If you are talking about the Mueller Special Counsel, there have been multiple verdicts of Trump officials, some of which have named Trump as
a (as yet) unindicted co-conspirator.
The Trump Russian Dossier - False
Much of that Dossier has been substantiated, and none of it has beenproven false (admittedly, a difficult thing to do proving a negative).
Magapill.com is known for being biased, and even for pushing fake conspiracy stories.
If you are talking about the Mueller Special Counsel, there have been multiple verdicts of Trump officials, some of which have named Trump a (as yet) unindicted co-conspirator.
I take it that you have no response to this that does not shake up your myopic view of the world. And so you pivot to something else.
Not pivoting now am I ? Trump was vindicated, and what do I hear in here
?
Not pivoting now am I ? Trump was vindicated, and what do I hear in he
Actually, the report proves nor disproves anything ...
You'd expect your president to do a good job, that would include hiding/destroying the evidence. In which case he did a good job.
If you are talking about the Mueller Special Counsel, there have
been multiple verdicts of Trump officials, some of which have
named Trump a (as yet) unindicted co-conspirator.
I take it that you have no response to this that does not shake up
your myopic view of the world. And so you pivot to something else.
Not pivoting now am I ?
Trump was vindicated, and what do I hear in here ?
Crickets...
On 03-25-19 06:58, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: The truth according <=-
If you are talking about the Mueller Special Counsel, there have been multiple verdicts of Trump officials, some of which have named Trump as
a (as yet) unindicted co-conspirator.
That didn't not work out, the way you had envisioned, did it?
After 600 + days, No American involvement worked with any Russian.
The Trump Russian Dossier - False
Yup, we now know about that too.
Totally and completely made up, by Christopher Steele with little bit
of help from the CNN public forum. How embarrassing for the British
Secret Service.
Much of that Dossier has been substantiated, and none of it has beenproven false (admittedly, a difficult thing to do proving a negative).
It has now.
On 03-25-19 07:02, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: The truth according <=-
If you are talking about the Mueller Special
Counsel, there have been
multiple verdicts of Trump officials, some of
which have named Trump
a (as yet) unindicted co-conspirator.
I take it that you have no response to this that does not shake up your myopic view of the world. And so you pivot to something else.
Not pivoting now am I ? Trump was vindicated, and what do I hear in
here ? Crickets...
On 03-26-19 20:06, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: The truth according <=-
The unspoken words are that Mueller dropped this in the lap of William Barr U.S. Attorney General
and he already concluded there is not
enough evidence to charge the President with anything.
Manifort gave campaign data to a Russian cut-out. Plus there were
Please... afaik neither jurisprudence nor politics claim to be
evidence-based science.
Nice job snipping all the context of what I wrote, in order to
make your reply seem more valid.
Very easy to spot that kind of bullshit, and laugh at it.
Although Mueller appeared to rule out criminal collusion, he
did not draw a conclusion one way or the other in regards to
obstruction of justice. Trump's claim of total exoneration
is a false claim, as Barr's summary shows, citing Mueller as
having set out "evidence on both sides of the question" and
stated that "while this report does not conclude the president
committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
There is an answer to your unspoken words.
But first this last sentence "it also does not exonerate him" will be used much as a life preserver is used to keep afloat with the narrative that maybe there is some hope, "forgetaboutit" it's over!
Enough time & money has been spent.
The Mueller team has wrapped up their case, the brightest legal minds onthe
left; together they couldn't power an Edison light bulb...
The unspoken words are that Mueller dropped this in the lap of William Barr U.S. Attorney General and he already concluded there is not enough evidence to charge the President with anything.
I really wish the Republicans would stand up and say " My Turn..."
As they reveal and uncover what the real collusion was and how it all started, expose the left for what it really is, and what went on here.
I do have the better chance of that happening in half the time that ittook
the democrats to spend all that money and time to come up with a whole lot of nothing.
If you are talking about the Mueller Special
Counsel, there have been
multiple verdicts of Trump officials, some of
which have named Trump
a (as yet) unindicted co-conspirator.
I take it that you have no response to this that does not shake up your
myopic view of the world. And so you pivot to something else.
Not pivoting now am I ? Trump was vindicated, and what do I hear in
here ? Crickets...
Mueller did not vidicate Trump. He left the question of obstruction
open. We may well find out more if/when we get to see the Mueller
report instead of just the cliff-note version from Barr.
