Hodad

Serious question, is English your first language? The frequency with which you miss, misuse and misunderstand common idioms seems like a lot of ESL folks I know. There's no shame in ESL, but maybe don't make language a point of debate if that's the case--well, in either case, really. OTHER IDIOMS AND PHRASES WITH FAIR-HAIRED BOY fair-haired boy A favorite, a person who is given special treatment. For example, Today the attorney general is the governor's fair-haired boy. This term alludes to the preference of blond (“fair”) hair over dark hair. [Late 1800s]

You can dip, dodge and deflect all you want, still won't change that Manafort was passing sensitive political intelligence to a spy, who passed it to the Kremlin, which was targeting US citizens for election interference.

Yeah, sure Manafort was keeping up this ongoing series of super secret meetings and hidden and encrypted email and text communication to talk with his Russian intelligence buddy about casual things that weren't at all secret.?

Are you really this farking oblivious? Literally everyone who had investigated this--including the Republican Senate--have started this conclusively. He's been indicted but, of course, Russia will never let us prosecute one if their spies. Seriously, read the goddamn report and stop spouting FOX news nonsense.

Nobody was investigated for "collusion." However, the Trump campaign absolutely did collude with Russian intelligence. That Mueller couldn't connect the final dots to prove it was a criminal conspiracy doesn't mean that it wasn't. It VERY likely was. But in either case it absolutely, with total certainly, merited investigation. There was no hoax. And you're simply delusional if you think it in any way appropriate for a campaign chair to be arranging secret meetings to pass sensitive political intelligence to foreign operatives. Not to mention what Stone was up to with the hack and leak. And Kilimnik is a known Russian intelligence operative who delivered what he got from Manafort directly to the Kremlin. <-- Again, not a theory, but on record at this point. And the Senate Intelligence committee report was REPUBLICAN-led. The Democrats didn't do it. They were in the minority at the time. You are either invitation or lying about this, and it's anybody's guess.

Sessions recused himself because an investigation would be required and he couldn't, in good conscience, investigate himself. Which allowed Rosenstein to make the call on special prosecutor. That's right, neither of those Trump appointees thought it was a meritless investigation which should be shut down. They both agreed that it must continue. And Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel to continue it. That's nonsense. Comey (a Republican) did oversee an early investigation, but there was nothing illegal about it. It was entirely necessary. Again, the even the Durham report agreed that investigation was appropriate. The head of the FBI can't watch a Presidential candidate's campaign deeply enmeshed with hostile foreign intelligence and not investigate. That would be absurd. It's literally part of the job. And you should just take "non crimes" out of your vocabulary. Sounds more absurd every time you use it. Do you understand that the party nominees, like Trump, receive top secret intelligence briefings? And then when his campaign staff--his campaign manager!--have ongoing secret meetings with Russian intelligence operatives underlayers of tradecraft, there's nothing to see here? No reason to investigate that? GTFO!

No, she's was not necessarily breaking the law. You're allowed to deliver for family--the rules are laid on page 1 of this thread. By quick count, even in a small family, a person might easily be able to legally drop off 15 ballots. Kids, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles in-laws, etc. are all eligible for family delivery. A comically stereotypical Catholic or Mormon person could easily drop of 30+ ballots legally. Though, obviously, smaller household sizes are much more likely. Again, there was one drop box for the entire county. The idea that every voter in a family will climb into their own individual cars and caravan down to the drop box is preposterous. Of course families are sending a delegate. Of course one spouse says to another, "I'm having lunch downtown today, I'll drop off our ballots on my way." Or, "Hey, mom, I'm dropping off my ballot today, do you want me to take yours?" And on and on. It's not just "technically legal" it's totally normal behavior. That woman's spouse may have been sitting in the passenger seat, for goodness sake. People who want to assume or imagine that this is video evidence of a crime--and that this woman dropping off two ballots is probable cause to expect large-scale fraud--are just remarkably small minded.

Why do you even bother lying about things that you know you'll be easily called out? Sessions= Trump nomination Rosenstein= Trump nomination Wray= Trump appointee And of course Fox said that. They are the PR wing of the Republican party, not a news organization. They just spent several years lying to your face about election fraud and had to pay $800 million for it. Their entire business model is telling their foolish followers what they want to hear. Fortunately the congressional record exists and the history will be written. Read the report or don't. I can't force you to learn.

I don't know what your mean when you say you've "listened to all the evidence." Most likely you mean you listened to some jackass like Tucker Carlson spin a web of lies. I guarantee that you haven't read the Senate Intelligence committee report, despite the fact that it's been linked here dozens of times. Hundreds of pages of secret meetings and intelligence exchanges etc. It's quite damning. Even someone like you couldn't hand wave it away. Only liars and traitors would say that a campaign seeking help from a hostile foreign government is insufficient justification for an investigation. Yes, they knew some of what Trumpco was up to even before the Mueller investigation. That why even Trump's DOJ felt the investigation was necessary. There's some shit so bad even conscientious Republicans won't let it slide. Even the Durham report concluded that investigation was warranted. ?

Okay, I'm happy to take this as your final refusal to read any primary sources or to educate yourself on the subject in any way. You choose ignorance and political spin. That's fine. You don't get to vote here anyway, so your ignorance is someone else's problem. ?

