Mueller personally told AG that he had mischaracterized the investigation's findings

[Josshy0125]

Guys your just being hateful now!
Instead of bringing up evidence to support your beliefs, your just saying,"Wow this guys an idiot pffft there so stupid, they dont get lOgiC and faCtS!!"
Is it possible that politics have filled you guys with hatred for your fellow man?? Please, just love eachother and move on! Were not a threat to you, or anybody for that matter. Instead of asking us what we believe you say "This guy's a Trump puppet and he hates the truth" and when we object it's just "NO UR LYING! u do not noe de wae!" and nothing get's done. nothing is proven. The only thing that happens is that you and me start hating eachother. It's not a battle.

I think its understadable as to why some could be hateful. Trump supporters are ALL blind followers. That is a fact. If youre a supporter of him after seeing his antics, and turn a blind eye to his blatant corruption and the fact that he's VERY unfit to be president, i think its well deserved to be harsh to the supporters because they ARE blindly following this trash due to racism, bias, etc. The only side throwing around ACTUAL facts, are those against Trump. This isnt a normal "side vs side" or "lets devate this". This is literally one side showing pure fact, and the other side showing ignorance while making claims they cant back up, to excuse their racism and hatered. There is literally no arguing with these closed-minded, blind fools. So yes, in this specific case, i feel the rude comments toward them are just, and if theyre still supporting this twat, they deserve all the hate they get.

 

[Deleted User]

### DELETED OUT OF RESPECT FOR JOSSHY ###
OFF TOPIC ANYWAYS

 

[SG854]

Trump has been demonstrated to be guilty. The reason he hasn't been charged is because of the OLC opinion that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime while president.

Everything else in your post only serves as a distraction from this fact.

No, it’s not a distraction. Then why would you bring up Exoneration then? I’m putting out a rebuttal to what you said.


And did you see that latter on Mueller walked backed about a what he said about the OLC opinion, he said “I need to make a correction”, that he didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion is not the correct way to say it.

The OLC opinion basically had nothing to do with him not indicting the president. And if he found something then he would’ve of charged him. This was known for months when he and Barr said it way back then.

There's a third possibility : neither happened and that conclusion is spoonfed to you by reporters having their own agenda. This isn't new... Is just that the quality of these journalists are getting dumber.

One example :
Numerous Trump tweets: total exoneration by Mueller. Wheee!
Mueller: if that were the case, we would have mentioned it.
Republican: I have a whole slew of legal books here. Exoneration is not a legal term, is it?
Mueller: I'll pass on that one
Me: wait... So Republicans providing proof that Trump is full of shit is somehow an argument AGAINST the investigation?

I know you what Trump said and what Media says. Trump is not an Attorney General or a person in the Justice system so he wouldn’t know how it works. Which is why he said Total Exoneration. And then changes it later on and said “they can’t exonerate” after he learned how our justice system works. So you can call him an Idiot for barely learning a few days ago.


Or anybody else that uses the Exoneration argument. If republicans showed that Trump is full of shit then by your logic anybody that uses the Exoneration argument, that Trump is not exonerated, is full of shit too.

But I give the people the benefit of doubt since they are not legal people, and they abuse the common person not knowing legal terminology and the system to push propaganda, and use words to mislead people. Politicians do this all the time and use double speak all the time, and unless you are keen on language or how the legal system works you won’t catch this.


Our system is the Presumption of Innocence. Not Guilty till proven innocent and exonerated. We don’t exonerate because the default is presumption of innocence. We prove guilt not the other way around.

Ratcliffe does an excellent job questioning Muller. And Mueller says, admitting, the Attorney General does not have the power to Exonerate. Never has the justice department determined the person was not exonerated because they didn’t find evidence to prove their innocence. Since we prove guilt not innocence. And Mueller says this situation was a first and it was unique for Trump. So basically he invented a new genre of law just for Trump. He threw out the core foundation of our legal system. And just for Trump it became Guilty till proven innocent.

 

[Xzi]

Ratcliffe does an excellent job questioning Muller. And Mueller says, admitting, the Attorney General does not have the power to Exonerate.

So how does this help Trump's case? It just means that the AG acted improperly by suggesting in his summary that the Mueller report did exonerate Trump.

