"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[LostMarbels]

Rant?
Okay then...

Archie Bunker running for office?

Right, it’s like if Archie Bunker had won the lottery to the tune of five BILLION and decided he’d like to be POTUS.
It’s excruciatingly obvious that his boorish behavior and attitudes doesn’t even register to his followers, who then wonder “what’s wrong with Trump’s critics!?”

And here we ARE!

Trump supporters are stupid and need to be entertained?

Well, that’s the thing, isn’t it?
Trump made politics “entertainment” for vast swaths of the population, many of whom are ill-equipped to deal with the sophisticated nature of politics, which requires a subtle and nuanced understanding of side-issues that all blend to form the whole!

It is selfish to defend one's own rights?

Yes, overcoming this natural propensity to selfishness is at the crux of all religion, and, increasingly, politics.

So yes:
rant
(rănt)
v. rant·ed, rant·ing, rants
v.intr.
1. To speak or write in an angry or emotionally charged manner; rave.
2. To express at length a complaint or negative opinion:

 

[rjs330]

No, the warrant wasn’t issues based on the dossier. Don’t you remember when this was all over the news? All of the fuss about “the memo?” The dossier was received weeks after the investigation had started, and its role in the Carter Page FISA warrant was grossly exaggerated. Both Democrats and Republicans agree it was a drunk conversation George papadopolis had that started the investigation. Even Trey Dowdy agreed that the investigation was not sparked by the dossier. And incidentally - much of what was in the Steele dossier has been verified. All of this aside - how do you figure spying on carter page is spying on trump?

The spying was on the Trump campaign. Last I knew Trump was part of the Trump campaign. Sure the focus was on certain members of the campaign, but that's how investigations work. You start low and work your way up. So the dossier was used on Carter page. And that is problematic.
FBI had doubts about top Trump dossier source before Carter Page FISA warrant renewals

So the dossier wasn't used to start the investigation, but to continue it. A dossier that hadn't been verified and was funded by the Clinton campaign. Lots of problems with this. Even Mueller said so.

There was plenty of evidence that the dossier was full of issues as well as Steele who was avidly anti Trump. Steele himself said his dossier was nothing but raw data. Unverified information. It was full if holes as was Steele. Yet it was used anyway.
Steele’s Shoddy Dossier | National Review

 

[Pommer]

So the dossier was used on Carter page. And that is problematic.

But Page wasn’t part of the Trump campaign when the dossier, was used in the FISC.

 

[stevil]

I have a feeling though, barr used that term, because he has seen information, that leads him to believe, some of the surveilance and the warrants to approve, were not obtained legally.

Barr did not provide any reason as to why he claimed spying occurred.
His claim, under oath, was very unprofessional, and unbecoming of a person holding the position of attorney general. It was also completely out of context of the congressional hearing which was soley focused on the SC report and Barrs mischaracterisation of that. BTW Barr lied at that hearing, which came to light when Mueller made his public statement contradicting what Barr said.

The reason why Barr said "spying" is because this is the term the president had been using. Barr is supremely interested in pleasing the president. The reason Barr is investigating the origins of the investigation is because the president publicly claimed that the oranges (he meant origins) are to be investigated. There is much reason to doubt Barr's integrity.

There really is no reason to investigate the origins of an investigation into Russian interference. The Russians did interfere, and many Trump campaign officials did communicate with the Russians at that time, including sharing of polling data with them and attending a secret meeting with a group known to have hacked Hilary's email in order to gain special access to dirt illegally obtained on Hilary.

 

[bhsmte]

Barr did not provide any reason as to why he claimed spying occurred.
His claim, under oath, was very unprofessional, and unbecoming of a person holding the position of attorney general. It was also completely out of context of the congressional hearing which was soley focused on the SC report and Barrs mischaracterisation of that. BTW Barr lied at that hearing, which came to light when Mueller made his public statement contradicting what Barr said.

The reason why Barr said "spying" is because this is the term the president had been using. Barr is supremely interested in pleasing the president. The reason Barr is investigating the origins of the investigation is because the president publicly claimed that the oranges (he meant origins) are to be investigated. There is much reason to doubt Barr's integrity.

There really is no reason to investigate the origins of an investigation into Russian interference. The Russians did interfere, and many Trump campaign officials did communicate with the Russians at that time, including sharing of polling data with them and attending a secret meeting with a group known to have hacked Hilary's email in order to gain special access to dirt illegally obtained on Hilary.

I know he didnt give a reason. I am speculating, he knows information that is not public. Being the AG, i am quite certain, the inspector general has briefed him on his findings to date.

If barr has nothing to go on, it was unprofessional. On the other hand, if the fbi, justice dept and others in the intelligence coummunity abused their power, that aint too good either.

