Muller report AG new conference [Archive] - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

detbuch

04-19-2019, 12:00 PM

Based on what Mueller stated in the report, it’s shocking to me Barr could possibly state definitively there is no evidence to support obstruction of justice.

He didn't say, definitively or otherwise, that there is NO evidence. He said the evidence is not sufficient to establish obstruction. And he laid out legitimate reasons for his conclusion. He certainly established that the evidence supported the belief that Trump did not act out of a motive to obstruct, but that, as Mueller acknowledged in his report, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by his "sincere" belief that his presidency was being undermined by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks. And that even so, the White House fully cooperated with the investigation, took no act to deprive the special counsel of the documents and witnesses to complete his investigation.

It is legally required to prove the corrupt motivation to obstruct justice. The evidence was substantial (again as acknowledged in Mueller's report) that Trump's motivation was non-corruptive but frustration and anger at what he perceived as an attempt to destroy his presidency. In other words, his motivation was not to obstruct justice, but to fight for it. After all, he knew that he had not conspired with the Russians--as was concluded by Mueller's report.

And, basically, how can you reasonably argue that it is obstructive to fight against a lie.

Trump ran for president to promote the Trump brand plan and simply and brought his private sector criminal behavior to the Oval Office. If any of us did what Trump did as reported, you would be looking for a good lawyer.

OK . . . that is an opinion, not an actual proven fact. Putting words in Barr's mouth as you did above, then piling on with negative personal opinion is a shady way of making an argument.

The DOJ position you can not indite a sitting president clearly is why Mueller decided to put this in the hands of congress, in spite of all the evidence to support it; in spite of Barr’s boot licking spin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you can't indict a sitting President, what is the point of the investigation? Isn't it to find sufficient evidence of criminal behavior? And if sufficient evidence is not found, as it apparently was not since Mueller could not conclude that obstruction was proven, what is there to hand over to Congress other than another politically biased hunt to find conclusive evidence (as if the exhaustive search by Mueller's team was not capable of doing so). The point of a prosecutorial investigation is to determine if there is enough evidence to prosecute. If the prosecutor (the special counsel in this case)cannot find enough evidence to prosecute, that should be the end of it. A prosecutor should not leave it up in the air by making a nebulous comment saying in effect that it could be one way or the other. By doing so, Mueller is abandoning his responsibility to conclude if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. And that inaction vitiates the whole purpose of prosecution. That destroys the whole concept that it is not up to the defendant to prove innocence, but up to the prosecution to prove guilt. If the prosecution cannot prove such, or is unwilling to do so, or willing to say he is unable to, then it is OVER. Defendant wins.

In any case, Congress doesn't need Mueller's invitation. It can concoct whatever argument it wants to impeach. If Mueller is trying to give Congress some cover for doing so, even if he could not conclude a crime was committed after an exhaustive investigation, then it is he, not Barr who is a acting politically--boot licking as you so graciously and objectively put it.

Got Stripers

04-19-2019, 03:08 PM

His base will see only what they want to see in this report, no shock there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

04-19-2019, 03:16 PM

His base will see only what they want to see in this report, no shock there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this a fact or an opinion? Would it be a fact or an opinion to say that "his opponents will see only what they want to see in this report, no shock there."

Jim in CT

04-19-2019, 03:31 PM

His base will see only what they want to see in this report, no shock there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what should we see? Mueller recommended zero indictments for collusion with russia. Zero. Are we going to go through the whole thing again, this time the hunt is for obstruction?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers

04-19-2019, 03:39 PM

Can’t possibly debate with the hard core supporters it’s always a circular argument, your best bet is congress attempts to impeach, I hope they continue to expose a Trump for what he is and 2020 takes care of things. Take NOTES or not, it will piss of the supreme leader.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

04-19-2019, 03:48 PM

The Dad Fisherman

04-19-2019, 05:32 PM

Got Stripers

04-19-2019, 06:13 PM

If that happens you will get what you deserve.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

04-19-2019, 07:03 PM

If that happens you will get what you deserve.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More investigations?

The Dad Fisherman

04-19-2019, 07:19 PM

If that happens you will get what you deserve.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Endless hours of online entertainment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

04-19-2019, 08:09 PM

Endless hours of online entertainment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and a roaring economy, and watching cnn and
msnbc melt down 24/7?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sea Dangles

04-19-2019, 09:46 PM

Jim in CT

04-20-2019, 05:49 AM

If the snowflakes only knew how entertaining they are.
It’s obvious the naysayers have a lot less to say after their big investigation nothing burger,lots of broken hearts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

have you seen the ratings at CNN and MSNBC, since we learned Mueller found nothing to indict on?

Enron is doing better.

It’s terrific entertainment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

04-20-2019, 07:38 AM

what should we see? Mueller recommended zero indictments for collusion with russia. Zero. Are we going to go through the whole thing again, this time the hunt is for obstruction?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agin the right has turned anything in to a legal on argument only . Like saying because they weren't convicted they did nothing ... but if you take the time to remove your partisan glasses or try if Obama's did these things . And read the detail s of the report .. you would possibly see.. how abhorrent Trump and his peoples actions and behavior was..

CONSERVATIVE logic

If I bring a women to your hotel room who you know is a hooker (Trumps people) . But they were watching this hooker (Fbi). There was investigations. (TRUMP PEOPLE LIED WHEN ASKED ) than they concluded you only spoke to the hooker. (We don't have enought to meet the standard of the law...
then the wife found out (American people)

Conservatives the wife needs to get over it ...

Anymeans necessary
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sea Dangles

04-20-2019, 08:39 AM

Wayne,this disjointed gibberish is a little tough to follow but my guess is more

Conservative = bad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

04-20-2019, 10:18 AM

so what about the fact
that Mueller indicted no one for collusion? does that mean anything? for two years, we were told that Mueller would have the final, conclusive word. funny how that changed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You can't indict someone for collusion. The bar for criminal conspiracy was set very high and the report clearly states that encrypted messaging apps and rampant dishonesty impaired the investigation.

But that being said, do you take comfort in the fact that the campaign actively encouraged and benefited from Russian election meddling, that the campaign and Trump helped to cover up the Russian actions, that they had highly unusual amount of Russian contacts and lied repeatedly about all of them, that they lied repeatedly to American voters etc... etc... you're good with all of this just because nobody was indicted for conspiracy?

And for those claiming there's nothing there, weren't there over 30 indictments handed out? Didn't the investigation spin off 14 other investigations 12 of which we know little about?

The obstruction case laid out in the report is incredibly damning to Trump personally. I don't know if the House will actually move forward with impeachment for political reasons, but the blueprint for the case is there and it's pretty clear.

As Dan York who's no liberal said yesterday. If every American were to just skim through the report there's no chance Trump would get reelected.

Jim in CT

04-20-2019, 10:21 AM

Wayne,this disjointed gibberish is a little tough to follow but my guess is more

Conservative = bad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

now you got it.

WDMSO, for the ten millionth time, Trump is a disgusting person. But three separate investigations have concluded that with regards to russia, there’s not enough to bring charges.

you say he didn’t get convicted? No. He didn’t even get charged.

The Mueller report was
exculpatory. i’m sorry, but it was. How about we start talking about whether or not his policies are making things better for the nation? there is a reason why the left is this desperate, to avoid having that conversation. they humiliate themselves to avoid having that conversation.

ANYTHING to avoid talking about policy.

Russia! Racism! People aren’t illegal! LGBTQ!! Gender isn’t binary! Hitler! The polar bears! Free stuff! Waaahhhh!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

04-20-2019, 12:21 PM

now you got it.