Never has the justice department determined the person was not exonerated because they didn’t find evidence to prove their innocence. And Mueller says it was unique for Trump. So basically he invented a new genre of law just for Trump. He threw out the core foundation of our legal system.

The reason he couldn't be exonerated is that there was too much obstruction of justice going on. Thus the investigation into conspiracy couldn't be completed properly or in its entirety, and no conclusion on criminal activity could be drawn from it. Additionally, AG Barr was hired on at the tail end of the investigation for the sole purpose of curtailing it. The man now running the justice department is the same man responsible for the bastardization of our entire justice system. The attorney general was never meant to act as a personal attorney for the president, and Barr has continued to do just that well after the release of the Mueller report. There's no excuse for blocking the testimony of key witnesses, especially if you believe that testimony can only serve to help prove Trump innocent.

 

[Josshy0125]

Your justifiying hate speech, then? Please no.

How is anything that you are saying NOT racism and hatred?? You categorized millions of women, hispanics and blacks as blind, ignorant and closed-minded. Why? What is it that keeps you from getting along with people who believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom from government beaurocracy?

Why do you hate people who want to be able to defend themselves effectively? Why do you hate people who believe that God created every black, hispanic,asian and indigenous person on the planet equal, and that it's hatred to kill a baby who hasn't been born yet? What is wrong with that?

Is it ok to hate? Is it ok to kill? Is it ok to live in anger and intolerance towards homosexuals and transgenders? Is racism ok? NO! All of that is condemned in the Bible and lots of conservatives are Christians. The BIBLE is very clear that you cannot love God and hate your fellow man, because what makes us better than you? NOTHING! I care about whoever you are on the other side of this screen enough that I respect your opinion and I want you to live and be happy in our beautiful country.

White people killed white people in the Civil War to free black men and women and children from their bondage. I wouldn't have it any other damn way unless it meant no slavery to begin with! Or no lives lost, that would be even better.

My driving force for being conservative is freedom. NOT bondage to political ideas, NOT bondage to Trump, NOT bondage to the political right or left. It's freedom for all women, all minorities, all religions not hostile towards mankind, all people who the government persecutes because of beliefs, anyone. THAT INCLUDES YOU !

I'm sorry but I love my country and we were doing pretty good until Obama got elected. I want a black man or woman to get elected that loves my country too, not a guy who drives the national debt up $12o trillion and passes idiot laws that lead to the Parkland shooting.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...ed-law-enforcement-involvement-with-students/
By the way I just want to let you know that I am praying for you personally and I really don't hate anybody who is liberal, lgbt or otherwise left-leaning. You are not my enemy, I don't hate you and I just want more people to see the things I see, but if not I'm not gonna force you.

Our government should not be right or left. It should have laws based on good or evil. Not whatever's ok with the politicians. It should also be for the people, not the people for the government.

You're really reaching, huh? And what? Do you understand anything about the Obama administration? The fact that you're saying Obama ruined shit makes you look so ignorant. You do realize he sat after Bush, correct? He also did a lot to help America, from my research. I think you need to research facts about your own country ahead of time. The fact that you're playing the "Obama was awful" card, shows your ignorance. He really wasn't that bad. And drove the national debt up? What the actual fuck are you talking about?! And what laws LEAD TO THE PARKLAND SHOOTING?!

You are fucking thick. Really. I'm getting pissed. I just cannot handle THIS level of stupidity, from someone who is very clearly politically ignorant. I'm a Brit, and only live there off and on, and it's VERY clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. Literally. I cannot handle this level of stupid. If you support Trump, then yes, you're a blind follower. If you know anything of US politics, you'd see how he's damaging the country, and how he is incredibly corrupt and unfit for this role. You seriously don't have any proper grasp nor understanding of your own country's political structure. I can't argue with someone so stupid. I need to take a breath. Your stupidity is overwhelming me.

 

[Deleted User]

### OFF TOPIC BANTER ###

 

[Lacius]

The OLC opinion basically had nothing to do with him not indicting the president. And if he found something then he would’ve of charged him.

This is not correct. Have you tried reading the Mueller Report?

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." 1 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.

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 . 3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. 4 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.

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.

