Epic Fail: Comey, Mueller, Strzok, McCabe – Not A Few Good Men

 

A Few Good Men was an epic classic movie. Released in 1992, this dramatic story of a military court-martial legal proceeding was directed by Rob Reiner and starred Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. In the end, the good guy, Navy Lawyer Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) defeats the bad guy, Guantanamo Base Commander Marine Colonel Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson).  And in the story plot, it was Colonel Jessup who incriminated himself because in the words of Lt. Kaffee, I will “lead him right where he’s dying to go”. Oh, and one more thing, Colonel Jessup was actually guilty of the crime.

So … Columbo … why are you bringing up a 1992 movie in 2019, right?

I always say, what goes around comes around. Or was that Yogi Berra? Well, I don’t rightly know but what I do know is that some bad cops in the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DNI were 100% sure that Hillary Ramrod Clinton was going to be elected as POTUS in 2016 and that they were sure as heck Crossfire Hurricane going to do everything in their power to get in her good graces.

And so they concocted a plan. A conspiracy. This immoral outsider POTUS contender was not going to disrupt their cushy lives if they had anything to say about it! And they had a plan. An ingenious plan! They were Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee! President Trump was everything bad like that Colonel Jessup guy. And they were going to get him. Yes, yes, he wasn’t guilty of any crime of collusion with the Russians. Big deal. We know him. We’re going to shake him with a Special Counsel. We’ll put the screws to him, his associates and his family! And in the end, we’ll get him with Obstruction. He’ll incriminate himself, without any underlying crime at all!

From the movie …

I think he wants to say it. I think he’s pissed off that he’s gotta hide from this. I think he wants to say that he made a command decision and that’s the end of it. He eats breakfast 300 yards away from 400 Cubans that are trained to kill him. And nobody’s going to tell him how to run his unit, least of all the Harvard mouth in his faggoty white uniform. I need to shake him, put him on the defensive and lead him right where he’s dying to go.

So … fast forward to the upcoming release of this Mueller report. And the only thing these corrupt, immoral, crooked cops are saying is “obstruction, obstruction, obstruction”. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong answer!

Many times life does imitate art. Alas, for these poor chaps in the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DNI national security apparatus, not this time. President Donald Trump has not imitated Colonel Jessup on this. And by the way, I know Tom Cruise. And gentlemen … you are no Tom Cruise! Just sayin’ ….

So … in this real-life story, this movie’s court scene will end at the 1:33 mark. And President Trump exits the courtroom.

 

Unlike, Colonel Jessup, President Trump chose not to take the bait and chose not to fall into their obstruction trap. Any guesses why Mueller chose not to rule or charge on Obstruction?! If’n I was Comey, Strzok, Rice, Brennan, Clapper, I would be staining my drawers about now. These guys were sure that after two years of a Special Counsel witch hunt that President Trump would break and he’d commit Obstruction that Mueller could charge him with!

That’s it? That’s the plan?! And how are you going to do that?

I have no idea. I need my bat.

Unfortunately for Comey, Mueller, Strzok, McCabe, Ohr, Brennan, Clapper, Rice et. al. there is no magic bat. This is going to be an epic reversal.

Even Dana Milbank writing today at the Washington Compost (yeah, he’s in denial, but), “tis the season for treason!”

I’m sorry, your time’s run out! What do we have for the losers, Judge? Well, for our defendants, it’s a life time at exotic Fort Leavenworth! And, for defense counsel Kaffee, that’s right, it’s a court martial! Yes, Johnny! After falsely accusing a President of the United States of collusion with the Russians, Comey, Mueller, Stzok, McCabe, Ohr, Brennan, Clapper, Rice …… will …………..

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 118 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Uh huh. 

    So we can post competing links. Yours from a site dedicated to stopping Trump, mine from someone who has been neutral throughout. 

    I am going to take that as a clear Win, Gary. You are, to use a term, Repetative and Boring. 

    • #91
  2. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    From Mr. Kellyanne Conway, George Conway, III:

    So it turns out that, indeed, President Trump was not exonerated at all, and certainly not “totally” or “completely,” as he claimed. Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III didn’t reach a conclusion about whether Trump committed crimes of obstruction of justice — in part because, while a sitting president, Trump can’t be prosecuted under long-standing Justice Department directives, and in part because of “difficult issues” raised by “the President’s actions and intent.” Those difficult issues involve, among other things, the potentially tricky interplay between the criminal obstruction laws and the president’s constitutional authority, and the difficulty in proving criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Still, the special counsel’s report is damning. Mueller couldn’t say, with any “confidence,” that the president of the United States is not a criminal. He said, stunningly, that “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.” Mueller did not so state.

