The Right Side of the News

Somehow, the expression "stealing candy from children" comes to mind. Or just plain stealing from children.Edited by dwise1, : added second sentence

I've heard that too. Who was it who said that? John Barron? David Dennison? (see)

Follow the link in Message 1852 (link copied here) to discover who John Barron, David Dennison, John Miller, and Carolin Gallego are.

Even in his act of misrepresenting the Mueller Report https://www.nytimes.com/...s/barr-letter-mueller-report.html, Barr himself quoted the Report thus:

quote:

---

The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

---

So then even Barr explicitly points out that the Mueller Report does not exonerate Trump.So then who knows where Trump ever got "the Mueller Report totally exonerates me!" from. Just more evidence that Trump is a "fucking moron" (a cabinet member's assessment of him early on).

Where? Show us! Quote directly from Mueller's Report where he made any such statement! Only use primary sources (eg, Mueller's Report); do not use secondary sources (eg, Fakes and Friends, fake-news mongers like Hannity, Carlson, Limbaugh, Alex Jones)!Show us the quote. We show you ours.As for whether the OLC "cannot indict a sitting president" played any role in the report, from INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME II pages 1-2 (pp 213-214 in the searchable PDF):

quote:

---

We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:

​

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. 515; 28 C.F.R. 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

​

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system , we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

​

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought , affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

​

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment 's] secrecy, " and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern." Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual 9-27.220.

​

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

---

So contrary to your false statement, Mueller clearly states that OLC policy played a direct role in determining how he would organize the investigation and what kinds of conclusions he could reach, namely actual defined crimes (for which collusion does not qualify nor is it defined) such as criminal conspiracy (which requires a provable explicit agreement between the conspirators). First, the OLC policy prevented Mueller from being able to indict a sitting President; rather that is the authority and duty of Congress.Second, while Mueller could not indict Trump because of a purely internal policy
and would not accuse Trump (as per the considerations quoted above) because Trump would have no recourse available to him to clear himself (only a trial could do that), he still could have exonerated Trump. Mueller very explicitly did not exonerate Trump!The conclusion of EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO VOLUME II, page 8 (page 220 in the PDF):

quote:

---

CONCLUSION

​

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

---

That last sentence echos Mueller's fourth consideration back on page 3 (page 214 of the PDF):

quote:

---

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

---

Completely and utterly false! Mueller's Report is filled with many detailed examples of collusion between Trump's people (including family members). For example, this list comes directly from the Table of Contents of Volume I (pp ii-iv; pp 4-6 in the PDF):

quote:

