• Re: The truth according

    From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Dale Shipp on Monday, March 25, 2019 06:58:52
    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 been
    proven false (admittedly, a difficult thing to do proving a negative).

    It has now.

    Magapill.com is known for being biased, and even for pushing fake conspiracy stories.

    Well it seems that the left has been doing exactly that - pushing
    fake news and conspiracy theories.

    These folks running running on the left for the Presidency; definitely got
    more then one screw lose. Gillibrand wants give illegals drivers licenses,
    and Beto ain't no better he wants to rip up the U.S. Constitution.

    It will be fun to watch as they fly speed into Trump as they fail one by
    one in the process.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Dale Shipp on Monday, March 25, 2019 07:02:10
    On 22 Dec 2018, Dale Shipp said the following...

    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...

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Gregory Deyss on Monday, March 25, 2019 12:34:42
    Not pivoting now am I ? Trump was vindicated, and what do I hear in here
    ?

    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.

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99 SR41
    * Origin: Ceci n'est pas un courriel (2:292/854)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Ward Dossche on Monday, March 25, 2019 20:49:18
    On 25 Mar 2019, Ward Dossche said the following...

    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.

    BS totally...
    I think your getting confused with Hillary of whom deleted
    30,000 + emails.

    (besides if that was remotely true) That little factoid would of been front page of newspapers everywhere not to mention the light coming from our televisions would of been brighter then the Sun; as it would of filled the living rooms through out the world for many many nights but that did not happen, did it? So nice try, your forgetting that the media has been waiting
    w/ baited breath for such a story for a very long time.

    Trust me Ward, there is a smorgasbord of crow to be served in a variety of ways to the left.

    First it was thought that Trump would fire Mueller, then when that did not happen, they moved on to the next.

    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: MI6 Agent took ideas from a CNN public forum as factual information to formulate the Russian Dossier then responded w/ I did not know that was a public forum.

    Fact: Muller and his team of Special counsel- 16 seasoned prosecutors. could not find any collusion.

    600 + days and Millions of Dollars a total and complete waste of money.
    Donald Trump was telling the truth, it was a witch hunt.

    Why ? Because of 13 democratic crybabies on the left within high leaderships positions within multiple intelligence communities wanted these phony accusations to become reality, well guess what, they are not a reality.

    Bon Appetit- enjoy your crow.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Gregory Deyss on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 02:06:14
    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."

    Somebody cue the crickets. Please.

    --Lee

    --
    Often Licked, Never Beaten

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Gregory Deyss on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 01:53:00
    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.

    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 been
    proven false (admittedly, a difficult thing to do proving a negative).

    It has now.

    Really -- what has been proven false? As I said, much of it has be substantiated by investigators.


    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)


    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:59:14, 27 Mar 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Gregory Deyss on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 01:59:02
    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...

    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.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)


    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 02:01:13, 27 Mar 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Gregory Deyss on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 02:33:10
    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

    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.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)


    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 02:37:47, 27 Mar 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to Dale Shipp on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 22:38:39
    Manifort gave campaign data to a Russian cut-out. Plus there were

    The allegation was only that Manafort sent a vaguely worded email that may
    have been an offer to share polling data with Oleg Deripaska; there was no evidence that Deripaska ever received the email or that Manafort ever actually delivered the data, or even the precise nature of the data Manafort was allegedly offering.

    Washington Times, "Manafort offered to give Russian billionaire ‘private briefings’ on 2016 campaign", 20 Sept 2017.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From Gerrit Kuehn@2:240/12 to Dan Clough on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 20:22:58
    Hello Dan!

    26 Mar 19 18:46, Dan Clough wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

    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. ;-)


    Regards,
    Gerrit

    ... 8:23PM up 86 days, 22:19, 8 users, load averages: 0.25, 0.35, 0.34

    --- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
    * Origin: Ideas of lust and dying (2:240/12)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Gregory Deyss on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 23:37:46
    Hello Greg,

    [..]

    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.

    Of course there is.

    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.

    Enough time & money has been spent.

    FDR never bothered to count how much time & money it would cost
    to defend this country from harm. He just did what he had to do
    in a time of crisis. And so did we all.

    It is time for us to do the same today. This a new crisis.
    Maybe even more dangerous than the crisis faced by FDR in his day.
    Perhaps you should join the rest of us, so that we can all fight
    this crisis together.

    Fact is this country is under attack. Not only this country,
    but also our democracy, and the democracy of other countries.

    It is time stand up and be counted. Either you are a patriot,
    or you are not a patriot. So which is it? Are you in, or are
    you out?

    The Mueller team has wrapped up their case, the brightest legal minds on
    the
    left; together they couldn't power an Edison light bulb...

    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?

    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.

    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
    of the universe (in terms of running the DOJ).

    Mueller's job was to collect the evidence and present the facts,
    then hand in his report to his boss, the AG. That is exactly what
    he did. Whether he did a good job, or a lousy job, may be a matter
    of opinion. But he did do his job, presumably to the best of his
    ability.

    It took Mueller 22 months to complete the investigation. It took
    the AG all of 2 days to read the entire report. And all we have is
    three sentence fragments cited by the AG to show for it.

    Until now, the DOJ has always acted as an independent entity,
    conducting its business in a non-partisan manner. However, the
    current AG has shown himself to be nothing but a hack for his
    beloved president, who appointed him to the job.

    The American people deserve to know the truth. Not a whitewash
    by the AG as to what happened. But the actual truth, as reported
    by Mueller, in its entirety.

    Once we have all the details, then the truth will be decided.
    Not solely by the AG, but by all of us. If President Trump is
    so confident he is innocent of all criminal wrongdoing, then
    what possible objection could he possibly have?

    I really wish the Republicans would stand up and say " My Turn..."

    The Republican-contolled Senate confirmed Bob Barr as AG.
    Total spineless hacks, totally disregarding their Constitutional
    duty of "advise and consent".

    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.

    Then why are they stonewalling as to having the Mueller report
    being fully released? The American people (regardless of party
    affiliation) deserve the truth. Not just the three sentence
    fragments of the Mueller report cited by the AG.

    I do have the better chance of that happening in half the time that it
    took
    the democrats to spend all that money and time to come up with a whole lot of nothing.

    Sweeping the Mueller report under the rug is not going to score
    any brownie points among the American voting public. And with
    a presidential election coming up next November, hiding the truth
    from the American people will not be a winning strategy ...

    --Lee

    --
    We're Great In Bed

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Dale Shipp on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 23:37:57
    Hello Dale,

    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 American people have a right to know what is in the report.
    Not just the three sentence fragments cited by AG Barr.

    It is not up to the AG to decide innocence or guilt. And yet, the
    AG decided (all by himself) that President Trump is fully innocent
    of any and all criminal wrongdoing that may have occurred.

    How very kind of him to show why, basing his decision on three
    sentence fragments from Mueller's report.

    --Lee

    --
    Nobody Beats Our Meat

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Dale Shipp on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 23:38:08
    Hello Dale,

    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.

