Comments on: The Mueller Report: Part I

By: Randall Schenck

Randall Schenck — Wed, 24 Apr 2019 21:44:17 +0000

Don’t feel too bad Nicky. Every time I try to predict without waiting instead, the results are not good. I see the date on your comment is 25 April, however, when I look at the clock here it is the 24th.

There is lots to be done before they get this creep out of office and it is no more certain now than it was months ago. We know more and it makes us think it should happen but it may just be a mirage. Trump is now circling the wagons and declaring war on all enemies. That might hurt him in the end because his cult 35% is all he has. If that starts to go he will be done. Meanwhile he will hide behind his justice department, his republican Senate and maybe his supreme court.

By: nicky

nicky — Wed, 24 Apr 2019 20:22:13 +0000

Randall, I said: “That being said, I doubt whether there are solid proofs that Mr Trump did indeed actively participate in the Russian conspiracy . Mr Barr may be a hack, but if there were strong evidence Mr Barr would have been more circumspect, I’d say, these things tend to come out sooner or later.”
I have to retract that, my doubt was wrong. Now that the (redacted) Mueller report is out it is clear that Mr Barr -and mr Mueller in a sense, with this footnote 1- did exactly that.
There are solid proofs of coordination and soliciting there, and Mr Barr simply just denied them, hiding behind a ridiculously narrow definition of ‘conspiracy’. I stand corrected.

By: Historian

Historian — Tue, 02 Apr 2019 14:18:16 +0000

Correction: Adam Schiff is not a senator. He is a Democratic representative from California and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

By: Heather Hastie

Heather Hastie — Tue, 02 Apr 2019 05:25:51 +0000

In reply to nicky. That's the way I heard it too! :-D

By: nicky

nicky — Tue, 02 Apr 2019 02:46:18 +0000

Note: “It was just announced there was no collusion with Russia, the most ridiculous thing I ever heard,”
Yes, I can agree, it appears ridiculous to announce there was no collusion, indeed,

By: Heather Hastie

Heather Hastie — Tue, 02 Apr 2019 01:20:35 +0000

In reply to Randall Schenck. We've elected atheist or agnostic PMs continuously since 1999. We did have a devout Catholic for a short time when one of the atheists resigned and he was PM for a short time until the next election. But then he was beaten by the current PM (agnostic). She became agnostic after a Mormon upbringing because she didn't agree with Mormon attitudes etc towards gays. Her deputy leader is gay.

By: Randall Schenck

Randall Schenck — Mon, 01 Apr 2019 11:58:08 +0000

That is a very true statement that a gay person could not be elected president here and certainly the same is true for an atheist. What does that tell you about the people here?

By: Miss Ironfist

Miss Ironfist — Mon, 01 Apr 2019 11:29:16 +0000

In reply to Heather Hastie. They are DELIGHTFUL!!!!!! x

By: Heather Hastie

Heather Hastie — Mon, 01 Apr 2019 01:58:53 +0000

In reply to nicky. Yep. It even seems that Trump is actively stopping changes being made.

By: Heather Hastie

Heather Hastie — Mon, 01 Apr 2019 01:58:03 +0000

In reply to nicky.

I don’t think a gay man could win the presidency in the US currently.

Btw, I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned that the deputy leader of the Labour Party here is gay. He would have been deputy PM except for the need to make the leader of one of the coalition partners deputy PM in order to make the coalition deal in the first place.