations are very similar from what I've seen, in that it was so obviously to entertain, rather than inform.
However I won't have a word said against Pedro Pinto! Did the late night (for us) Sports news all the time. Very knowledgeable. He's now head of media for FIFA - did some of the Champions league draws this year IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
No, some guy called Dan or Don something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
This was about 15 years ago so they may be long gone.
Well that's a neat place to bring the Sinclair Broadcast Group into the debate - for those of you who don't watch John Oliver, a lot of Americans, just like RAM, tend to trust the news programs on their local stations over what they see as the partisanship of the national media. However, hundreds of these stations have been bought by a media conglomerate called Sinclair Broadcasting Group who have been imposing editorial content on these local news programs with this result:Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
https://youtu.be/_fHfgU8oMSo
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47884252Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
This is pretty big in the context of my above post, if you ask me. The swamp (right and left) swung and missed. Inning over. Trump is up to bat. [apologies for the baseball analogies :D )
Hey Sam, I saw that video some time ago. It is very shocking when you see it like that. Any pretence of objectivity (or non-partisanship) is missing from almost every outlet at this point. Which is part of the problem when you place such power in the hands of so few. Your post reminded me of an infographic that I had seen a few years ago that gets to this point. It is old but it is still very relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by samhaydenjr
https://www.businessinsider.com/thes...america-2012-6
And this tweet from wikileaks to another, different infographic that shows the connections and control the Council on Foreign Relations has over the media companies.
https://swprs.files.wordpress.com/20...rk-hdv-spr.png
https://swprs.files.wordpress.com/20...rk-hdv-spr.png
https://twitter.com/DefendAssange/st...31163358679040
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counci...eign_Relations
Fox News - in a shock - are NOT 'at it' again.
Instead they have given Bernie Sanders a platform to spout his 'communism'..
those guys might be alright :)
https://youtu.be/p4ozAACcc8I
What are your guys' thoughts on the Epstein suicide? Whether you are on the #trumpbodycount or #clintonbodycount train, you have to think that this feckin stinks eh? Absolutely sickened that the chances of us getting anywhere close to the truth on this are next to zero now.
It does all seem incredibly convenient for plenty of powerful people...but I also think the likelihood of him actually being taken out in prison is pretty slim.
I'd be of the opposite view. A hugely high profile prisoner allowed to apparently hang himself. No, not for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
A few things I heard today on talk radio in America (Jeff Kuhner / Rush Limbaugh).Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Epstein was supposed to be physically checked every 15 minutes by prison guards - he went unchecked for hours.
There was a camera inside (and outside) Epstein's cell. The camera didn't work at the time (that's the same time as the guards didn't do the physical check).
Early word from the investigation is that the guards were doing a lot of overtime and were overworked - taking any normal person who is overworked, they would attend to their most important tasks first and perhaps neglect the less important taks. Seem logical? But logic didn't play a part in their thinking on this occassion.
Epstein was taken off suicide watch by a combination of a physchiatrist and the warden (I must stress this is unsubstantiated at present).
According to reports no one on suicide watch has ever managed to commit suicide in this particular prison.
And the AG (William Barr) is lining up an investigation to involve the Inspector General (that would seem to indicate he has no faith in the FBI.......that's huge)
And, you guessed it, the mainstream media has forgotten how to spell the name Clinton at the current time and can only say one word "Trump".
Interesting point which I just heard on Fox News (from a former inmate of that very prison).Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
The inmate said that if some very high profile person wanted Epstein dead they could have done it at any time in the recent past and not in the fashion which happened at the weekend.
Makes sense.
Epstein's death in a confined space like this will yield quite a bit of forensic evidence.
The new theory is that he was given an instrument to hang himself with and someone was paid to look the other way.