    Mueller collected the evidence, wrote a report, and gave it to his
    boss. His boss then wrote a summary, citing three sentence fragments
    from the report, and decided all by himself that President Trump is
    innocent of any criminal wrongdoing that may have occurred.
    Regardless of what the Congress or anybody else says or thinks.

    and he already concluded there is not
    enough evidence to charge the President with anything.

    How do you know that?

    He read the report. All three sentence fragments. And it truly
    was decided and concluded. By the AG himself.

    The truth is that Justice department policy is that they cannot charge the President with anything.

    Current DOJ policy is that a president cannot be indicted.
    That is a far cry from what is Constitutional, as it has been
    shown that any president can be indicted.

    That is up to Congress.

    Really? What history book gives you that idea?

    Vice President Spiro Agnew was indicted. Left office in disgrace,
    and found guilty.

    President Richard Nixon was indicted. By Elliot Richardson.
    Okay, the indictment was rescinded by Richardson. But Nixon still
    left office in disgrace, and found guilty.

    Read President Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon. It does not say
    "for crimes that may have been committed" but rather "for all crimes committed".

    "I am not a crook!" ~Richard Nixon

    --Lee

    --
    We Put Big Loads In Tight Places

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Dale Shipp on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 18:58:25
    On 27 Mar 2019, Dale Shipp said the following...

    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.

    Flynn did not get in trouble because of his Russian contacts.
    He had a conversation with a Russian and the phone call was recorded by the FBI, so they knew what he said. When Flynn met with the FBI it was without counsel of anykind, it was a informal conversation, when General Flynn told
    the FBI of what was said, it did not match up 100% with what the FBI already knew from the recording. It did not have anything to do with collusion or if
    he knew Russians or not. He was set up from the get go...

    Manifort got in trouble due to taxes or paperwork not filed of which it was they only thing they could get him on...

    Again none of this had anything to do with Trump or collusion.

    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 b
    proven false (admittedly, a difficult thing to do proving a negative)

    The Dossier fake from the get go.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Dale Shipp on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 19:00:20
    On 27 Mar 2019, Dale Shipp said the following...

    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.

    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.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Dale Shipp on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 19:02:33
    On 27 Mar 2019, Dale Shipp said the following...

    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.

    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.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Lee Lofaso on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 19:19:42
    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 so.
    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...

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Dale Shipp on Thursday, March 28, 2019 00:33:17
    Hello Dale,

    The unspoken words are that Mueller dropped this in the lap GD>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.

    Mueller decided not to interview Trump, or charge him with
    any criminal wrongdoing. The AG decided on matters that should
    have been decided by the special counsel rather than himself.

    The AG gave us his *decision* - not his mere opinion.

    The Congress has the clear authority, under Article 1, as it
    is their duty and obligation to make the laws that govern this
    country. The powers of the executive branch is limited to
    enforcement of laws that exist. Not to create and enforce
    laws that do not exist.

    The AG is nominated by the president, and confirmed by the
    Congress. His job is to enforce the law, not to create the law.
    His duty is to serve the American people, regardless of who the
    fuck the president happens to be.

    The president chose Bob Barr to act as his personal savior.
    Barr auditioned for the part before he was nominated, and then
    confirmed by those who knew he would protect The Orange One at
    all costs.

    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.

    Bob Barr said so. So it must be true.

    Truth of the matter is that the AG can change DOJ policy any
    time he wants. And DOJ policy has not always been the same.
    For example, Elliot Richardson comes to mind in regards to
    Richard Nixon. And you do remember Spiro Agnew, who was
    indicted while Vice President.

    Executive Privilege? Doesn't exist when it comes to criminal
    matters. If either Agnew or Nixon were still alive, they could
    vouch for it.

    --Lee

    --
    We Make Your Wet Dreams Come True

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to Lee Lofaso on Thursday, March 28, 2019 07:48:23
    You cannot disprove a negative.

    I think you mean you cannot PROVE a negative, but either way yes, of course
    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 the report to 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 be legally 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 prosecutor
    and ultimately to the Ethics in Government Act, signed into law by Carter in 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.

    LL> by the AG as to what happened. But the actual truth, as reported
    LL> 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.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From Dan Clough@1:123/115 to Gerrit Kuehn on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 20:23:00
    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?

    Yep. Sometimes that's all it takes.

    I really cannot see what you're complaining about here.

    Yeah, I know you can't.

    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.

    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. ;-)

    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.
    === MultiMail/Linux v0.51
    --- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux
    * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to Lee Lofaso on Thursday, March 28, 2019 10:35:10
    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 indicted while
    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 be delayed, 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 does not 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.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From David Drummond@3:640/305 to Lee Lofaso on Thursday, March 28, 2019 13:14:55
    On 28/03/2019 08:37, Lee Lofaso -> Gregory Deyss wrote:

    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.

    Is it true what they're saying, that Mueller is a Putin shill?

    --

    Gang warily
    David

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
    * Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)
  • From David Drummond@3:640/305 to Gregory Deyss on Thursday, March 28, 2019 13:17:59
    On 28/03/2019 09:00, Gregory Deyss -> Dale Shipp wrote:

    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.

    What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    --

    Gang warily
    David

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
    * Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to David Drummond on Thursday, March 28, 2019 12:36:40
    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?

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to David Drummond on Thursday, March 28, 2019 12:37:45
    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.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to nathanael culver on Thursday, March 28, 2019 12:42:35
    Barr did not decide "all by himself". He's following laws put in place by Democrats.

    Mea culpa. An ommission:

    While it's true the powers of the independent counsel were reigned in by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the specific rules requiring the
    now-renamed special prosecutor to report to the AG and giving the AG the authority to decided what, if any, portions of the report to release were put in place by Janet Reno under Bill Clinton in the wake of the release of the
    Ken Starr report.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From David Drummond@3:640/305 to nathanael culver on Thursday, March 28, 2019 16:49:42
    On 28/03/2019 14:36, nathanael culver -> David Drummond wrote:
    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?

    Poor investigative skills perchance?

    --

    Gang warily
    David

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
    * Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)
  • From David Drummond@3:640/305 to nathanael culver on Thursday, March 28, 2019 16:51:16
    On 28/03/2019 14:37, nathanael culver -> David Drummond wrote:
    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.

    Which is what has happened with Trump. Don't find the evidence - cannot "convict". Still doesn't prove he didn't do it.

    --

    Gang warily
    David

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
    * Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12.73 to nathanael culver on Thursday, March 28, 2019 04:44:48
    On 2019 Mar 28 12:37:44, you wrote to David Drummond:

    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"...

    )\/(ark

    Always Mount a Scratch Monkey
    Do you manage your own servers? If you are not running an IDS/IPS yer doin' it wrong...
    ... Canada is the vichyssoise of nations: cold and half-French.
    ---
    * Origin: (1:3634/12.73)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to David Drummond on Thursday, March 28, 2019 17:47:30
    "convict". Still doesn't prove he didn't do it.

    Theoreically, no. But that just leaces one grasping at conspiracy theories.
    For example, in order to suppose Mueller is shilling for Trump one would have to suppose most of his investigatve staff were in on the deception, Barr is covering for the lot of them and that therefore half the DOJ s covering for Barr.