In summary:

1. The OLC opinion prevents the Mueller Report from judging that Trump committed a crime, regardless of how much evidence was found.
2. If he committed one or more crimes, the President can be charged after leaving office (or he can be impeached).
3. If the evidence suggested Trump did not commit obstruction of justice, the Mueller Report would have said so.
4. It's explicitly the evidence that kept them from exonerating the President.

And did you see that latter on Mueller walked backed about a what he said about the OLC opinion, he said “I need to make a correction”, that he didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion is not the correct way to say it.

The correction was with his wording. There is a technical difference between "we didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion" and "we didn't reach a determination because of the OLC opinion."

 

[Deleted User]

## DELETED OUT OF RESPECT FOR JOSSHY##

 

[Deleted User]

By the way, if anybody's wondering, Josshy and I had a disagreement and I think we've got it worked out now. I'm sorry if I angered anyone, and I'll be willing to fork over what I said if you request it, seeing as I wrote over all my posts.

 

[Taleweaver]

I know you what Trump said and what Media says. Trump is not an Attorney General or a person in the Justice system so he wouldn’t know how it works. Which is why he said Total Exoneration. And then changes it later on and said “they can’t exonerate” after he learned how our justice system works. So you can call him an Idiot for barely learning a few days ago.

Small reminder: the guy is president. Not only is he actually supposed to know how it works in the first place, it's not like it was a small slip before someone corrected him. He touted this "total exoneration" bullshit for months, and he'd still be calling it that today if Mueller hadn't stated that to be a flat out lie.

I guess that in an argument with you "being allowed to call the president an idiot" counts as a win, but c'mon...you know damn well that nobody outside of his fanclub believes this is him being stupid. It's a deliberate lie to make the impact less bad. And seeing how democrats didn't outright start an impeachment procedure months ago shows that it's been successful so far.

Or anybody else that uses the Exoneration argument. If republicans showed that Trump is full of shit then by your logic anybody that uses the Exoneration argument, that Trump is not exonerated, is full of shit too.

Sorry, but you make a logical error here. Exoneration doesn't need to be a legal term to make it have a meaning. I'll give an example, complete with the breakdown:

I would describe my health as "well", even though "well" isn't a medical term. So if doctors write a medical report saying I've got a deadly disease and I respond by twittering at everyone that I'm well...then my statement is false, despite (as mentioned) "well" isn't a medical term.
Likewise: if a doctor comes at me and says that if I was well, it would've been in my report, then it would be pretty cynical to come back at him to say that I can say I'm well but he can't deny it because "it isn't a medical term".

Our system is the Presumption of Innocence. Not Guilty till proven innocent and exonerated. We don’t exonerate because the default is presumption of innocence. We prove guilt not the other way around.

I would agree, but this implies that lawmakers are allowed to do that "prove guilt" thing that you talk about. Countless delays, intimidation of witnesses, hiding of evidence, public slandering...I forgot if it were 10 or 11 counts of obstruction of justice, and these are just the clear proven ones.

Oh, and before it gets swept under the rug: the interference of Russia in the 2016 election is proven, and there are indications it'll happen again.In that light, a truly innocent Donald Trump would take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again? Trump already admitted that Russians interfered, so it would only strengthen his innocence in this matter if he acted strong against them, not only in the interest of the US citizens but also to win over some much-needed votes from his critics.

...but he doesn't. A law proposal that warrants a paper ballot as backup for counting got shot down, and there was at least one other law proposal rejected for a similar reason. And meanwhile, Trump openly admits seeing no harm in accepting foreign help to win the election.

And Mueller says this situation was a first and it was unique for Trump. So basically he invented a new genre of law just for Trump. He threw out the core foundation of our legal system. And just for Trump it became Guilty till proven innocent.

Of course his situation was a first: you don't investigate sitting presidents every day. But your next sentences make no sense: there IS a precedent for this, and it's through congress. There's only one person throwing out core foundations of the legal system and inventing new genres of laws...but it ain't Mueller.

 

[IncredulousP]

Small reminder: the guy is president. Not only is he actually supposed to know how it works in the first place, it's not like it was a small slip before someone corrected him. He touted this "total exoneration" bullshit for months, and he'd still be calling it that today if Mueller hadn't stated that to be a flat out lie.