WDMSO, for the ten millionth time, Trump is a disgusting person. But three separate investigations have concluded that with regards to russia, there’s not enough to bring charges.

you say he didn’t get convicted? No. He didn’t even get charged.

The Mueller report was
exculpatory. i’m sorry, but it was. How about we start talking about whether or not his policies are making things better for the nation? there is a reason why the left is this desperate, to avoid having that conversation. they humiliate themselves to avoid having that conversation.

ANYTHING to avoid talking about policy.

Russia! Racism! People aren’t illegal! LGBTQ!! Gender isn’t binary! Hitler! The polar bears! Free stuff! Waaahhhh!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

again yes no charges.. I get it and i understand why .. seems your willing ignore the behavior As if were talking about the guy Down the Street .. and not the Office of the POTUS ... Thats the part that i dont understand how republicans can just look the other way ... after making bigger issue over less concerning the last Potus .. its amazing

wdmso

04-20-2019, 12:25 PM

Wayne,this disjointed gibberish is a little tough to follow but my guess is more

Conservative = bad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

its very simple even if your not convicted or charged for soliciting sex

you were still hanging out with hookers ..

its as easy as that .. unless your a Trump supporter it's all good cuz He didn't stick it in

Jim in CT

04-20-2019, 12:34 PM

again yes no charges.. I get it and i understand why .. seems your willing ignore the behavior As if were talking about the guy Down the Street .. and not the Office of the POTUS ... Thats the part that i dont understand how republicans can just look the other way ... after making bigger issue over less concerning the last Potus .. its amazing

"seems your willing ignore the behavior"

I call him out all the time. Bit I'm not willing to call for impeachment or imprisonment just because you hate him.

"Because I hate his guts", isn't valid reason for impeachment. He won. Deal. With. It. There's another election next year.

Jim in CT

04-20-2019, 12:42 PM

Agin the right has turned anything in to a legal on argument only . Like saying because they weren't convicted they did nothing ... but if you take the time to remove your partisan glasses or try if Obama's did these things . And read the detail s of the report .. you would possibly see.. how abhorrent Trump and his peoples actions and behavior was..

CONSERVATIVE logic

If I bring a women to your hotel room who you know is a hooker (Trumps people) . But they were watching this hooker (Fbi). There was investigations. (TRUMP PEOPLE LIED WHEN ASKED ) than they concluded you only spoke to the hooker. (We don't have enought to meet the standard of the law...
then the wife found out (American people)

Conservatives the wife needs to get over it ...

Anymeans necessary
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's the fatal flaw with your hooker analogy and the wife finding out.

Trump isn't your spouse. We didn't elect him to be the moral head of our family. He's president.

If I was friends with Melania Trump, I would tell her to kick his azz to the curb and take half of what he's got. His behavior is sufficient grounds for a divorce, and probably an annulment. That's not nearly the same thing as being grounds for incarceration, or impeachment.

Bill Clinton was also serially unfaithful, which makes him a horrible husband and father. But in my opinion, he left the country far better off than when he showed up, so he was a good POTUS.

There's the valid analogy. The criteria for being POTUS, ain't the same criteria to be a good spouse.

He won an election fair and square, and in the process, he made 99% of the people on the left, look like morons. So they hate him. They, which includes you, are consumed and deranged with hate.

He's doing a good job. The division, which is terrible for the country, is mostly a creation of democrats and the media, though he certainly doesn't help.

The left likes to hit below the belt, ask Bush, McCain, Romney. The left doesn't like when their target hits back, it's never happened before, but boy is it happening now. And it's beyond glorious to watch.

The stock market is up, unemployment is down, and the entire left is coming un-glued. I feel like a kid at Christmas getting the exact bike I wanted.

wdmso

04-20-2019, 03:24 PM

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/another-warning-sign-2/ good read on how wrong you are about your stable genius

From the article "It is not hard to see why Trump’s senior staff treat him as they do. They understand better than any of us that his distinct disabilities as a decision maker have to be accommodated in some extraordinary ways to prevent them from exacting terrible costs. But these extraordinary accommodations are unlikely to be sustainable in truly extraordinary circumstances. We can hope that the country is lucky enough to avoid a serious crisis of some kind that requires a functional emergency-management response under time pressure."

ps founding father's are no actually our fathers .. it's called a metaphor. as was wife and husband

And what does the market and unemployment have to with other than for you to excuse his behavior
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

04-20-2019, 03:39 PM

"seems your willing ignore the behavior"

I call him out all the time. Bit I'm not willing to call for impeachment or imprisonment just because you hate him.

"Because I hate his guts", isn't valid reason for impeachment. He won. Deal. With. It. There's another election next year.

I wish it was as simple as Hate That's your sides way of Governing we saw 8 years of it..

These are actual problems with Trump .. We are not crying over just how many golf outings he's gone on or the cost to the public.. that scrutiny was for the last POTUS (shocking) and so so important to Fox and other conservatives :cheers:

detbuch

04-20-2019, 04:37 PM

You can't indict someone for collusion. The bar for criminal conspiracy was set very high and the report clearly states that encrypted messaging apps and rampant dishonesty impaired the investigation.

But that being said, do you take comfort in the fact that the campaign actively encouraged and benefited from Russian election meddling, that the campaign and Trump helped to cover up the Russian actions, that they had highly unusual amount of Russian contacts and lied repeatedly about all of them, that they lied repeatedly to American voters etc... etc... you're good with all of this just because nobody was indicted for conspiracy?

And for those claiming there's nothing there, weren't there over 30 indictments handed out? Didn't the investigation spin off 14 other investigations 12 of which we know little about?

The obstruction case laid out in the report is incredibly damning to Trump personally. I don't know if the House will actually move forward with impeachment for political reasons, but the blueprint for the case is there and it's pretty clear.

As Dan York who's no liberal said yesterday. If every American were to just skim through the report there's no chance Trump would get reelected.

You seem terribly agitated. I fear for your mental /emotional condition if Trump actually committed a crime.

spence

04-20-2019, 04:41 PM

You seem terribly agitated. I fear for your mental /emotional condition if Trump actually committed a crime.
Weak.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

04-20-2019, 04:45 PM

Weak.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Probably stronger than whatever point you were trying to make.

Sea Dangles

04-20-2019, 04:48 PM

I think with each party there are those willing to overlook indiscretions as long as things are going in the right direction for the country. There is evidence of this type of tolerance with each loyal party member. I feel those whose values are down the middle are more likely to give an accurate evaluation of such indiscretions. This is why it comes as no surprise that the hardcore snowflakes simply detest the president and will stop at nothing to discredit the man. Where there is smoke you usually find fire,this investigation found some hot coals admittedly but no flames except on this board.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

04-20-2019, 05:32 PM

spence, what bothers you more, that the wikileaks
email hack happened and hurt hilary, or that her campaign was engaged in the unethical, undemocratic actions that were revealed?

she didn’t lose because if russia. she lost because she’s impossible to like, she’s like the whole
country’s miserable ex-wife, because no matter what she says, all any man hears is a shrill voice yelling “take out the garbage!!”. and she was too good to bother with the middle of the country, and called them deplorable. then she calls them sexist for not voting for her.

Good riddance to bad garbage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman

04-20-2019, 07:19 PM

You can't indict someone for collusion.

Then why bother with an investigation into it? :huh:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

04-29-2019, 04:23 PM

Then why bother with an investigation into it? :huh:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Please pay attention.

The Dad Fisherman

04-29-2019, 08:27 PM

Please pay attention.

Says the guy that took nine days to respond.

Wit not so quick these days, huh?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

04-30-2019, 07:06 PM

Says the guy that took nine days to respond.

Wit not so quick these days, huh?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Better things to do.

