Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Oh’ I thought it was the Clintons that whored themselves out to the Russians?
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee4PfhogtdQ
    Last edited by surfgun; 01 May 19,, 03:21.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
      Oh’ I thought it was the Clintons that whored themselves out to the Russians?
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee4PfhogtdQ
      Ah there we go, running straight back to deflection and whataboutism. That's gotta be a warm and fuzzy place, so much more comfortable than the cold harsh reality of we're actually talking about (The President of the United States, in case you need a refresher. His name is Donald Trump.)

      Or were you expecting me to defend the Clinton's, now?

      Next up: Some YouTube link about Obama, no doubt.

      Funny how the best that Trump supporters can do to defend him is to quickly point the finger at one of their many liberal bogeymen.

      How fucking pathetic lol
      Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

      Comment


      • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
        With this Trump economy I am now scheduled to receive my fifth cost of living increase. I only had two during the entire eight years of O’horrible. Trump may proceed with the prosperity.
        Going to guess you're a government employee. Triple+ retirement (pension(s), 401k(s) and social security), right? Regular pay increases by schedule and grade?

        Comes at my expense. I pay double payroll taxes, am ineligible for the standard deduction, get no benefits, no retirement contributions, the outlook on which doesn't look good (if I even live that long, as I don't even have health insurance).

        Over in the private sector, benefits and pay keep getting squeezed from both ends, with tens of millions of people being illegally misclassified as 1099s, thus being burdened with what used to be the employer's share of payroll taxes, while also additionally being overtaxed on income, which of course helps fund comfort and luxury for people such as yourself.

        Glad to hear someone is making out like a king with my money though. There is real world out here, I'm not sure whether you remember that or not. In the Beltway getting only two COLA adjustments is somehow ignominious, but you know what... ride that gravy train, surfgun.

        Live off the fat of our land, while we glean the fields for what's left like landless peasants. That's the way things work nowadays, I suppose. I really ought to be thanking you for whatever it is you think you do for us, whether it's needed or just another redundant job in a bloated bureaucracy.
        Last edited by Ironduke; 01 May 19,, 05:57.
        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
          With this Trump economy I am now scheduled to receive my fifth cost of living increase. I only had two during the entire eight years of O’horrible. Trump may proceed with the prosperity.
          So, you're telling us that each COLA made up for ALL of the inflation since the last one, right?
          Tell me this: did you get your wages cut when there was deflation? Or, did the Obama Administration let that one slide?
          Trust me?
          I'm an economist!

          Comment


          • Turns out that Mueller did write to AG Barr basically saying that Barr's 4 page "summary" was a misrepresentation of the findings... Really? Barr seems to have read something else and summarised that to me. So Barr fibbed at least when he said he had no idea of what Mueller thought of his 'summary exoneration of Trumpkin' which is clearly not Mueller found. From Trumpkin down it seems they cannot go a day without lying about something it seems.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
              Going to guess you're a government employee. Triple+ retirement (pension(s), 401k(s) and social security), right? Regular pay increases by schedule and grade?

              Comes at my expense. I pay double payroll taxes, am ineligible for the standard deduction, get no benefits, no retirement contributions, the outlook on which doesn't look good (if I even live that long, as I don't even have health insurance).

              Over in the private sector, benefits and pay keep getting squeezed from both ends, with tens of millions of people being illegally misclassified as 1099s, thus being burdened with what used to be the employer's share of payroll taxes, while also additionally being overtaxed on income, which of course helps fund comfort and luxury for people such as yourself.

              Glad to hear someone is making out like a king with my money though. There is real world out here, I'm not sure whether you remember that or not. In the Beltway getting only two COLA adjustments is somehow ignominious, but you know what... ride that gravy train, surfgun.

