The Washington Post
Apr 19, 2019 22:12:17 #
Cykdelic wrote:
I posted before going through the entire thread.....my bad!
The foot notes are excellent.
Apr 20, 2019 10:03:05 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
"I downloaded the report, and I've now "speed read" it. If I had written a report like this one when I was in college, I'd be taking the course over again, and my professor would have "red lined" it to death. I well understand the complexity of legal reports, but this one is nearly incoherent."
You are talented enough to write legal reports more coherently than Mueller and his team. That is impressive. You send send a resume to Trump.
You are talented enough to write legal reports more coherently than Mueller and his team. That is impressive. You send send a resume to Trump.
I wouldn't pretend to be able to write an extremely complex legal brief; I'm not a lawyer, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor do I play one on TV. I do however, know how to write competent technical papers, and wrote many during my business career in finance and IT, including operating procedures, and papers accepted without editing by ISO 9000.
I stated that legal briefs are sometimes difficult to be easily read because they generally don't have the same flow as other subjects. It doesn't excuse the sloppiness of the Mueller Report. You can tell that the contributors wanted their work in-tact in the final form.
I've also read a number of Supreme Court briefs, and I wouldn't pretend to be able to write one. However, complex as they are, they're still written very cleanly.
Apr 20, 2019 10:24:11 #
Apr 20, 2019 10:33:45 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
“The President’s actions did not rise to acts of criminal obstruction of justice.”
That is a twisted interpretation of what Mueller did NOT say.
That is a twisted interpretation of what Mueller did NOT say.
He also didn't say that you are a twisted demonic source of mis-information.
So, what are we to conclude from that ??
Apr 20, 2019 10:39:28 #
BigBear wrote:
He also didn't say that you are a twisted demonic source of mis-information.
So, what are we to conclude from that ??
So, what are we to conclude from that ??
That Gary Abernathy and I don’t know each other.
Apr 20, 2019 10:43:35 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
That Gary Abernathy and I don’t know each other.
Not relevant to the post, but not much that comes from you is.
Apr 22, 2019 11:32:59 #
Elaine2025
Loc: Seattle, Wa
chrisscholbe wrote:
Well, If I have mental issues(not saying I don't) at least I can state, one way or the other, that I do or do not support investigating allegations, especially serious one, and prosecuting anyone who has broken the law.
You seem to not be able to state where you stand on such a simple concept.
Oh well.
You seem to not be able to state where you stand on such a simple concept.
Oh well.
You are not able to comprehend the written word, therefore you are unable to discern conclusions or positions. You are really all over the board.
Apr 22, 2019 11:34:22 #
Elaine2025
Loc: Seattle, Wa
Kmgw9v wrote:
It is not in dispute that a foreign country engaged in disrupting the 2016 e******n with the intent to make Trump our President.
What is anyone, especially the current President, doing to address that, and protect the e*******l process in the future?
The Meuller report is not a win for Trump, it is the exposure of an unfit Constitutional "leader" who still thinks Putin is his buddy.
Maybe he is.
This country is in trouble.
What is anyone, especially the current President, doing to address that, and protect the e*******l process in the future?
The Meuller report is not a win for Trump, it is the exposure of an unfit Constitutional "leader" who still thinks Putin is his buddy.
Maybe he is.
This country is in trouble.
Only in a democrats eyes is it NOT a win for Trump. You guys will have to drive away more dems before you get it. That's ok, we will take them.
Apr 22, 2019 11:36:03 #
Elaine2025 wrote:
Only in a democrats eyes is it NOT a win for Trump. You guys will have to drive away more dems before you get it. That's ok, we will take them.
#walkaway is a thing
Apr 22, 2019 11:36:47 #
Elaine2025
Loc: Seattle, Wa
Kmgw9v wrote:
It is incumbent for a governing body to investigate allegations, especially serious ones; like a foreign country destroying the integrity of our e******ns. That is why the Mueller investigation was appropriate and fair. Those whose lies are uncovered by any investigation is such investigations are strictly accountable.
BS and you know it. It was you lib f*****t socialist dems that went after Trump, and they should have went after the dems who bought and paid for the f**e dossier, and obummer who knew about it and fanned the flames.
It will all come out in the investigation.
Apr 22, 2019 11:39:27 #
Elaine2025 wrote:
BS and you know it. It was you lib f*****t socialist dems that went after Trump, and they should have went after the dems who bought and paid for the f**e dossier, and obummer who knew about it and fanned the flames.
It will all come out in the investigation.
It will all come out in the investigation.
Gee wiz. He’s not concerned over leftie Dems constantly trying to bring down America from within. Go figure.
Apr 22, 2019 11:39:44 #
Elaine2025
Loc: Seattle, Wa
chrisscholbe wrote:
Fox News has normalized a lie about the origins of the Russia investigation
They want you to believe it began with the Steele dossier. It didn’t.
http://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18277089/fox-news-steele-dossier-lie-trump-witch-hunt
They want you to believe it began with the Steele dossier. It didn’t.
http://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18277089/fox-news-steele-dossier-lie-trump-witch-hunt
Stated simply, you have no idea what you are talking about. You base your opinion off of one LEFT WING RAG'S article????
Apr 22, 2019 11:42:15 #
Elaine2025
Loc: Seattle, Wa
chrisscholbe wrote:
I don't disagree, but, Martha Stewart was convicted of Insider Trading.
It wouldn't have mattered if she talked with or without a lawyer.
Guilty is guilty.
It wouldn't have mattered if she talked with or without a lawyer.
Guilty is guilty.
You really need to be more accurate in your posts. This is why she was convicted. Nothing about insider trading.
After a highly publicized six-week jury trial, Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators, and was sentenced in July 2004 to serve a five-month term in a federal correctional facility and a two-year ...
Martha Stewart - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart
Apr 22, 2019 11:44:24 #
Elaine2025
Loc: Seattle, Wa
Cykdelic wrote:
Also remember that 25 DOJ personnel from the Obama administration have been fired, demoted, or quit before being fired in this affair.
More will be following them.
More will be following them.
Apr 22, 2019 12:06:37 #
Elaine2025 wrote:
You really need to be more accurate in your posts.... (show quote)
I wonder how many more of you will tell me about my mistake.
Keep 'em coming...I can take it.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.