I guess that in an argument with you "being allowed to call the president an idiot" counts as a win, but c'mon...you know damn well that nobody outside of his fanclub believes this is him being stupid. It's a deliberate lie to make the impact less bad. And seeing how democrats didn't outright start an impeachment procedure months ago shows that it's been successful so far.


Sorry, but you make a logical error here. Exoneration doesn't need to be a legal term to make it have a meaning. I'll give an example, complete with the breakdown:

I would describe my health as "well", even though "well" isn't a medical term. So if doctors write a medical report saying I've got a deadly disease and I respond by twittering at everyone that I'm well...then my statement is false, despite (as mentioned) "well" isn't a medical term.
Likewise: if a doctor comes at me and says that if I was well, it would've been in my report, then it would be pretty cynical to come back at him to say that I can say I'm well but he can't deny it because "it isn't a medical term".


I would agree, but this implies that lawmakers are allowed to do that "prove guilt" thing that you talk about. Countless delays, intimidation of witnesses, hiding of evidence, public slandering...I forgot if it were 10 or 11 counts of obstruction of justice, and these are just the clear proven ones.

Oh, and before it gets swept under the rug: the interference of Russia in the 2016 election is proven, and there are indications it'll happen again.In that light, a truly innocent Donald Trump would take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again? Trump already admitted that Russians interfered, so it would only strengthen his innocence in this matter if he acted strong against them, not only in the interest of the US citizens but also to win over some much-needed votes from his critics.

...but he doesn't. A law proposal that warrants a paper ballot as backup for counting got shot down, and there was at least one other law proposal rejected for a similar reason. And meanwhile, Trump openly admits seeing no harm in accepting foreign help to win the election.



Of course his situation was a first: you don't investigate sitting presidents every day. But your next sentences make no sense: there IS a precedent for this, and it's through congress. There's only one person throwing out core foundations of the legal system and inventing new genres of laws...but it ain't Mueller.

It's no use, you can logic all day but it won't get through to blind followers. Russia's psyops have proven dangerously effective at creating warped delusions of reality in the minds of far too many people. You're only going to exhaust yourself at this point.

 

[Deleted User]

*sigh*

What do you expect, really? Trump is living on controversy. At the start of his presidency, he said he'd be there for all Americans. He also said that he had the greatest show up of people on the inauguration day ever. The journalists who were there scratched their head and said (okay: wrote) "erm...no. that part isn't true". Rather than admit being wrong* he started a personal war against the press. And America split into two groups: those who believe the news, and those who believe Donald Trump. Of course Donald Trump believes fox news, so it's not like only the conspiracy theorists believe him, but it is true that since then, democrats and republicans have done nothing but drift further away from each other.

You're still relatively new on gbatemp, but believe me: there have been discussions. We've brought up evidence, and for the most part we've not stepped into personal territory. then again, it gets pretty tiresome after a while. Things went back and fo..erm...were being deflected all the time.

A: hey! Michael Flynn conspired with Russians. Wasn't he a major player in Trump's team?
B: that's not true! It was all pretty legal, and besides: it's not like that means Trump has done anything.
A: okay...Flynn is found guilty. Oh, and Donald's son was on that meeting as well.
B: that doesn't mean anything. There's no need to investigate.
A: erm...yes, there is? There are traces of interference and collusion everywhere. On a daily basis from Trump's own twitter account, no less!
B: that investigation is a witch hunt that is a waste of tax dollars!
A: sorry: not true. That "witch hunt" got convictions and fines to the point where it far more than payed for itself. here are some parts of the testimony of Michael Cohen.
B: that guy's a rat! He shouldn't tell anything to the general public.
A: ...and here he is, holding a cheque that proves Trump had conflicting Russian interests while running for president.
B: I want to have a source. Where's your source?
A: be patient. it's all in this report...that Barr needs to release...somewhere this decade.
B: that report exonerates the president because he says so!
A: despite the delays and censoring, it turns out that there was massive tampering with the election and a lot of obstruction of justice. That's not even CLOSE to exoneration.
B: then why does the investigator say so?
A: here's the investigator himself saying that he DIDN'T say that.
B: *sigh* are you STILL going on with this? No, I didn't read the report. I want someone to read it for me.
A: here's plenty of press that...
B: not those guys. They hate Trump because Trump calls them fake.
A: okay, here's the main investigator, alive and well. Happy?
B: I don't like how he looks on television!