    Myself, I prefer Occam

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From Kurt Weiske@1:218/700 to Gregory Deyss on Thursday, March 28, 2019 06:38:00
    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.


    ... What do you think of the guests?
    --- MultiMail/XT v0.51
    * Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)
  • From Gerrit Kuehn@2:240/12 to Dan Clough on Thursday, March 28, 2019 19:40:20
    Hello Dan!

    27 Mar 19 20:23, Dan Clough wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

    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.

    No, I didn't. QWK & co. is archaic and never really existed on this side of the
    pond. Being unfamiliar with the technology, I wonder why it should not be able
    to do threading, though. And what do you suggest to overcome this? Fullquote everything?

    I'm not trying to escape arguing,

    Yeah, not even trying. You just don't do it.

    just wishing you (and others)
    would do it a little more genuinely.

    Care to elaborate on what you would consider "more genuinely"?
    What makes you think that your response to a single sentence from me voicing some criticism that included only a one-sentence quote of what I was replying to, instead of a two-sentence fullquote of your text, was appropriate?

    Better yet, stop wasting my time.

    Being in a public area here, you asked for it. And we'll both have to bear with
    each other.

    ... Post may contain information unsuitable for overly sensitive
    persons.

    Indeed.


    Regards,
    Gerrit

    ... 7:40PM up 87 days, 21:36, 8 users, load averages: 0.21, 0.34, 0.33

    --- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
    * Origin: We are a nation (2:240/12)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Gregory Deyss on Thursday, March 28, 2019 22:36:11
    Hello Greg,

    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
    so.
    I agree the American people have every right to have the report released.

    | _______ _____ ______ _____ __ _ _______ _______
    | |______ | | \ | | | \ | |______ |
    | | __|__ |_____/ |_____| | \_| |______ |
    |

    For how long should we all remain patient? Ken Starr
    released his entire 445-page report to the public.
    Not just mere snippets, or three sentence fragments.
    Or rather, it was Bill Clinton's AG who released it to
    the public rather than Ken Starr.

    I am sure Bob Mueller has no objection to his entire
    report being made public. FoxNews estimates the report
    is over 700 pages, but less than 1000. But nobody
    knows for sure (aside from Bob Mueller and Bill Barr).

    The FidoNet community is anxious to read this report.
    Except for a small handful of Swedes, who would rather
    discuss something else. Anything else.

    But if the Kracken is released it can not be put back.

    Once a politician gives something away, like Social Security,
    and Medicare, and Medicaid, and Food Stamps, and free money, he
    or she cannot take it back.

    It will be damming for the left, once it is learned of what happened and why.

    After Ken Starr released his entire 445-page report to the public,
    President Bill Clinton went on to finish his second term as the highest
    rated president in American history.

    Watch...

    I do not believe President Donald Trump will finish his single term in
    office as the highest rated president in history.

    --Lee

    --
    We Make Your Wet Dreams Come True

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Gregory Deyss on Thursday, March 28, 2019 22:36:44
    Hello Greg,

    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.

    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.

    You might want to re-read Article I of the US Constitution ...

    --Lee

    --
    As Good As It Looks

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to Lee Lofaso on Friday, March 29, 2019 07:52:51
    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.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From David Drummond@3:640/305 to nathanael culver on Friday, March 29, 2019 12:38:19
    On 28/03/2019 19:47, nathanael culver -> David Drummond wrote:

    Myself, I prefer Occam


    I have a beard.

    --

    Gang warily
    David

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
    * Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to nathanael culver on Friday, March 29, 2019 02:42:33
    Hello Nathanael,

    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.

    Okay. Here's the scoop. AG Elliot Richardson wanted to get
    Spiro Agnew to resign from office as soon as possible so as to
    give Richard Nixon enough time to nominate a new vice president
    before resigning from office himself. Remember, after the
    president nominates a vice president, the Senate has to confirm
    him before he can take office. Allowing Agnew to remain vice
    president was not an option, since Nixon was going to crash.
    And this country would not survive a president who is a known
    crook, much less a president who was a suspected crook.
    Although I suppose it might have been worse if the Speaker
    of the House (a Democrat) would have replaced Nixon and Agnew.

    This is a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel -

    "Well, the president can't be indicted, but the vice president can."

    AG Elliot Richardson was merely stating the obvious, as Nixon
    was his boss. Indicting Nixon would have meant no more job for
    Richardson, and probably a few years in the slammer.

    "Hey, we can indict you and we intend to, and what do you have
    to trade for that?"

    AG Elliot Richardson putting the squeeze on Spiro Agnew.

    "I will not resign if indicted." ~Spiro Agnew, 9/29/1973

    11 days later, Agnew made a plea deal with the AG.
    Pleaded no contest to tax evasion, all other charges
    dropped. Fined $10,000. Given 3 years probation.
    Avoided jail.

    With no vice president, Nixon nominated his future successor,
    who he had made a deal with so as not to go to jail himself.

    We all know what that deal was.

    The question of whether a sitting president can be criminally indicted
    while
    in office is one that has never been answered,

    It would definitely cost the AG his job if he were to try to do so.

    nor does the Constitution provide unambiguous guidance.

    AG Elliot Richardson was prepared to indict the sitting vice president.
    The president and vice president are both part of the executive branch.
    And there is nothing in the US Constitution that states any person as
    being above the law - including the president and vice president.

    Whether he can in theory, in practice what would likely happen, absent
    "high
    crimes or misdemeanors",

    The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a political term, as
    the Congress decides what is "high crimes and misdemeanors" - even
    if it is jaywalking. IOW, it is whatever the Congress says it is.

    is that the president's lawyer would argue that the case should be
    delayed,

    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
    vote in order to clear his good name.

    and all records sealed, until the president has left office. The courts would in all likelihood agree.

    The courts cannot interfere in a trial by the Senate.
    Nor is there any appeal once a verdict has been reached.
    Especially since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
    is there to preside so as to see that everything is fair.

    In the case of high crimes and misdemeanors (which the Constitution does
    not
    define) the process is impeachment by the House, followed by conviction by the Senate.

    The Framers of the Constitution deliberately left it up to the
    Congress to decide the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" -
    which can vary from Congress to Congress.

    However, a Senate conviction does no more than remove the
    president from office.

    Because it is political, rather than criminal.
    Even if the charges are criminal in nature.

    Criminal indictment and potential criminal conviction
    would only follow after the president's removal.

    Except in case of treason. In which case the condemned
    get the death penalty. Presumably after removal from office.

    It is by no means clear whether a sitting president can be criminally indicted or convicted while in office.

    AG Elliot Richardson convinced Spiro Agnew to resign from office
    rather than be indicted. Had the AG not had the legal right to do
    so, he would not have had any leverage to force Agnew to resign.

    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.

    Nixon was toast long before he actually resigned from office.
    Once the evidence against him became so overwhelming as to be
    indefensible, the Republican leadership begged him to resign.

    A further question that would need to be answered before indicting the president is who would bring the charges?

    The AG could do it, as shown by Elliot Richardson. Back then,
    it was not DOJ policy to give the president and vice president
    a free pass. That can be changed on a whim by the current AG.

    The Congress uses impeachment as its version of indictment.
    The House indicts, then there is trial by Senate.

