Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

Not amusing. You use imaginary “sauces” in an effort to defend your guy and you think that’s a good idea? Why should we take anything you post down here seriously if that’s what you are doing?

 

you shouldn’t

 

I continue to be impressed at the level of fascination with my posting habits here

 

So the only reason you are posting in D&D is to spam the forum in support of your hero. Got it.
Be as fascinated as you like with yourself. Enjoy not being taken at all seriously in this forum, certainly not by me. If you don’t care to have integrity here, I have no reason to read your posts, not in D&D.

Once again, and I’ve said this several times over the years in Feedback and elsewhere, I wish @Clutch would make the ignore function forum specific.

@justtxyank, I wish you would suggest that to him. Ask him, if it is not too difficult, to make the ignore function “forum specific.” In other words, give contributing members the ability to ignore a member in one forum, but read their posts in others. Some members seem to delight in trolling D&D. @Os Trigonum has made it abundantly clear that he does. While I enjoy reading his posts elsewhere, I would just as soon not read posts from members like him who are here trolling the forum. I have 50+ members on ignore, and I would rather not place him there.

 

geez Deck, don’t you think that is a slight overreaction? Several folks here seem to enjoy the links to articles and excerpts that I post here. If you don’t care for them , isn’t it easier to just ignore them and scroll on—as I and others do with literally hundreds if not thousands of NRF tweets and retweets each week. And if I happen to make a lame, half-hearted joke (“sauces”) that is an allusion to humor that is common elsewhere throughout the board, couldn’t you possibly just see it within your heart to just excuse it as being (in your view) in simple poor taste. I like you as a poster, you ordinarily show good sense as well as a sense of humor, but in this case I think you are badly overreacting.

 

How is it “overreacting” to point out that a source you posted made statements that weren’t based on fact? When I pointed that out, you made a joke of it. You posted the dishonest column by Dershowitz and should have taken seriously a reply. You constantly post materials in this forum, and while I don’t read much of it, preferring not to get into a political argument with you, I have been assuming that you had good reason to do so. Apparently you don’t read some of them yourself, which might be a good idea. I don’t know why Dershowitz chose to be dishonest. My guess is that he’s craving attention. Well, he got some from you. As for my use of the word “sauces,” that is exactly the word you used. So what is good enough for the goose isn’t good enough for the gander? (Although I would prefer to describe you as the gander)

 

Nah. You are completely dishonest about your position and don't debate in good faith. If you had the courage to at least be honest about your position on an anonymous forum then it wouldn't an issue.

 

Not all attention is good when people bring up how much you spend your life on an anonymous internet forum.

 

I could care less if OS wants to be the conservative NRF, at least NRF debates in good faith. The GARM is a great place to get attention as it seems that's all OS wants.

 

Good for you!

 

I understand very well what Os is doing. He's bored and deciding it's fun to take a right-wing supportive stance and troll liberals for no other reason than as a sociological experiment. He's also testing his own ideas by attacking them at times and having others defend them. His real position on anything is unattainable because you don't know what he really believes or not.

Sound familiar?

I know what he is doing because I was doing it 10 years ago.

He will not engage you in rational debate.
He will not admit to making a mistake.
What in heaven's earth should you do?
Ignore him and and his monkey poo?
Whatever you decide - just don't take the bait.

 

With all due respect, this is really between Os and myself. I’m not interested in others getting involved, although you are certainly free to post what you like.

 

In that case, may I suggest you using a private conversation with him?

 

Butina sentenced to 18 months, 9 months of which already served...

 

Fox News' Judge Napolitano: Mueller report shows Trump obstructed justice
Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano is not going easy on President Trump.



Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano. (Photo: Richard Drew/AP)

“When the president asks his former adviser and my former colleague K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter to the file knowing the government would subpoena it, that’s obstruction of justice,” Napolitano said in his video. “When the president asks Cory Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired, that’s obstruction of justice. When the president asks his then White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about it, that’s obstruction of justice. When he asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and then change his testimony, that’s obstruction of justice. When he dangled the pardon in front of Michael Cohen in order to keep Cohen from testifying against him, that’s obstruction of justice. Why not charge him?”
The House Judiciary Committee on Monday subpoenaed McGahn to testify on what he told Mueller about Trump’s orders to fire the special counsel. While Mueller made no determination on whether to recommend criminal charges against the president for obstruction of justice, Attorney General William Barr decided not to do so.


Napolitano, who once told friends that Trump had considered nominating him for the U.S. Supreme Court, took a very different view of the actions of the president described in the Mueller report.

“The president’s job is to enforce federal law,” Napolitano wrote. “If he had ordered its violation to save innocent life or preserve human freedom, he would have a moral defense. But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable.”

https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-jud...shows-trump-obstructed-justice-001202876.html


This pretty much summarizes what I have been saying since I had an opportunity to read the actual report. It really just comes down to whether the democrats want to go through the effort. The evidence is there and spelled out by the Mueller report. It is a perfect blue print.

 

The best part is that they are deporting her back to Russia where she belongs.

 

Sometimes doing the right thing isn’t prudent. Without bipartisan support, impeachment may blow up in the Dems face.

It’s pretty obvious Trump obstructed but the GOP is fine with it.

 

The democrats also have to worry about Trump impeachment fatigue.

 

how did he obstruct?