The unspoken words are that Mueller dropped this in the lap of William
Barr U.S. Attorney General
That is exactly what he was charged with doing. Mueller reported to the AG. And then the AG gave us *his* opinion.
and he already concluded there is not
enough evidence to charge the President with anything.
How do you know that?
The truth is that Justice department policy is that they cannot charge the President with anything.
That is up to Congress.
On 03-25-19 06:58, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: The truth according <=-
If you are talking about the Mueller Special Counsel, there have been multiple verdicts of Trump officials, some of which have named Trump a (as yet) unindicted co-conspirator.
That didn't not work out, the way you had envisioned, did it?
After 600 + days, No American involvement worked with any Russian.
That is not a true statement. Flynn had contacts with Russian.
Manifort gave campaign data to a Russian cut-out. Plus there were
others who had involment with Russians and took a plea deal. Cohen was working with the Russians on a Trump Tower deal -- even as Trump denied such a thing was going on.
The Trump Russian Dossier - False
Yup, we now know about that too.
Totally and completely made up, by Christopher Steele with little bit of help from the CNN public forum. How embarrassing for the British Secret Service.
Much of that Dossier has been substantiated, and none of it has bproven false (admittedly, a difficult thing to do proving a negative)
On 03-25-19 07:02, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: The truth according <=-
If you are talking about the Mueller Special
Counsel, there have been
multiple verdicts of Trump officials, some of
which have named Trump
a (as yet) unindicted co-conspirator.
I take it that you have no response to this that does not shake up yo myopic view of the world. And so you pivot to something else.
Not pivoting now am I ? Trump was vindicated, and what do I hear in here ? Crickets...
Mueller did not vidicate Trump. He left the question of obstruction
open.
On 03-26-19 20:06, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: The truth according <=-
The unspoken words are that Mueller dropped this in the lap of Willia Barr U.S. Attorney General
That is exactly what he was charged with doing. Mueller reported to the AG. And then the AG gave us *his* opinion.
Doesn't change the facts, such as they are.
Why is AG Barr trying to hide the report from the American people?
What does he know that he is not telling us?
AG.The unspoken words are that Mueller dropped this in the lap GD>of WilliamBarr U.S. Attorney General
That is exactly what he was charged with doing. Mueller reported to the
And then the AG gave us *his* opinion.
and he already concluded there is not
enough evidence to charge the President with anything.
How do you know that? The truth is that Justice department policy is
that they cannot charge the President with anything. That is up to Congress.
You cannot disprove a negative.
can be shown. Problem is, the AG refuses to share that info with
The AG decided all by himself that nobody else has the right to
even read the report, as he alone is God Almighty and absolute ruler
Gerrit Kuehn wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Please... afaik neither jurisprudence nor politics claim to be
evidence-based science.
Nice job snipping all the context of what I wrote, in order to
make your reply seem more valid.
The one sentence of yours I didn't quote? The one sentence by
Ward I didn't quote?
I really cannot see what you're complaining about here.
Anyone should be able to use threading to look up context
(if it should be missing).
Very easy to spot that kind of bullshit, and laugh at it.
Yeah, and a rather obvious attempt of yours to escape argueing
based on content (or even "facts"). I hope you're happy that I
quoted this important note of yours this time. ;-)
That is a far cry from what is Constitutional, as it has been shown
that any president can be indicted. Vice President Spiro Agnew was indicted.
But first this last sentence "it also does not exonerate him" will be used
much as a life preserver is used to keep afloat with the narrative that
maybe there is some hope, "forgetaboutit" it's over!
You cannot disprove a negative. But exposing a lie for what it is
can be shown. Problem is, the AG refuses to share that info with
the American people, choosing to sweep the Mueller report under the
rug in a vain effort to defend his beloved.
Mueller did not vidicate Trump. He left the question of obstruction
open.
No it was not left open, it was left up to William Barr and he has already indicated there is not enough evidence to charge the President with anything.
Is it true what they're saying, that Mueller is a Putin shill?
What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
Barr did not decide "all by himself". He's following laws put in place by Democrats.
evidenceIs it true what they're saying, that Mueller is a Putin shill?
Of course it's true. How else could you explain him not finding any
of Trump's guilt?
What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
True, but in court the absence of evidence *is* absence of guilt.
What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
True, but in court the absence of evidence *is* absence of guilt.