---

IV. RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT LINKS To AND CONTACTS WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ................ 66
A. Campaign Period (September 2015 - November 8, 2016) ......................................... 66
1. Trump Tower Moscow Project .................................. ........................... ............ .... 67
a. Trump Tower Moscow Venture with the Crocus Group (2013 -2014) ............ 67
b. Communications with LC. Expert Investment Company and Giorgi
Rtskhiladze (Summer and Fall 2015) ............................................................ 69
c. Letter of Intent and Contacts to Russian Government (October 2015-
January 2016) ................................................................................................ 70
i. Trump Signs the Letter of Intent on behalf of the Trump Organization .... 70
ii. Post-LOI Contacts with Individuals in Russia ......................................... 72
d. Discussions about Russia Travel by Michael Cohen or Candidate Trump
(December 2015-June 2016) ........................ .............. ............. ...................... 76
i. Sater's Overtures to Cohen to Travel to Russia ........................................ 76
ii. Candidate Trump's Opportunities to Travel to Russia ............................ 78
2. George Papadopoulos ................................................................................ ........... 80
a. Origins of Campaign Work .............. ................................................................ 81
b. Initial Russia-Related Contacts ....................................... ................................. 82
c. March 31 Foreign Policy Team Meeting ......................................................... 85
d. George Papadopoulos Learns That Russia Has "Dirt" in the Form of
Clinton Emails ............. ................................... ........... ............ ........................ 86
e. Russia-Related Communications With The Campaign .................................... 89
f. Trump Campaign Knowledge of "Dirt" ........................................................... 93
g. Additional George Papadopoulos Contact.. .................... ................................. 94
3. Carter Page ........................................ ................................. ................................... 9 5
a. Background ...................................................................................................... 96
b. Origins of and Early Campaign Work ............................................................. 97
c. Carter Page's July 2016 Trip To Moscow ..................................................... ... 98
d. Later Campaign Work and Removal from the Campaign ............................ . 102
4. Dimitri Simes and the Center for the National Interest ...................................... 103
a. CNI and Dimitri Simes Connect with the Trump Campaign ................... ...... 103
b. National Interest Hosts a Foreign Policy Speech at the Mayflower Hotel
........... ..................................... ................................................. ................... . 105
c. Jeff Sessions's Post-Speech Interactions with CNI ....................................... 107
d. Jared Kushner' s Continuing Contacts with Simes ......................................... 108
5. June 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower ........... .................... ...... , ......................... 110
a. Setting Up the June 9 Meeting ....................................................................... 110
i. Outreach to Donald Trump Jr .................................................................. 110
ii. Awareness of the Meeting Within the Campaign ........................ ........... 114
b. The Events of June 9 , 2016 ............................ .................... ................. ........... 116
i. Arrangements for the Meeting ................................................................ 116
ii. Conduct of the Meeting ............... ................................... ........................ 117
c. Post-June 9 Events ................................................................. ........................ 120
6. Events at the Republican National Convention .................................................. 123
a. Ambassador Kislyak's Encounters with Senator Sessions and J.D.
Gordon the Week of the RNC ..................................................................... 123
b. Change to Republican Party Platform ............................................................ 124
7. Post-Convention Contacts with Kislyak ................................ : .............. .............. 127
a. Ambassador Kislyak Invites J.D. Gordon to Breakfast at the
Ambassador's Residence ........................... ................ ......................... ......... 127
b. Senator Sessions's September 2016 Meeting with Ambassador Kislyak ...... 127
8. Paul Manafort .............. .................... ........................................................... ......... 129
a. Paul Manafort' s Ties to Russia and Ukraine .................................................. 131
1. Oleg Deripaska Consulting Work ......................................................... 131
11. Political Consulting Work ..................................................................... 132
iii. Konstantin Kilimnik ........................ ..................................................... . 132
b. Contacts during Paul Manafort's Time with the Trump Campaign .............. 134
i. Paul Manafort Joins the Campaign ......................................................... 134
ii. Paul Manafort's Campaign-Period Contacts .............................. ............ 135
iii. Paul Manafort's Two Campaign-Period Meetings with Konstantin
Kilimnik in the United States .............................. .................................. 138
c. Post-Resignation Activities ............................................................................ 141

​

B. Post-Election and Transition-Period Contacts .......................................................... 144
1. Immediate Post-Election Activity ....................................................................... 144
a. Outreach from the Russian Government.. ................................................... ... 145
b. High-Level Encouragement of Contacts through Alternative Channels ....... 146
2. Kirill Dmitriev's Transition-Era Outreach to the Incoming Administration ...... 147
a. Background .................... ................ ........................................ ........................ 14 7
b. Kirill Dmitriev's Post-Election Contacts With the Incoming
Administration .............. ............... .......................................... ...................... 149
c. Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev Meet in the Seychelles ................................ 151
i. George Nader and Erik Prince Arrange Seychelles Meeting with
Dmitriev .................................................. ................................ ............... 151
11. The Seychelles Meetings .............. ........................................... ............... 153
iii. Erik Prince's Meeting with Steve Bannon after the Seychelles Trip .... 155
d. Kirill Dmitriev's Post-Election Contact with Rick Gerson Regarding
U .S.-Russia Relations ...................... ............................................................ 156
3. Ambassador Kislyak's Meeting with Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn in
Trump Tower Following the Election ................................................................. 159
4. Jared Kushner' s Meeting with Sergey Gorkov ...................................... ............. 161
5. Petr Aven' s Outreach Efforts to the Transition Team ........................................ 163
6. Carter Page Contact with Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich ............. 166
7. Contacts With and Through Michael T. Flynn ....... .................... ................ ........ 167
a. United Nations Vote on Israeli Settlements .............................. ...... ............... 167
b. U.S. Sanctions Against Russia ............ ....................... .................................... 168

---

That is a helluva lot of collusion! Too bad it's not a crime, though it still is an impeachable offense, as is the cover-up of collusion with a hostile foreign power. Again, Mueller lists many instances of obstruction committed by Trump. The only reasons for not officially accusing Trump are given in the four considerations in Volume II, quoted above. Mueller did not have the authority to indict Trump for obstruction, but Congress does have that authority as well as the Constitutional duty.Extracting from EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO VOLUME II (pp 3-6; PDF pp 215-218) with the body of the paragraphs left out:

quote:

---

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

​

The key issues and events we examined include the following:

​

The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump. ...

​

The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation. ...

​

The President's termination of Comey. ...

​

The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him. ...

​

Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation. ...

​

Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence. ...