    That’s especially damning because the ultimate issue shouldn’t be — and isn’t — whether the president committed a criminal act. As I wrote not long ago, Americans should expect far more than merely that their president not be provably a criminal. In fact, the Constitution demands it.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-conway-trump-is-a-cancer-on-the-presidency-congress-should-remove-him/2019/04/18/e75a13d8-6220-11e9-bfad-36a7eb36cb60_story.html?utm_term=.91976619f64f

    • #92
  3. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Uh huh.

    So we can post competing links. Yours from a site dedicated to stopping Trump, mine from someone who has been neutral throughout.

    I am going to take that as a clear Win, Gary. You are, to use a term, Repetative and Boring.

    I will put you down as a “maybe.”  (HT: Jeb Bush.)

    • #93
  4. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that my point of view is best shown by the following posts: https://thebulwark.com/trump-sits-on-a-throne-of-lies/https://thebulwark.com/six-preliminary-takeaways-from-the-mueller-report/https://thebulwark.com/portrait-of-the-president-as-a-gangster/https://thebulwark.com/a-deeply-disturbing-account-of-a-reckless-presidency/.

    I have gotten permission to reprint posts from the Bulwark in the past; but the Mods have asked that I not do so, so I will comply with that.

    And here I thought “just a load of Bulwarky” was a metaphor.

    • #94
  5. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    I think what Gary is saying through the use of so many bull-work links is similar to what David French said in his NR post: 

    When evaluating the Mueller report, there are important questions beyond the existence of a conspiracy. A free people should ask what kind of man they want at the helm of the world’s greatest nation. It should not be this man

    (Umm, a free people chose this man. Asked, and answered. Those free people should ask what kind of man wishes to overturn that choice through unfounded charges and lies.   )

    It doesn’t matter if Trump is guilty or innocent of all the things we have been accusing him of, since he is a reprobate and beneath contempt.

    He is guilty just for being Trump.  The rest is just noise. 

    I’m with Sean Davis:

    Sorry, but you don’t get to yadda yadda yadda the fact that there was no Russian collusion just so you can get back to your happy place of Orange Man Bad and pretend like the baseless conspiracy theory you pushed didn’t just blow up in your face.

    • #95
  6. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    From Mr. Kellyanne Conway, George Conway, III:

    George Conway III is a despicable husband, to so publicly go after his public wife’s boss. To quote him in direct reference to his wife, who is loyal to Trump, you are piggybacking on that despicable behavior. 

    It just goes to show, @garyrobbins, you are not morally consistent. You are all willing to go after Trump’s moral failings, but you will ignore the moral failing of others as it suits you to go after Trump. This one line gives lie to you ever being able to call out Trump on being immoral towards his wife, because you support and encourage despicable behavior by a husband towards his wife. 

    Being unfaithful to a marriage is far more complex than a one night stand. I put it to you, Sir, that Trump is more loyal to his wife than George Conway is to his. Yet, yet, you support the man using his very marriage to attack Trump. You would not quote him at all if he were not married to Kellyanne Conway. Nope, you are supporting his use of his marriage to attack Trump, even though, that is massively unfaithful to that union in spirit. 

    So, you can get expect, any time you mention Trump affairs, in any context, I am going to bring this quote back to haunt you.

     

    • #96
  7. Jim Wright Inactive
    Jim Wright
    @JimW

    Would it be a CoC infraction to opine that “the Bulwark” is just the Daily Kos for cruise enthusiasts?

    My reading of the Mueller Report is pretty clear. Executive summary:

    • Orange Man odious
    • Orange Man not guilty…
    • …Dangit.

    Sorry if I went overboard with the legalese.

    • #97
  8. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    From Mr. Kellyanne Conway, George Conway, III:

    George Conway III is a despicable husband, to so publicly go after his public wife’s boss. To quote him in direct reference to his wife, who is loyal to Trump, you are piggybacking on that despicable behavior.

    It just goes to show, @garyrobbins, you are not morally consistent. You are all willing to go after Trump’s moral failings, but you will ignore the moral failing of others as it suits you to go after Trump. This one line gives lie to you ever being able to call out Trump on being immoral towards his wife, because you support and encourage despicable behavior by a husband towards his wife.

