Mueller Shouldn't Have Trusted Bill Barr
Apr 19, 2019 12:19:35 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
By Michael.Daly
Two days before the 50th anniversary of Robert Mueller being seriously wounded while leading his platoon against a numerically superior enemy in Vietnam, his latest service to the nation was released in the form of the Special Counsel’s Report.
In a morning press conference before the release, Attorney General William Barr seemed to give a friend of three decades his due after two years of lies and slander by our president.
“I would also like to thank Special Counsel Mueller for his service and the thoroughness of his investigation, particularly his work exposing the nature of Russia’s attempts to interfere in our e*******l process,” Barr said.
A few breaths later, Barr committed one of the great public betrayals of our history. The country’s most senior law enforcement officer actually sought to justify President Trump’s mendacious attacks against Mueller and the investigation he had been appointed to conduct.
“As the special counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” Barr said.
In fact, the report acknowledges no such thing.
What the report does demonstrate is that Mueller conducted an exceedingly fair, determinedly thorough investigation.
Just as he had on the battlefield a half century ago, Mueller performed brilliantly.
His one mistake was to trust his supposed friend Barr.
To call Barr a human hedgehog would be unfair if the resemblance were confined to his appearance. But he also shares a hedgehog’s unique “self-anointing,” a behavior that involves licking an object whose smell the creature finds attractive until it works up a froth that it then rubs on itself.
Barr must have worked up considerable froth in the presence of the president. He smelled like pure Trump on March 24, when he offered a four-page document that was was supposed to be an honest appraisal of the evidence Mueller so carefully gathered under such trying circumstances.
Barr reeked of The Donald when he subsequently spoke of the FBI “spying” on the Trump campaign.
During his public betrayal of Mueller at Thursday’s press conference, Barr twice said there was “no collusion.” He implicitly excused even Trump’s demonstrable lies concerning an effort to fire Mueller because of fictitious “conflicts.”
As he exonerated Trump, Barr failed to note that page two of Volume II of the very document he was releasing states, “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The report further states, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”
Mueller apparently did not foresee that Barr would effectively see Trump exonerated anyway. Mueller also did not likely anticipate that when releasing the report, Barr would say Trump’s behavior must be put “in context” and accepted.
The report documents that Trump lied, lied, and lied again—and pressured his subordinates to do the same.
The true source of the frustration and anger that Barr describes was partly the refusal of several staffers to be as unprincipled as their president.
The most prominent of those who stood up to the president was White House Counsel Don McGahn, nephew of the late Atlantic City lawyer/fixer Paddy McGahn. The uncle cleared the way for Trump’s casinos and the nephew might therefore have been expected to be situationally flexible. But the uncle was also a thrice-wounded Marine and recipient of the Navy Cross. The report describes the nephew as responding more like a Marine than a fixer/lawyer.
The big test for Don McGahn came after Trump instructed him to have Mueller fired for supposed “conflicts,” in June 2017. Mueller would subsequently find himself in the bizarre position of investigating an attempt to stop him from investigating.
“The president cited as conflicts that Mueller had interviewed for the FBI Director position shortly before being appointed as special counsel, that he had worked for a law firm that represented people affiliated with the president, and that Mueller had disputed certain fees relating to his membership in a Trump golf course in Northern Virginia,” the report notes.
The report adds that Steve Bannon told Trump the purported conflicts were “ridiculous.” Mueller had never been interviewed for the FBI Director. He had not represented any Trump people, even if others at his very large law firm had.
As for the supposed golf course fee dispute, the report says: “In October 2011, Mueller resigned his family’s membership from Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, in a letter that noted that, ‘We live in the District and find that we are unable to make full use of the Club,’ and that inquired ‘whether we would be entitled to a refund of a portion of our initial membership fee,’ which was paid in 1994.”
The report adds, “About two weeks later , the controller of the club responded that the Muellers’ resignation would be effective Oct. 31, 2011, and that they would be ‘placed on a waitlist to be refunded on a first resigned / first refunded basis...’ The Muellers have not had further contact with the club.”
McGahn said he would quit rather than fire Mueller on fictitious grounds, and went so far as to pack up his office. Trump relented, and that might have been that, had the “f**e news” not reported the t***h.