Perhaps, and I certainly wouldn't put it past any of the rich and powerful. At the same time, we are living in a time where spouting conspiracy theories has become a tool to advance actual conspiracies. I mean Clinton knew him, but so did Trump (in spite of his denials) - and the first public people actually accused of sexual misconduct in relation to his actions are Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz - could the Royal Family have orchestrated it? And the Daily Mail has published pictures of Epstein and the accuser, Virginia Roberts, at a party on convicted fraudster Flavio Briatore's boat that Eddie Jordan also attended - so could he have been killed to protect Formula 1? Or perhaps it was the Russian government looking to protect their boy Trump. Or maybe it was some guards/prisoners who believed he would get away with another slap on the wrist.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Or perhaps he decided to kill himself because he didn't have a way out this time and didn't have the guts to face up to his crimes and victims.
So I guess we'll just have to listen to the official evidence in an open-minded manner and analyze it fairly and possibly even accept it unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Yes, yes, we know, Donald... BORING!!!
"The Russian government looking to protect their boy Trump"Quote:
Originally Posted by samhaydenjr
Wow, I mean wow.........what a statement!
To think there are still people out there that still believe this garbage, after 2 plus years of investigations involving the top lawyers in America.
Amazing.
Ha! I thought that line might get a reaction. I think it stands up just simply on the basis that Robert Mueller stated plainly, in front of Congress, under oath, that the Russian government interfered in the American election and that they favoured Trump. That alone justifies, in my mind, saying that Trump is their boy. And that's before we even mention:Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
- the meetings between Russian operatives and members of the Trump campaign, including his own son, whether or not there was a grand conspiratorial scheme on the part of his people
- the fact that, on ten occasions, he tried to obstruct investigations into the Russian government's interference with the election and favourable connections with members of his circle, including protecting a cabinet member with ties to the Russian oligarchy who wanted to let them off scot-free for the invasion of Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muelle...ed_obstruction
- the lies about the timeline of the Trump Tower Moscow
- his refusal to publish his tax returns
- his uncharacteristically docile manner around Putin, to the point where he publicly stated that he believed Putin over evidence from his own Intelligence services
- and probably a bunch of other things that show that Putin's government favours Trump and interfered with the election on his behalf and that his campaign were accepting of and complicit in this interference that I'm too tired to research, again regardless of whether there was a grand conspiratorial scheme with a clear and obvious quid pro quo between the two parties (which Mueller didn't actually rule out, in spite of what Barr said)
I for one was shocked at the news of his death.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Russian collusion. There was plenty of it. But unfortunately you are looking under all the wrong stones. Try Glen Simpson, Christopher Steele, Bruch Ohr, Nelly Ohr, Lisa Page, Peter Strock, the bogus FISA application and how the court was duped four times. What happened to Carter Page and Michael Flynn was ok with you, I guess? Did you ever ask yoursel why Robert Mueller failed to notice all these elephants in the room?Quote:
Originally Posted by samhaydenjr
Some interesting developments today and yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
Yesterday Rush Limbaugh claimed that sources were telling him the bones in Epstein's neck were broken in a manner that could not have been done in an act of
suicide. In addition Epstein, according to his lawyers, was looking forward to their next meeting (because, according to them, he was confident he could beat the rap against him. The reason for his optimism was that
he had already been tried and convicted for the crime - in Florida - they were now charging him with, and the law says one cannot be charged a second time for the same crime).
Then today, the coroner ruled that his death was a suicide.
Suicide my hole.
Suicide my hole.
I haven't heard of one person out there that actually believes the suicide theoryQuote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Ah come on now Mark - what-aboutism? Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Nice to see you two agreeing on thisQuote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Well if Limbaugh said it wasn't a suicide, I'm actually more inclined to believe the coronerQuote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Totally unrealted to the above, but this is a very interesting article on the gun argument in America (which is front and center of every debate when there is a mass shooting).Quote:
Originally Posted by samhaydenjr
https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/05/c..._campaign=push
Carlson would want to be careful - he's turning into a lefty liberal. Chinese workers rights, getting employers to pay staff enough to live, whatever next!Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
I am sure impeachment / Ukraine etc. will be all the rage on the news channels in Ireland over the next few weeks. A bit of perspective on what really happenedQuote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHihyFsgJGc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSyy5iF7npM
mark - dumping YouTube videos into a thread isn't the same as making an argument.
What point are we supposed to take from those videos?