    It's not at all clear that an independent counsel has such constitutional authority, nor has the question been tested in court.

    Former FBI James Comey is not sure, as he was interviewed
    the other day on the matter. He thought the special counsel
    had the authority, but was not sure why Mueller did not take
    that step, choosing to allow the AG to decide.

    That alone may explain why Mueller left the question up
    to the DOJ.

    It seems that Mueller's intention was to allow the Congress
    to decide, as the Congress has clear authority under Article I.
    Which means the AG's decision is really nothing more than an
    opinion.

    But then, these games are far above my pay grade. And also
    most other folks, including James Comey.

    --Lee

    --
    Every Bottom Needs A Top

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to nathanael culver on Friday, March 29, 2019 02:42:45
    Hello Nathanael,

    You cannot disprove a negative.

    I think you mean you cannot PROVE a negative, but either way yes, of
    course
    you can prove negatives. We do it every day.

    If a thief breaks into your home when you are away and
    steals something of value, even if he is later caught (without
    the goods) he can always lie. If nobody saw him do it, he
    might even get away with it.

    An individual is presumed innocent unless proven guilty (beyond
    reasonable doubt). The burden of proof is on those who accuse,
    not on the accused.

    Just because a person is found "not guilty" does not mean he/she
    is innocent. That is what Mueller meant in his report.

    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.

    Mueller is not saying Trump is innocent. He is saying he could
    not find enough evidence to support the contention he may be guilty.

    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 report
    to
    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 be
    legally
    released. Where do people get this "Barr refuses to release the report" stuff?

    AG Bill Barr issued his 4-page summary two days after reading
    Mueller's report, which could be just under 1000 pages. Barr cited
    three sentence fragments from the report. This report does not
    include the tons of evidence collected by Mueller. Keep in mind
    Mueller conducted his investigation for a lot longer than two days.
    More like two years.

    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.

    Mueller handed in the report to the AG, who decided Trump is innocent
    of any criminal wrongdoing.

    It was the aftermath of the Saturday Night Massacre which led Democrats to push for greater independence of the special prosecutor
    and ultimately to the Ethics in Government Act, signed into law by Carter
    in
    1978, which requires the independent counsel to report to the AG.

    Article I remains part of the Constitution, which no president,
    the US Supreme Court, or the Congress, can eliminate. As such, the
    AG cannot, even if he wanted to, decide the entire matter all by
    himself.

    Barr did not decide "all by himself".

    He said he did. In the very summary he issued.

    He's following laws put in place by Democrats.

    Mueller followed the law by handing in the report to his boss.
    His boss would like to play God, but the Congress has the final say.

    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.

    Nobody (other than Mueller and Barr) knows what is in the report,
    as they are the only ones who have read it. Ken Starr released his
    entire 445-page report to the public. Or rather, Bill Clinton's AG.
    Certainly AG Bill Barr can, and should, do the same in regards to
    the Mueller report.

    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.

    Why should any of the report be redacted, or censored? The
    American people have a right to know, not just be told by an
    AG who may, or may not, be telling the truth. Withholding
    information is a lie of deception, and we all deserve better
    than that.

    --Lee

    --
    Erections, That's Our Game

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to mark lewis on Friday, March 29, 2019 04:33:21
    Hello mark,

    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"...

    "Lock her up!" ~Donald Trump, referring to Hillary Clinton

    --Lee

    --
    Erections, That's Our Game

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to David Drummond on Friday, March 29, 2019 04:33:44
    Hello David,

    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.

    Is it true what they're saying, that Mueller is a Putin shill?

    If Trump says so, it must be true.

    --Lee

    --
    Every Bottom Needs A Top

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to Lee Lofaso on Friday, March 29, 2019 22:49:20
    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.

    Sorry, you're playing semantic games trying to hold onto the possibility of 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." Note the lack of weasel words.

    Mueller handed in the report to the AG, who decided Trump is innocent
    of 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 an obstruction 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.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to nathanael culver on Friday, March 29, 2019 16:03:48
    Nathanael,

    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 ...

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99 SR41
    * Origin: Ceci n'est pas un courriel (2:292/854)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to Lee Lofaso on Friday, March 29, 2019 23:07:44
    This 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 the 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.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12.73 to Ward Dossche on Friday, March 29, 2019 11:10:52
    On 2019 Mar 29 16:03:48, you wrote to nathanael culver:

    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
    ...

    to be fair, zero evidence is also "not enough"? zero is a valid quantity ;)

    )\/(ark

    Always Mount a Scratch Monkey
    Do you manage your own servers? If you are not running an IDS/IPS yer doin' it wrong...
    ... I'll have two brains on drugs, scrambled with bacon, grits, toast and coffee.
    ---
    * Origin: (1:3634/12.73)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to Ward Dossche on Friday, March 29, 2019 23:22:50
    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."

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:221/360 to nathanael culver on Friday, March 29, 2019 18:45:52
    Hello Nathanael,

    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.

    Rules can be changed. The Constitution cannot (generally speaking)
    be changed or replaced by rules or guidelines. Fact of the matter is,
    the AG can, and should, release the complete report, in its entirety,
    without redaction, immediately and without delay.

    You may not remember the huge controversy that erupted over Starr's public
    release of his report,

    Within 48 hours, one copy to Democrats, one copy to Republicans.
    Presented live, on air, with no redactions or censorship of any
    kind. The complete, unedited report. All 445 pages. This was
    made public for all to read. Immediately, and without delay.

    AG Bill Barr could have done the same with the Mueller report.
    But he chose not to do so. For reasons only of his own. Or of
    his dearly beloved, who gave him the job.

    especially the lurid sexual detail the report went into,

    Do you honestly believe the American public gave a shit what
    the president did in the bedroom? How is what Bill Clinton did
    any different than what Donald Trump does? Both men chase skirts.
    Both of their wives let them do it. And maybe their wives do the
    same thing. I don't know. And I don't care. What a person does
    in their own bedroom is their own business, not mine.

    However, Bob Mueller was not looking into the details of Donald
    Trump's relationship with Stormy Daniels, but rather his relationship
    with Vladimir Putin. I do pray it had nothing to do with sex.

    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.

    Ken Starr didn't mind his report being made public.
    Bill Clinton's AG didn't mind the Starr report being made public.
    Even Bill Clinton's wife didn't seem to mind. So what's the hangup
    releasing the Mueller report? Why should any of it be redacted or
    not be made public?

    Do you honestly believe Donald Trump would have appointed an AG
    who would have done the same as Janet Reno? What is AG Bill Barr
    hiding? What does President Donald Trump want his AG to hide?

    Since none of us (other than Bill Barr and Bob Mueller) have read
    the report, who can say? Why the blind loyalty to a man who is known
    to be a pathological liar?

    Once again, Mueller is simply following rules put in place by Democrats.

    Rules? There are no rules ...

    --Lee

    --
    Big Or Small We Lay Them All

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to nathanael culver on Friday, March 29, 2019 20:27:31
    Hello Nathanael,

    For how long should we all remain patient? Ken Starr
    released his entire 445-page report to the public.

    Different rules.

    That law expired in 1999. As such, the rule of Trump now applies.