So in case it's not clear: I disagree. This is a freaking battle. The denial of there being a battle is just part of it. In truth, you probably know damn well there's plenty of proof and witnesses and it's not exactly hidden information either. Just get him impeached and properly trialed for it already.





*something many leaders have trouble with, but absolutely not to the degree that simple facts are ignored

It's taken me a little while to respond to this as I've gotten sidetracked a little. Thank you for being respectful, I know this gets tiring but there are some big gaps that don't need any explaining that I wonder about.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
He also said that he had the greatest show up of people on the inauguration day ever. The journalists who were there scratched their head and said (okay: wrote) "erm...no. that part isn't true". Rather than admit being wrong* he started a personal war against the press...

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
PLEASE CLICK !
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/


This is gigapixel above is straight from CNN. So, no question about it's accuracy. Compare it with these images below.

Why would an unbiased news source tell everybody that a political candidate is lying, and not clear the whole thing up afterwards, they put up the real image later on.

Will anyone please explain to me why this right here is ok?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...us-president-white-house-barack-a7547141.html

I will leave you guys alone if anyone can explain this to me.

 

[Taleweaver]

Why would an unbiased news source tell everybody that a political candidate is lying, and not clear the whole thing up afterwards, they put up the real image later on.

Occam's razor: the most likely explanation is the most likely one. Since the whole press says something contradictory to the president, who is most likely to tell the truth?

For one, the press is more than one party. The thing is that NONE of the press said it was the largesst turn up ever (this even included fox, iirc),even though every newspaper worth a damn has a reporter there.

Second : who stands to gain with a lie? Certainly not the press, as an actual greatest turn up ever would make for better headlines. They can't just throw their credibility on the line, as there were plenty of people there who could contradict them. Trump, on the other hand, had a very good reason to lie. He lost the popular vote and his popularity wasn't even close to any other president at the start of their term. If this was accepted at face value, he would always refer to his "the greatest lineup ever" to counter bad popularity figures.

Third : you can't just bend the truth like that. You already showed the comparison with Obama's inauguration. I really don't know why he hates that guy so much that he has the need to try to one - up everything he did, but... For some reason he didn't thought that anyone would make a comparison. Either way: why would pictures that showcase the area as it was be photoshopped somehow? Again: there were still plenty of people who could deny it if it were.

Fourth: even tactical powerplays aside... I'm sure the press wouldn't mind letting a small exaggeration slide if Trump's team was cool about it. But Sean Spicer just doubled down on the lie when confronted with the estimated numbers by the cops ('yeah , we've got alternative facts').
Because of course: nothing counters facts from objective sources like 'alternative facts'.

Fifth : I already mentioned Trumps tendency to attempt to divide. This whole 'democrats are just jealous of my success' spell might have worked if the whole world was this black and white, but it isn't. The international press has no political agenda in things like an inaugural crowd size, so why would they report something other than the truth? A few months after the inauguration, I saw a local celebrity on the television who happened to be there in that crowd (as well as eight years prior). He told the audience that it was surreal : a president just casually telling such an obvious lie like that (though it's only obvious for those who were actually there).

Oh, and there's a sixth, but that one is hindsight. On this side of the ocean, we had no idea who this clown really was. Sure, he took the mud slinging to a next level (it's been years later and some dumbasses STILL don't realise that that slandering campaign only served to make Trump better by comparison), but otherwise we'd figure that he'd settle down and do presidential things when there was no competition any more. We then had no idea that the guy is a pathological liar who just fabricates more lies in order to stay in the news. At that point, he still had some credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world.

 

[Deleted User]

Thank you for being patient with me.
I realize that all my tomfoolery with the hashtags may have obscured the link to CNN's gigapixel image. The bottom two images aren't comparison's to each other, there just front and back.
I agree, Trump has been really politically divisive. I'm not saying he's perfect by a long shot. He isn't the smartest guy ever, I don't worship the man.

But he hasn't been racist or sexist enough for his supporters to leave.
He held the African-American history month in the white house, and was respectful to the black people. He's put women in charge of very important positions in his administration.

