Progressive groups plan nationwide protests over Mueller report release

Rehtoric like this on any side is dangerous. Drawing lines and you're either with us or them...

Relax and take a breath there

a reply to: Waterglass

Rehtoric like this on any side is dangerous. Drawing lines and you're either with us or them...

Relax and take a breath there

a reply to: Waterglass

a reply to: Rob808

Relax. Take a breather here? Really? Its quite simple. Its not us versus them. It about adhering to the rule of law. So hows that thing going on in South Africa with new law of land confiscation and the Farmers. Or with Christian values at Yale University? Harvard? Waasup with the Congresswoman and her comments on Israel. So now Progressives are taking to the streets? Seems like they and others seem to follow follow the playbook as below:

a reply to: DBCowboy

Who said he lied? No one said he lied. Stop.
They are saying that what he is claiming is not adequate to what they reported.

a reply to: Ahabstar

They are saying that the team prepared summaries of each section of the report which was cleared for pubic consumption.
The admin is using a generalized stamp on each page to say they cant release it because it contains grand jury material.
The stamp says "may contain" and its probably pretty easy to determine which ones actually do and which ones dont. Like the summaries the team actually wrote....
but its still the same game playing administration and it STILL looks like obstruction to the general public. Come on. You would never accept this if it was the other side.

a reply to: rickymouse

Ok I didnt memorize which members held which stance regarding the classified material covered by Devin Nunes.
It was certainly true that trump supporters in general thought it was a good idea to declassify the material, if not you personally.
And now those same people are saying this classified material should not be released. If that doesnt look like changing the rules then Im lost as to what it is.
No the Nunes memo didn't contain any classified material because trump declassified what he thought would support his cause. The only problem with the Nunes memo was that it only told half a story.

a reply to: rickymouse

It would have been better I agree. Why didn't he?
Because he knows the DOJ he is up against? Because of department traditional thought that you cant indict a sitting president? Mueller was nothing if not a traditional investigator with respect for the job. I beleive he left it to congress because he knew his case was strong enough for them to take action.
An indictment would only have delayed the reports release probably for years as the supreme court wrestled with the question.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DBCowboy

Who said he lied? No one said he lied. Stop.
They are saying that what he is claiming is not adequate to what they reported.

So you're saying that Bob Barr lied.

If he didn't lie, then why the need to see the report?

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

What we all know is that there was nothing. What we all accept is another thing entirely.
Reality... they investigated and said no.
Your belief... they are all in on it and they all covered up for her.
IDK one of those things sounds far fetched.

a reply to: Sillyolme

But what of the privacy of the accused that was found to not be guilty of the accusations? Obama decided not to release his college transcripts and there was nowhere near the level of outrage compared to Trump’s tax returns.

Peculiar in that had he listed himself as eligible to receive (or did actually receive) aid meant for foreigners from federal funding, he would either committed an act of fraud (impeachable offense) or was foreign born (impeachable offense for a deliberate violation of the Constitution by means of fraud). Yet without proof, jurisprudence must grant assumption of innocence.

But I suspect all that will be dismissed as Whataboutism because Orange Man Bad, rather than equal protection and treatment under the law. Despite found innocent by a Special Council investigation in one case but not in the other. Best we have of verification of eligibility is the same person that said we have to pass it to see what’s in it. Sounds thorough to me. :/

a reply to: xuenchen

I heard it from who?

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

IKR???

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

I heard it from who?

You know who 😎

a reply to: xuenchen

I never heard of that person. Sorry.
I heard it on NPR.

Im sure there is a lot of information in the report we SHOULD see. But like all intelligence work, has classified info we shouldn't. Sorry I didn't make that up, and it applies to investigations regardless of political leanings or motivations.

Accept it was a nothing burger. I had to accept Hillarys emails won't get her in trouble and by the FBIs admission she did break rules but won't be persecuted.

You know how mueller isn't jumping waving his arms going I FOUND COLLUSION AND OBSTRUCTION BUT THEY SAY I DIDNT. CNN lied to you all.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Does he bend over backwards to please him? I think you see what it want to prove your withering hope trump is working for Russia. Your folks looked into it.

A lot of people look at the world and say it's flat, people are convinced the twin towers were nuked, Hillary drinks children blood to stay young... does that make these things true?

Come on and say it and move on, there was no collusion. Trump does not work for Russia. I know CNN scared you into believing it's true, I'm here to tell you it's not and keep you safe.



a reply to: Sillyolme

cnn Lied
msnbc Lied
washington post Lied
Many others lied

a reply to: Rob808

Im sure there is a lot of information in the report we SHOULD see. But like all intelligence work, has classified info we shouldn't.

Accept it was a nothing burger.

I'm sure most of it was a nothing burger, so I doubt there is much classified material other than some of the things surrounding the FISA process.

Again, as I've said the whole thread, airing it out would probably benefit Trump and his camp more than anyone.

I had to accept Hillarys emails won't get her in trouble and by the FBIs admission she did break rules but won't be persecuted.

And a lot of her stuff got leaked while people celebrated it (I must admit I was curious and glad the rug got pulled from her). While we didn't see it all and a foreign government may have the rest that could have hurt state secrets... What we read was more embarrassing for her because it put her emails out in to the public light to dissect her. She was hiding behind her personal email server so she wasn't subject to FOIA.

In this case as I said I doubt there is anything more harmful to national security than keeping the debate distracting the country from issues we need to get fixed.

But all that said, none of us know and that's just my opinion.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Waterglass

Release the report!!!

Give the people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and we'll figure it out.

Screw color of law that protects the guilty and defames the innocent. Our organic law, our foundations upon Natural Law, and our Constitution all demand that the government prove to the public, in full sunlight, anything and everything they do.

Release the report! EVERY WORD!!!

Doing so would do precisely what you claimed not releasing it would do... it would potentially defame the innocent.

Grand Jury testimony about someone who is not indicted is verboten, precisely because it can defame the innocent. Sure, there may be testimony in there that claims Trump murdered someone... but if the investigators determined the testimony was bogus, why should it be released to the public.

There is a reason the law governing what can and cannot be released is there.

Stop being a whiny chump...

a reply to: tanstaafl

Oh my... I really tweaked your nose, eh? (That would be "really" in the sense of "very very much", just in case you didn't know.)

There is a reason the law governing what can and cannot be released is there. Stop being a whiny chump...

Oh no... we can't release the whole report because some people are just too stoopid to understand, right? Some people don't know the difference between proof and evidence and unsubstantiated and uncorroborrated rumors, right? Some people don't know the difference between fact and opinion, right?

We need the government to tell us what's true or not, right???

Yeah, that's it... Government rules!!! They'll tell us what to believe!!!

(By the way, you might want to go check a mirror -- when you get up off your knees. I see a little brown spot on your nose.)