This is amazing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/2019/04/30/d3c8fdb6-6b7b-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.82d810d81b7d
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman

05-01-2019, 05:47 AM

This is amazing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/2019/04/30/d3c8fdb6-6b7b-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.82d810d81b7d
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Meh :sleeps:

Got Stripers

05-01-2019, 05:57 AM

spence

05-01-2019, 07:40 AM

No surprise that Trumps hand picked AG, spun the report to favor his boss, what is surprising is that if Mueller made him aware he disagreed with his conclusion; then Barr came close to lying to Congress. When asked if he was aware members of the investigation were not in agreement with his conclusions on obstruction, he said no he wasn’t.

If Barr had been honest about summarizing the report, he would have stated DOJ policy prohibits charging a sitting president and that is why Mueller’s team felt they could not move forward with an indictment on obstruction. Those that see it any other way based on what is reported in volume two, are drunk on the red coolaid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Came “close” to lying to Congress?

And how about lying to the American people?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

05-01-2019, 08:16 AM

Don't be a snowflake - Trump lowered taxes.

detbuch

05-01-2019, 09:40 AM

If Barr had been honest about summarizing the report, he would have stated DOJ policy prohibits charging a sitting president and that is why Mueller’s team felt they could not move forward with an indictment on obstruction. Those that see it any other way based on what is reported in volume two, are drunk on the red coolaid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, by that reasoning, Mueller could not have moved forward with an indictment on conspiracy with Russia either if he had found sufficient evidence. So, then, he could only present conclusive evidence of guilt. Which he could not do re conspiracy. Neither could he do re obstruction.

That was the scope of his power. To find conclusive evidence of guilt. Not to find conclusive evidence of innocence. If it cannot be concluded that Trump obstructed justice, that's as far as the investigation can proceed. The jury says either guilty or not guilty. It does not say "innocent."

Jim in CT

05-01-2019, 11:06 AM

It’s pretty simple. Barr was hired to cover up wrong doing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe. Or maybe there was no wrongdoing that rises to criminality.

Mueller has SUPPOSEDLY said that Barr's letter was not inaccurate. Can't someone just ask Mueller that for the record, and end this?

Also, you conveniently left out that Mueller had the authority to indict, right? But chose not to. Presumably there was a reason for that.

Jim in CT

05-01-2019, 11:09 AM

No surprise that Trumps hand picked AG, spun the report to favor his boss, what is surprising is that if Mueller made him aware he disagreed with his conclusion; then Barr came close to lying to Congress. When asked if he was aware members of the investigation were not in agreement with his conclusions on obstruction, he said no he wasn’t.

If Barr had been honest about summarizing the report, he would have stated DOJ policy prohibits charging a sitting president and that is why Mueller’s team felt they could not move forward with an indictment on obstruction. Those that see it any other way based on what is reported in volume two, are drunk on the red coolaid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"what is surprising is that if Mueller made him aware he disagreed with his conclusion"

Where is the evidence of this? Because I keep hearing that Mueller said Barr's letter was not inaccurate.

We have the fact that Mueller didn't decide to indict anyone for collusion or obstruction. We have the Mueller report. We have Barr's summary. What is the biggest discrepancy between the two?

Jim in CT

05-01-2019, 11:11 AM

Better things to do.

This is amazing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/2019/04/30/d3c8fdb6-6b7b-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.82d810d81b7d
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Mueller says that Barr's letter was not inaccurate, but didn't correctly capture the context, that's "amazing" to you?

Sorry, it appears to be what you would call, a big, fat, nothingburger. Time for the liberals to drop this and focus on late-term abortions, open borders, and socialism. That'll win in FL and NC...

Jim in CT

05-01-2019, 11:18 AM

Brett Baier is on Fox obviously ,but h eisn't Sean Hannity, he has attacked Trump. And if Barr lied, it should be very easy to point to what he wrote in the letter, and point to places in Mueller's report that dispute Barr's letter. If Barr lied, that would be something a 12 year-old could do. If we're talking about context and nuance, that means we're talking about nothing.

If Barr lied, he should be severely punished. But it woul dbe ridiculously easy to prove he lied nby showing the discrepancies between his letter and the Mueller report.

There's also this...Mueller found nothing to justify indictments. That's a pretty crucial element to all this, one that the snowflakes are desperately trying to avoid.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/brett-baier-mueller-admitted-that-ag-barrs-conclusions-werent-inaccurate

detbuch

05-01-2019, 02:40 PM

Got Stripers

05-01-2019, 05:16 PM

So you saw nothing in the mueller report suggesting obstruction? You need to get some reading glasses, CVS or job lot have them pretty cheap. I find it ironic that you constantly hold up the founding fathers intent and distain for government over reach, yet you are ok with clear over reach and obstruction by the executive branch of our government. No need to respond, I’m pretty sure I have your number and can predict your response. The new norm for our government should concern us all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

05-01-2019, 05:25 PM

scottw

05-01-2019, 05:26 PM

So you saw nothing in the mueller report suggesting obstruction?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how can you obstruct an investigation into collusion that never existed?

spence

05-01-2019, 05:37 PM

how can you obstruct an investigation into collusion that never existed?

Maybe you could think about this one for a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

05-01-2019, 06:11 PM

Maybe you could think about this one for a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right he was obstructing injustice :shocked:

Jim in CT

05-01-2019, 06:28 PM

Jim in CT

05-01-2019, 06:30 PM

^^^ this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mueller chose not to indict. I heard for two years, that Mueller was the final word. That is exculpatory.

Can we at least conclude that you are no longer shrieking about collusion, that you have at least moved on to obstruction?

Got Stripers

05-01-2019, 06:31 PM

Plenty of evidence that Trump was being a vindictive baby as always. Mueller chose not to indict, which is exculpatory. If it was "clear obstruction", why didn't Mueller choose to indict?
Policy and tradition you can’t indite a sitting president, I guess you have not been paying attention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

05-01-2019, 06:34 PM

Got Stripers

05-01-2019, 06:54 PM

Was the one or two suggested instances 🙄🙄🙄
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

05-01-2019, 07:05 PM

Was the one or two suggested instances 🙄🙄🙄
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently not any of the instances. You bring up the supposed bit that a sitting president cannot be indicted. That has not been adjudicated to be true. Neither does that stop Mueller from concluding that Trump obstructed justice. If he was, by law, prevented from making a conclusion, then what was the point of investigating Trump. If he had found sufficient evidence to conclude that Trump conspired with Russia, would he have been handcuffed by the sitting president bit from making such a conclusion.

Got Stripers

05-01-2019, 08:11 PM

Policy isn’t law, but it is followed non the less, he put it to congress to make the determination after laying out all the evidence. Trumps trump card of course is is newly appointed defense console Barr.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

05-01-2019, 08:23 PM

Got Stripers

05-01-2019, 08:45 PM

Jim in CT

05-01-2019, 08:46 PM

did Barrs letter say there was no corruption? Or did it say there was insufficient evidence to charge with obstruction? If Barr said the latter, well, that’s true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers

05-01-2019, 08:59 PM

I don’t believe Barr is truthfully representing us and so I give his words little credence, he is a hired defense attorney.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

05-01-2019, 09:17 PM

Keep beating that drum I’m not buying into your view and Barr is an embarrassment.

I'm not beating a drum. I'm merely responding to various accusations and opinions. You could say I'm responding to various drum beats. You can dispute my view, you don't have to buy into it. I certainly wouldn't try to dissuade you from being embarrassed.

Do you agree with his opinion the president can’t be investigated and if he felt he is wrongly accused, he has the right to terminate the investigation. So we have an AG who believes the president is above the law, which couldn’t be more clear from his letter auditioning for the job, his mis representation of the report and the testimony today.