"convict". Still doesn't prove he didn't do it.
Gregory Deyss wrote to Dale Shipp <=-
When Flynn met with the FBI it was
without counsel of anykind, it was a informal conversation
Anyone should be able to use threading to look up context
(if it should be missing).
Unless one is reading/replying using an offline mail reader.
Didn't think of that, did ya? Or...maybe you did, and realized
that would help your methods even more.
I'm not trying to escape arguing,
just wishing you (and others)
would do it a little more genuinely.
Better yet, stop wasting my time.
... Post may contain information unsuitable for overly sensitive
persons.
so.Doesn't change the facts, such as they are.
Why is AG Barr trying to hide the report from the American people?
What does he know that he is not telling us?
Be patient. I think the report will be released. The outcry will make it
I agree the American people have every right to have the report released.
But if the Kracken is released it can not be put back.
It will be damming for the left, once it is learned of what happened and why.
Watch...
WilliaThe unspoken words are that Mueller dropped this in the lap of
Barr U.S. Attorney General
That is exactly what he was charged with doing. Mueller reported tothe
AG. And then the AG gave us *his* opinion.
Opinion??? What I would offer would be a opinion...
What the William Barr says is the law of land and it is the FINAL word on the
matter.
For how long should we all remain patient? Ken Starr
released his entire 445-page report to the public.
Myself, I prefer Occam
That is a far cry from what is Constitutional, as it has been shown
that any president can be indicted. Vice President Spiro Agnew was
indicted.
You argue that a president can be indicted, then offer a VICE-president as an example. In any case, AFAIA Agnew was never actually indicted before he resigned.
The question of whether a sitting president can be criminally indictedwhile
in office is one that has never been answered,
nor does the Constitution provide unambiguous guidance.
Whether he can in theory, in practice what would likely happen, absent"high
crimes or misdemeanors",
is that the president's lawyer would argue that the case should bedelayed,
and all records sealed, until the president has left office. The courts would in all likelihood agree.
In the case of high crimes and misdemeanors (which the Constitution doesnot
define) the process is impeachment by the House, followed by conviction by the Senate.
However, a Senate conviction does no more than remove the
president from office.
Criminal indictment and potential criminal conviction
would only follow after the president's removal.
It is by no means clear whether a sitting president can be criminally indicted or convicted while in office.
The closest we ever came was Nixon, but he had the good sense to resign before the courts had the opportunity to weigh in on the question.
A further question that would need to be answered before indicting the president is who would bring the charges?
It's not at all clear that an independent counsel has such constitutional authority, nor has the question been tested in court.
That alone may explain why Mueller left the question up
to the DOJ.
courseYou cannot disprove a negative.
I think you mean you cannot PROVE a negative, but either way yes, of
you can prove negatives. We do it every day.
There's no money in my bank account. Here's my account statement.
There are no tall short men.
Ted is innocent of that crime. See? Here's his obituary.
tocan be shown. Problem is, the AG refuses to share that info with
"Refuses"? It's been all of four days since Mueller delivered the report
Barr, and Barr explicitly stated in his letter to Congress that the DOJ is currently reviewing the report to determine which parts of it may belegally
released. Where do people get this "Barr refuses to release the report" stuff?
The AG decided all by himself that nobody else has the right to
even read the report, as he alone is God Almighty and absolute ruler
No, he didn't.
It was the aftermath of the Saturday Night Massacre which led Democrats to push for greater independence of the special prosecutorin
and ultimately to the Ethics in Government Act, signed into law by Carter
1978, which requires the independent counsel to report to the AG.
Barr did not decide "all by himself".
He's following laws put in place by Democrats.
by the AG as to what happened. But the actual truth, as reported
by Mueller, in its entirety.
You're not going to get it. The report undoubtedly contains classified information protected by law, lots of information that could jeopardize informants and other government operatives, and information on innocent individuals the public has no right to see.
What we'll see will be, at best, a heavily redacted release, which will allow you to continue to complain about how somebody's hiding something.
What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
True, but in court the absence of evidence *is* absence of guilt.
that depends on the court... some places are "guilty until proven innocent"...
be usedBut first this last sentence "it also does not exonerate him" will
thatmuch as a life preserver is used to keep afloat with the narrative
maybe there is some hope, "forgetaboutit" it's over!