    Back then the special counsel reported directly to
    Congress and was free to release his report publicly.

    That law expired in 1999. When Bill Clinton was still president.

    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.

    That law expired in 1999. When Bill Clinton was still president.

    Once again, Mueller is simply following rules put in place by Democrats.

    That law expired in 1999. When Bill Clinton was still president.

    What that means is that the special counsel [Bob Mueller] did not
    have to report to the AG [Bill Barr].

    Do you know what that means?

    What we have today is the rule of Trump.

    Whatever the fuck that is.

    --Lee

    --
    Every Bottom Needs A Top

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to David Drummond on Friday, March 29, 2019 20:27:43
    Hello David,

    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.

    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 ...

    --
    As Good As It Looks

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to nathanael culver on Friday, March 29, 2019 20:27:56
    Hello Nathanael,

    [..]

    Once again, Mueller is simply following rules put in place by Democrats.

    President Trump is a Republican.
    AG Bill Barr is a Republican.
    Special counsel Bob Mueller is a Republican.

    Guess who writes the rules?

    Republicans.

    --Lee

    --
    It Ain't Payday If It Ain't Nuts In Your Mouth

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to David Drummond on Friday, March 29, 2019 20:28:50
    Hello David,

    Myself, I prefer Occam


    I have a beard.

    Here comes Santa Claus, here comes Santa Claus,
    right down Santa Claus Lane ...

    --Lee

    --
    We Make Your Wet Dreams Come True

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to nathanael culver on Friday, March 29, 2019 20:29:05
    Hello Nathanael,

    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 LL>he
    may be guilty.

    Sorry, you're playing semantic games trying to hold onto the possibility
    of
    Trump's guilt.

    "Not guilty" does not mean the same thing as "Innocent".
    There can be a "presumption of innocence", but that does
    not mean someone is actually "innocent".

    When one makes a plea in court, he/she can plea "guilty" or
    "not guilty". Never "innocent".

    To enter no plea, or a plea of no plea would mean "no contendre",
    means "I choose not to contest the charges." IOW, guilty as hell.

    Mueller did not say "I could not find 'enough' evidence that he "may be" guilty."

    IOW, he could be guilty. A far cry from declaring him "innocent".

    On the assumption Barr's description is accurate,

    Based on three sentence fragments, I seriously doubt that.

    Mueller said, "There is no evidence that any crime was committed." Note
    the
    lack of weasel words.

    How many people have been indicted and convicted? How many
    others are suspected of having committed crimes? Quite a few.

    Mueller handed in the report to the AG, who decided Trump is LL>innocent
    of any criminal wrongdoing.

    You're choosing your words carelessly.

    Not at all. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

    After going into a long spiel on the distinctions between "innocent" and "not guilty", you should realize that Barr said no such thing.

    Really? Please show me, anywhere in Barr's summary, where Barr
    claims Trump is guilty of having committed any crime.

    He said he did not think there was enough evidence to pursue an
    obstruction
    of justice case against Trump.

    AG Barr stated an *opinion* that he did not believe there was
    enough evidence to bother with pursuing an obstruction of evidence
    case against Trump. Basing his *opinion* on three sentence
    fragments cherry-picked [from the Mueller report] by himself.

    That is not very convincing to me, or to most people.

    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.

    AG Janet Reno acted in the best interest of the people.
    AG Bill Barr is acting in the best interest of his beloved,
    Donald Trump. That is the difference.

    Why should any of the report be redacted, or censored? The

    I explained why: it may well contain classified material protected by law;

    It took all of two days for Janet Reno to decide there was no harm
    in releasing the entire 445-page report by Ken Starr to the public -
    one copy to Democrats, one copy to Republicans - shown live on tv
    as it handed over. This was unedited, without any redactions.

    Certainly AG Bill Barr could have done the same with the Mueller
    report. The question is, who is he protecting, and why? What is
    he trying to hide?

    it may contain grand jury information sealed by courts;

    Show me.

    it may contain information that could compromise US security interests,

    Show me.

    expose US operatives to danger,

    Show me.

    or violate privacy expectations of innocent individuals;

    Show me.

    and so forth.

    Show me.

    No, the public does *not* have the right to see every last unfettered
    word of the report.

    Just like GWB claiming Saddam Hussein had "stockpiles of WMD".
    All lies. Total BS.

    When Clinton lied, no one died.
    When Bush lied, thousands died.

    How many people have to die due to the lies of Donald Trump?

    --Lee

    --
    As Good As It Looks

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Ward Dossche on Friday, March 29, 2019 20:29:17
    Hello Ward,

    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 Trump is gay ...

    --Lee

    --
    Laying Pipe Since '88

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to nathanael culver on Friday, March 29, 2019 20:29:29
    Hello Nathanael,

    This 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
    the
    sort; it's merely a legal opinion.

    It was a known fact that Spiro Agnew broke the law (Maryland 1967).
    In 1973 Spiro Agnew was vice president, and under investigation.
    The AG had he goods on him, and faced a dillemna. Keep in mind
    that Nixon was also under investigation, and on his way out.

    If the AG would have indicted Agnew, the vice president would
    have fought it tooth and nail. But would have been convicted.
    With Nixon on the ropes and on his way out, it would have meant
    not enough time for Nixon to name a new vice president before
    he himself had to leave office.

    That would have left the speaker of the house (a Democrat)
    as president. Just imagine the jubilation that would have
    prevailed had the Republican-appointed AG done that ...

    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.

    What is the penalty for treason?

    In the state of Louisiana, it is death. With the governor
    having no power to commute or pardon the convicted.

    It is actually specified in the Louisiana Constitution.

    Think Clinton v. Jones, or Cheney v. District of Columbia.

    In Agnew's case, it was tax evasion in the state of Maryland.

    The AG threatened to indict Agnew, but convinced him to resign,
    thus saving this country the harm a future Democratic president
    would have done.

    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,

    Since Agnew decided to resign from office, the question did not
    have to answered by the courts.

    so whether the AG has the right is still an open debate.

    The AG has always had the right to indict the president/vice president.
    And still does, to this very day. Of course, there is no precedent.
    But that does not mean it will never happen ...

    It may well be that Richardson believed he had that right;

    Agnew certainly did.

    whether the courts would have agreed with him we don't know.

    I am glad Agnew saved us all the time to find out.

    --Lee

    --
    Everybody Loves Our Buns

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to nathanael culver on Friday, March 29, 2019 20:29:42
    Hello Nathanael,

    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."

    Which would be an opinion. The AG is part of the executive branch.
    The Congress is part of the legislative branch. Those in the
    executive branch cannot make the law, but only enforce the law.
    Those in the legislative branch, cannot enforce the law, but make
    the law. Those in the judicial branch can only interpret the law,
    not make or enforce the law.

    Under Article I, the Congress has power of subpoena. It can
    subpoena anybody it wants. Including Mueller and Barr. Which
    may very well happen in the near future.

    Probably Bill Barr first. Then comes Mueller time ...

    --Lee

    --
    Stop Workin', Start Jerkin'

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From David Drummond@3:640/305 to Lee Lofaso on Saturday, March 30, 2019 08:49:23
    On 30/03/2019 05:27, Lee Lofaso -> David Drummond wrote:

    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 ...