              Live off the fat of our land, while we glean the fields for what's left like landless peasants. That's the way things work nowadays, I suppose. I really ought to be thanking you for whatever it is you think you do for us, whether it's needed or just another redundant job in a bloated bureaucracy.
              While it has typically been the case, but now more than ever, the country is rigged to make the wealthy wealthier. Your little description demonstrates money moving upwards rather than downwards. What strikes me is that the middle class will complain about welfare going to people who don't work and therefore don't deserve it. However, there is nary a complaint of their money heading the other way to people who clearly do not need it. Surfgun is one of those who fits that profile. Ironic since he is giving Trump all this credit yet when you get down to it Trump doesn't give a shit about Surfgun. Trump is wealthy so a winner while Surfgun is not wealthy so he is a loser. Trump has been plain about that all his life. Keep drinking that Kool-aid but be warned it is the Jim Jones recipe...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                Turns out that Mueller did write to AG Barr basically saying that Barr's 4 page "summary" was a misrepresentation of the findings... Really? Barr seems to have read something else and summarised that to me. So Barr fibbed at least when he said he had no idea of what Mueller thought of his 'summary exoneration of Trumpkin' which is clearly not Mueller found. From Trumpkin down it seems they cannot go a day without lying about something it seems.
                ummm, no he didn't.

                your statement is just false.

                those are talking points (false ones) that dems are now trying to use to discredit Barr since they didn't get what they wanted out of the Muller report.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                  While it has typically been the case, but now more than ever, the country is rigged to make the wealthy wealthier. Your little description demonstrates money moving upwards rather than downwards. What strikes me is that the middle class will complain about welfare going to people who don't work and therefore don't deserve it. However, there is nary a complaint of their money heading the other way to people who clearly do not need it. Surfgun is one of those who fits that profile. Ironic since he is giving Trump all this credit yet when you get down to it Trump doesn't give a shit about Surfgun. Trump is wealthy so a winner while Surfgun is not wealthy so he is a loser. Trump has been plain about that all his life. Keep drinking that Kool-aid but be warned it is the Jim Jones recipe...
                  As a 1099, a tax status that tens of millions of Americans now have, the following is the case:
                  • 1099s pay 15.3% in payroll taxes
                  • 1099s are ineligible for the $12,000 standard deduction
                  • 1099s pay 13.3% in income tax on the first $12,000 in income (vs 0% for wages)
                  • 1099s pay 13.3% in income tax up to $50,700 (vs 12% for wages, also with lost standard deduction)
                  • ineligible for unemployment benefits when they lose their job
                  • offered no benefits (e.g. health, dental, vision)
                  • are not offered 401ks or pensions
                  • holidays are unpaid
                  • no sick or bereavement leave
                  • can be arbitrarily be penalized and have income subtracted for "infractions" defined at the employer's whim (e.g. 5 minutes late to work = a 20% reduction in pay that day)

                  There are many more examples I could give where 1099 status contrasts with W-2 employment, but I'll leave it at that. Tens of millions of Americans are performing work that is legally wage income that by law requires a W-2, but no enforcement action is being undertaken.

                  On an equivalent hourly rate, an employer of 1099s makes much higher profits from a worker with that status than those with W-2s, and the government collects much more in taxes from a 1099 worker than a W-2 employee.

                  Thus, the 1099 worker is getting squeezed from both ends.
                  Last edited by Ironduke; 02 May 19,, 15:00.
                  "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                  Comment


                  • For full transparency, here is the full letter from Mueller to Barr (https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/polit...arr/index.html)
                    "Draft beer, not people."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                      For full transparency, here is the full letter from Mueller to Barr (https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/polit...arr/index.html)
                      'context, nature and substance of this offices work and conclusions'

                      nothing about the findings being wrong, inaccurate, or misrepresented.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                        ummm, no he didn't.

                        your statement is just false.

                        those are talking points (false ones) that dems are now trying to use to discredit Barr since they didn't get what they wanted out of the Muller report.
                        I quote; "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Offices work and conclusions."

                        So now let's get a time line; March 5th, March 24th (when 'Wormtongue' Barr produced his 'summary') March 25th and then this letter dated March 27th. Mueller was not at all happy and smiles about Barr's 'summary' so when Barr was asked what Mueller thought of his 'summary' and said "I don't know" he was clearly lying.