I haven't followed this line of reasoning. Don't have an opinion about it. Just been commenting on the conclusions and lack of them in the Muller report.

Again I love the fact you constantly bring up the intent of the founding fathers, if that is the case then you would agree Congress should be allowed to do it’s job and we will see if there really is nothing there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm glad you love something I may have said. I do mention the Founding Fathers from time to time. Haven't brought them up in this discussion. I think I focus more on their Constitution and what it actually says rather then on what their intent was.

I certainly agree that Congress should do its job. I think that it often prefers to do other things than what is specified as its job in the Constitution. I don't think it should be doing those things, but many, including on this forum, are quite happy that it is constantly doing stuff even if its not supposed to do it. Although everybody seems not to like Congress putting us deeper and deeper into debt, even though the stuff they like which Congress is not supposed to do is much of which puts us deeper and deeper into debt.

scottw

05-02-2019, 03:53 AM

if that is the case then you would agree Congress should be allowed to do it’s job and we will see if there really is nothing there.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is it the job of Congress to harass a sitting President through his entire term?...because this is nothing more than juvenile harassment and hissy fits which all began with the democrat's nominee paying a law firm to dig dirt on her opponent and create a phony dossier which led to an investigation of supposed crimes which we now know never occurred...

but keep whining about Trump obstruction :rotf2:

the "crime" is that there was ever a collusion investigation in the first place :uhuh:

scottw

05-02-2019, 04:20 AM

hey, so when the Trump campaign pays a law firm to dig dirt on whoever the dems finally decide to roll out there and then create a phony crime via a "dossier" and begin investigating, secretly taping and interrogating the dem nominee and those associated with him/her through the Barr Justice Department..you guys are ok with that right? Because that will be great fun!

Jim in CT

05-02-2019, 05:40 AM

Keep beating that drum I’m not buying into your view and Barr is an embarrassment. Do you agree with his opinion the president can’t be investigated and if he felt he is wrongly accused, he has the right to terminate the investigation. So we have an AG who believes the president is above the law, which couldn’t be more clear from his letter auditioning for the job, his mis representation of the report and the testimony today. Again I love the fact you constantly bring up the intent of the founding fathers, if that is the case then you would agree Congress should be allowed to do it’s job and we will see if there really is nothing there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you believe Barr lied to protect the president ( which is certainly possible), could
you please tell us exactly what Barr said in his letter, which is contradicted by whats in the Mueller report?

Barr knew the report was going to be made public, so he’d have to be pretty short sighted to blatantly contradict it. Maybe he did.

It would sure be nice if we could see a screen shot of what's in the report, and whats in the letter, that contradict each other.

anything short of that is an
opinion, right?

we have the report, we have the letter. where are the contradictions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

05-02-2019, 10:43 AM

if you believe Barr lied to protect the president ( which is certainly possible), could
you please tell us exactly what Barr said in his letter, which is contradicted by whats in the Mueller report?

Barr knew the report was going to be made public, so he’d have to be pretty short sighted to blatantly contradict it. Maybe he did.

It would sure be nice if we could see a screen shot of what's in the report, and whats in the letter, that contradict each other.

anything short of that is an
opinion, right?

we have the report, we have the letter. where are the contradictions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Barrs letter has summaries written by him which differ substantially from the Executive summaries in the Mueller report and are far kinder to Trump.

Because of the formatting I found it is difficult to cut and paste the documents here. The Mueller report was not released in a convenient format to be searchable. https://www.pdfa.org/a-technical-and-cultural-assessment-of-the-mueller-report-pdf/

Here is Barrs letter, his summaries are on page 2 and 3
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5779688-AG-March-24-2019-Letter-to-House-and-Senate.html

Here is Muellers report, the executive summaries he prepared and which required no further redaction, are on pages in the pdf viewer 12-18 and 215-220.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

Jim in CT

05-02-2019, 11:30 AM

Barrs letter has summaries written by him which differ substantially from the Executive summaries in the Mueller report and are far kinder to Trump.

Because of the formatting I found it is difficult to cut and paste the documents here. The Mueller report was not released in a convenient format to be searchable. https://www.pdfa.org/a-technical-and-cultural-assessment-of-the-mueller-report-pdf/

Here is Barrs letter, his summaries are on page 2 and 3
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5779688-AG-March-24-2019-Letter-to-House-and-Senate.html

Here is Muellers report, the executive summaries he prepared and which required no further redaction, are on pages in the pdf viewer 12-18 and 215-220.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

Just tell us very specifically what's in the Mueller report, which flatly contradicts what Barr summarized. People can reach different conclusions, that's not necessary a lie.

It's being reported that Mueller called Barr, and told him that his conclusions were not inaccurate.

Pete F.

05-02-2019, 12:06 PM

Just tell us very specifically what's in the Mueller report, which flatly contradicts what Barr summarized. People can reach different conclusions, that's not necessary a lie.

It's being reported that Mueller called Barr, and told him that his conclusions were not inaccurate.

Did you not read the Mueller report?

It's not what he said, it's what he did not say. The summaries were already prepared by the Mueller team and not used. Instead he quoted portions of paragraphs and spun the narrative.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“In making this determination, we noted that the special counsel recognized that ‘the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,’ and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the president’s intent with respect to obstruction.”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 157: Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the president’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events — such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’ release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016, meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the president, his campaign or his family.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“The special counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: ‘[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.’”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. I, Page 1: The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

scottw

05-02-2019, 01:02 PM

Did you not read the Mueller report?

It's not what he said, it's what he did not say.

good grief....:doh:

Jim in CT

05-02-2019, 01:15 PM

Did you not read the Mueller report?

It's not what he said, it's what he did not say. The summaries were already prepared by the Mueller team and not used. Instead he quoted portions of paragraphs and spun the narrative.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“In making this determination, we noted that the special counsel recognized that ‘the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,’ and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the president’s intent with respect to obstruction.”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 157: Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the president’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events — such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’ release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016, meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the president, his campaign or his family.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“The special counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: ‘[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.’”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. I, Page 1: The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

i am
sorry, maybe i’m having a slow day. when i compare what you have in bold between the two, i see a lot
of similarities.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

05-02-2019, 01:24 PM

it's not what he cut and pasted......it's what he did not cut and paste

understand now?!! :)

Pete F.

05-02-2019, 01:32 PM

good grief....:doh:

Maybe if I couch it in simple terms you could understand.

Your wife would be fine if you told her you were going for a drink after work, but you neglected to tell her it is with an old girlfriend.

Think she would be fine with that?

Hey, you didn't lie and you told her what you were doing.

Barr could have released the already redacted Executive summaries that were contained in the Mueller report, but people would have read them.

Not the same as the spin he released, that just omitted what didn't fit the desired narrative.

There is lots more there if you took the time to read the report.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the special counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign ‘coordinated’ with Russian election interference activities. The special counsel defined ‘coordination’ as an ‘agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.’”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. I, Page 2: We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“After making a ‘thorough factual investigation’ into these matters, the special counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 2: Second, while the O.L.C. opinion concludes that a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the president’s term is permissible. The O.L.C. opinion also recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the president committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“The special counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the president’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The special counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 2: Fourth, 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Vol. II, Page 8: Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the president’s conduct. 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Just remember that in his letter to Congress, Mr. Barr did not explain that Mr. Mueller was trying to leave open the possibility that prosecutors in the future, after Mr. Trump leaves office, could look at the evidence he gathered and decide then whether to indict Mr. Trump. That stemmed from the view of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, that sitting presidents cannot be indicted but former presidents lose such immunity. That conflicted with Mr. Barr’s desire to pronounce Mr. Trump cleared now.

spence

05-02-2019, 01:37 PM

Barr knew the report was going to be made public, so he’d have to be pretty short sighted to blatantly contradict it. Maybe he did.
It's all part of a misinformation strategy to protect Trump.