    Ward may have supped it.

    --

    Gang warily
    David

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
    * Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to nathanael culver on Friday, March 29, 2019 22:28:32
    On 28 Mar 2019, nathanael culver said the following...

    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?

    Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic and theirs is not.
    Just because there are things that are totally made up on the left does not mean that it is true. Been there done that.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to David Drummond on Friday, March 29, 2019 22:30:17
    Which is what has happened with Trump. Don't find the evidence - cannot "convict". Still doesn't prove he didn't do it.

    Does not prove he did either.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Kurt Weiske on Friday, March 29, 2019 22:46:49
    On 28 Mar 2019, Kurt Weiske said the following...

    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.

    That the information as matter of record -

    Andrew McCabe - the FBI's former Deputy Director, advised then-national security adviser Michael Flynn that he wouldn't need a lawyer present during
    a January 24, 2017 White House interview with two FBI agents, according to
    the Washington Examiner, citing a sentencing memo filed Tuesday by Flynn's attorneys. During a phone call with Flynn, McCabe suggested that if anyone
    else was in the meeting, the FBI would have to escalate things to involve the Justice Department.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Lee Lofaso on Friday, March 29, 2019 22:51:39
    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.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From David Drummond@3:640/305 to Gregory Deyss on Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:55:41
    On 30/03/2019 12:51, Gregory Deyss -> Lee Lofaso wrote:

    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.

    Or be assassinated by someone who really cares about the peoples of the USA.

    --

    Gang warily
    David

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
    * Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Nathanael Culver on Saturday, March 30, 2019 01:12:00
    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.

    There may well be material that has to be redacted from public view --
    but not from the view of Congress. They have the right and duty to see
    it all.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)



    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:13:21, 30 Mar 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to Gregory Deyss on Saturday, March 30, 2019 18:15:54
    Get Real. That is why our economy is doing fantastic and theirs is not.

    Sorry, I didn't have a <sarcasm> smiley on my cellphone.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From Gerrit Kuehn@2:240/12 to Gregory Deyss on Saturday, March 30, 2019 11:48:24
    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

    Just as a reminder: the falling line over time is usually not called "fantastic".


    Regards,
    Gerrit

    ... 11:48AM up 89 days, 13:44, 8 users, load averages: 0.51, 0.42, 0.37

    --- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
    * Origin: We are the second generation (2:240/12)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to David Drummond on Saturday, March 30, 2019 11:15:02
    On 30 Mar 2019, David Drummond said the following...

    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.

    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.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Gerrit Kuehn on Saturday, March 30, 2019 11:29:00
    On 30 Mar 2019, Gerrit Kuehn said the following...

    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

    Now take a look at yours at the same site https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth
    Yeah... I wouldn't be talking there Gerrit.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Björn Felten@2:203/2 to Gregory Deyss on Saturday, March 30, 2019 18:10:20
    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?



    ..

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Gerrit Kuehn@2:240/12 to Gregory Deyss on Saturday, March 30, 2019 18:14:04
    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...


    Regards,
    Gerrit

    ... 6:14PM up 89 days, 20:10, 8 users, load averages: 0.39, 0.34, 0.33

    --- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
    * Origin: We are a nation (2:240/12)
  • From Gerrit Kuehn@2:240/12 to Gregory Deyss on Saturday, March 30, 2019 18:21:44
    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...


    Regards,
    Gerrit


    --- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
    * Origin: We are the second generation (2:240/12)
  • From Gerrit Kuehn@2:240/12 to Bj÷rn Felten on Saturday, March 30, 2019 18:25:16
    Hello Bjrn!

    30 Mar 19 18:10, Bjrn Felten wrote to Gregory Deyss:

    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, we had Mr. Trump doing that for us for months now, and we were finally fed up with it. ;)


    Regards,
    Gerrit

    ... 6:25PM up 89 days, 20:21, 8 users, load averages: 0.47, 0.53, 0.47

    --- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
    * Origin: A true lie to believe (2:240/12)
  • From David Drummond@3:640/305 to Gregory Deyss on Sunday, March 31, 2019 09:31:08
    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 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.

    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 ability to 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 are in Australia?

    Unreachable? Your message has reached me, what are you alluding to?

    That was really a dumb statement that you just made.

    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.

    --

    Gang warily
    David

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
    * Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)
  • From David Drummond@3:640/305 to Gregory Deyss on Sunday, March 31, 2019 09:32:27
    On 31/03/2019 01:29, Gregory Deyss -> Gerrit Kuehn wrote:
    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.

    Did Gerrit mention somewhere that the German economy was "doing fantastic"? I seem to have missed that message.

    --

    Gang warily
    David

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
    * Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to Gerrit Kuehn on Sunday, March 31, 2019 07:43:50
    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.

    I don't know whether that qualifies as "fantastic", but "pretty good"
    doesn't seem much of a stretch. Other economic indicators like unemployment
    and housing starts, are also moving in a positive direction and both GDP and job growth, at least, have so far been better under Trump than under Obama.

    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.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From Gerrit Kuehn@2:240/12 to nathanael culver on Sunday, March 31, 2019 09:53:54
    Hello nathanael!

    31 Mar 19 07:43, nathanael culver wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

    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.

    I didn't understand it that way. His statement didn't refer to any comparison with any other country, although he talked about Russia before, and he also didn't come up with that explanation himself so far. So reading that between the lines is probably overstretched.

    Nor
    do he say anything about "an absolute scale".

    That's the logical consequence when you claim something to be "fantastic" without any comparison. It should at least be "fantastic" compared to itself and its histrory then (you do that below). Again, Gregory appears to be fine with this understanding of what he wrote.

    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.

    Again, I wasn't after any comparison here.
    I don't think I overstretch what Gregory wrote when I say that the wanted to attribute the "fantastic" US economy to his president. However, Mr. Trump is in
    office since early 2017, so looking at anything before that is pretty useless in this regard. If you look at the development of the last months, you'll see that the US economy declines (like almost all others in the world).

    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.

    See? The "fantastic" phrase is definitely giving the wrong connotations here in
    any case.

    Still, US
    economic
    performance seems better than it has in at least a decade.

    I rather fear that the rise we saw after Trump's election is a straw fire, and we already start seeing an overall decline. Look at the 5Y or 10Y scales, and you'll see what I mean.


    Regards,
    Gerrit

    ... 9:53AM up 90 days, 10:49, 8 users, load averages: 0.36, 0.33, 0.32

    --- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
    * Origin: America asleep, since Mulberry's too long (2:240/12)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Björn Felten on Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:18:34
    On 30 Mar 2019, Bjrn Felten said the following...

    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.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Gerrit Kuehn on Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:28:26
    On 30 Mar 2019, Gerrit Kuehn said the following...

    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...

    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.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to David Drummond on Sunday, March 31, 2019 12:20:45
    On 31 Mar 2019, David Drummond said the following...

    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...

    The type person your talking I feel is lazy and wants everything handed to them.

    DD>
    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 is 4.
    The left is trying to manipulate and misrepresent - it's all lies.

