Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1166588)

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

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1166588)

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

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1166591)

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.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1166594)

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.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1166596)

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

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1166584)

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.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1166585)

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...

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1166597)

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1166598)

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.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166602)

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

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1166603)

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?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1166609)

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

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166612)

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1166623)

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

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1166628)

What evidence of serious wrongdoing have you seen? Be specific

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1166631)

"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.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 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.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1166635)

But Gorsuch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1166641)

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

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1166644)

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?

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1166644)

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?

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1166644)

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?

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1166657)

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1166660)

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

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1166661)

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1166660)

i care about the environment as much as you.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device