SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> "I'm F'd...."
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1555624370

Message started by WebsterMark on 04/18/19 at 14:52:50

Title: "I'm F'd...."
Post by WebsterMark on 04/18/19 at 14:52:50

Here's something interesting. You will no doubt hear a thousand times the next day or so where Trump slumped back in his chair and says Oh my God, I'm f'd..."

See direct quote below.

According to Sessions’ recollection, Trump “slumped back in his chair” and said, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fxxxd.”

You may hear, like I just did, this be pointed out as evidence of guilt. That knowing a Special Council was appointed, his crimes would be uncovered. Right? I mean, that's how it was just presented.

But how many news stories will give the full quote and thus reveal the context of the I'm F'd statement.

See below. Makes a difference doesn't it.

“Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency,” Trump said, according to Sessions. “It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.”

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by T And T Garage on 04/18/19 at 14:56:34

122027363120370824372E450 wrote:

http://i.gifer.com/29yg.gif

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by T And T Garage on 04/18/19 at 15:38:17

Ahem... context, you say mark?

Well, then let us use the proper context, shall we?

On May 17, 2017, Acting Attorney General Rosenstein appointed Robert S. Mueller, III as Special Counsel and authorized him to conduct the Russia investigation and matters that arose from the investigation. (501) The President learned of the Special Counsel's appointment from Sessions, who was with the President , Hunt , and McGahn conducting interviews for a new FBI Director. (502) Sessions stepped out of the Oval Office to take a call from Rosenstein, who told him about the Special Counsel appointment, and Sessions then returned to inform the President of the news.(503) According to notes written by Hunt, when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm f**ked." (504) The President became angry and lambasted the Attorney General for his decision to recuse from the investigation , stating, "How could you let this happen, Jeff?" (505) The President said the position of Attorney General was his most important appointment and that Sessions had "let [him] down," contrasting him to Eric Holder and Robert Kennedy. (506) Sessions recalled that the President said to him, "you were supposed to protect me," or words to that effect. (507) The President returned to the consequences of the appointment and said, "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency . It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me." (508)

Yeah mark, context is indeed key.

These are the words of a child - "you were supposed to protect me," "I won't be able to do anything".

As always - it's only about one thing... him. He's in it for himself. He's not fit to hold the office.

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by LostArtist on 04/18/19 at 15:51:52

it does seem that context is needed... ... huh, whoda thought

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by WebsterMark on 04/18/19 at 20:58:08

None of that changes my point. Leftist media purposely misrepresented the context in order to perpetuate the lies.

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by Eegore on 04/19/19 at 05:27:24

Most media that speak to one audience purposely misrepresent the context in order to perpetuate the lies. Right or Left, the methods work, so they are used.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#573d28dc12ab

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

https://fair.org/topic/fox-news/

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by T And T Garage on 04/19/19 at 07:12:50

764443525544536C40534A210 wrote:

None of that changes my mind. I hate what I think is leftist media, and purposely misrepresent the context in order to perpetuate the lies.

FIFY

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by WebsterMark on 04/19/19 at 07:15:22

That's not a valid point in today's media. We are living with I would guess 90% liberal news outlets vs 10% conservative outlets. There is no unbiased news source. It's not possible to have an unbiased news outlet.

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/19/19 at 07:48:42

tps://www.thefreedictionary.com/biased
1. favouring of one or other (side in an argument etc) rather than remaining neutral..

Media don't
Check their Puhrivuhlige at the door.
They do the opposite. They Tell me what was said, what I was told, after the speech, ffs.

I don't watch any news. Don't agree with them. Nobody is objective. Everyone has a dog in the hunt.
But the OP makes a valid point.
For some people to latch onto

O.M.G., I'm F'd
And pretend it's what he felt because Now all his crimes would be revealed is part of Why I walked away for a while.

Latching onto the things that are hollow and trying to spin a foundation under them, a foundation of inferral not supported by any honest reading of what was said, and pretending you've finally got something you can use in your never ending quest to destroy Trump then requires the time and energy to debunk the Frikken Obvious.

Trump understood that the result would be that his administration would be busy putting out fires instead of solving problems for the American people. Fires , set by arsonists. Arsonists who may very well wind up with their polyester pajamas melted into their sorry a55es.