    I predict that The he Deep state is very serious in trouble.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Gregory Deyss on Sunday, March 31, 2019 18:49:49
    Hello Greg,

    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.

    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.

    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.

    --Lee

    --
    Big Or Small We Lay Them All

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Björn Felten on Sunday, March 31, 2019 18:50:02
    Hello Bjrn,

    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?

    According to the site, the USA and Sweden have the same
    exact fantastic economy ...

    ....but Bolivia leads the pack and is most fantastic of them all!

    Make America Great Again! Bolivian style!

    --Lee

    --
    We Put Big Loads In Tight Places

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to David Drummond on Sunday, March 31, 2019 18:50:57
    Hello David,

    No it was not left open, it was left up to William Barr and GD>>he has
    already indicated there is not enough evidence to charge GD>>the President with anything.

    What is that saying? - The absence of evidence is not evidence DD>>of
    absence.

    Where's my beer? I know it was here. Right on this table ...

    Ward may have supped it.

    A bottle of Kono Kuro. Cost me $100. Beer features coffee beans
    taken from poop - elephant dung rather than cat poop. Hope he enjoyed
    it.

    --Lee

    --
    We Put Big Loads In Tight Places

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Gregory Deyss on Sunday, March 31, 2019 18:51:11
    Hello Greg,

    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.

    The Dems have given the AG a deadline of April 2 to comply
    with their request to turn over the complete, unredacted, Mueller
    report. There will be no new deadline. If the AG refuses to
    comply, on April 3 the Dems will take off their kid gloves and
    play for real.

    That will be the beginning of the end for the Trump administration.
    Which will come to a complete halt at noon on January 20, 2021.

    --Lee

    --
    Make Sure Your Next Erection Is In Safe Hands

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Gerrit Kuehn@2:240/12 to Gregory Deyss on Sunday, March 31, 2019 19:50:42
    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 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.

    Because we produce things over here (and often even in the US) that people in the US like to buy.

    He has a point and a very good one.

    I don't think so, but in any case the point you claimed to have made above obviously vanished.

    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.

    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?


    Regards,
    Gerrit

    ... 7:50PM up 90 days, 20:46, 8 users, load averages: 0.28, 0.28, 0.29

    --- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
    * Origin: Shock to the System (2:240/12)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Gregory Deyss on Monday, April 01, 2019 02:38:50
    Hello Greg,

    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.

    The US and Sweden have the same exact score.
    Does that mean that Americans should move to Sweden?
    Or that Swedes should move to the USA?

    --Lee

    --
    Pork. The One You Love.

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Gregory Deyss on Monday, April 01, 2019 02:39:02
    Hello Greg,

    [..]

    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.

    Like our president, who would much prefer to be out playing golf
    rather than doing his job?

    Do you think you are unreachable because this fidonet and that you GD>are
    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.

    I pray such a thing never happens to any president. Or any
    other politician, for that matter. Even if he/she is not from
    the USA.

    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.

    Some opinions are best unstated.

    I am sure that there are people out there who would welcome DD>the demise
    of Mr Trump - in some form or other.

    Not many people wish the POTUS dead. Whether by their own
    hand, or by someone else.

    Look at the enthusiasm for the "Russia-gate" debacle.

    Everyone knows now where that came from.

    666 Trump Tower, with Donald Trump, Jr hosting a group of Russians
    who claimed they had something about Hillary Clinton they wanted to
    share with him.

    As there was no evidence of collusion, no obstruction with Trump.

    Not everybody takes AG Bill Barr's word for it.

    The Mueller Report is 300 pages and the summary of the Barr statement is
    4.

    The Mueller Report is just under 400 pages, according to various
    sources. AG Bill Barr's four-page summary is not nearly enough to
    qualify as what special counsel Bob Mueller included in the report.

    The left is trying to manipulate and misrepresent - it's all lies.

    This is a massive coverup, worse than what happened in Nixon's day.

    I predict that The he Deep state is very serious in trouble.

    I predict Donald Trump will be shown the door at twelve o'clock
    noon on January 20, 2021. Unless he croaks on junk food and soda
    pop before then.

    --Lee

    --
    Nobody Beats Our Meat

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From David Drummond@3:640/305 to Gregory Deyss on Monday, April 01, 2019 12:52:52
    On 1/04/2019 02:20, Gregory Deyss -> David Drummond wrote:

    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.

    Just like those who offer low paid employment to your southern neighbours?

    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.

    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 around with quite a security contingent - so they must talk about it too.


    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.

    You speak as if "left", liberal", "socialist" and "communist" are derogatory terms... Are they to you?

    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.

    So we're told...

    The Mueller Report is 300 pages and the summary of the Barr statement is
    4.
    The left is trying to manipulate and misrepresent - it's all lies.

    I predict that The he Deep state is very serious in trouble.

    As is the whole USAmerican system.

    --

    Gang warily
    David

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
    * Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)
  • From David Drummond@3:640/305 to Lee Lofaso on Monday, April 01, 2019 13:01:37
    On 1/04/2019 02:49, Lee Lofaso -> Gregory Deyss wrote:

    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.

    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?

    --

    Gang warily
    David

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
    * Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Gerrit Kuehn on Monday, April 01, 2019 06:57:00
    On 31 Mar 2019, Gerrit Kuehn said the following...

    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.

    The President gave praise to Volkswagen for expanding their presence and
    scope here in the United States. I am not only fan of the Volkswagen Story,
    but drive nothing but.

    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?

    I think his words were taken out of context, deliberately I am afraid.
    It's more like a translation gone horribly wrong, all I can find on the
    matter is that there was something provided to the Wall Street Journal and
    CNBC and to a German Magazine. (The press is at it again)

    This is just fake news story, that is trying to force a wedge.

    The Truth is the VW operates a large plant in TN as well as SC creating many many jobs.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From BOB ACKLEY@1:123/140 to NATHANAEL CULVER on Monday, April 01, 2019 16:09:50
    You cannot disprove a negative.

    I think you mean you cannot PROVE a negative, but either way yes, of
    course
    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 the
    report to
    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 be
    legally
    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
    prosecutor
    and ultimately to the Ethics in Government Act, signed into law by
    Carter in
    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.

    LL> by the AG as to what happened. But the actual truth, as
    reported
    LL> 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.

    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.
    --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
    * Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)
  • From BOB ACKLEY@1:123/140 to MARK LEWIS on Monday, April 01, 2019 16:13:48
    On 2019 Mar 28 12:37:44, you wrote to David Drummond:

    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"...

    Witness federal judge Walter S Smith in Waco, TX, who sentenced the
    Davidians to forty years in prison for using a weapon in the commission
    of a crime the jury said they didn't commit
    --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
    * Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to Lee Lofaso on Tuesday, April 02, 2019 09:53:07
    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.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to David Drummond on Wednesday, April 03, 2019 17:49:10
    Hello David,

    [..]

    According to whom? There is lots of talk out there about the assassination of US presidents - it has happened a few times.

    Abraham Lincoln was shot by an unknown assailant.
    He later died in a room, the only persons seeing him
    being his doctor and his wife. His body was placed
    in a closed coffin for his funeral, then he was
    laid to rest.