“In early 2018, the press reported that the president had directed McGahn to have the special counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order,” the report says. “The president reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the president had directed McGahn to have the special counsel removed. The president then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports.”
The report continues, “The president asked McGahn whether he would ‘do a correction,’ and McGahn said no.
“The president also asked McGahn in the meeting why he had told Special Counsel’s Office investigators that the president had told him to have the special counsel removed. McGahn responded that he had to, and that his conversations with the president were not protected by attorney-client privilege.”
Trump inquired about McGahn’s habit of jotting down what was said during meetings with him. The report says, “The president then asked, ‘What about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don't take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes.’ McGahn responded that he keeps notes because he is a ‘real lawyer’ and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing. The president said, ‘I’ve had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes.’ ”
Anybody who was around Roy Cohn knew that he did not want to be hampered by a record and that he always sought to make the t***h wh**ever best suited him at the moment. And Cohn was not just Trump’s lawyer; he was young Donald’s mentor.
To read the litany of Trump’s lies as detailed in the Mueller report is to feel that Cohn’s spirit has risen from the crypt in Queens that he shares with his mother. Trump also lies about the successful firing of FBI Director James Comey.
Then there are the lies about the Mueller investigation itself. The report describes a moment on the south lawn last August: “In an impromptu exchange with reporters that lasted approximately five minutes, the president twice called the special counsel’s investigation a ‘r****d witch hunt.’ ”
So said the president who sought to rig the firing of a resolutely honest prosecutor.
At another moment, the report says, “The president described the special counsel’s investigation as ‘a witch hunt that ends in disgrace.’ ”
The actual disgrace belongs to Trump and to Barr.
In assuming the scent of the president, the human hedgehog seems to have also assumed the scent of Trump’s mentor. Cohn spoke endlessly about loyalty, but was always ready to betray a friend.
In Barr’s case, that is Mueller, whose only big mistake in the investigation was trusting him.
It’s nearly 50 years since Mueller led his platoon from potential disaster, despite a bullet wound to the thigh. This is one of the qualities that has long made America great. Barr, and Trump, and his t***h-indifferent supporters, all owe Mueller an apology.
Semper Fi, Mr. Mueller
Two days before the 50th anniversary of Robert Mueller being seriously wounded while leading his platoon against a numerically superior enemy in Vietnam, his latest service to the nation was released in the form of the Special Counsel’s Report.
In a morning press conference before the release, Attorney General William Barr seemed to give a friend of three decades his due after two years of lies and slander by our president.
“I would also like to thank Special Counsel Mueller for his service and the thoroughness of his investigation, particularly his work exposing the nature of Russia’s attempts to interfere in our e*******l process,” Barr said.
A few breaths later, Barr committed one of the great public betrayals of our history. The country’s most senior law enforcement officer actually sought to justify President Trump’s mendacious attacks against Mueller and the investigation he had been appointed to conduct.
“As the special counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” Barr said.
In fact, the report acknowledges no such thing.
What the report does demonstrate is that Mueller conducted an exceedingly fair, determinedly thorough investigation.
Just as he had on the battlefield a half century ago, Mueller performed brilliantly.
His one mistake was to trust his supposed friend Barr.
To call Barr a human hedgehog would be unfair if the resemblance were confined to his appearance. But he also shares a hedgehog’s unique “self-anointing,” a behavior that involves licking an object whose smell the creature finds attractive until it works up a froth that it then rubs on itself.
Barr must have worked up considerable froth in the presence of the president. He smelled like pure Trump on March 24, when he offered a four-page document that was was supposed to be an honest appraisal of the evidence Mueller so carefully gathered under such trying circumstances.
Barr reeked of The Donald when he subsequently spoke of the FBI “spying” on the Trump campaign.
During his public betrayal of Mueller at Thursday’s press conference, Barr twice said there was “no collusion.” He implicitly excused even Trump’s demonstrable lies concerning an effort to fire Mueller because of fictitious “conflicts.”
As he exonerated Trump, Barr failed to note that page two of Volume II of the very document he was releasing states, “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The report further states, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”
Mueller apparently did not foresee that Barr would effectively see Trump exonerated anyway. Mueller also did not likely anticipate that when releasing the report, Barr would say Trump’s behavior must be put “in context” and accepted.