First off they nominate an AG who advertised himself as a champion of executive branch authority specifically around obstruction. He was hired to do this.

Yes, he knew bottling up the report would create an outcry, so they spun the findings with the 4 pager to let Trump take his victory lap and manipulate public opinion. This was so unsettling to the investigators it prompted several to speak out and for Mueller to write more that one formal letters scolding Barr.

Even Chris Wallace -- perhaps the most credible journalist working today -- spoke out against his own network over the issue.

“But, you know, we have to deal in facts. And the fact is that this letter from the special counsel, and it was one of at least three contacts with the Attorney General between March 25 and March 27, was a clear indication that the [special counsel] was upset, very upset, with the letter that had been sent out by the Attorney General, and wanted it changed, or wanted it at least added to and the Attorney General refused to do so,” he continued. “He felt the Attorney General’s letter was inaccurate.”

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-chris-wallace-warns-own-networks-bias-opinion-people-fox-may-be-1412304

Barr even lied during House testimony about this exact issue. He misled about the President fully cooperating, he's fundamentally misrepresented much of the report and has failed to admit anything in it critical to the President when questioned. Trump has shown if they can just confuse the heck out of everyone and charge forward it's very difficult to pin them down.

This is where the US Constitution is supposed to be the firewall, but the AG is working to undermine the rule of law. He needs to go...

scottw

05-02-2019, 01:38 PM

I'm sorry that you are so disappointed...I know how much you had invested in Trump's demise...

scottw

05-02-2019, 01:40 PM

This is where the US Constitution is supposed to be the firewall, but the AG is working to undermine the rule of law. He needs to go...

meh....it's an outdated document written by old white racists :jester:

The Dad Fisherman

05-02-2019, 01:43 PM

Maybe if I couch it in simple terms you could understand.

Your wife would be fine if you told her you were going for a drink after work, but you neglected to tell her it is with an old girlfriend.

Think she would be fine with that?

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't end with her running around sky-screaming "NOT MY HUSBAND!!!!"

also pretty sure I'd spend a couple of nights on the couch, but not 2 years and counting

Pete F.

05-02-2019, 02:03 PM

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't end with her running around sky-screaming "NOT MY HUSBAND!!!!"

also pretty sure I'd spend a couple of nights on the couch, but not 2 years and counting

You might just have to leave if when she found out and asked you about it, your reaction was to run around sky-screaming "witchhunt" and insulting her, like Deranged Donald has been for the past two years.

scottw

05-02-2019, 02:06 PM

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't end with her running around sky-screaming "NOT MY HUSBAND!!!!"

also pretty sure I'd spend a couple of nights on the couch, but not 2 years and counting

what if you brought her back for a threesome? ;)

The Dad Fisherman

05-02-2019, 02:10 PM

You might just have to leave if when she found out and asked you about it, your reaction was to run around sky-screaming "witchhunt" and insulting her, like Deranged Donald has been for the past two years.

who says I have to leave? And If she stopped asking about it, I'd stop sky screaming about it. But if every morning when i woke up until I went to bed I had to hear about it for two years....well....things may get tense.

Pete F.

05-02-2019, 02:19 PM

who says I have to leave? And If she stopped asking about it, I'd stop sky screaming about it. But if every morning when i woke up until I went to bed I had to hear about it for two years....well....things may get tense.

But all your sky screaming wouldn't make you less guilty and if it had it's desired effect would make her give up in the end.
Similar to Barr's argument that Trump was mad and that justified obstruction. Sad

The Dad Fisherman

05-02-2019, 02:29 PM

But all your sky screaming wouldn't make you less guilty and if it had it's desired effect would make her give up in the end.
Similar to Barr's argument that Trump was mad and that justified obstruction. Sad

I wasn't guilty of anything, just having a drink isn't a crime. And, again, I'd stop Sky-Screaming if she stopped bringing up the nothing that I did, day in and day out.

And when is this magical "End" where they give up

Jim in CT

05-02-2019, 02:59 PM

Maybe if I couch it in simple terms you could understand.

Your wife would be fine if you told her you were going for a drink after work, but you neglected to tell her it is with an old girlfriend.

Think she would be fine with that?

Hey, you didn't lie and you told her what you were doing.

Barr could have released the already redacted Executive summaries that were contained in the Mueller report, but people would have read them.

Not the same as the spin he released, that just omitted what didn't fit the desired narrative.

There is lots more there if you took the time to read the report.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the special counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign ‘coordinated’ with Russian election interference activities. The special counsel defined ‘coordination’ as an ‘agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.’”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. I, Page 2: We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“After making a ‘thorough factual investigation’ into these matters, the special counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 2: Second, while the O.L.C. opinion concludes that a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the president’s term is permissible. The O.L.C. opinion also recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the president committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“The special counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the president’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The special counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 2: Fourth, 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Vol. II, Page 8: Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the president’s conduct. 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Just remember that in his letter to Congress, Mr. Barr did not explain that Mr. Mueller was trying to leave open the possibility that prosecutors in the future, after Mr. Trump leaves office, could look at the evidence he gathered and decide then whether to indict Mr. Trump. That stemmed from the view of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, that sitting presidents cannot be indicted but former presidents lose such immunity. That conflicted with Mr. Barr’s desire to pronounce Mr. Trump cleared now.

I'm not an idiot, and I don't see huge differences between what you claim Mueler said, and what you claim Barr said. They are both saying there was no evidence sufficient to charge anyone, so let's move on.

Jim in CT

05-02-2019, 03:03 PM

It's all part of a misinformation strategy to protect Trump.

First off they nominate an AG who advertised himself as a champion of executive branch authority specifically around obstruction. He was hired to do this.

Yes, he knew bottling up the report would create an outcry, so they spun the findings with the 4 pager to let Trump take his victory lap and manipulate public opinion. This was so unsettling to the investigators it prompted several to speak out and for Mueller to write more that one formal letters scolding Barr.

Even Chris Wallace -- perhaps the most credible journalist working today -- spoke out against his own network over the issue.

Barr even lied during House testimony about this exact issue. He misled about the President fully cooperating, he's fundamentally misrepresented much of the report and has failed to admit anything in it critical to the President when questioned. Trump has shown if they can just confuse the heck out of everyone and charge forward it's very difficult to pin them down.

This is where the US Constitution is supposed to be the firewall, but the AG is working to undermine the rule of law. He needs to go...

"It's all part of a misinformation strategy to protect Trump."

Where is the Misinformation? I don't see what Barr said, that's contradicted in the Mueller report. Do you?

Could be, that people like you, only care about results, not the truth.

"Even Chris Wallace -- perhaps the most credible journalist working today -- spoke out against his own network over the issue."

Chris Wallace is also reporting that Mueller called Barr, and said that Barr's conclusions were not inaccurate.

If his conclusions were accurate, then we are arguing about tone and suggestions. Who cares.

There's not much here Spence. Mueller declined to indict, Barr stated there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge with a crime.
You want to spend a year shrieking about whether a semi-colon belongs in one spot instead of a hyphon, or debating the use of the word "shall" instead of "may", knock yourself out.

Jim in CT

05-02-2019, 03:13 PM

And when is this magical "End" where they give up

Only when they are convinced that the 2016 results were actually a dream, and that Hilary actually won. This is just a years-long temper tantrum, collectively holding their breath until they get what they want.

