+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Ah... but you do seek don't you Dorky ? To what some might consider a disturbing level in fact . You troll around the internet trying to discover people's personal details and following them round. That's not really normal you know .
Being a complete amateur at that sort of thing you do, in fairness , get it all wrong , and so the fact is that you know absolutely bugger all about me and, consequently , you don't know what I might be " bitter and twisted "about.
In fact , I'm probably one of the least bitter or nasty people you're likely to come across so you kind of ****ed up again there.
I know what you're attempting though, because I've dealt with plenty of nutters and people like you in a former profession .
You were trying to employ a "Barnham Statement" on the basis that most people will feel bitter about something or other in their life and you intended to create the impression that you know something which you don't.
It's the same method that fake psychics use, except in a very cack handed and transparent way. The unsavoury aspect in your case though is that you did it with the intention of upsetting or even scaring someone. It makes me wonder whether you do this a lot and it makes me wonder why actually .
I really really think you should wind your neck in with this sort of stuff you know.
It exonerated him because he'd done nothing wrong and it was all a setup. The evidence has always existed to eventually prove that if it ever came out, but is was hidden by means of top secret classifications and obfuscation, so the whole thing was basically an impeachment excercise or a PR campaign for impeachment.
If you were paying attention you would have noticed most of the prosecutions were for process crimes, or historical events that happened long before Trump came on the scene. They didn't want any legal discovery processes taking place that could expose their illicit methods. The General Flynn case is a good example of that, with the change of his legal team they are now asking to see all of the original hard evidence connected to the case, instead of written summaries of things that allegedly happened. The prosecution are fighting tooth and nail to prevent this, as it brings down the entire house of cards if these original documents ever have to be produced in court.
Two things here.
Firstly, it's interesting to note that if you ever comment even slightly favourably about Donald Trump, people will start referring to him as " your idol", and this applies not just to complete ****tards , but reasonably intelligent people.
Secondly, I don't know why you bother - any objective observer with a background knowledge of US politics and dynasties would know what Mueller was, his associations with other dodgy characters such as the Clintons and Bushes and indeed that all of them have had far more covert dealings with the Russians , ( and Chicomms), than Donald Trump. They'd also know that there were far clearer reasons to prosecute Hillary over her emails or Benghazi which were brushed under the carpet by the Mueller/ Colmey clique at the Bureau.
In short, it was a political witch hunt / publicity stunt and not even committed democrats will seriously deny that, so if some dick in Cardiff or somewhere is so generally naive on these things that they're taken in by biased and simplistic reporting , how can you possibly hope to change their minds ?
Yes, I am aware of the subliminal messaginge and the signaling to the other members of "the team", but when the truth is revealed it will highlight who the active players pushing the false narrative were.
I don't want to change anybody's mind, I am just putting myself and everybody else on the record about who said what. I know that my reputation could be destroyed if I am wrong, but the reverse is also true and lardy & cyril have staked all of their credibility on this one, as they were the original pushers of fake news
How can I believe in something that wasn't true to begin with? The exoneration was for the benefit of the believers to help put them out of their misery, and it did shut them up for 5 minutes until the impeachment word was mentioned ... and then it started it all over again!
So what you're saying is that you want it both ways - you can, wrongly in my view, say the Report totally exonerated Trump and yet you want to be free to rubbish it whenever you want to, as in "They actually believed what was written in the Steele Dossier and Mueller Report,".
I actually pointed out all discrepancies that took place during the Mueller investigation as the drama unfolded, just like I did with the Steele dossier. Some people were saying the Mueller Report never exonerated Trump when it clearly did, so that was actually a discussion about semantics, not about the facts of the matter which were already common knowledge before the report was even written.
Yes that's exactly right. The word "exhonerated " is , ( technically wrongly), used to mean that an investigation has failed to reach a point where someone can be charged. We might say that an MP or alleged criminal under investigation has been " exhonerated" if the investigation fails to find evidence to charge them.
Of course this is common parlance for everyone else in the world and no one ever objects to it except in this case. If we take the word literally it means that whatever the allegation is against them has been absolutely disproved , but obviously this rarely or never happens in any investigation , due to the presumption of innocence.
It's equally obvious that it's usually hard or impossible to prove a negative , yet Mueller chooses to object to the word "exhonerated" when applied to the President. As far as I know he hasn't gone in for such semantic hair splitting when discussing investigations into the Mafia , terrorists or Hillary Clinton's email or other scandals .
It's a matter of spin on the part of the President's enemies , ( including Mueller), but you can't really expect people like tobw to grasp stuff like that ,which would require a wider knowledge of US politics than you'll get from the One Show or HIGNFY. What's more, he's inclined to accept stuff like this due to confirmation bias.
It's just perfect that you imply that tobw doesn't have the intelligence to understand these events whilst simultaneously being unable to correctly spell the word you based your entire post on - on three separate occasions.
You're my favourite poster by some distance these days and I just wanted to thank you for that. I'll always "exhonerate" you if others attack your posts.
It's quite common to spell it with an h, and that spelling appears in a lot of stuff, but now that you've pointed it out, it's not correct.
Well spotted though - very thorough. Can't get a miss spelling past you ?
Didn't ronniebird once say he used to be a lawyer?
And can't spell exonerated.
I only get to read his stuff when someone quotes it these days and I do miss him in a way because his superiority complex is so funny.
I was thinking "exhonerated" might be some obscure legal term that us plebs don't know about (after all, he is an intellectual you know), but I see it's showing as a misspelling on my computer - maybe the computer is wrong?
The search on this website is terrible, and it's possible the post has been deleted.
BUT
Put "I worked for the queen till my first retirement when I did a bit of Law till I bought a farm with the proceeds" into google (including the quotation marks) and you'll see that it has cached.
Master Dilley considers himself to be a precocious young man but he has huge shortcomings and usually resorts to temper tantrums when they are pointed out to him.
I'm sure he's the apple of his very tolerant mummy's and daddy's eyes but he does need to learn how to behave himself in the company of other adults. In fact I've taken to your tactic and put him on ignore because I have no intention of continuing to enter silly spats with the little dear in the absence of intelligent debate on his part.
You're correct Bob.
Mueller went into his investigation knowing that he would never charge the president. After that, he didn't find evidence of collusion because the White House simply didn't talk and didn't provide him the documents he asked for. Hence, there are about a dozen cases of obstruction of justice in the report. He specifically made the unusual comment that the investigation doesn't exhonerate trump because he knew that it would be spun that way.
The White House is doing the same for the impeachment enquiry; withholding documents, refusing subpoenas, etc. This is because they know it's far better for them to have an impeachment trial on some technicality than a trial with the evidence of what they've actually been doing
And they also know individually they will probably be alright and not face charges or prosecution. As in this country, there's an umbrella over those in powerful positions.