He's a business man. I believe he does have overinflated ego and that's why he said "Biggest crowd ever!!!!" Not the best thing to say, he jumped the gun on that one.

It's just that he's willing to stand up for religious freedom, the 2nd amendment, and of course pro-life causes.

He's a means to an end. Your right. At this point, were willing to vote for him cause he does what we want. Reagan was the only other guy who did things like Trump does. Clinton is a creep. Bush wasn't perfect. Obama was going to allow the Iranians to stockpile uranium, when they have a history of sponsoring terrorist groups.

Trump fulfilled almost all of his campaign promises in 2 years.
Love it or hate it this is all we got to see. The rest is news articles that are politically flavored against Trump. They lie about what he does. Like that time he removed Martin Luther King Jr's statue from the white house.

The media has only about 6 corporations who own the entire shebang.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...trol-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevi...n-americas-news-media-companies/#8dfbb42660ad

Half of those are movie companies. Freaking Disney shouldn't own our news.

And Fox news is guilty too.

All I'm trying to say is we should stop hating eacother over politics. That's what the politicans want. Throwing around claims of racism and bigotry and transphobia and what have you ( I'm not talking about you, Taleweaver, you've been very respectful and I appreciate it) makes us angry and that's why we hate the media, because they do it all the time.

There's an underlying reason outside of politics that guides what sides we choose, and what candidates we support, and it's our perception of what good and evil is.

Again, thank you for being patient and respectful, you've been very mature and though we don't agree on politics, I can respect your conduct and I wish more people were like you.

 

[Deleted User]

By the way I'm sorry for hijacking your thread to debate liberalism and conservatism, this was about Mueller's investigation and I steered it away from that.

 

[notimp]

Why would an unbiased news source tell everybody that a political candidate is lying, and not clear the whole thing up afterwards, they put up the real image later on.

Because they don't have the time or incentive to research and report neutrally on that there was nothing very special at an inauguration.

They see a few pictures, they come up with a good story.

Now that said - your second image has some very flattering angles... But those spots seem more populated.

The thing is - this is nothing anyone would go over and say this is proof that a story was incredibly wrong, and has to be refuted - and... As long as news outlets don't make very, very embarresing obvious mistakes, or someone is threatening to sue, they dont refute stories.

(Oh I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry guy who writes in to the paper to voice his concernes. Oh we, so sorry article commenter who hasn't payed us at all..)

Why would they. You and I wouldnt.

But then 'tha news' are supposed to be this beacon of light, that never err, that always tell you the truth, because people depend on it and ... in reality they just arent and never were. But thats not much of an issue - because thats just people becoming a little less naive.

What actually is an issue - is people riling them up again, to think - that they were cheated out of 'the good lord jebus christ' who brought us them independant and factual news in the past - and never erred. And never made themselves look better, if they had the option to do that or do - factual only reporting.

People becoming less naive: Good.
People wanting to stick with naivity to the extent of new fork and pichfork campaigns: Bad.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Maybe its good to see it from this point for a while.

All that TV newsankers ever where, where ambitious folks, who someone put in a suit, and then had them read stories of people - a little more intelligent then they were. In the best case scenario.

Normally they were just out on a hunt for a good story - and that was something that could easily be explained in a catchy image, and enduced some emotions.

Then, when they didn't feel so ambitious (on the down days) they all were just reporting government taglines for days - because that was an easy job - because someone already wrote them, or talked in a fashion, where thy had just write it down - no thinking involved.

Then add to this, that there always were camps - but maybe, that FOX news still is on the far, far right of the news spectrum. (Democracy Now on the far, far left, if you need someone to hate on.. )

But if you give people an ambitious guy in a suit and let him talk to them via them TV, every day of the week. They somehow start to love that person, and really - really believe them. And the sense of betrayal - if that is not the case - is real, and quite large.

Magic.

 

[notimp]

Ratcliffe does an excellent job questioning Muller. And Mueller says, admitting, the Attorney General does not have the power to Exonerate. Never has the justice department determined the person was not exonerated because they didn’t find evidence to prove their innocence.