​

Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation. ...

​

Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special
Counsel removed. ...

​

Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort, {name or names redacted, HARM TO ONGOING MATTER} ...

​

Conduct involving Michael Cohen. ...

---

That's a helluva lot of very specific "no causes".Again, Mueller did not have the authority to indict or accuse Trump of obstruction of justice. All he could (and did) do is to list Trump's acts and leave it to Congress to act upon it. Yes, that is all that you and your Fake News pocket universe have.Edited by dwise1, : corrected PDF page numberEdited by dwise1, : Removed duplicate qs block
Replaced "right" with "authority"

That is a damned lie and you know it!Here is everything that the Mueller Report says about collusion: INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I, page 2 (PDF page 10)

quote:

---

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons , the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express - between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

---

So the investigation was looking into the commission of a crime. Collusion is not a crime and so was not part of the investigation. Instead, the investigation looked into criminal conspiracy. This paragraph does not state that there was no collusion. VOLUME I, C. Russian Government Outreach and Contacts, 1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion, pp 180-181 (PDF pp 188-189):

quote:

---

As an initial matter , this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" appears in the Acting Attorney General's August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g., Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute , 18 U.S.C. 371. See Black 's Law Dictionary 321 (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is "[a]n agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain something forbidden by law"); 1 Alexander Burrill , A Law Dictionary and Glossary 311 (1871) ("An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object."); 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary 352 (1897) ("An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.").

​

For that reason, this Office 's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term "collusion." The Office considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy-either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1349, 195l(a)) , or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S .C. 371). The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law- including foreign-fnfluence and campaign-finance laws , both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371 's offenses clause.

​

The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under Section 371 's defraud clause. That clause criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the U.S. government or its agencies through deceitful or dishonest means. See Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 861 (1966); Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924); see also United States v. Concord Mgmt. & Consulting LLC, 34 7 F. Supp. 3d 38, 46 (D.D .C.2018). The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials or between such officials and Russia-linked individuals-to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of a government agency during the campaign or transition period. And, as discussed in Volume I, Section V.A , supra, the investigation did not identify evidence that any Campaign official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged , namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra. Accordingly, the Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related contact s described in Section IV above.

---

Again an explicit statement that the investigation did not deal with collusion, but rather with conspiracy. Again, not any kind of statement that there was "no collusion".VOLUME II, C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation, 3. The President Asks Intelligence Community Leaders to Make Public Statements that he had No Connection to Russia, page 57 (PDF page 269):

quote:

---

In addition to the specific comments made to Coats, Pompeo, and Rogers , the President spoke on other occasions in the presence of intelligence community officials about the Russia investigation and stated that it interfered with his ability to conduct foreign relations. On at least two occasions, the President began Presidential Daily Briefings by stating that there was no collusion with Russia and he hoped a press statement to that effect could be issued. Pompeo recalled that the President vented about the investigation on multiple occasions, complaining that there was no evidence against him and that nobody would publicly defend him.357 Rogers recalled a private conversation with the President in which he "vent[ ed]" about the investigation , said he had done nothing wrong , and said something like the "Russia thing has got to go away." Coats recalled the President bringing up the Russia investigation several times, and Coats said he finally told the President that Coats's job was to provide intelligence and not get involved in investigations.

---

From this point on (including this paragraph), the only mention of collusion that I have found was in Trump's own claims of "no collusion". In fact, every single mention of collusion after this point was contained in direct quotations of Trump's multitude of tweets -- guess that makes Trump the Twit-in-Chief.Faith, if you truly believe that "{t}he report said there was no collusion", then you are perfectly free to present the text within the report that supports your claim.We all, you included, have access to the complete, albeit redacted Mueller Report as a searchable PDF at https://cdn.cnn.com/...s/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf. We have searched it and quoted directly from it. So can you!The final arbiter of what the Mueller Report actually says is the Mueller Report itself! Not that liar Bill Barr. Not that liar Donald Trump. Not all the liars at the Fake News Network, including Fakes and Friends. But rather, the Mueller Report itself. Obviously, it does not such thing. If you want to support your claim, then quote where you believe that the Mueller Report does support your claim. Until you can do that, stop your damnable lying!