                        But then according to Barr his 'summary' was not a 'summary', merely a 'summary of conclusions' - seemingly Barrs own; well he may about right as it doesn't appear that he's even Mueller report. According to him if a President is being investigated and does not think he is 'guilty' he can legally fire anyone investigating him - innocently unless I know I have done wrong! By this standard no crook would ever be proved guilty.

                        I am pretty sure there have to be more self respecting pigs than 'Wormtongue' Barr.
                        Last edited by snapper; 02 May 19,, 15:37.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                          'context, nature and substance of this offices work and conclusions'

                          nothing about the findings being wrong, inaccurate, or misrepresented.
                          A couple of quotes, one recent, one quite old, that are applicable to you

                          'Give Us Some Credit for Knowing What the Hell Is Going on Around Here'

                          and to Barr

                          'I want to say to you, Mr. [Barr], that I do not have your talent for obfuscation, for distortion, for confusing language, and for doubletalk. And I must confess to you that I am glad that I do not!'
                          Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                          Comment


                          • From the letter:

                            As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our [Mueller's team] two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is new public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.
                            Note that Mueller does not use the term "misrepresentation"---likely to avoid sounding accusatory or combative. Irrespective of intent or partisan semantics, it is clear that Mueller and his team fundamentally believe that Barr's summary does not represent the core findings of the investigation to the fullest extent, and wish to have their own in-house summaries be released for public scrutiny.

                            If it is really the case that Mueller's summaries do not present concerns for national security and meet the legal requirements for public release, there should be no reason to debate their release. After all, the final conclusions set forth by Mueller's team shouldn't stray terribly far from Barr's conclusions.
                            Last edited by Red Team; 02 May 19,, 15:58.
                            "Draft beer, not people."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                              I quote; "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Offices work and conclusions."

                              So now let's get a time line; March 5th, March 24th (when 'Wormtongue' Barr produced his 'summary') March 25th and then this letter dated March 27th. Mueller was not at all happy and smiles about Barr's 'summary' so when Barr was asked what Mueller thought of his 'summary' and said "I don't know" he was clearly lying.

                              But then according to Barr his 'summary' was not a 'summary', merely a 'summary of conclusions' - seemingly Barrs own; well he may about right as it doesn't appear that he's even Mueller report. According to him if a President is being investigated and does not think he is 'guilty' he can legally fire anyone investigating him - innocently unless I know I have done wrong! By this standard no crook would ever be proved guilty.

                              I am pretty sure there have to be more self respecting pigs than 'Wormtongue' Barr.
                              wrong again on all accounts.

                              the summary was not at issue, Mueller was unhappy that there wasn't more context provided with it and was unhappy with media narrative and coverage.

                              the summary, which Barr has stated over and over again, was the 'summary' of conclusions' from Muellers report.

                              it was not a summary of the report at all, he never said it was, and he never intended it to be.

                              The president can most certainly fire the special counsel for conflict of interest which is also not at all obstruction, it only becomes a consideration and probable obstruction if he fires him and does not replace him.

                              i'd suggest you consider taking the worms out of your head.


                              https://youtu.be/dsH9ytT2YuQ?t=4895
                              Last edited by bfng3569; 02 May 19,, 17:36.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                                A couple of quotes, one recent, one quite old, that are applicable to you

                                'Give Us Some Credit for Knowing What the Hell Is Going on Around Here'

                                and to Barr

                                'I want to say to you, Mr. [Barr], that I do not have your talent for obfuscation, for distortion, for confusing language, and for doubletalk. And I must confess to you that I am glad that I do not!'
                                is there a point, particularly, the last quote?

                                after watching the hearings yesterday, i find quotes like that particularly rich.

                                Dem's are hanging on every single word and twisting them as much as possible, as is plainly clear in this case, and looking for any follow up questioning for some sort of manufactured gotcha moment and perjury trap.

                                Barr was asked specifically about whether Mueller had problems with his findings (which Durbin even repeats that exact same language) and Barr was clear in saying no.

                                now its turned too 'well you have this letter were Mueller is clearly unhappy with what you said so you obviously lied'

                                no.

                                its two different questions.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X