    Being unfaithful to a marriage is far more complex than a one night stand. I put it to you, Sir, that Trump is more loyal to his wife than George Conway is to his. Yet, yet, you support the man using his very marriage to attack Trump. You would not quote him at all if he were not married to Kellyanne Conway. Nope, you are supporting his use of his marriage to attack Trump, even though, that is massively unfaithful to that union in spirit.

    So, you can get expect, any time you mention Trump affairs, in any context, I am going to bring this quote back to haunt you.

    I worry about their marriage, and their children.  At the same time, I appreciate George Conway’s need to be a truth-teller.  My issue with Trump is not so much his adulteries, but his persistent lying.  See http://ricochet.com/611684/why-trump-is-disqualified/

    • #98
  9. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    From Mr. Kellyanne Conway, George Conway, III:

    George Conway III is a despicable husband, to so publicly go after his public wife’s boss. To quote him in direct reference to his wife, who is loyal to Trump, you are piggybacking on that despicable behavior.

    It just goes to show, @garyrobbins, you are not morally consistent. You are all willing to go after Trump’s moral failings, but you will ignore the moral failing of others as it suits you to go after Trump. This one line gives lie to you ever being able to call out Trump on being immoral towards his wife, because you support and encourage despicable behavior by a husband towards his wife.

    Being unfaithful to a marriage is far more complex than a one night stand. I put it to you, Sir, that Trump is more loyal to his wife than George Conway is to his. Yet, yet, you support the man using his very marriage to attack Trump. You would not quote him at all if he were not married to Kellyanne Conway. Nope, you are supporting his use of his marriage to attack Trump, even though, that is massively unfaithful to that union in spirit.

    So, you can get expect, any time you mention Trump affairs, in any context, I am going to bring this quote back to haunt you.

    I worry about their marriage, and their children. At the same time, I appreciate George Conway’s need to be a truth-teller. My issue with Trump is not so much his adulteries, but his persistent lying. See http://ricochet.com/611684/why-trump-is-disqualified/

    Worry about the marriage, but appreciate what the damage brings anyway. 

    All class. 

    • #99
  10. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that my point of view is best shown by the following posts: https://thebulwark.com/trump-sits-on-a-throne-of-lies/, https://thebulwark.com/six-preliminary-takeaways-from-the-mueller-report/, https://thebulwark.com/portrait-of-the-president-as-a-gangster/, https://thebulwark.com/a-deeply-disturbing-account-of-a-reckless-presidency/.

    I have gotten permission to reprint posts from the Bulwark in the past; but the Mods have asked that I not do so, so I will comply with that.

    • #100
  11. unsk2 Member
    unsk2
    @

    Gary, you are getting pathetic. Time to hang up the spurs. Please stop trying to beclown yourself some more.  It ain’t pretty.

    According to the report, the  Mueller Team came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of collusion way back in July of 2018!  Even after spending millions and illegally setting up several innocent individuals and ruining their lives,  the Mueller Team  could not extort anyone sufficiently to come up with any credible story of collusion. It’s not that they didn’t try; there was just no there -there. Knowing that the Dossier was fake and that there likely was no collusion to be found , the  Mueller Team  almost from the beginning desperately tried  to whip up some evidence of  obstruction and would have continued  on forever had it not been for   an honest AG  that came to town and forced them  to close down their illegal investigation and wrap it up.  That ‘s right an ILLEGAL  Investigation, Gary.

    It is known without a reasonable doubt now that the Operation Crossfire ( the counterintelligence probe) and the ensuing  entire Mueller Special Counsel was based on a fraudulent FISA application, which  was known to be fraudulent by all the key parties at Justice involved in the Special Counsel.  Therefore on that one count alone the Special Counsel was illegal, and that does even address the necessary “criminal predicate” or identification of an actual crime demanded  by the Special Counsel statute to call a Special Counsel that was never identified.  Hello Gary, obstructing an illegal investigation is not a crime.

    Therefore, there never will a  case to be made against  President Donald Trump by this Special Counsel Investigation no matter how long or how loud  you and your criminal loser friends moan, cry and threaten.   It’s over.

    There are plenty of cases, however  to be made against your heroes – the criminal  co-conspirators at Justice, the FBI, CIA , the Hillary Campaign and the Obama White House. That’s where the real fun begins. We likely will see a string of perp walks by your heroes between now and November 2020 – as it should be.  The American People need to see justice done. Furthermore, the more unhinged the attacks on AG Barr become the more likely he will appoint a tough Special  Counsel, someone perhaps like former Fed DA Andy McCathy who will not take your friends bull-crap like the criminal Sessions did. Your heroes should be sweating bullets now.