The report documents that Trump lied, lied, and lied again—and pressured his subordinates to do the same.
The true source of the frustration and anger that Barr describes was partly the refusal of several staffers to be as unprincipled as their president.
The most prominent of those who stood up to the president was White House Counsel Don McGahn, nephew of the late Atlantic City lawyer/fixer Paddy McGahn. The uncle cleared the way for Trump’s casinos and the nephew might therefore have been expected to be situationally flexible. But the uncle was also a thrice-wounded Marine and recipient of the Navy Cross. The report describes the nephew as responding more like a Marine than a fixer/lawyer.
The big test for Don McGahn came after Trump instructed him to have Mueller fired for supposed “conflicts,” in June 2017. Mueller would subsequently find himself in the bizarre position of investigating an attempt to stop him from investigating.
“The president cited as conflicts that Mueller had interviewed for the FBI Director position shortly before being appointed as special counsel, that he had worked for a law firm that represented people affiliated with the president, and that Mueller had disputed certain fees relating to his membership in a Trump golf course in Northern Virginia,” the report notes.
The report adds that Steve Bannon told Trump the purported conflicts were “ridiculous.” Mueller had never been interviewed for the FBI Director. He had not represented any Trump people, even if others at his very large law firm had.
As for the supposed golf course fee dispute, the report says: “In October 2011, Mueller resigned his family’s membership from Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, in a letter that noted that, ‘We live in the District and find that we are unable to make full use of the Club,’ and that inquired ‘whether we would be entitled to a refund of a portion of our initial membership fee,’ which was paid in 1994.”
The report adds, “About two weeks later , the controller of the club responded that the Muellers’ resignation would be effective Oct. 31, 2011, and that they would be ‘placed on a waitlist to be refunded on a first resigned / first refunded basis...’ The Muellers have not had further contact with the club.”
McGahn said he would quit rather than fire Mueller on fictitious grounds, and went so far as to pack up his office. Trump relented, and that might have been that, had the “f**e news” not reported the t***h.
“In early 2018, the press reported that the president had directed McGahn to have the special counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order,” the report says. “The president reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the president had directed McGahn to have the special counsel removed. The president then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports.”
The report continues, “The president asked McGahn whether he would ‘do a correction,’ and McGahn said no.
“The president also asked McGahn in the meeting why he had told Special Counsel’s Office investigators that the president had told him to have the special counsel removed. McGahn responded that he had to, and that his conversations with the president were not protected by attorney-client privilege.”
Trump inquired about McGahn’s habit of jotting down what was said during meetings with him. The report says, “The president then asked, ‘What about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don't take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes.’ McGahn responded that he keeps notes because he is a ‘real lawyer’ and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing. The president said, ‘I’ve had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes.’ ”
Anybody who was around Roy Cohn knew that he did not want to be hampered by a record and that he always sought to make the t***h wh**ever best suited him at the moment. And Cohn was not just Trump’s lawyer; he was young Donald’s mentor.
To read the litany of Trump’s lies as detailed in the Mueller report is to feel that Cohn’s spirit has risen from the crypt in Queens that he shares with his mother. Trump also lies about the successful firing of FBI Director James Comey.
Then there are the lies about the Mueller investigation itself. The report describes a moment on the south lawn last August: “In an impromptu exchange with reporters that lasted approximately five minutes, the president twice called the special counsel’s investigation a ‘r****d witch hunt.’ ”
So said the president who sought to rig the firing of a resolutely honest prosecutor.
At another moment, the report says, “The president described the special counsel’s investigation as ‘a witch hunt that ends in disgrace.’ ”
The actual disgrace belongs to Trump and to Barr.
In assuming the scent of the president, the human hedgehog seems to have also assumed the scent of Trump’s mentor. Cohn spoke endlessly about loyalty, but was always ready to betray a friend.
In Barr’s case, that is Mueller, whose only big mistake in the investigation was trusting him.
It’s nearly 50 years since Mueller led his platoon from potential disaster, despite a bullet wound to the thigh. This is one of the qualities that has long made America great. Barr, and Trump, and his t***h-indifferent supporters, all owe Mueller an apology.