You cannot disprove a negative. But exposing a lie for what it is
can be shown. Problem is, the AG refuses to share that info with
the American people, choosing to sweep the Mueller report under the
rug in a vain effort to defend his beloved.
Is it true what they're saying, that Mueller is a Putin shill?
Just because a person is found "not guilty" does not mean he/she
is innocent. ... Mueller is not saying Trump is innocent. He is
saying he could
not find enough evidence to support the contention he may be guilty.
Mueller handed in the report to the AG, who decided Trump is innocent
of any criminal wrongdoing.
Certainly AG Bill Barr can, and should, do the same in regards to
the Mueller report.
Why should any of the report be redacted, or censored? The
He said he did not think there was enough evidence
to pursue an obstruction of justice case against Trump.
This is a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel -
"Well, the president can't be indicted, but the vice president can."
Only if a president is impeached might he argue for the trial
in the Senate to be delayed. More likely he would argue for a
AG Elliot Richardson convinced Spiro Agnew to resign from office
rather than be indicted. Had the AG not had the legal right to do
...He said he did not think there was enough evidence to pursue an
obstruction of justice case against Trump.
If there was not enough evidence, it means there was some evidence then
If there was not enough evidence, it means there was some evidence then
For how long should we all remain patient? Ken Starr
released his entire 445-page report to the public.
Different rules. Back then the special counsel reported directly to
Congress and was free to release his report publicly.
You may not remember the huge controversy that erupted over Starr's public
release of his report,
especially the lurid sexual detail the report went into,
but it was BECAUSE of that controversy that the rules were changed -- by
Bill Clinton and Janet Reno -- requiring the independent counsel to deliver his report directly to the AG, and giving the AG full discretion over
whether or how much should be publicly released.
Once again, Mueller is simply following rules put in place by Democrats.
For how long should we all remain patient? Ken Starr
released his entire 445-page report to the public.
Different rules.
Back then the special counsel reported directly to
Congress and was free to release his report publicly.
You may not remember the huge controversy that erupted over Starr's public release of his report, especially the lurid sexual detail the report went into, but it was BECAUSE of that controversy that the rules were changed--
by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno -- requiring the independent counsel to deliver his report directly to the AG, and giving the AG full discretion over whether or how much should be publicly released.
Once again, Mueller is simply following rules put in place by Democrats.
Mueller did not vidicate Trump. He left the question of obstruction
open.
No it was not left open, it was left up to William Barr and he hasalready
indicated there is not enough evidence to charge the President with
anything.
What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Once again, Mueller is simply following rules put in place by Democrats.
Myself, I prefer Occam
I have a beard.
ofJust because a person is found "not guilty" does not mean he/shemay be guilty.
is innocent. ... Mueller is not saying Trump is innocent. He is
saying he could not find enough evidence to support the contention LL>he
Sorry, you're playing semantic games trying to hold onto the possibility
Trump's guilt.
Mueller did not say "I could not find 'enough' evidence that he "may be" guilty."
On the assumption Barr's description is accurate,
Mueller said, "There is no evidence that any crime was committed." Notethe
lack of weasel words.
Mueller handed in the report to the AG, who decided Trump is LL>innocentof any criminal wrongdoing.
You're choosing your words carelessly.
After going into a long spiel on the distinctions between "innocent" and "not guilty", you should realize that Barr said no such thing.
He said he did not think there was enough evidence to pursue anobstruction
of justice case against Trump.
Certainly AG Bill Barr can, and should, do the same in regards to
the Mueller report.
Again, Starr and Barr (hm, I think there's a song in there somewhere) are operating under different rules.
Why should any of the report be redacted, or censored? The
I explained why: it may well contain classified material protected by law;
it may contain grand jury information sealed by courts;
it may contain information that could compromise US security interests,
expose US operatives to danger,
or violate privacy expectations of innocent individuals;
and so forth.
No, the public does *not* have the right to see every last unfettered
word of the report.
...He said he did not think there was enough evidence
to pursue an obstruction of justice case against Trump.
If there was not enough evidence, it means there was some evidence then
theThis is a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel -
"Well, the president can't be indicted, but the vice president can."
You're citing a memorandum as if were settled case law. It's nothing of
sort; it's merely a legal opinion.
Only if a president is impeached might he argue for the trial
in the Senate to be delayed. More likely he would argue for a
No, I was not talking about a Senate trial; I was talking about criminal proceedings.