    • #101
  12. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    It just goes to show, @garyrobbins, you are not morally consistent. You are all willing to go after Trump’s moral failings, but you will ignore the moral failing of others as it suits you to go after Trump.

    True Bryan.

    Gary does claim that birtherism is President Trump’s original sin.

    Funny that he can’t see the same in his own Collusion/Obstruction Trutherism.

    • #102
  13. Jim Wright Inactive
    Jim Wright
    @JimW

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that my point of view is best shown by the following posts: https://thebulwark.com/trump-sits-on-a-throne-of-lies/, https://thebulwark.com/six-preliminary-takeaways-from-the-mueller-report/, https://thebulwark.com/portrait-of-the-president-as-a-gangster/, https://thebulwark.com/a-deeply-disturbing-account-of-a-reckless-presidency/.

    I have gotten permission to reprint posts from the Bulwark in the past; but the Mods have asked that I not do so, so I will comply with that.

    …aaaaand, scene.

    • #103
  14. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    FYI, I read all four Bulwark articles.  

    You have to be a true believer already, for them to impress you.   For example, the authors deem it sinister that Trump will sometimes send messages to subordinates by means of other subordinates. 

    Two (2) of the articles, by different authors, include the same shocking Trump quote:  “You’re telling me that [Attorney General] Bobby [Kennedy] and President Jack [Kennedy] didn’t talk about investigations? Or Obama didn’t tell [Attorney General] Eric Holder who to investigate?”

     

    • #104
  15. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    unsk2 (View Comment):

    Gary, you are getting pathetic. Time to hang up the spurs. Please stop trying to beclown yourself some more. It ain’t pretty.

    According to the report, the Mueller Team came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of collusion way back in July of 2018! Even after spending millions and illegally setting up several innocent individuals and ruining their lives, the Mueller Team could not extort anyone sufficiently to come up with any credible story of collusion. It’s not that they didn’t try; there was just no there -there. Knowing that the Dossier was fake and that there likely was no collusion to be found , the Mueller Team almost from the beginning desperately tried to whip up some evidence of obstruction and would have continued on forever had it not been for an honest AG that came to town and forced them to close down their illegal investigation and wrap it up. That ‘s right an ILLEGAL Investigation, Gary.

    It is known without a reasonable doubt now that the Operation Crossfire ( the counterintelligence probe) and the ensuing entire Mueller Special Counsel was based on a fraudulent FISA application, which was known to be fraudulent by all the key parties at Justice involved in the Special Counsel. Therefore on that one count alone the Special Counsel was illegal, and that does even address the necessary “criminal predicate” or identification of an actual crime demanded by the Special Counsel statute to call a Special Counsel that was never identified. Hello Gary, obstructing an illegal investigation is not a crime.

    Therefore, there never will a case to be made against President Donald Trump by this Special Counsel Investigation no matter how long or how loud you and your criminal loser friends moan, cry and threaten. It’s over.

    There are plenty of cases, however to be made against your heroes – the criminal co-conspirators at Justice, the FBI, CIA , the Hillary Campaign and the Obama White House. That’s where the real fun begins. We likely will see a string of perp walks by your heroes between now and November 2020 – as it should be. The American People need to see justice done. Furthermore, the more unhinged the attacks on AG Barr become the more likely he will appoint a tough Special Counsel, someone perhaps like former Fed DA Andy McCathy who will not take your friends bull-crap like the criminal Sessions did. Your heroes should be sweating bullets now.

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    It just goes to show, @garyrobbins, you are not morally consistent. You are all willing to go after Trump’s moral failings, but you will ignore the moral failing of others as it suits you to go after Trump.

    True Bryan.

    Gary does claim that birtherism is President Trump’s original sin.

    Funny that he can’t see the same in his own Collusion/Obstruction Trutherism.

    Hi unsk2 and Instugator,

    Have you read the Mueller Report?  If not, why not?

    Best wishes,

    Gary

    • #105
  16. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Taras (View Comment):

    FYI, I read all four Bulwark articles.

    You have to be a true believer already, for them to impress you. For example, the authors deem it sinister that Trump will sometimes send messages to subordinates by means of other subordinates.