    Jim Morrison died of a heart attack while sleeping in a bathtub.
    His body was placed in a closed coffin for his funeral, then he
    was laid to rest in a public cemetary.

    We do not know if Abraham Lincoln died of a gunshot wound.
    We do not know if Jim Morrosion died of a heart attack.
    We do not know if either Abraham Lincoln or Jim Morrison
    died at all. Maybe they both faked their own death.

    We just have no way of knowing.

    We do know the body of John Wilkes Booth is not where
    it was claimed to have been buried. Or even if the body
    that was claimed to have been buried is actually John
    Wilkes Booth.

    Jim Morrison's girlfriend leased a gravesite in Paris
    to bury her beloved. The lease ran out a few years ago.
    But no attempt was made to remove Jim Morrison's body
    from the gravesite. Too many tourists wanted it to
    remain exactly where it was reputed to be.

    What if there is no body to be found at Lincoln's gravesite?
    What if there is no body to be found at Jim Morrison's gravesite?

    We only know what we have been told.

    I am lead to believe that the presidents (present and past) get around
    with
    quite a security contingent - so they must talk about it too.

    Not outside their own circle.

    Indira Ghandi was offed by one of her bodyguards. A few years later,
    I ran across a secret service agent who was recruiting at a job fair.
    I asked him why no secret secret service agent had never turned on
    the POTUS. He was so shocked he had no answer. Just a blank stare.
    Totally unable to say.

    This exchange made me wonder.

    Several US presidents have died in office before the end of their
    term(s) in office. Can it be that one, or more, have been offed by
    their own security team?

    It has been rumored that FDR was poisoned. Americans were shocked
    when they learned he had croaked. It was thought by all he was in
    great health, with no physical problems (aside from not being able
    to walk).

    How do we know JFK was killed in Dallas? His body was placed in a
    closed coffin for his funeral. Just like Abraham Lincoln.

    We only know what we have been told.

    Does that make any of it true?

    --Lee

    --
    We're Great In Bed

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to David Drummond on Wednesday, April 03, 2019 17:49:22
    Hello David,

    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.

    And you have these dates store in your "easy to recall" memory?

    Yes. I have a memory like an elephant. Thanks to Republicans.

    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?

    What did we do with Saddam Huseein? We turned him over to his
    own people so that they could deal with him. See how nice we are?

    We are so nice. To everybody. We would have turned over Benito
    Mussolini to his own people, given the chance. We would have
    turned over Adolf Hitler to his own people, given the chance.

    Hell, we let Emperor Hirohito spend the rest of his days a free
    man, without having to spend a single day in jail.

    We just can't help ourselves. Being nice is just our nature.

    Donald Trump says he is in love with Kim. Not sure if he is
    also in love with Assad. Might be, given his love for Vladimir.

    Could be his love letter to the democratically elected leader
    of Venezuela went unansered. Probably due to the high cost of
    postage stamps ...

    --Lee

    --
    Everybody Loves Our Buns

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to nathanael culver on Wednesday, April 03, 2019 17:49:35
    Hello Nathanael,

    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.

    The evidence has been collected. The AG refuses to allow others
    to read the documentation of that evidence. IOW, a whitewash.
    A massive coverup of crimes committed.

    Read my post under the subject "Watergate II".
    Note what Rachel Maddow said on her show on 4/2/2019.
    That is for starters.

    --Lee

    --
    Your Hole Is Our Goal

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to BOB ACKLEY on Wednesday, April 03, 2019 17:51:06
    Hello Bob,

    You cannot disprove a negative.

    I think you mean you cannot PROVE a negative, but either way yes, of
    course
    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 the
    report to
    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 be
    legally
    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
    prosecutor
    and ultimately to the Ethics in Government Act, signed into law by
    Carter in
    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.

    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.

    Once it has been made public it is no longer classified.

    --Lee

    --
    Big Or Small We Lay Them All

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Gregory Deyss on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 07:47:00
    I think your getting confused with Hillary of whom deleted
    30,000 + emails.

    Show me the mails ...

    Fact: There is NO Collusion and No American citizen colluded with the Russian Government. """""""""""""""""""

    That is not proven nor stated.

    Fact: Attorney General William Barr concluded there is not enough
    evidence to charge President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice.

    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) ...

    "He cautioned, however, that Mr. Muellers report states that 'while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not
    exonerate him' on the obstruction of justice issue."

    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".

    Take care,

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 3.99 SR41
    * Origin: Ceci n'est pas un courriel (2:292/854)
  • From nathanael culver@3:712/886 to Ward Dossche on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 17:43:31
    Probably. But there's a difference between 'finding no proof' and "it didn't happen".

    True. One's evidence-based; the other's a conspiracy theory.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)
  • From Dan Clough@1:123/115 to Ward Dossche on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 07:34:00
    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".

    True.

    The first one is based on scientific *FACTUAL* evidence.

    The second is an *OPINION* of Trump-hating liberals who will never
    believe anything other than what their little minds have already
    decided is the "truth".

    Hope this helps!



    ... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
    === MultiMail/Linux v0.51
    --- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux
    * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)
  • From Gerrit Kuehn@2:240/12 to Dan Clough on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 19:55:26
    Hello Dan!

    26 Mar 19 07:34, Dan Clough wrote to Ward Dossche:

    The first one is based on scientific *FACTUAL* evidence.

    Please... afaik neither jurisprudence nor politics claim to be evidence-based science.


    Regards,
    Gerrit

    ... 7:55PM up 85 days, 21:51, 8 users, load averages: 0.22, 0.38, 0.36

    --- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
    * Origin: America, America the western dream is gone (2:240/12)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12.73 to Gerrit Kuehn on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 16:15:24
    On 2019 Mar 26 19:55:26, you 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.

    you've got that right! jurisprudence is based on who has the most believable story... i've had numerous attorneys tell me and friends that straight out... it was a real eye-opener!

    )\/(ark

    Always Mount a Scratch Monkey
    Do you manage your own servers? If you are not running an IDS/IPS yer doin' it wrong...
    ... Have a day - manic depressive.
    ---
    * Origin: (1:3634/12.73)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Lee Lofaso on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 20:06:29
    On 26 Mar 2019, Lee Lofaso said the following...

    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."

    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 on the 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 it took the democrats to spend all that money and time to come up with a whole lot of nothing.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Dan Clough@1:123/115 to Gerrit Kuehn on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 18:46:00
    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.

    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.



    ... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
    === MultiMail/Linux v0.51
    --- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux
    * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Ward Dossche on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 20:30:52
    On 26 Mar 2019, Ward Dossche said the following...

    I think your getting confused with Hillary of whom deleted
    30,000 + emails.

    Show me the mails ...

    What if I could, what would be the point? Besides multiple countries already have them including Julian Assange..

    Don't take my word for it, look for your self.

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/?q=clinton&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&dat e_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=0#searchresult

    Fact: There is NO Collusion and No American citizen colluded with the
    Russian Government.
    """"""""""""""""""" WD>
    That is not proven nor stated.

    Stay tuned.

    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) ...

    My god man! it's the New York Times, that should in it self, make you pause...

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)