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by LostArtist on 04/19/19 at 08:29:38

funny enough, TYT, a majorly progressive leaning news source, agrees with JOG... the "I'm F...d" . isn't about him admitting his guilt, it's him realizing that he'll have to fight the investigation instead of doing what he wanted to as president.... it could also be that he was afraid the investigation would go way beyond it's bounds and find other crimes he committed (if any)

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by eau de sauvage on 04/19/19 at 18:20:57

When he said "I'm fcked" he was spot on.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/19/barr-obstruction-mueller-trump-226664

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/19/19 at 18:23:39

Unless there is a CRIME , it's not POSSIBLE to obstruct.
No crime.

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by eau de sauvage on 04/19/19 at 21:47:03

0B141215080F3E0E3E06141853610 wrote:

Unless there is a CRIME , it's not POSSIBLE to obstruct.
No crime.

That is incorrect. If you're interested in an analysis see the full article in the above link. Muller made this explicit and the reasoning for this is contained within the full article.

Also note that 'collusion' as it stands is not in an of itself a crime. The crime *is* the very obstruction itself!

Though Mueller determined there was no “collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, he makes clear that proving obstruction does not require the existence of such an underlying crime. There are many reasons, including fear of personal embarrassment, to explain why the president might have tried to impede the special counsel’s investigation. “The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong,” Mueller wrote. Moreover, Mueller’s team “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations.”

But Barr hid these inconvenient facts.

In his letter in March, Barr rushed to conclude that Trump did not obstruct justice, suggesting that Mueller “[left] it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” His letter, which did not contain a single full sentence written by Mueller’s team, contained none of Mueller’s reasoning, nor his rejection of all of the defenses raised by Trump’s lawyers to obstruction of justice.

Then Barr compounded the deception in his news conference Thursday before his release of the report. Without Mueller present, Barr took a question from a reporter who asked whether Mueller’s non-decision on obstruction “had anything to do with the department's long-standing guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel on not indicting a sitting president.”

Barr responded that he had a private conversation with Mueller, who told him that he “was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime.” Regardless of whether Barr's recounting of the conversation was technically accurate, it’s clear that Barr’s answer was highly misleading. Having now read the report, there can be no serious question that the answer from the Mueller team is “yes.” “Fairness concerns” arising from the inability to indict a sitting president was the key factor in Mueller’s decision not to reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice.

Reading Mueller’s report, it is obvious the contortions Barr undertook to pronounce Trump exonerated. In the report, Mueller went out of his way to debunk Barr’s unconventional view that the Constitution “categorically and permanently immunize[d]” Trump from prosecution for abusing his power to undermine the investigation.

In fact, Mueller concluded that Congress has the authority to remove Trump from office, noting that his “conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.” Mueller appears to believe that it is the role of Congress to ensure Trump is not above the law.

And now Congress can see the case Mueller laid out.

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/19/19 at 22:58:34

That's quite the twist of logic there.
Your point is made, that's not what I'm talking about. And no, I didn't know what you quoted,, but it's Frikken mind blowing.

I'm not inclined to agree with him.

Since it's legal to resist an unlawful arrest, I don't see how impeding a Bullshit investigation is anything illegal, unless it's just plain wrong to not worship insanity run amok.
The whole Frikken thing was a bogus, lefty construct,, and trump dam well better get Paige, Strock, Comey, Bruce and Nellie Orr, and the rest of lying creeps prosecuted.

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by Eegore on 04/19/19 at 23:13:23

"Paige, Strock, Comey, Bruce and Nellie Orr, and the rest of lying creeps prosecuted. "

What did they lie about?

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/20/19 at 02:28:44

Nope,, not educating people who have not been keeping up.
Wait, hopefully truth is coming.
Trump should be vindicated and plenty of others should get jail time.

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by thumperclone on 04/20/19 at 08:48:48

no bs
no exoneration

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by T And T Garage on 04/22/19 at 08:27:02

3A252324393E0F3F0F37252962500 wrote:

Nope,, not educating people who have not been keeping up.
Wait, hopefully truth is coming.
Trump should be vindicated and plenty of others should get jail time.

LOL - convenient, easy out there jog!

Well done - like a true conservative hypocrite!

:D

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/22/19 at 21:58:14

I wasn't talking to you

Title: Re: "I'm F'd...."
Post by T And T Garage on 04/23/19 at 05:55:56

46595F5845427343734B59551E2C0 wrote:

I wasn't talking to you

Oh... so sorry.