Got Stripers

05-02-2019, 03:49 PM

So the report was rainbows, unicorns and candy? Even IF there wasn’t enough evidence to suggest crimes had been committed, unless you can’t read or are drunk on the red cool aid; there is a ton of evidence Trump and his players (many convicted and others pending) are guilty of numerous bad acts. Who knows where this goes, but the report and Trumps continued abuse of power, is just more of the same. Nixon would have given his right testicle to have an AG like Barr, things might have played out differently for him. History and time will judge Trump, we can debate this forever, but either Congress or the 2020 election will end it thankfully. If Trump gets impeached or blown out in 2020, then this board will light up with I told you so and if the reverse is true; the results will be the same. That is unfortunately what Trump brings to this country, division and anger over what he does and what he represents. To some like me, even though I think he is the lowest of low when it comes to character, ethics or even human behavior, I was always hopeful he what just put his fing phone down and work to get some good done. Many on this board would suggest he has done good, I and I’m sure others feel the bad far outweighs the little good he has accomplished.

He runs the country like he ran his company, ponder that for a minute. How many times did he file bankruptcy? How many little guys did he F over to get what he wanted. How many bribes and pay offs to avoid legal issues? This is the new norm we (not I) elected and it appears the means are just ok as long as he gets what he wants.

So Trump can bully on, running the government with a skeleton crew, due to a lack of key appointments. Barr can defend him as if he is his personal lawyer. Kellyanne can go after Biden in violation of the Hatch Act and the government goes on with no accounting in front of the media, because they can’t take the heat and don’t like the questions. Press conferences are now Trump on Fox News putting out only the message he wants his base to hear.

If you thought the 2016 election was nasty, wait until Trump gets fired up; we haven’t seen how low he can go just yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

05-02-2019, 03:53 PM

I'm not an idiot, and I don't see huge differences between what you claim Mueler said, and what you claim Barr said. They are both saying there was no evidence sufficient to charge anyone, so let's move on.
Barr's summary basically said nobody did anything wrong, that's a far cry from what the report actually said.

Why do you think Mueller was so pissed at Barr?

spence

05-02-2019, 03:54 PM

Nixon would have given his right testicle to have an AG like Barr, things might have played out differently for him.

Nixon did, his AG ended up in jail :scream:

Jim in CT

05-02-2019, 08:20 PM

Barr's summary basically said nobody did anything wrong, that's a far cry from what the report actually said.

Why do you think Mueller was so pissed at Barr?

Barrs summary said there was insufficient evidence to support criminal charges, didn’t it?

For the 5th time, It’s reported that Mueller called Barr and said his
conclusions were not inaccurate.

this collusion hoax is just about three years old now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers

05-03-2019, 05:57 AM

Barrs summary said there was insufficient evidence to support criminal charges, didn’t it?

For the 5th time, It’s reported that Mueller called Barr and said his
conclusions were not inaccurate.

this collusion hoax is just about three years old now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Who reported Mueller told Barr that? I want to hear from Mueller, nothing Barr says can be trusted, he spins things in favor of his boss.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

05-03-2019, 08:31 AM

Who reported Mueller told Barr that? I want to hear from Mueller, nothing Barr says can be trusted, he spins things in favor of his boss.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

chris wallace ( who spence cited as a trustworthy source) and Brett Baier reported it.

i do not think the report was unicorns and rainbows. but the report did not call for criminal charges, and Barrs letter said the same thing.

i have zero trouble believing Trump was a hostile
baby within the investigation. That’s who he is.

Time to switch gears, not it’s the rights turn, let’s investigate whether the obama justice department was acting intentionally to get Hilary elected. let’s investigate that ( because there’s evidence of serious wrongdoing),, then move on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

05-03-2019, 10:14 AM

chris wallace ( who spence cited as a trustworthy source) and Brett Baier reported it.
They reported Barr's version of his phone call with Mueller, neither was on that phone call

i do not think the report was unicorns and rainbows. but the report did not call for criminal charges, and Barrs letter said the same thing.

The report said they could not prosecute a sitting president: "Vol. II, Page 2: Second, while the O.L.C. opinion concludes that a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the president’s term is permissible. The O.L.C. opinion also recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office."
Because they could not indict a sitting president, they went on to say: "Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."

What do you think could happen after Trump leaves office and no longer has immunity? There is sufficient evidence in the report to charge him with obstruction, any other citizen would have already been indicted. Being mad about being investigated is not a viable defense, though it is apparently acceptable to his base.

i have zero trouble believing Trump was a hostile
baby within the investigation. That’s who he is.

Time to switch gears, not it’s the rights turn, let’s investigate whether the obama justice department was acting intentionally to get Hilary elected. let’s investigate that ( because there’s evidence of serious wrongdoing),, then move on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What evidence of serious wrongdoing have you seen? Be specific

Jim in CT

05-03-2019, 10:41 AM

What evidence of serious wrongdoing have you seen? Be specific

"They reported Barr's version of his phone call with Mueller, neither was on that phone call"

Mueller was. Is Mueller saying that Barr was lying about the call?

"What do you think could happen after Trump leaves office and no longer has immunity?"

Lots of things could happen. If I were Trump, I'd think seriously about retiring to a nice place with a non-extradition treaty with the US.

What about the fact that no one close to Trump was indicted? Are their rules that say that no one on the staff, or in the inner circle, of a sitting president can be prosecuted? I heard an awful lot over the last 3 years, that his staff and at least some of his family, would be charged. Didnt happen. Not a single solitary indictment for actions that took place before the investigation started. Zero. You can't tell me, that's not exculpatory. Trump doesn't do it all himself, he delegates the vast majority of what gets done. Mueller found zero chargeable crimes.

"What evidence of serious wrongdoing have you seen? Be specific "

Sure. The DOJ used that garbage Steele dossier (paid for by the Hilary campaign) to get FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page, a US citizen. Page's name was then leaked by the DOJ to the media, who happily reported that he was a Russian agent. They never told the FISA judge the source of the made-up dossier. Would you like it if that happened to you, or to someone you care about?

We also have the emails and texts among senior FBO and DOJ officials who (1) hated Trump and wanted Hilary to win, and (2) were helping to run the investigations into Hilary and Trump. Now, that doesn't mean they did their jobs inappropriately, but we can, and should, look into that.

I'm not a lawyer. And I don't pretend to be non-partisan. But Alan Dershowitz is a highly resected legal mind, and also a diehard liberal, and he was appalled by what he saw, he thinks there's plenty of evidence that the DOJ was acting as an arm of the Hilary campaign. He's just one guy sure, and he can be wrong, but I believe him more than I believe Sean Hannity or Rachael Maddow.

Regarding Russian collusion, many times I hoped for a fair and thorough investigation. It's totally consistent for me to call for the same thing, with regards to whether or not Obama's Justice Department colluded with Hilary's campaign.

I cannot stand the thought that Trump sought Russian help to win. I'm just as concerned (more, probably) at the thought that Hilary sought help from Obama's Justice Department to help her win.

We investigated the first. Time to investigate the second. The only possible reason why anyone would support one of those investigations but not both, is partisan politics.

I'm lucky that I can comfortably say that both investigations are warranted, because my loyalty is to common sense and fairness, I'm not a blind, thoughtless partisan. It makes my life a whole lot easier than it would be if I always had to defend the bad things my side does, and ignore the good things that the other side does. Spence has to pretend that Trump isn't helping the economy, and he has to pretend that Hilary isn't a deeply flawed individual. That takes a lot of effort and a willingness to humiliate yourself. It's easier when you can offer praise or criticism to either side.