Semper Fi, Mr. Mueller
Apr 19, 2019 12:27:14 #
Mueller will hopefully have a chance to publicly set the record straight before congress. It will be determined by how long he is in the employ of the Justice Department and under Barrs thumb. Hopefully he will retire and be in the position to tell the entire t***h and give his candid assessment without the ridiculous spinn Barr puts on the entire matter. Our nation has suffered under Putins hand picked Pumpkinfuhrer for far too long.
slatten49 wrote:
By Michael.Daly br br Two days before the 50th ... (show quote)
Apr 19, 2019 12:36:59 #
slatten49 wrote:
By Michael.Daly br br Two days before the 50th ... (show quote)
Michael Daly. What do we know about him? Well, "In 1981, Michael Daly, a reporter at The Daily News, was dismissed when it was discovered that a soldier in a column he wrote describing r**ting in Northern Ireland was, in fact, a composite, based, he said, on different interviews."
In other words, he was fired for fluffing the facts. Typical hack.
Apr 19, 2019 12:43:52 #
Apr 19, 2019 12:51:52 #
Apr 19, 2019 12:52:02 #
Apr 19, 2019 13:58:46 #
Apr 19, 2019 14:04:28 #
slatten49 wrote:
Good morning, Wolfie, aka 'Mr. Peanut,' Clown Prince of Goobers. 
I can understand your angst Goober.
You libs keep losing and losing while Trump just keeps pimp slapping your democrat heroes like two dollar crack hos.
I'll see your Mr. Peanut and raise you to Mr. Blue Spook, cause you poor spookers are sho' nuff' singin' the blues.
Apr 19, 2019 14:09:28 #
Barr, and Trump, and his t***h-indifferent supporters, all owe Mueller an apology.
Semper Fi, Mr. Mueller[/quote]
To Understand Mueller Report, Ignore Talking Heads And Read It
While cable TV segments spent Thursday haggling over the meaning of exoneration and the standard for obstruction of justice, the publics best use of time involved the consumption of the report itself. Robert Mueller’s masterwork is a meandering tale of tantalizing connections and volatile tensions involving America and Russia, the Trump White House and its various subsets, and a rogue’s gallery of friends, lawyers, and associates of the President.
The Mueller team has drawn praise and criticism, but whether it is a Boy Scout troop of straight arrows or a den of partisans, no one doubts that it tried with all its might to find everything that could be found in its examination of Trump and Russia. That’s why the bottom line of “no collusion, no obstruction” is the most dominant development as this chapter draws to a close. But it will not be tidy. Even though there is no finding of actionable obstructive behavior in its pages, the report was combed mightily by search parties looking for any turn of a phrase that could be stigmatized into looking like criminality.
Some TV hosts and panelists joined Democrats in calling the report damaging, even “devastating” (James Clapper). Other hosts and panelists joined the President in characterizing it as a full exoneration. In seeking answers from the report’s own words, it is worth revisiting that exoneration never happens in law, if defined by the proof of innocence. “Guilty” and “not guilty” are the jury verdicts of record, and the prosecutorial (or investigative) process focuses on a similar binary matter: Did behavior occur which meets the level of a crime?
The Mueller report’s answer to that is no, on both collusion and obstruction.
Some are saying wait: Mueller left obstruction as a nebulous open matter, to be decided by others. This invites a question: Why? The wandering language of the conclusion resembles a concerted attempt to avoid saying no to that key question: “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct,” it begins.
What? Why have we spent two years and millions of dollars if not to come away with some semblance of definitive Mueller wisdom on the President’s conduct?
It continues: “The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”
What a jumble. Yes or no—did the President or his administration engage in behavior that strikes the Mueller team as the legal definition of obstruction of justice? That answer is no. So why the contortions? It comes off as: “We found things but it wasn’t really a ‘prosecutorial judgment,’ so we’ll just say we don’t really see evidence of obstruction but nor do we see proof that he didn’t do anything wrong, so let’s just say that if we had found evidence that he did nothing, we would have said so, but we didn’t, so we won’t really say anything about that.”