    Two (2) of the articles, by different authors, include the same shocking Trump quote: “You’re telling me that [Attorney General] Bobby [Kennedy] and President Jack [Kennedy] didn’t talk about investigations? Or Obama didn’t tell [Attorney General] Eric Holder who to investigate?”

    Thank you for taking the time to read them.  I found them compelling.

    Gary

    • #106
  17. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    @garyrobbins — For a self-styled Reagan Republican, you have some strange bedfellows.  

    Since it began regularly endorsing Presidential candidates in 1976, the Washington Post has never endorsed a Republican.  (After twice opposing Ronald Reagan, it was neutral in 1988.)  

    That you find yourself agreeing with the Post should be a red flag.  Its goals are, in large measure, diametrically opposed to yours.

    Speaking of strange bedfellows, George Conway!?!?  You should be ashamed of yourself.  (So should he!)

     

    • #107
  18. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    I hold Sydney Powell in high regard – she’s been on point and following this case closely. She’s got a lot of experience with odious prosecutors 

     

    • #108
  19. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    FYI, I read all four Bulwark articles.

    You have to be a true believer already, for them to impress you. For example, the authors deem it sinister that Trump will sometimes send messages to subordinates by means of other subordinates.

    Two (2) of the articles, by different authors, include the same shocking Trump quote: “You’re telling me that [Attorney General] Bobby [Kennedy] and President Jack [Kennedy] didn’t talk about investigations? Or Obama didn’t tell [Attorney General] Eric Holder who to investigate?”

    Thank you for taking the time to read them. I found them compelling.

    Gary

     

     

     

    With one desertion after another, pretty soon you’ll be left defending Fort Zinderneuf by yourself.

    I already mentioned how Rod Rosenstein, the guy who started the whole investigation, now disbelieves both collusion and obstruction.  (You did not respond.)

    Earlier today I listened to notorious anti-Trumper David French, guest hosting Three Martini Lunch, explain why he, too, has come to the conclusion that both collusion and obstruction are not credible.

    • #109
  20. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hi unsk2 and Instugator,

    Have you read the Mueller Report? If not, why not?

    Best wishes,

    Gary

    Why yes Gary.

    Here, let me summarize it for you in 6 words.

    No Collusion, No Obstruction, Case Closed.

    The shorter version is “Game-Set-Match” but that requires context to be really effective.

    Thank you for playing.

    • #110
  21. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hi unsk2 and Instugator,

    Have you read the Mueller Report? If not, why not?

    Best wishes,

    Gary

    Why yes Gary.

    Here, let me summarize it for you in 6 words.

    No Collusion, No Obstruction, Case Closed.

    The shorter version is “Game-Set-Match” but that requires context to be really effective.

    Thank you for playing.

    • #111
  22. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    From the blogfather himself.

    After this investigation, Trump may be the cleanest president of my lifetime. Except maybe for Jimmy Carter, who was terrible.

    – Glenn Reynolds

    Hear hear.

    • #112
  23. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    unsk2 (View Comment):

    Gary, you are getting pathetic. Time to hang up the spurs. Please stop trying to beclown yourself some more. It ain’t pretty.

    According to the report, the Mueller Team came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of collusion way back in July of 2018! Even after spending millions and illegally setting up several innocent individuals and ruining their lives, the Mueller Team could not extort anyone sufficiently to come up with any credible story of collusion. It’s not that they didn’t try; there was just no there -there. Knowing that the Dossier was fake and that there likely was no collusion to be found , the Mueller Team almost from the beginning desperately tried to whip up some evidence of obstruction and would have continued on forever had it not been for an honest AG that came to town and forced them to close down their illegal investigation and wrap it up. That ‘s right an ILLEGAL Investigation, Gary.

    It is known without a reasonable doubt now that the Operation Crossfire ( the counterintelligence probe) and the ensuing entire Mueller Special Counsel was based on a fraudulent FISA application, which was known to be fraudulent by all the key parties at Justice involved in the Special Counsel. Therefore on that one count alone the Special Counsel was illegal, and that does even address the necessary “criminal predicate” or identification of an actual crime demanded by the Special Counsel statute to call a Special Counsel that was never identified. Hello Gary, obstructing an illegal investigation is not a crime.

    Therefore, there never will a case to be made against President Donald Trump by this Special Counsel Investigation no matter how long or how loud you and your criminal loser friends moan, cry and threaten. It’s over.