Ratcliffe in the video above doesnt question. Not even once. He builds a line of truisms, to then dump in a questionable point at the end. But the sense of authority he is building, and the sense of authority he is executing, has everyone of the not quite so bright excited - because they want to feel righteous.

Now tell me one thing.

I'm getting sick and tired of the public being mindfucked on this one.

In law, in those high profile cases, there is a very clear line, when someone can be charged with a crime, and when he can not. There was not enough there to charge the president of the united states of a crime. (I'm fairly certain, that you will never come to an interesting result, when doing so - but ponder the concepts of potential deniability and delegation a bit.)

What that effing moron with the authority aura - laying out 'yes', 'yes', 'yes massa' contingencies in questioning then does in the end is postulating the following.

"You never found enough to charge our beloved POTUS oh god give him strength - because there was nothing wrong going on!".

And if you believe, that that is a logical conclusion of any sorts (Hossanna - it was all a misunderstanding, he's innocent all along! Praise the lord), go back and watch more Disney movies.

The difference here is 'legal sphere' and 'public sphere' and if you accept - you couldnt take to court the most powerful man in the world - so that proves, that he is innocent - and there was nothing there - as a potential argument. Ugh.

There is enough ambiguity here, to fill dozens of courtrooms, and livingrooms, with stupid people wondering, what it all could mean. And they look for people who give themselves authority, to interpret the stuff for them.

Why not just go with what the special counsel said? There was tons of ambiguous, and questionable stuff going on. (What, in the race to become the most powerful person on earth?) Not enough though - to impeach a standing president. Because there was no non refutable chain of proof to be had.

Now. The conspiracy theory here is. Muller did make up this ambiguitiy, to make our president look bad. *baby cries*

When have we all accepted, that an investigative report can not adress ambiguity, because thats not their job. We only want black and white. We only want BLACK AND WHITE.

Doesnt that strike you as the most stupid argument, one could ever make?

But then, that guy in that suit had so much authority! He didn't even have to question. He wanted to hear 'yes' and 'no' at the right times, or he answered the leading questions himself ('isn't it so, that...')), to then pronounce one of the most stupid stipulations, that must have ever been made in a judiciary committee.

'You were the first to voice ambiguity! You did not have the legal right to..!'

Yes massa.

 

[notimp]

If you ever get into a similar situation, here is how you deal with ambiguity. A little ambiguity back. More certainty.

'I dont know what they are doing, but they cant prevent us from doing our job to do the right thing.'


Not "they couldnt proove that I'm guilty", "the had nothing, look - my legal guy even said so", "it is all a smear campaign, ...", "the special council made it all up, to hurt me ..."

Do you know why?

But then - people didn't vote Trump because he was so innocent in the first place, right? They voted him in, because he was so personable. And authoritative.

 

[Deleted User]

Because they don't have the time or incentive to research and report neutrally on that there was nothing very special at an inauguration.

They see a few pictures, they come up with a good story.

Now that said - your second image has some very flattering angles... But those spots seem more populated.

The thing is - this is nothing anyone would go over and say this is proof that a story was incredibly wrong, and has to be refuted - and... As long as news outlets don't make very, very embarresing obvious mistakes, or someone is threatening to sue, they dont refute stories.

(Oh I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry guy who writes in to the paper to voice his concernes. Oh we, so sorry article commenter who hasn't payed us at all..)

Why would they. You and I wouldnt.

But then 'tha news' are supposed to be this beacon of light, that never err, that always tell you the truth, because people depend on it and ... in reality they just arent and never were. But thats not much of an issue - because thats just people becoming a little less naive.

What actually is an issue - is people riling them up again, to think - that they were cheated out of 'the good lord jebus christ' who brought us them independant and factual news in the past - and never erred. And never made themselves look better, if they had the option to do that or do - factual only reporting.

People becoming less naive: Good.
People wanting to stick with naivity to the extent of new fork and pichfork campaigns: Bad.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Maybe its good to see it from this point for a while.

All that TV newsankers ever where, where ambitious folks, who someone put in a suit, and then had them read stories of people - a little more intelligent then they were. In the best case scenario.

Normally they were just out on a hunt for a good story - and that was something that could easily be explained in a catchy image, and enduced some emotions.

