Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)
-   Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)
-   -   Muller report AG new conference (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=95020)

detbuch 04-20-2019 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1165942)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1165972)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1165973)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1165942)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1165981)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1166445)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1166452)
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...=.82d810d81b7d
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman 05-01-2019 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1166473)
This is amazing.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.82d810d81b7d
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Meh :sleeps:

Got Stripers 05-01-2019 05:57 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

spence 05-01-2019 07:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166482)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166482)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1165860)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166482)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1166473)
Better things to do.

This is amazing.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.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/bre...ent-inaccurate

detbuch 05-01-2019 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166482)
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
Barr testified that Mueller had told him 3 times that DOJ policy prohibiting the charging of a sitting President was not the reason for not indicting Trump on obstruction.

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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166526)
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
^^^ this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw 05-01-2019 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166526)

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
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1166529)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1166530)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166526)
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
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?

Jim in CT 05-01-2019 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1166528)
^^^ 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1166532)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166526)
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
Suggesting obstruction is not conclusive obstruction. There was not sufficient evidence to conclude obstruction.

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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166538)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166542)
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
Neither policy nor law prevented Mueller from concluding that Trump obstructed justice.

Got Stripers 05-01-2019 08:45 PM
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

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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166544)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166544)

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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166544)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1166553)
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...er-report-pdf/

Here is Barrs letter, his summaries are on page 2 and 3
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...nd-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/docum...-Muellerreport


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:37 AM.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com