Think Clinton v. Jones, or Cheney v. District of Columbia.
AG Elliot Richardson convinced Spiro Agnew to resign from office
rather than be indicted. Had the AG not had the legal right to do
Again, the question has never been answered by the courts,
so whether the AG has the right is still an open debate.
It may well be that Richardson believed he had that right;
whether the courts would have agreed with him we don't know.
If there was not enough evidence, it means there was some evidence then
There was evidence of certains actions undertaken by Trump. The salient question was one of interpretation: did those actions constitute obstruction?
Mueller declined to decide, and so Barr, in his own words, "concluded that the evidence ... is not sufficient to establish ... an obstruction of justice
offense."
No it was not left open, it was left up to William Barr and he has already
indicated there is not enough evidence to charge the President with anything.
What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Where's my beer? I know it was here. Right on this table ...
Is it true what they're saying, that Mueller is a Putin shill?
Of course it's true. How else could you explain him not finding any evidence of Trump's guilt?
Which is what has happened with Trump. Don't find the evidence - cannot "convict". Still doesn't prove he didn't do it.
Gregory Deyss wrote to Dale Shipp <=-
When Flynn met with the FBI it was
without counsel of anykind, it was a informal conversation
There's no such thing as an "informal conversation" with law
enforcement.
Watch...
I do not believe President Donald Trump will finish his single term in office as the highest rated president in history.
I do not believe President Donald Trump will finish his single term in
office as the highest rated president in history.
Now that the investigation is over, I see no reason why he will not only finish his term but win with 'dramatic fashion' another 4 years.
On 03-29-19 22:49, Nathanael Culver <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: The truth according <=-
I explained why: it may well contain classified material protected by
law; it may contain grand jury information sealed by courts; it may contain information that could compromise US security interests, expose
US operatives to danger, or violate privacy expectations of innocent individuals; and so forth. No, the public does *not* have the right to
see every last unfettered word of the report.
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic and theirs is not.
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
On 30/03/2019 12:51, Gregory Deyss -> Lee Lofaso wrote:
I do not believe President Donald Trump will finish his single term
office as the highest rated president in history.
Now that the investigation is over, I see no reason why he will not o finish his term but win with 'dramatic fashion' another 4 years.
Or be assassinated by someone who really cares about the peoples of the USA.
Hello Gregory!
29 Mar 19 22:28, Gregory Deyss wrote to nathanael culver:
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
Now take a look at yours at the same site
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Now take a look at yours at the same site
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth
Yeah... I wouldn't be talking there Gerrit.
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Now take a look at yours at the same site
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth Yeah... I wouldn't be talking there Gerrit.
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
Now take a look at yours at the same site
But he never claimed that their economy was fantastic, did he?
Now that the investigation is over, I see no reason why he will not or
finish his term but win with 'dramatic fashion' another 4 years.
Or be assassinated by someone who really cares about the peoples of the
USA.
More promises have been kept than any other President before him.
Such a person who would think of assassination does process the ability to care for anyone but their own anger.
Do you think you are unreachable because this fidonet and that you are in Australia?
That was really a dumb statement that you just made.
GK>
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Now take a look at yours at the same site https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth
Yeah... I wouldn't be talking there Gerrit.
Why should I? You claimed your economy to be doing "fantastic" on an absolute scale, not in comparison to Germany or any other country.
Why should I? You claimed your economy to be doing "fantastic" on an
absolute scale, not in comparison to Germany or any other country.
His comment *was* specifically comparing it to another country --
Russia.
Nor
do he say anything about "an absolute scale".
I did a spot check over at tradingeconocomics, and every other
country I
looked at -- Japan, the UK, Germany, France, Canada, Belgium,
Australia,
Mexico -- had significantly lower GDP growth over the past five years than
the US has had.
Now I happen to think economies are going to do what economies want
to do,
and there's not much a president can do about it, especially in his
first
year, so I don't think much of the credit goes to Trump.
Still, US
economic
performance seems better than it has in at least a decade.
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
Now take a look at yours at the same site
But he never claimed that their economy was fantastic, did he?
Hello Gregory!
30 Mar 19 11:29, Gregory Deyss wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Now take a look at yours at the same site
Why should I? You claimed your economy to be doing "fantastic" on an absolute scale, not in comparison to Germany or any other country.
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth
Yeah... I wouldn't be talking there Gerrit.
