Muller report AG new conference

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

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

[scottw]

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]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

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.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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]

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]

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

[Got Stripers]

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]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

[PaulS]

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!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Got Stripers]

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]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

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]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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...OpIW4YqOo0CRSw

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i care about the environment as much as you.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that'll explode a liberal's head

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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