Barr is no dummy and i dont see him as the type, to make bold statements, without reason.

I could be wrong, but will wait for the IG report and any other investigation in regards to the same, to make final judgment.

 

[stevil]

Barr is no dummy and i dont see him as the type, to make bold statements, without reason.

Barr is quite clearly compromised. No one is accusing him of being a dummy.

At that hearing he claimed he couldn't even understand a simple question.
The reason wasn't his comprehension, it was that he didn't want to answer the question because it would incriminate him and the president.

 

[bhsmte]

Barr is quite clearly compromised. No one is accusing him of being a dummy.

At that hearing he claimed he couldn't even understand a simple question.
The reason wasn't his comprehension, it was that he didn't want to answer the question because it would incriminate him and the president.

Lets see what we find out.

 

[bhsmte]

Barr is quite clearly compromised. No one is accusing him of being a dummy.

At that hearing he claimed he couldn't even understand a simple question.
The reason wasn't his comprehension, it was that he didn't want to answer the question because it would incriminate him and the president.

Barr faced 6 hours of questions under oath. Would like to see mueller and several others do the same.

 

[stevil]

If barr has nothing to go on, it was unprofessional.

Even if he did have something to go on it was unprofessional.
The AG should be more serious and careful, careful with words and public accusations.

Making a public accusation "I think spying went on" In terms of a personal "I think", rather than as a factual statement. Use of a loaded word "spying" and not backing that up with any reasoning. He is just getting tongues wagging, this was a political stunt, not the act of an AG.
Barr is too smart to do this by accident. He knows better.
Therefore he is compromised.

 

[rambot]

That is what I meant about "fact checked". If it involves Trump there is always some ready to jump out "Nuh-uhh No he didn't."

1) You'll have to forgive me for being skeptical of someone who habitual lies and has, himself indicated that he only tries to tell the truth.
2) I'm cool with it being "fact checked", but then tell me who did it. Put a name to it. And no, I wouldn't accept Trump's word and I would be HIGHLY skeptical of anyone who works for him.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

No. Either you have enough evidence to indict or you don't.

 

[rambot]

(TDS) Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a meme or a flame. All across the nation clinical psychologists are treating individuals with panic attacks, fits of rage, and even incoherent thought.

View attachment 257763

There are thousands who get physically sick if they even hear his name. I honestly believe these emotions were cultured on purpose. For the last 3 years the same narratives have been enforced. This is brainwashing.

View attachment 257764

View attachment 257765

Interesting. I think it would have REALLY increased your honesty scale if you would have included a link. But, don't worry, I got you covered:
Why therapists are having such a hard time talking about Trump
I truly am curious: Why did you just link to the original article?

My thoughts on this article:
1) I have no doubt that soon after the election, many people were shocked and scared. Remember how he threatened people? Remember all that "no nonsense, tough talk" that those on the right ADORE?
While white bread America was made to feel very VERY safe, segments of the minorities felt far LESS safe /stable because of his words. Let's face it, some people took what he said as a threat against them personally and were scared. Should they have NOT been?
So I'm not at ALL surprised that some poeple were scared.

2) I noticed this was early 2017....soon after inauguration time. Could you not find anything more current that would actually show this was a trend and not simply people being scared of the "unknown" and having a pretty unstable and unpredictable, prejudiced guy?

3) I find it pretty dishonest to take an article that is written about the challenges that therapists are having to staying politically impartial as they provide services to clients, and cutting and splicing the article to pull out the parts you want.

4) In case you are ACTUALLY curious about TDS, here is the wiki entry. To be honest, I find the first sentence telling. Frankly, I find it to be all that needs to be said on the matter:

The term has been used by Trump supporters to discredit criticism of his actions, as a way of "reframing" the discussion by suggesting his opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world

Trump derangement syndrome - Wikipedia

Now we can sit here and discuss the merits of using wikipedia as a source, but I would be remiss to point out that the above quote is EXACTLY what you have been trying to convince everyone of since you started posting in this thread.


Every president since Bush has had the same DS assigned to their name. While I agree there are definitely people who fit the bill, there are FAR too many who are content to casually dismiss everyone's criticism of Trump (as you do) because of this handle.

 

[Pommer]

"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

No. Either you have enough evidence to indict or you don't.

Even though producing an indictment was never an option?

 

[stevil]

"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

No. Either you have enough evidence to indict or you don't.

The Special Council were never going to indict the President, even if they had(have) enough evidence.

However they were happy to state that people being investigated were found to be clear. They did so regarding "conspiring with the Russians", but they couldn't regarding the President and obstructing their investigation.

These are the facts. It doesn't really matter about individual people's opinion on whether they should have simply concentrated on indictments only. That approach would have made any president (including future Democrat presidents) immune to even being investigated.