Yeah, seems like we finally heard enough of Mr. Trump's whining about Germany's high trade surplus and the US trade gap during the last months...
On 31/03/2019 01:15, Gregory Deyss -> David Drummond wrote:
Now that the investigation is over, I see no reason why he will not
finish his term but win with 'dramatic fashion' another 4 years.
Or be assassinated by someone who really cares about the peoples of
USA.
More promises have been kept than any other President before him.
So we hear - how are all of the mining jobs going in the coal belt?
Such a person who would think of assassination does process the abili care for anyone but their own anger.
I'm not really that angry, Trump does not impinge much on my lifestyle.
I was more thinking about the act being carried out by a USAmerican resident, one who seriously feels fucked over by Trump's actions. Maybe even a relative of someone stuck behind a wall...
Do you think you are unreachable because this fidonet and that you ar Australia?
Unreachable? Your message has reached me, what are you alluding to?
You are entitled to your opinion, however much it sucks.
I am sure that there are people out there who would welcome the demise
of Mr Trump - in some form or other. Look at the enthusiasm for the "Russia-gate" debacle.
termI do not believe President Donald Trump will finish his single
office as the highest rated president in history.
not oNow that the investigation is over, I see no reason why he will
finish his term but win with 'dramatic fashion' another 4 years.
Or be assassinated by someone who really cares about the peoples ofthe
USA.
More promises have been kept than any other President before him.
Such a person who would think of assassination does process the ability to care for anyone but their own anger.
Do you think you are unreachable because this fidonet and that you are in Australia?
That was really a dumb statement that you just made.
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
Now take a look at yours at the same site
But he never claimed that their economy was fantastic, did he?
already indicated there is not enough evidence to charge GD>>the President with anything.No it was not left open, it was left up to William Barr and GD>>he has
absence.What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence DD>>of
Where's my beer? I know it was here. Right on this table ...
Ward may have supped it.
Watch...
I do not believe President Donald Trump will finish his single term in
office as the highest rated president in history.
Now that the investigation is over, I see no reason why he will not only finish his term but win with 'dramatic fashion' another 4 years.
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth
Yeah... I wouldn't be talking there Gerrit.
Yeah, seems like we finally heard enough of Mr. Trump's whining about
Germany's high trade surplus and the US trade gap during the last
months...
Can you or your leaders answer the question, as to why there is a
trade gap.
He has a point and a very good one.
It's called fairness, Donald Trump is a man of business, he is not
like former
Presidents who allow themselves or the county that they are entitled
with trust
of it's people to screwed over with unfair trade practices.
Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic
Now take a look at yours at the same site
But he never claimed that their economy was fantastic, did he?
No he didn't but that was not the intention, it was as it has been
(for a while now) to create negative narrative where none should exist.
I'm not really that angry, Trump does not impinge much on my lifestyle.
I was more thinking about the act being carried out by a USAmerican
resident, one who seriously feels fucked over by Trump's actions. Maybe
even a relative of someone stuck behind a wall...
The type person your talking I feel is lazy and wants everything handed to them.
Do you think you are unreachable because this fidonet and that you GD>areAustralia?
Unreachable? Your message has reached me, what are you alluding to?
What I am talking is the topic of assassination of the President should be one those taboo subjects that is not mentioned.
You are entitled to your opinion, however much it sucks.
It does if your on the left or are a liberal, socialist, communist.
but you are right I am entitled to my opinion.
I am sure that there are people out there who would welcome DD>the demiseof Mr Trump - in some form or other.
Look at the enthusiasm for the "Russia-gate" debacle.
Everyone knows now where that came from.
As there was no evidence of collusion, no obstruction with Trump.
The Mueller Report is 300 pages and the summary of the Barr statement is4.
The left is trying to manipulate and misrepresent - it's all lies.
I predict that The he Deep state is very serious in trouble.
I'm not really that angry, Trump does not impinge much on my lifestyle.
I was more thinking about the act being carried out by a USAmerican
resident, one who seriously feels fucked over by Trump's actions. Maybe
even a relative of someone stuck behind a wall...
The type person your talking I feel is lazy and wants everything handed to them.
Do you think you are unreachable because this fidonet and that you ar
Australia?
Unreachable? Your message has reached me, what are you alluding to?
What I am talking is the topic of assassination of the President should be one those taboo subjects that is not mentioned.