The money we have spent and the rigors we have endured positively require them to say something about that. And it deserves more than the waffle of the report’s final sentence: “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment [of no obstruction]. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
This is wholly unacceptable. On the question of obstruction, if the Mueller team found a hint of it but short of the evidentiary bar, the answer is no. If they found wide smatterings that resemble obstruction but do not meet its legal definition, the answer is no.
We did not ask Robert Mueller for loose opinions over coffee about how things looked to him. We asked for a cold, clear-eyed legal opinion. The report’s conclusion denies us this, but its pages provide the answer that fuels the Trump mantra: “no collusion, no obstruction.”
The Mueller team has no aversion to clarity on collusion, as early as page 2: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its e******n i**********e activities.”
Now we’re getting somewhere.
And from page 181: “The investigation did not establish that the [Russian] contacts described in Volume I… amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law, including foreign influence and campaign finance laws.”
Was that so hard? The Trump campaign met with various Russian folks scores of times, but when the firm question of collusion is asked—Did the President or his associates collaborate to compromise actual e******n results?—that answer is no.
That is the obstruction answer as well. Mueller is slated for some congressional testimony within weeks; perhaps someone might inquire why lack of sufficient evidence led to a firm answer on collusion but a convoluted muddle on obstruction.
Semper Fi, Mr. Mueller
[/quote]To Understand Mueller Report, Ignore Talking Heads And Read It
While cable TV segments spent Thursday haggling over the meaning of exoneration and the standard for obstruction of justice, the publics best use of time involved the consumption of the report itself. Robert Mueller’s masterwork is a meandering tale of tantalizing connections and volatile tensions involving America and Russia, the Trump White House and its various subsets, and a rogue’s gallery of friends, lawyers, and associates of the President.
The Mueller team has drawn praise and criticism, but whether it is a Boy Scout troop of straight arrows or a den of partisans, no one doubts that it tried with all its might to find everything that could be found in its examination of Trump and Russia. That’s why the bottom line of “no collusion, no obstruction” is the most dominant development as this chapter draws to a close. But it will not be tidy. Even though there is no finding of actionable obstructive behavior in its pages, the report was combed mightily by search parties looking for any turn of a phrase that could be stigmatized into looking like criminality.
Some TV hosts and panelists joined Democrats in calling the report damaging, even “devastating” (James Clapper). Other hosts and panelists joined the President in characterizing it as a full exoneration. In seeking answers from the report’s own words, it is worth revisiting that exoneration never happens in law, if defined by the proof of innocence. “Guilty” and “not guilty” are the jury verdicts of record, and the prosecutorial (or investigative) process focuses on a similar binary matter: Did behavior occur which meets the level of a crime?
The Mueller report’s answer to that is no, on both collusion and obstruction.
Some are saying wait: Mueller left obstruction as a nebulous open matter, to be decided by others. This invites a question: Why? The wandering language of the conclusion resembles a concerted attempt to avoid saying no to that key question: “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct,” it begins.
What? Why have we spent two years and millions of dollars if not to come away with some semblance of definitive Mueller wisdom on the President’s conduct?
It continues: “The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”
What a jumble. Yes or no—did the President or his administration engage in behavior that strikes the Mueller team as the legal definition of obstruction of justice? That answer is no. So why the contortions? It comes off as: “We found things but it wasn’t really a ‘prosecutorial judgment,’ so we’ll just say we don’t really see evidence of obstruction but nor do we see proof that he didn’t do anything wrong, so let’s just say that if we had found evidence that he did nothing, we would have said so, but we didn’t, so we won’t really say anything about that.”
The money we have spent and the rigors we have endured positively require them to say something about that. And it deserves more than the waffle of the report’s final sentence: “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment [of no obstruction]. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
This is wholly unacceptable. On the question of obstruction, if the Mueller team found a hint of it but short of the evidentiary bar, the answer is no. If they found wide smatterings that resemble obstruction but do not meet its legal definition, the answer is no.
We did not ask Robert Mueller for loose opinions over coffee about how things looked to him. We asked for a cold, clear-eyed legal opinion. The report’s conclusion denies us this, but its pages provide the answer that fuels the Trump mantra: “no collusion, no obstruction.”