It's hard to fully capture how uninformed you are, and how committed you are to staying that way. Mueller's remit was exactly what Rosenstein said it was. That's the way the legal system works. I provided you an authoritative quote from an original source. You, in return, are simply making shit up. Collusion is not a term in criminal law. It's casual language. Hence it was not Mueller's mission. If you want to know what he was asked to investigate by Trump's DOJ, read the order. Again, it's just a single page. You can do it. And your characterization of Manafort's 18 felony charges as trivial technicalities is laughable. He was convicted but a jury on multiple charges, lost tens of millions of dollars and was sentenced to serious prison time. Because he was a fraudster like his big orange boss.

1. No, that was not the mandate. I don't know what garbage opinion peddler you're parroting, but it's clear you don't have any familiarity with the facts. The DOJ announcement: "Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein today announced the appointment of former Department of Justice official and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to serve as Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters." You can read the order for yourself. It's just one page long. Again, you're trying to debate based upon a false premise.

It's not a real question. It's a false premise. And the investigation started long before Clinton lost. That was not the impetus. The Trump campaign's shady connections to Russia drew the attention of the intelligence community well before the election. Here's a timeline. Click it and read it to learn.

1. No, it's not. Read the Mueller quote. 2. When you say "Then why..." It doesn't change the facts on record. The facts remain. Another fact is that Manafort was convicted of a lot more than tax evasion. As for why Mueller didn't think he could prove criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, it's not an easy thing to do, particularly when Manafort wouldn't confess and, for some reason, Russian Intelligence agents are beyond subpoena power. Are you aware that Manafort signed a plea deal to cooperate with Mueller's investigation? Then Trumpworld started talking openly about the possibility of pardoning Manafort and, like magic, Manafort refused to cooperate anymore. In simpler terms, he agreed to flip and then Trump bought his silence with a pardon.

I'm going to say it very slowly for you, dumbass. Ample evidence of collusion, which is not a legal term. Insufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy. Manafort went to extraordinary lengths to conduct ongoing secret meetings to share sensitive campaign intelligence with a Russian intelligence operative, who then delivered that same intel to the Kremlin. The same Kremlin that under Putin's orders was waging an election interference campaign against the American people with the aim of getting Trump elected. They did it over and over and over again. All of that is a matter of congressional record. You can't honestly say the evidence doesn't exist. You can just say it doesn't matter to you and that such behavior is okay.

Hey, jackass, it's literally right there in the quote. Of course no one was charged with collusion. Not a legal term. Mueller did not think he could get a conspiracy conviction, so no such charges were filed. But that does not mean that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian intelligence. Rather, mountains of evidence that they did. You can tell yourself whatever little fantasies you like about why Manafort was having secret meetings to feed political intelligence to Russian agents. You can make up whatever excuses you like for why the Russians fed Stone advanced details of the hack and leak. But you can't deny those things happened. It's part of the congressional record. It's part of our history, and it will persist long after you Trump cultists and your demi-god are dead and buried. Your pathetic denials aren't going to look any rosier to future generations, who will wonder how anyone could support and defend such behavior. You a-holes have spun yourselves into a tizzy with mere conspiracy theories about Biden secretly in business with a hostile government, but when there's is black and white evidence of the a Trump campaign working with Russia you can't even be bothered to read it. Again, the level of blind, willful subservience is just pathetic. And to return to the point, no, Mueller did not say there was no evidence of collusion. So maybe stop saying that.

No, he didn't. You are lying. As has been pointed out many times on this forum, this is what Mueller said: “The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office. “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.” Mueller found an incredible amount of evidence of collusion (and even more was uncovered and confirmed in subsequent investigations. It's beyond any reasonable doubt that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian intelligence. But as Mueller said, that's a different question than proving criminal conspiracy.

That crrrrrrazy, Obama, saying what every thinking person already understands. So controversial!? "If there’s any chance of us being able to act constructively to do something, it will require an admission of complexity and maintaining what on the surface may seem contradictory ideas that what Hamas did was horrific, and there’s no justification for it. And … that the occupation and what’s happening to Palestinians is unbearable,” Obama said in an interview on the podcast “Pod Save America.” For sure, only a Muslim could possibly think that.?

Would you like to assume the burden of proof for your doppelganger? Put up or shut up, troll.

Goddamn you're a lunatic. You'd be hard pressed to find a single Democrat--let alone a whole protest--expressing support for Hamas. You are like a really bad caricature of a conservative debater. And a bad joke. Be more useful. Try debating with real facts instead of what the voices tell you.

No, you didn't hear that correctly, probably on account of the steady diet of infogarbage. In fact, congress has never subpoenaed a sitting president for testimony. Separation of powers really muddies the water there, so it's unlikely they have any power to compel an appearance.

That's why we should only trust the scientists from Exxon and BP instead of the enormously overwhelming scientific consensus.? Oh, wait, even they've known about the anthropogenic warming effects of their products for over 40 years. The absolute silliest part of your argument is that there was some entity to pay for and profit from climate research for the last 4 decades. Like there is sometime out there paying accidents to make up a terrible news that nobody wanted to hear and from which no one was positioned to profit.

Hey, thanks for the fake news report from inside your bubble of delusion. Meanwhile, here's California's actual economic trajectory. Other than the hiccup of the pandemic, pretty rosy. Newsom owns that post-pandemic spike, btw.

Ron DeSantis isn't right very often, and it's a mixed bag here. In some instances, Trump is simply ignorant. In others he's confused. And in others still, it's just more lying--it's pathological, he can't help himself even though he knows he'll be caught. But the net effect is the same. He's wildly unfit to lead this country. And even after he spent 4 years proving that he's unfit, half the country wants to give him a second chance to MORE of the same nonsense.

I've never seen a Rascal scooter with Canadian plates in my town, but if I do, I'll take caution.?