You are entitled to your opinion, however much it sucks.
It does if your on the left or are a liberal, socialist, communist.
but you are right I am entitled to my opinion.
I am sure that there are people out there who would welcome the demise
of Mr Trump - in some form or other. Look at the enthusiasm for the
"Russia-gate" debacle.
Everyone knows now where that came from.
As there was no evidence of collusion, no obstruction with Trump.
The Mueller Report is 300 pages and the summary of the Barr statement is4.
The left is trying to manipulate and misrepresent - it's all lies.
I predict that The he Deep state is very serious in trouble.
Do you think you are unreachable because this fidonet and that you are in
Australia?
That was really a dumb statement that you just made.
I do not believe David realized what he did. Posted his message
on the 38th-year anniversary of the John Hinckley Jr shooting of
President Ronald Reagan and three others.
Still no excuse. Wishing a man dead is never in good taste.
Hello Gregory!
31 Mar 19 11:28, Gregory Deyss wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth
Yeah... I wouldn't be talking there Gerrit.
Yeah, seems like we finally heard enough of Mr. Trump's whining abou
Germany's high trade surplus and the US trade gap during the last
months...
Can you or your leaders answer the question, as to why there is a trade gap.
Because we produce things over here (and often even in the US) that
people in the US like to buy.
Well, maybe you can enlighten us what you consider "unfair trade practices" in this context. Peferrably, this should not just be "felt" unfairness, but something based on WTO rules or similar.
Bonus question: Can you explain how German cars on US streets threaten your national security as claimed by Mr. Trump?
courseYou cannot disprove a negative.
I think you mean you cannot PROVE a negative, but either way yes, of
you can prove negatives. We do it every day.report to
There's no money in my bank account. Here's my account statement.
There are no tall short men.
Ted is innocent of that crime. See? Here's his obituary.
can be shown. Problem is, the AG refuses to share that info with
"Refuses"? It's been all of four days since Mueller delivered the
Barr, and Barr explicitly stated in his letter to Congress that theDOJ is
currently reviewing the report to determine which parts of it may belegally
released. Where do people get this "Barr refuses to release thereport" stuff?
rulerThe AG decided all by himself that nobody else has the right to
even read the report, as he alone is God Almighty and absolute
No, he didn't. It was the aftermath of the Saturday Night Massacrewhich
led Democrats to push for greater independence of the specialprosecutor
and ultimately to the Ethics in Government Act, signed into law byCarter in
1978, which requires the independent counsel to report to the AG.place by
Barr did not decide "all by himself". He's following laws put in
Democrats.reported
LL> by the AG as to what happened. But the actual truth, as
LL> by Mueller, in its entirety.jeopardize
You're not going to get it. The report undoubtedly contains classified information protected by law, lots of information that could
informants and other government operatives, and information oninnocent
individuals the public has no right to see. What we'll see will be,at best, a
heavily redacted release, which will allow you to continue tocomplain about
how somebody's hiding something.
On 2019 Mar 28 12:37:44, you wrote to David Drummond:of
What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence
innocent"...absence.
True, but in court the absence of evidence *is* absence of guilt.
that depends on the court... some places are "guilty until proven
Not everybody takes AG Bill Barr's word for it.
According to whom? There is lots of talk out there about the assassination of US presidents - it has happened a few times.
I am lead to believe that the presidents (present and past) get aroundwith
quite a security contingent - so they must talk about it too.
inDo you think you are unreachable because this fidonet and that you are
Australia?
That was really a dumb statement that you just made.
I do not believe David realized what he did. Posted his message
on the 38th-year anniversary of the John Hinckley Jr shooting of
President Ronald Reagan and three others.
And you have these dates store in your "easy to recall" memory?
Still no excuse. Wishing a man dead is never in good taste.
Even when that person is Mr Asad, Kim or Hussein? How about the democratically elected leader of Venezuela? Does no-one in USA wish his demise?
Not everybody takes AG Bill Barr's word for it.
Certainly those who *want* there to be evidence of collusion don't. Good luck with your conspiracy theories.
You cannot disprove a negative.
I think you mean you cannot PROVE a negative, but either way yes, ofcourse
you can prove negatives. We do it every day.
There's no money in my bank account. Here's my account statement.
There are no tall short men.