The Mueller team has no aversion to clarity on collusion, as early as page 2: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its e******n i**********e activities.”
Now we’re getting somewhere.
And from page 181: “The investigation did not establish that the [Russian] contacts described in Volume I… amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law, including foreign influence and campaign finance laws.”
Was that so hard? The Trump campaign met with various Russian folks scores of times, but when the firm question of collusion is asked—Did the President or his associates collaborate to compromise actual e******n results?—that answer is no.
That is the obstruction answer as well. Mueller is slated for some congressional testimony within weeks; perhaps someone might inquire why lack of sufficient evidence led to a firm answer on collusion but a convoluted muddle on obstruction.
Apr 19, 2019 14:15:14 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
Squiddiddler wrote:
Barr, and Trump, and his t***h-indifferent supporters, all owe Mueller an apology.
Semper Fi, Mr. Mueller
Semper Fi, Mr. Mueller
To Understand Mueller Report, Ignore Talking Heads And Read It
Nice post, Squiddiddler.
I have yet to finish my online reading of the full, redacted report. But, as forecast, it is fodder for interpretation. Yours above is as fair as any others. Apr 19, 2019 14:29:43 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
Wolf counselor wrote:
I can understand your angst Goober.
You libs keep losing and losing while Trump just keeps pimp slapping your democrat heroes like two dollar crack hos.
I'll see your Mr. Peanut and raise you to Mr. Blue Spook, cause you poor spookers are sho' nuff' singin' the blues.
You libs keep losing and losing while Trump just keeps pimp slapping your democrat heroes like two dollar crack hos.
I'll see your Mr. Peanut and raise you to Mr. Blue Spook, cause you poor spookers are sho' nuff' singin' the blues.
Sorry if I spooked ya', ol' buddy.
But, as you are enamored with the term 'goober,' I have started referring to you as 'Mr. Peanut.' It is a sort of recognition for your thinly-disguised slights of others by such name-calling. While remaining a shade away from being a total misanthrope, you are an admitted, unabashed r****t and xenophobe. A shame, as the mind is a terrible thing to waste.
You are hardly worthy of being taking seriously, yet in your own demented kind'a way, you can be somewhat amusing. 
Later, Mr. Peanut,...Clown Prince of Goobers.
Apr 19, 2019 14:46:46 #
slatten49 wrote:
As you are enamored with the term 'goober,' I have... (show quote)
Mr. Blue Spook,
Is it against the law to be a r****t or a xenophobe ?
No Goober, it's not.
Some of America's greatest heroes were r****t and xenophobic.
According to you and your fellow blues brothers, Trump and all his supporters are r****t xenophobes.
You have absolutely no actual proof of your accusations other than the posts I have submitted to this forum.
Which means, I have conditioned your mind to believe that I am a r****t xenophobe.
And all this time, I have indoctrinated you just exactly the way the media has conditioned your weak and malleable mind.
This forum is where I come to experiment.
And you are one of my favorite lab rats.
Mr.W.C.Peanut
Apr 19, 2019 15:11:09 #
Larry the Legend wrote:
Michael Daly. What do we know about him? Well, "In 1981, Michael Daly, a reporter at The Daily News, was dismissed when it was discovered that a soldier in a column he wrote describing r**ting in Northern Ireland was, in fact, a composite, based, he said, on different interviews."
In other words, he was fired for fluffing the facts. Typical hack.
In other words, he was fired for fluffing the facts. Typical hack.
The Daily Beast is overly dramatic and leans far left but its pretty accurate. It would have been a much better article without all the drama.
Apr 19, 2019 15:24:35 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
Wolf counselor wrote:
"You have absolutely no actual proof of your accusations other than the posts I have submitted to this forum."
Mr.W.C.Peanut
Mr.W.C.Peanut
True enough, W.C., except for some posts from earlier days on OPP, where you admitted to being both a r****t and xenophobe. To my knowledge, you've never given any reason for me to think differently. Keep in mind, also, that it is I who has tried (in vain) to meet with you for a better idea of who and what you really are like.
What better way to see how weak and malleable my mind is
Thanks for the response, Mr. Peanut. It's good you're starting to come out of your shell.
Apr 19, 2019 16:42:44 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.