Then, when they didn't feel so ambitious (on the down days) they all were just reporting government taglines for days - because that was an easy job - because someone already wrote them, or talked in a fashion, where thy had just write it down - no thinking involved.

Then add to this, that there always were camps - but maybe, that FOX news still is on the far, far right of the news spectrum. (Democracy Now on the far, far left, if you need someone to hate on.. )

But if you give people an ambitious guy in a suit and let him talk to them via them TV, every day of the week. They somehow start to love that person, and really - really believe them. And the sense of betrayal - if that is not the case - is real, and quite large.

Magic.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, I didn't do such a good job. That link hidden among all the hashtags is the point I was trying to make.

The two pictures posted below is what the media said the crowd was.
I'll edit it to make it clearer, ok? Sorry for the confusion.

If they have time to blast the president in front of millions of people and say he's lying about his crowd size, then surely it must've been special enough to them.

I'm pretty sure most of us know that Donald Trump is only sympathetic to Christians and not one himself. He only does what all of our past president's have done, because our country was founded by people who were being oppressed because of their faith.

You've hit it on the nail there. Ambiguity is why it is so hard to debate with people (I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about either side, there are idiots over here too).
I could present what I see as evidence for something, but it can be seen as evidence for the opposite and it doesn't really prove anything.

The reason why people picked Trump is because we are not sympathetic to the political left's ideologies, and from day one it has been the political left who has led the charge against him. It's obviously one side against the other, and it's never been this way before.

It has heated up so bad, people hate eachother so strongly, that it is becoming a legal issue
to be a conservative. You can't be a Christian either because that's evil. Being taught as a child that it's evil to lie, cheat or murder, and that it's evil to hate people for any reason, has become an evil itself. It's somehow wrong to teach this in school, so lets prepare children with all this sexual material instead, and wonder why they rape people afterwards. Let's tell them that truth is relative, that'll make things even better.

I guess my point is, why is politics now a life or death issue? People should unite together, but not under ANY political figure. We can't go on like this anymore. Politics is too divisive and Liberals are just people. They have souls too, just like anyone else.

The point I'm trying to make with the pictures is why we don't believe the media or the democrats. You've all been reasonable responding to me so thanks for taking your time.

 

[JaapDaniels]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, I didn't do such a good job. That link hidden among all the hashtags is the point I was trying to make.

The two pictures posted below is what the media said the crowd was.
I'll edit it to make it clearer, ok? Sorry for the confusion.

If they have time to blast the president in front of millions of people and say he's lying about his crowd size, then surely it must've been special enough to them.

I'm pretty sure most of us know that Donald Trump is only sympathetic to Christians and not one himself. He only does what all of our past president's have done, because our country was founded by people who were being oppressed because of their faith.

You've hit it on the nail there. Ambiguity is why it is so hard to debate with people (I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about either side, there are idiots over here too).
I could present what I see as evidence for something, but it can be seen as evidence for the opposite and it doesn't really prove anything.

The reason why people picked Trump is because we are not sympathetic to the political left's ideologies, and from day one it has been the political left who has led the charge against him. It's obviously one side against the other, and it's never been this way before.

It has heated up so bad, people hate eachother so strongly, that it is becoming a legal issue
to be a conservative. You can't be a Christian either because that's evil. Being taught as a child that it's evil to lie, cheat or murder, and that it's evil to hate people for any reason, has become an evil itself. It's somehow wrong to teach this in school, so lets prepare children with all this sexual material instead, and wonder why they rape people afterwards. Let's tell them that truth is relative, that'll make things even better.

I guess my point is, why is politics now a life or death issue? People should unite together, but not under ANY political figure. We can't go on like this anymore. Politics is too divisive and Liberals are just people. They have souls too, just like anyone else.

The point I'm trying to make with the pictures is why we don't believe the media or the democrats. You've all been reasonable responding to me so thanks for taking your time.

you're joking right? or are you on presciped meds?
really the photo you made doesn't prove a thing, except from the other side it looked croudier.
the thing the media showed and said was that he lyed about the big come up against obama and they were right, the first photo was best proof since we could set both pictures of obame vs trump in one and the same perspective.
could it be the president saw a great mass, yes, you proofed what he could see, and so it was a great turn up to see, just not in actual mass.
your president isn't christian motivated, he's motivated by money.