    There are plenty of cases, however to be made against your heroes – the criminal co-conspirators at Justice, the FBI, CIA , the Hillary Campaign and the Obama White House. That’s where the real fun begins. We likely will see a string of perp walks by your heroes between now and November 2020 – as it should be. The American People need to see justice done. Furthermore, the more unhinged the attacks on AG Barr become the more likely he will appoint a tough Special Counsel, someone perhaps like former Fed DA Andy McCathy who will not take your friends bull-crap like the criminal Sessions did. Your heroes should be sweating bullets now.

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    It just goes to show, @garyrobbins, you are not morally consistent. You are all willing to go after Trump’s moral failings, but you will ignore the moral failing of others as it suits you to go after Trump.

    True Bryan.

    Gary does claim that birtherism is President Trump’s original sin.

    Funny that he can’t see the same in his own Collusion/Obstruction Trutherism.

    Hi unsk2 and Instugator,

    Have you read the Mueller Report? If not, why not?

    Best wishes,

    Gary

    You have already dismissed one person who has. This is a false argument on your part. If they do, you will just move the goal posts again to the next thing. 

    Best Wishes,

    Bryan

    • #113
  24. unsk2 Member
    unsk2
    @

    Gary, just for you a bit from Andy McCarthy:
    “Democrats claim Barr’s determination on obstruction was the equivalent of acting as Trump’s defense lawyer. But the only way for any prosecutor to assess the question of whether a suspect had corrupt intent is to catalogue the evidence that cuts against it — since, if corrupt intent cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, there can be no criminal case. Barr did not claim that Trump had conducted himself admirably; he said that proving corrupt intent would have been difficult, if not impossible, thanks to (a) the president’s extensive cooperation with the investigation (making White House witnesses available, disclosing over a million documents, asserting no claim of privilege) and (b) the non-corrupt thinking that fueled the president’s frustration (i.e., his belief that his presidency was being destroyed by a bogus collusion allegation). That Democrats do not like this outcome does not make it wrong.

    Under no legal compulsion to do so, Attorney General Barr has provided Congress with the full, at times gory details drawn from Mueller’s aggressive investigation. Though it cleared the president of the vacant collusion allegation that Democrats peddled for two years, the report could be grist for a House impeachment push on the issue of obstruction.

    Some cover-up.”

    Actually Gary, just keep up with the unrepentant mischaracterizations of the truth. It’s so good for Trump and the real Republicans by making the Democrats and your friends the NeverTrumpers look so unhinged. The way this is going the Democrats are going to get so hammered in 2020 – giving the good guys much better control over the country.  All good. 

    Best Wishes for a complete recovery. 

    • #114
  25. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I have gotten permission to reprint posts from the Bulwark in the past; but the Mods have asked that I not do so, so I will comply with that.

    But you’ll link to four of there articles en bloc.  Ooookay.

     

    • #115
  26. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I have gotten permission to reprint posts from the Bulwark in the past; but the Mods have asked that I not do so, so I will comply with that.

    But you’ll link to four of there articles en bloc. Ooookay.

     

    I read them so you don’t have to. Complete bulwarky. Mostly poor extrapolation from a single fact. 2 of them reuse the same quote to flog the same horse.

     

     

    • #116
  27. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    The following was a comment on David French in particular, but I think it applies to other anti-Trumpers who have leapt from one sinking craft to another; from collusion, to obstruction, to simple “Trump-is-awful”, based on their reading of the Mueller Report:

    Foolishly, he takes the malicious selection of anecdotes in the Mueller Report as representative of the Trump Presidency. I’m old enough to remember when Ronald Reagan, one of our greatest Presidents, was subjected to the same kind of attack.

    There is a certain symmetry to this.  The investigation began with Democratic opposition research, and has now culminated with injecting a Democratic campaign book into the public record. 

    @garyrobbins — Demanding that people read some lengthy document before they are permitted to express an opinion on a subject is a common fallacy (or debating ploy), though I’m not sure what it’s called. 

    “Well, you know, all in all I don’t think Stalin was a nice man.”

    ”Oh, yeah?  Have you read his Collected Works?  Huh? Huh?  How can you have an opinion if you haven’t read his Collected Works? ”

     

    • #117
  28. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Taras (View Comment):

    Demanding that people read some lengthy document before they are permitted to express an opinion on a subject is a common fallacy (or debating ploy), though I’m not sure what it’s called. 

    “Well, you know, all in all I don’t think Stalin was a nice man.”

    ”Oh, yeah? Have you read his Collected Works? Huh? Huh? How can you have an opinion if you haven’t read his Collected Works? ”

    Amen

    • #118
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.