Fair warning: I'm an official old person.I lost interest in Saturday Night Live after the original not-quite-ready-for-prime-time crew had left. Mostly because the first subsequent show with a new crew felt flat for me.Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin did a news bit called "Point-Counterpoint", in which Dan would address Jane with, "Jane, you ignorant slut!"Sorry, Faith, but given your long history of outright idiocy, that is my only possible response to you.Here's an analogy in digital electronics, something that I was trained in starting in 1977 and worked with professionally until 2018.All digital electronics operate in binary, full on/full off, 1 or zero. That is the very basis of all computer electronics. Binary.By analogy, your theology and politics and complete world-view is binary, black-white, either-or.But there is a third state in electronics, the tri-state: an output could either drive to zero or to one, or disconnect from the circuit.By analogy, in order to align itself at all with reality, your world view should accept black and white and gray. In the verbiage here: the three states would be collusion, no collusion, possible collusion (the gray).To demonstrate the illogic of what you are about to espouse, consider television. In your own personal black-or-white world-view, analog TV could not have ever possibly started. WARNING: as a USAF electronics geek, I did read through a book of the entire theory of how color TV worked back in the analog days, so you are vastly out-matched.

Listen to the overtly lying Fake News Network?Are you fucking kidding?

Uh, WHAT THE FRACKING FRIGGING FUCK???????????????Are you really that terminally brain-dead?In Message 1953, I point out that even in binary digital circuitry, there is also a third alternative in the tri-state circuits. And yet You, the Prophetesse from Nevada, wants to proclaim it to be something different.

Yes I have, which is why I know to not waste my time with them.When Rush Limbaugh, riding on the success of his radio show, started his TV show, we watched it just to see what he had to say. He literally had nothing to say. That entire half hour was devoid of any actual content and consisted solely of him mocking Democrats in a sub-juvenile manner. It left us wondering what is so seriously wrong about his audience. A co-worker would listen to conservative radio and Rush never got any better, nor were the other hosts anything to brag about.I've heard Alex Jones, especially his over-the-top screaming lunatic anti-semitic rant. Remember that he's the one whose "PizzaGate" bullshit lies almost got people killed when one of his listeners showed up at that pizza shop with a loaded rifle (which then accidentally discharged).And I have also seen the Fake News Network in action with all its lies and distortions.My reaction to conservative media remains the same: I cannot understand how any normal person could possibly listen to that tripe, let alone believe it over reality. Studies have repeatedly shown that people who rely on Fake News Network and other conservative media know less about current affairs than those who don't use any news source. Indeed, one of the functions of Fake News Network is to filter out actual news; eg, when Trump has really pulled a boner (ie, bad even by his low standards) then Fake News Network instead covers their on-going accusations of Hillary Clinton.

Are they talking about what the report actually says, or are they still repeating Barr's and Trump's lies of "No collusion!" and "complete exoneration" (though that last is Trump's lie even though Barr does not rush in to correct him)? Even you know better than that by now, having read the sections I quoted verbatim for you (and if you refused to read them, then you are being willfully stupid yet again -- willful stupidity is not an excuse for repeating bullshit lies).Are they also repeating McConnell's false proclamation of "case closed" and the false GOP claim that the House is trying to re-do Mueller's investigation? Of course that is false, because the House committees have their own investigations to do, ones that are not subject to the arbitrary limitations that Mueller was operating under.And are they falsely claiming that Trump's Administration doesn't have to respond to any congressional subpoenas? Certainly having Barr and hence the DOJ acting as accomplices to Trump's latest acts of obstruction makes it more difficult to enforce those subpoenas, but they will be enforced. Are they repeating Trump's lawyers' false claim that a request/subpoena for information must have a legislative purpose -- the Constitution empowers and requires Congress to conduct investigations, so what Trump and his lawyers are claiming is flat-out unconstitutional.It doesn't matter whether they mention something or not, but rather that they are lying to you about those things.

He arrived at his conclusions after having read the Mueller Report. In contrast, most of the Republicans who still support Trump have not read it.

And yet, we're the only ones able to quote it extensively and demonstrate that we know what it says.All the conservatives can do is to quote Barr's misrepresentation.Here's how you can settle that question: quote Mueller's Report in support of your conservative claims. Come to think of it, that's what we have been requesting from you. For example: Message 1945
Message 1946
And, so sadly ({voice=Trump ATTRIB=whiny}"very sadly!"{/voice}) predictably, you have completely failed to produce any hint of any quote to support your blatantly false claims. At the same time, we have provided easily produced extensive quotes to support our view of the report. Gee, why would that be? The count I hear is that 26 investigations are on-going, both on the federal and state (SDNY) level. I cannot wait to see how they turn out! It's been said that there will never be a federal building named after Trump. I think it possible that they'll put his name on the wing at the federal prison where he spends the rest of his miserable life for his many crimes.But if you are day-dreaming about Barr's "investigation into the investigation", that's just a red herring which will never go anywhere, but it will keep Trump's yahoos entertained while he continues to deflect and delay.