The liberals were devastated after the 2016 election. The then put all of their eggs in the collusion basket, and look like idiots again. On top of that, there will now be an investigation to see whether or Trump was the victim of collusion between Hilary and the FBI. So not only have the democrats in charge failed at getting rid of Trump, they may have royally f*cked themselves in trying to sabotage Trump. I still don't think they have the slightest clue who he is.

I truly hope there wasn't collusion between Hilary and the DOJ, because what a blow to our process that would be. Let's do an investigation that's as thorough as Mueller's (not as slow), and get it behind us once and for all. I will happily abide by the results of that investigation (and it has already started, terrifying the left), just as I abide by the Mueller findings.

Pete F.

05-03-2019, 11:07 AM

"They reported Barr's version of his phone call with Mueller, neither was on that phone call"

Mueller was. Is Mueller saying that Barr was lying about the call?

"What do you think could happen after Trump leaves office and no longer has immunity?"

Lots of things could happen. If I were Trump, I'd think seriously about retiring to a nice place with a non-extradition treaty with the US.

What about the fact that no one close to Trump was indicted? Are their rules that say that no one on the staff, or in the inner circle, of a sitting president can be prosecuted? I heard an awful lot over the last 3 years, that his staff and at least some of his family, would be charged. Didnt happen. Not a single solitary indictment for actions that took place before the investigation started. Zero. You can't tell me, that's not exculpatory. Trump doesn't do it all himself, he delegates the vast majority of what gets done. Mueller found zero chargeable crimes.

"What evidence of serious wrongdoing have you seen? Be specific "

Sure. The DOJ used that garbage Steele dossier (paid for by the Hilary campaign) to get FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page, a US citizen. Page's name was then leaked by the DOJ to the media, who happily reported that he was a Russian agent. They never told the FISA judge the source of the made-up dossier. Would you like it if that happened to you, or to someone you care about?

We also have the emails and texts among senior FBO and DOJ officials who (1) hated Trump and wanted Hilary to win, and (2) were helping to run the investigations into Hilary and Trump. Now, that doesn't mean they did their jobs inappropriately, but we can, and should, look into that.

I'm not a lawyer. And I don't pretend to be non-partisan. But Alan Dershowitz is a highly resected legal mind, and also a diehard liberal, and he was appalled by what he saw, he thinks there's plenty of evidence that the DOJ was acting as an arm of the Hilary campaign. He's just one guy sure, and he can be wrong, but I believe him more than I believe Sean Hannity or Rachael Maddow.

Regarding Russian collusion, many times I hoped for a fair and thorough investigation. It's totally consistent for me to call for the same thing, with regards to whether or not Obama's Justice Department colluded with Hilary's campaign.

I cannot stand the thought that Trump sought Russian help to win. I'm just as concerned (more, probably) at the thought that Hilary sought help from Obama's Justice Department to help her win.

We investigated the first. Time to investigate the second. The only possible reason why anyone would support one of those investigations but not both, is partisan politics.

I'm lucky that I can comfortably say that both investigations are warranted, because my loyalty is to common sense and fairness, I'm not a blind, thoughtless partisan. It makes my life a whole lot easier than it would be if I always had to defend the bad things my side does, and ignore the good things that the other side does. Spence has to pretend that Trump isn't helping the economy, and he has to pretend that Hilary isn't a deeply flawed individual. That takes a lot of effort and a willingness to humiliate yourself. It's easier when you can offer praise or criticism to either side.

The liberals were devastated after the 2016 election. The then put all of their eggs in the collusion basket, and look like idiots again. On top of that, there will now be an investigation to see whether or Trump was the victim of collusion between Hilary and the FBI. So not only have the democrats in charge failed at getting rid of Trump, they may have royally f*cked themselves in trying to sabotage Trump. I still don't think they have the slightest clue who he is.

I truly hope there wasn't collusion between Hilary and the DOJ, because what a blow to our process that would be. Let's do an investigation that's as thorough as Mueller's (not as slow), and get it behind us once and for all. I will happily abide by the results of that investigation (and it has already started, terrifying the left), just as I abide by the Mueller findings.

Carter Page had been investigated for years prior to his involvement with the Trump campaign regarding Russia. The first FISA warrant was in 2014. Just more garbage Trump did not vet prior to getting him involved.
https://www.justsecurity.org/46786/timeline-carter-pages-contacts-russia/

Lot's of far more conservative lawyers than Dershowitz have big concerns that directly conflict with Dershowitz's opinions. Just because he is liberal does not make his opinion correct. Of course he's also a buddy of Trump, Acosta and Epstein.

Have you read the Mueller report?
Glad to hear that Trumps acceptance of Russian help is acceptable to you. Check your soul for bite marks.

As far as Hillary goes, let the cards fall where they may. I did not support either main party candidate in the 2016 election and still don't. What about Hillary etc is a pretty weak defense.

Non-farm payroll is still on the same trajectory it has been for the past nine years.

Jim in CT

05-03-2019, 11:39 AM

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1166634]Glad to hear that Trumps acceptance of Russian help is acceptable to you. Check your soul for bite marks.

Boy, I'd love to hear how you arrived at the conclusion that I'm OK with Trump/Russia collusion. In my post that you just quoted, I said this, you actually quoted this line from me:

I cannot stand the thought that Trump sought Russian help to win.

So before we go any further, please explain how you read that, and concluded that I was OK with Trump/Russia colluding. Either admit you made that up to discredit me, despite my explicit statement to the contrary, or we can stop now. You constantly accuse me of being a Trump apologist, when I constantly attack him for his lapses. You're just making up jibberish as you go along.

You constantly, constantly accuse me of saying things I never said. One only does that, when one can't respond to what the other person is actually saying.

Pete F.

05-03-2019, 12:46 PM

Jim in CT

05-03-2019, 01:16 PM

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1166635]
But Gorsuch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
i don’t know what that means. you could
have just said you were wrong, but nope.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

05-03-2019, 02:36 PM

i don’t know what that means. you could
have just said you were wrong, but nope.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But I'm not.
You accept what Trump does with a little squealing but consistently acquiesce to his behavior.
Trump took an oath of office that says: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Because you got some judges, a little raise and the economy is good, you are willing to accept:
1. Asking that Sessions drop the investigation, then when he would not do that, pardoning Joe Arpaio.
2. Instructing Border Patrol officers to disobey the courts and turn back asylum seekers
3. Repeated calls for prosecution of his political enemies or rivals.
4. Asking that the Postal Service raise rates for Amazon to punish Bezos
5. Removing security clearances because citizens criticized his policies.
6. Declassifying information for political purposes
7. Attacks on the press as enemies of the people
8. "very fine people"
9. "#^&#^&#^&#^&hole countries"
10. Libelous statements without basis that citizens were treasonous.
11. His lies, now over 10,000
12. Paying off various pornstars and covering up the payments
13. Pursuing projects in Russia, while telling the people he had no anything in Russia
14. The emoluments clause and his blatant disregard for it.
15. His involvement in the preelection efforts of his campaign to get Russian aid as detailed in the Mueller report.
16. Declaring an emergency when Congress does not give him what he wants and then stating that he really did not need to.
There are more but remember Trump took an oath of office that says: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
He has abused his power incessantly and you are ok with that because?
At what point is enough enough?

PaulS

05-03-2019, 03:18 PM

Trump just contradicted Pompeo in that he said Putin told him Russia was not interferring in Venz. He also said they didn't discuss Russia interference in our election.

Have a great weekend all!