Ted is innocent of that crime. See? Here's his obituary.
can be shown. Problem is, the AG refuses to share that info with
"Refuses"? It's been all of four days since Mueller delivered thereport to
Barr, and Barr explicitly stated in his letter to Congress that theDOJ is
currently reviewing the report to determine which parts of it may belegally
released. Where do people get this "Barr refuses to release thereport" stuff?
rulerThe AG decided all by himself that nobody else has the right to
even read the report, as he alone is God Almighty and absolute
No, he didn't. It was the aftermath of the Saturday Night Massacrewhich
led Democrats to push for greater independence of the specialprosecutor
and ultimately to the Ethics in Government Act, signed into law byCarter in
1978, which requires the independent counsel to report to the AG.
Barr did not decide "all by himself". He's following laws put inplace by
Democrats.
reportedby the AG as to what happened. But the actual truth, as
by Mueller, in its entirety.
You're not going to get it. The report undoubtedly contains classifiedjeopardize
information protected by law, lots of information that could
informants and other government operatives, and information oninnocent
individuals the public has no right to see. What we'll see will be,at best, a
heavily redacted release, which will allow you to continue tocomplain about
how somebody's hiding something.
If the Corruptocrats in congress get a hold of the whole report, it
will be all over the leftist media within seconds regardless of how
much classified or sensitive information is contained in it. Congress -
particularly but not exclusively Corruptocrats in congress - has been
a sieve for classified information for the past half century.
I think your getting confused with Hillary of whom deleted
30,000 + emails.
Fact: There is NO Collusion and No American citizen colluded with the Russian Government. """""""""""""""""""
Fact: Attorney General William Barr concluded there is not enough
evidence to charge President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice.
Fact: Muller and his team of Special counsel- 16 seasoned prosecutors. could not find any collusion.
Probably. But there's a difference between 'finding no proof' and "it didn't happen".
Ward Dossche wrote to Gregory Deyss <=-
Fact: Muller and his team of Special counsel- 16 seasoned prosecutors. could not find any collusion.
Probably. But there's a difference between 'finding no proof' and
"it didn't happen".
The first one is based on scientific *FACTUAL* evidence.
The first one is based on scientific *FACTUAL* evidence.
Please... afaik neither jurisprudence nor politics claim to be evidence-based science.
Hello Greg,
If you are talking about the Mueller Special Counsel, there have
been multiple verdicts of Trump officials, some of which have
named Trump a (as yet) unindicted co-conspirator.
I take it that you have no response to this that does not shake up
your myopic view of the world. And so you pivot to something else.
Not pivoting now am I ?
Special counsel Bob Mueller has delivered his report to the
Attorney General. Have you read it? I am sure Bob Mueller has,
as well as the Attorney General. But other than them ...
Trump was vindicated, and what do I hear in here ?
Vindicated? From what? Just because the AG claims "...The
Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump
campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated
with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election" does not mean such conspiracy and collusion with Russia
by Trump & Associates did not exist or happen.
Just because the AG claims "As the report states" does not
mean what the AG wants everybody else to believe, as the only
two people in the room who had read the report was Mueller
and the AG.
As part of his four-page summary, this is part of what the
AG claims is in The Mueller Report -
As the report states: "The investigation did not establish
that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated
with the Russian government in its election interference
activities."
[From Attorney General William Barr's Summary of the
Special Counsel's Report]
Crickets...
Although Mueller appeared to rule out criminal collusion, he
did not draw a conclusion one way or the other in regards to
obstruction of justice. Trump's claim of total exoneration
is a false claim, as Barr's summary shows, citing Mueller as
having set out "evidence on both sides of the question" and
stated that "while this report does not conclude the president
committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Gerrit Kuehn wrote to Dan Clough <=-
The first one is based on scientific *FACTUAL* evidence.
Please... afaik neither jurisprudence nor politics claim to be evidence-based science.
I think your getting confused with Hillary of whom deleted
30,000 + emails.
Show me the mails ...
""""""""""""""""""" WD>Fact: There is NO Collusion and No American citizen colluded with the
Russian Government.
That is not proven nor stated.
Here's a verbatim quote from the New York Times, which in itself is a verbatim quote of a letter to lawmakers by Barr (who seems to be the onlyone so far having read the report) ...
| Sysop: | Zazz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Mesquite, Tx |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 03:16:32 |
| Calls: | 157 |
| Files: | 2,103 |
| Messages: | 146,005 |