One of the traits that we were taught in the military is professionalism. Regardless of how bad you feel or how much you dislike someone, you are still expected to work with that person in a professional manner in order to perform your duties and to complete the mission.Despite all the obstructionist BS of this administration and of the GOP, the Democratic leadership is still willing to try to work with them. That is professionalism.Donnie, AKA "Tiny", throws a tantrum and refuses to work with the Democrats until they kiss his owie and make it better. That is a total lack of professionalism.Here's an opinion piece from FOX News: Jon Summers: Trump's $2 trillion temper tantrum -- President needs to put on big boy pants and get to work. Since it's from FOX News, Faith should actually be willing to read it.From that piece:

quote:

---

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen President Trump have a temper tantrum. But Wednesday’s was one of epic proportions. Because it didn’t just play out in the Rose Garden where the cameras were, it started inside the White House where, just moments before, the president stormed out of a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. In doing so, Trump blew up a plan to put Americans to work by investing $2 trillion in America’s infrastructure including roads, bridges, and airports.

​

Remember the last time Trump walked out of a meeting with these same people? The government shut down, small businesses were hurt, and 800,000 federal workers went without pay for more than a month. And while it probably felt good at the time, Trump came out the biggest political loser because he wanted credit for shutting down the government.

​

So, here we are again. This time Trump has decided he is not going to work with Congressional Democrats unless they cease all investigations of him. In other words, only if they stop doing their constitutionally mandated job of conducting oversight. Unbelievable.

​

Clearly, he doesn’t realize that everything he has done so far -- from stonewalling Congress to walking out of Wednesday’s meeting -- only highlights that he’s hiding something. And whatever he is hiding must be really, really bad.

​

Why else would the president go to such extreme lengths? If he has nothing to hide and truly wants to be “the most transparent president in history” as he claims, then let the sun shine in.

​

Make no mistake, Trump’s Herculean effort to conceal whatever he’s hiding is not only undermining the core of our democracy, with Wednesday’s tantrum it’s costing jobs and infrastructure. Specifically, the proposal Democrats had hoped to discuss includes $140 billion to fix roads and bridges, $115 billion to modernize America’s water and sewer systems, and $40 billion to improve our airports and make the airspace safer. And that is literally just the beginning.

​

You know what $2 trillion in infrastructure spending means? Jobs, millions of them. In fact, the infrastructure plan Democrats proposed last year with half the price tag, would have created 15 million jobs. Imagine doubling that number. Sadly, because of Trump’s temper tantrum imagining is all we can do.

​

So, was it ego, fear or his often touted fierce negotiating style that led him to slam the door shut on a good deal for America? If it was his negotiating style, we only need to look back at the government shutdown to see how well that worked for him and America’s working families.

​

I get it. He’s mad. He doesn’t like being under investigation. Who would? If he wants to yell, scream, and throw things in private to get it out of his system, fine (just don’t hurt anyone). But when you are the president of the United States you have an obligation to rise above it for the good of the nation. Even Richard Nixon knew that; Bill Clinton too.

​

If Trump refuses to rise to the occasion, the political calculation will have to come into play at some point because if he wants to achieve anything he campaigned on, including immigration reform, he’s going to have to work with Democrats even as investigations into his campaign and presidency continue.

​

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, someone (or many people), will be ultimately exposed. If you are a Republican hardliner, you’re probably hoping it will be Democrats for “overreaching.” If it’s not the Democrats, then it will be the president. Regardless of what you believe, or fear, the truth will come out. In the meantime, the president and leaders in Congress must work together for the good of the nation.

​

It’s time for the president to swallow hard, put on his big boy pants, and get to work.

---

Actually, that is the entire text of the piece.In the meantime, news shows are pointing out the landmark legislature that got passed during the impeachment investigations of Nixon and Clinton, disproving Trump's whining that he can't do anything while he's being investigated. That's what comes from a total lack of professionalism.

On one of our topics here, I seem to recall someone pointing out that Pelosi had been up since the middle of the night. That would explain anything that seemed odd as being due to lack of sleep. Certainly we've all been there.But there's also subtle doctoring of videos, such as you just mentioned where they slowed the video down to make her appear to be drunk. There was also that doctored video of a journalist trying to keep the microphone which was sped up at that point in order to make it appear that he had physically assaulted the intern controlling the mike.The really scary fake video tech is where you can quite literally place whatever words you want into someone's mouth. The demo for that tech had Obama explaining that tech, even though Obama had never ever made that presentation.