The best that the Special Council could do with regards to an "indictment" of a sitting President who commits crimes is to investigate the goings on, document and report those investigations and state "they did not have confidence that the President did not commit a crime"

 

[USincognito]

Why? We just had a coup attempt...

 

[USincognito]

Well, spying occurred. That we know..

"We" "know" nothing of the sort.

 

[LostMarbels]

Interesting. I think it would have REALLY increased your honesty scale if you would have included a link. But, don't worry, I got you covered:
Why therapists are having such a hard time talking about Trump
I truly am curious: Why did you just link to the original article?

100% honest because most people will not go to a link to read it. I argue "A" they argue I'm talking about "C" and refuse to even look at any link or documentation I present concerning "A". I find it awesome that you took the time to try and find my source. That tells me you are willing to invest into a conversation instead of just being feed information to be shot down.

That being said, I am trying to discuss an issue and as soon as I define that issue or utilise a site only that site/definition is usually discussed and nothing else does. The conversation falls to the floor.

Trump Derangement Syndrome emerges as a public health issue

My thoughts on this article:
1) I have no doubt that soon after the election, many people were shocked and scared. Remember how he threatened people? Remember all that "no nonsense, tough talk" that those on the right ADORE?

This is all perception. The truth is the fear of losing one's way of life. Everything liberals hold dear from abortion, to immigration, and beyond, is being changed by this president. That is causing unparalleled panic in society. Which leads to: "Hey, wait! He can't do that!" and the angst to remove him... to stop him.

Every president since Bush has had the same DS assigned to their name. While I agree there are definitely people who fit the bill, there are FAR too many who are content to casually dismiss everyone's criticism of Trump (as you do) because of this handle.

This is above, and beyond in scope. There are many individuals that need help, and it affects their daily lives.

 

[Pommer]

Archie Bunker running for office?

Hey, they were both born in Queens!

Trump supporters are stupid and need to be entertained?

A third of the people have below average intelligence.

It is selfish to defend one's own rights?

Life needn’t be a “zero-sum game”.

 

[rambot]

100% honest because most people will not go to a link to read it. I argue "A" they argue I'm talking about "C" and refuse to even look at any link or documentation I present concerning "A". I find it awesome that you took the time to try and find my source. That tells me you are willing to invest into a conversation instead of just being feed information to be shot down.

if that happens literally every time you link an article, I humbly posit that you look into the concept of "quote mining" and adjust accordingly.

That being said, I am trying to discuss an issue and as soon as I define that issue or utilise a site only that site/definition is usually discussed and nothing else does. The conversation falls to the floor.

Trump Derangement Syndrome emerges as a public health issue

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...yndrome_emerges_as_a_public_health_issue.htmlAnother link to an article from the exact same time frame will do nothing to convince me this is still the problem. What new ground did you hope to cover?

This is all perception.

yes. I know you think that. In the same way that it is the perception of supporters
That was your original point. Do you have a new point or could you address what I have said in response?

The truth is the fear of losing one's way of life. Everything liberals hold dear from abortion, to immigration, and beyond, is being changed by this president. That is causing unparalleled panic in society. Which leads to: "Hey, wait! He can't do that!" and the angst to remove him... to stop him.

Do you recognize what happened in this quote. You started saying "it's perception.", then you say Trump is, in fact changing and doing it.

So is it perception or reality? I can address you overarching theme but really I need to understand your point. Because you seem to be really undermining your efforts at victim blaming

 

[rjs330]

100% honest because most people will not go to a link to read it. I argue "A" they argue I'm talking about "C" and refuse to even look at any link or documentation I present concerning "A". I find it awesome that you took the time to try and find my source. That tells me you are willing to invest into a conversation instead of just being feed information to be shot down.

That being said, I am trying to discuss an issue and as soon as I define that issue or utilise a site only that site/definition is usually discussed and nothing else does. The conversation falls to the floor.

Trump Derangement Syndrome emerges as a public health issue



This is all perception. The truth is the fear of losing one's way of life. Everything liberals hold dear from abortion, to immigration, and beyond, is being changed by this president. That is causing unparalleled panic in society. Which leads to: "Hey, wait! He can't do that!" and the angst to remove him... to stop him.



This is above, and beyond in scope. There are many individuals that need help, and it affects their daily lives.

Yes and you remember all those snow flakes right? Trumpophobia Melts SJW Snowflakes

This all went on before Trump had even done anything. Then the anger started which turned to hatred.

Then attacks, attack after attack on Trump, Trump supporters and conservatives in general. We all all racists, bigots, homophobes etc. Etc.

Just wait. My post will be countered with all about how we are snowflakes now because we fight back against the lefts attacks. But remember, nothing had been done or passed and the left went emotionally beserk.