Got Stripers

05-03-2019, 04:17 PM

detbuch

05-03-2019, 05:21 PM

But I'm not.
You accept what Trump does with a little squealing but consistently acquiesce to his behavior.
Trump took an oath of office that says: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Because you got some judges, a little raise and the economy is good, you are willing to accept:
1. Asking that Sessions drop the investigation, then when he would not do that, pardoning Joe Arpaio.

What's wrong with asking the AG to stop an investigation when you know that it is bogus? And asking is not abusing power. It didn't happen. There was no abuse.

2. Instructing Border Patrol officers to disobey the courts and turn back asylum seekers

The President has the power (and duty) to interpret the Constitution. The remedy is to take it to the highest court. And then to impeach. Presidents have often, historically, "disobeyed" the lower courts--even on occasion the Supreme one. In this case, half the people probably agreed that the abuse of the asylum laws by those falsely claiming asylum needed to be stopped.

3. Repeated calls for prosecution of his political enemies or rivals.

It's not an abuse of power to "call" for prosecution of those who are doing wrong and even abusing their own power.

4. Asking that the Postal Service raise rates for Amazon to punish Bezos

Again, asking is not abusing. And I thought you didn't approve of the monopoly that Amazon created for itself.

5. Removing security clearances because citizens criticized his policies.

That certainly is another oversimplification. It wasn't merely because of criticism. There were false accusations being made about Trump conspiring with Russia by those who probably new better. Someone willing to falsely bring down a President should certainly be considered a security risk.

6. Declassifying information for political purposes

If the political purpose is to expose political sabotage, declassification is the opposite of abuse.

7. Attacks on the press as enemies of the people

He didn't "attack" THE Press. He called out the fakers. And he quite often was right.

8. "very fine people"

How is it an abuse of power to say that there were very fine people on both sides of the debate on whether to take down statues. AND HE SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT HE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE WHITE SUPREMICISTS AND NEO NAZIS. Would you consider it an abuse of free speech for the media to falsely accuse him of saying that white supremacists and Nazis are very fine people?

9. "#^&#^&#^&#^&hole countries"

To which countries did he refer that wouldn't fit the spirit in which he made the comment? And how is it an abuse of power to make the comment?

10. Libelous statements without basis that citizens were treasonous.

You keep calling his statements an abuse of power. Saying that someone is treasonous is not an abuse of power. And if it's libelous, he can be sued for libel. And what about all those who accused him of being a traitor, including fake news? Were they abusing power?

11. His lies, now over 10,000

That's nonsense and not an abuse of power.

12. Paying off various pornstars and covering up the payments

That's not an abuse of power and a logical, sane thing to do.

13. Pursuing projects in Russia, while telling the people he had no anything in Russia

"Pursuing"?

14. The emoluments clause and his blatant disregard for it.

Has this been adjudicated? Are you the judge and jury?

15. His involvement in the preelection efforts of his campaign to get Russian aid as detailed in the Mueller report.

I thought the Mueller report concluded there was no conspiracy between Trump and the Russians.

16. Declaring an emergency when Congress does not give him what he wants and then stating that he really did not need to.

Apparently there is an emergency. And whatever he declared about it is not an abuse of power.

There are more but remember Trump took an oath of office that says: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
He has abused his power incessantly and you are ok with that because?
At what point is enough enough?

You seem to be overwrought over very little. Although you do keep trying to blow it up into something HYYUUGE. I have to admire your persistence. It ain't easy.

Jim in CT

05-03-2019, 05:47 PM

Got Stripers

05-03-2019, 08:44 PM

Good for you and maybe your kids, but if the deregulation and complete head in the sand view of global warming continues, your kids children might be screwed. .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

05-04-2019, 06:07 AM

Good for you and maybe your kids, but if the deregulation and complete head in the sand view of global warming continues, your kids children might be screwed. .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
who has their heads in the sand? it was just shown that electric/hybrid vehicles generate far more co2 than diesel engines.

so obama gave huge tax credits to incentivize wealthy people to buy hybrid vehicles, and in doing so, harm the environment.

the us isn’t the pollution problem. China is.

And for christ’s sake, the soaring economy isn’t just good for me and
my kids. why do you have to deliberately diminish and trivialize it that way? it’s helping almost all of us.

i care about the environment as much as you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe

05-04-2019, 06:12 AM

scottw

05-04-2019, 06:16 AM

Solar and wind renewables are bad for the planet? You need to get your head examined
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ummmm...he didn't mention either of those

scottw

05-04-2019, 06:17 AM

i care about the environment as much as you.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that'll explode a liberal's head :laughs:

Nebe

05-04-2019, 06:20 AM

ummmm...he didn't mention either of those

He’s saying that electric hybrid engines are worse than regular engines.

However... pure electric cars if run off of electricity generated by wind or solar would be a far different story.

But of course Jim has to co e up with some argument that contradicts the progressive agenda of green energy and then has to point to a “but Obama” fact.

Predictable and boring.
Toodles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

05-04-2019, 06:52 AM

He’s saying that electric hybrid engines are worse than regular engines.

However... pure electric cars if run off of electricity generated by wind or solar would be a far different story.

But of course Jim has to co e up with some argument that contradicts the progressive agenda of green energy and then has to point to a “but Obama” fact.

Predictable and boring.
Toodles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't come up with anything, some scientists did. Tel me why this study is wrong?

https://truepundit.com/electric-car-owners-shocked-new-study-confirms-evs-considerably-worse-for-climate-than-diesel-cars/?fbclid=IwAR3Dg74AG-1JUeqs0P8bqHBR34oyfWjCJu9fMSkQtZI36D-1Er1MqmZXfak

But Obama, waaah! If you don't like being pointed out for hypocrisy,, don't engage in hypocrisy.

Regarding the environment, we have to be thoughtful, that's all I'm saying. It turns out that lithium batteries aren't organic. Al Gore forgot to mention that when he wrote the book that the sheep bought and made him a billionaire.

Jim in CT

05-04-2019, 06:57 AM

Solar and wind renewables are bad for the planet? You need to get your head examined
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did I mention solar and wind? Or did I say hybrid vehicles?

To have enough panels to generate electricity, would require more space than there is in the entire state of CA.

The problem is, solar panels and wind turbines aren't all that efficient, and only work at all, when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. That's not the answer.

An article written by a greenie who TIME magazine called "a hero of the planet"...he lays out the case why nuclear is far superior for the planet.

https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/?fbclid=IwAR0q1Ota0hOTAmhDcHycS4c81mm7JXB7PeHKbEN6 HufpCOpIW4YqOo0CRSw

Nebe

05-04-2019, 07:17 AM

Cherynobyl and Fukushima have certainly improved our quality of living.... :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers

05-04-2019, 07:23 AM

who has their heads in the sand? it was just shown that electric/hybrid vehicles generate far more co2 than diesel engines.

so obama gave huge tax credits to incentivize wealthy people to buy hybrid vehicles, and in doing so, harm the environment.

the us isn’t the pollution problem. China is.

And for christ’s sake, the soaring economy isn’t just good for me and
my kids. why do you have to deliberately diminish and trivialize it that way? it’s helping almost all of us.

i care about the environment as much as you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn’t say you have you head in the sand, but out President clearly does and his policies, appointees and deregulation show that.

Pretty sure I didn’t imply the economy isn’t just good for you and your kids either, boy aren’t we getting touchy.

When more and more climate disasters decimate entire cities and surrounding communities, who do you think picks up the tab? Flooding out west has never in recorded history reached those levels and that is a trend, so we can pay the tab in painful reactionary bandaids or formulate a way to address it long term. Both ways aren’t cheep, one is short sighted and the other will take bold legislation. I’m not saying the the new green deal is the answer, but look what we did when the Russians beat us into space, innovation can happen quickly with the right push.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device