(Not interested in a "Watch it yourself and make your mind up" reply because that to me is the marker of someone who generally thinks a YouTube video equates to a solid argument, even if the video is nonsense. Sum up the key points in a few lines for us please)
Agree with Stu. Haven’t watched the videos. My only take on this is that it will blow up in the Dems faces again just like their previous efforts to take Trump down.
The main question I have is that, even if there was a quid pro quo request made by Trump and it doesn’t appear that there was, and even if that is wrong (and I don’t know that it is), why on earth are we not applying the same standards to a) the Biden video where he brags about withholding the $1.5bn from Ukraine until they fired the Burisma prosecutor that his son was sitting on the Board of and b) Obama administrations efforts to pressure Ukraine into releasing information on Trumps 2016 campaign manager. The double standards being applied here are just nutso to me.
From what was released so far, there's nothing that will get Trump in trouble. Maybe later releases will have something.
Anyway, I don't think many party members on either side would actually give much of a sh!t about the actual principles of it all. The Dems would piously attack, the Reps would prevaricate and play down and muddy the waters, and some time in the not-too-distant future something similar will happen under a Democrat president, and everybody will play the political game again, except with roles reversed, making the same arguments they all had such contempt for previously.
Nothing matters really, except for getting your champ in the white house and then keeping them there. Anything is fair game when it comes to that.
I'm sure this is what the impeachment is about also.
Really interesting Stu that you say this because I would much prefer making my point in a few (or not so few) lines. I have done this in the past but have been called out for not providing sources. Damned if I do and damned if I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
But since you ask the attached videos speak about the actions of Joe Biden and the payoff his son got from the Ukrainians while working for an energy company (the son had no exprience in that field but got a 600k pay off). Joe Biden then goes and threatens the Ukrainians to remove a prosecutor who was looking into his son's activities. Biden threatens to withold US government aid from them if the prosecutor is not fired. He was promptly fired. And then the Dems go and accuse Trump of wrongdoing for looking into this. The non fake news is saying that AG William Barr and the Inspector General (Durham) are extremely close to blowing the lid on the corruption which led to the Russian collusion debacle, and this impeachment drive from the Dems is a diversion to keep the eyed of the world off them.
From what I've read, there is consensus that the prosecutor, Shokin, was fired for failure to prosecute corruption charges against oligarchs in Ukraine, not because he was going after Biden's son, with Joe Biden merely expressing US Government policy at the time. There appears to be no evidence that Hunter Biden was, or should have been, under investigation for illegal activity at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...n-and-ukraine/
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2...angerous-shift
Meanwhile Fox News' legal advice indicates that simply asking President Zelensky to investigate Biden's son alone was a crime, regardless of whether the withholding of aid is to be considered part of a quid pro quo or worse, a bribe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKiRdUbDTWk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yY_N4d5xv8
Just to be clear, Hunter Biden was not under investigation. The corruption being investigated predated his time on the Burisma Board. That’s where a lot of people are getting confused. However, he was sitting on the Board of a company that was under investigation by the government of the time. And Joe used his position as an elected official to exert pressure on this foreign government to fire the prosecutor of the company. And that Ukraine wouldn’t get their $1.5bn until this happened.
https://twitter.com/saracarterdc/sta...343910402?s=21
Hunter was earning $50k per month. Bear in mind this guy was completely unqualified for such a position and was discharged from the army for cocaine addiction. The guy is nothing short of a car crash and most companies that you or I would be aware of wouldn’t entrust governance into someone with that kind of track record. It’s fair to assume that daddy Biden had something to do with Hunter getting this sweet gig.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hunt...ry?id=64064060
It’s also fair to conclude that, at best, there was a serious conflict of interest here and funds withheld based on a clear quid pro quo. We won’t give you money unless you fire a prosecutor we don’t like. It’s actually a far more obvious and straightforward a violation than what the transcript sets out against Trump, in my opinion. The Hunter connection is somewhat irrelevant other than to make it an ethical violation on top of “bribery”.
If nothing else, as I say above, it’s a woeful double standard that’s being applied.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mpression=true
Transcript: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-ukraine-call-transcript-read-the-document