Honestly, how many Trump acolytes here have actually read the Report?

[PoliticalChic]

I know it may a useless task to ask for "honesty" in an anonymous forum such as this, mostly filled with right wing posters........but, let's give it a shot.

How many have actually read the Mueller report especially Volume two?

After all......IF you still insist on the "No Collusion.....No Obstruction" mantra, there are only TWO reasons for you to do so:

1. You have NOT really read it and rely on the biased interpretation offered you by Trump, Barr and Hannity.

2. You did read the report but you have reading comprehension issues and your biases "trump" (pardon the expression) any admission that the report is actually DAMNING of Trump and his staff's actions.

Unfortunately, the once fair and honest Grand Ol' Party is moribund.....now replaced by what many (including me) have labeled a Trump Cult........Those remaining honest republicans agree that Trump's actions could easily be impeachable and had any democrat president be facing the same exact scrutiny, he or she WOULD be impeached.

Given the spineless republican-led Senate....and given the lack of courage by the democrat-led House, concerned more with reelection than ethics and morality, impeachment will NOT happen.

So, to return to the original question.......WHO among the Trump acolytes have actually really read Mueller's report?

READ IT??????


We wrote it two years ago, dope.

 

[bodecea]

Reading is hard for CRCs....and it's probably against their scriptures.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reading is hard for CRCs....and it's probably against their scriptures.

We wrote it two years ago.

See if you can find anything in the Mueller pretense that wasn't in the Right's posts from the beginning of the fiasco.

 

[nat4900]

READ IT??????


We wrote it two years ago, dope.

Another Trump ass kisser chimes in with her brand of "sarcasm"........
Trump LOVES the poorly educated....and above is proof.

 

[nat4900]

Why do you worship a child molester, scumbag? Why do you support a man who molested little boys in the oval office?

What the fuck is this idiot talking about......Be proud Trump ass kissers of having THIS level of "intelligence" within your cult membership.

 

[PoliticalChic]

READ IT??????


We wrote it two years ago, dope.

Another Trump ass kisser chimes in with her brand of "sarcasm"........
Trump LOVES the poorly educated....and above is proof.

See if you can find anything in the Mueller pretense that wasn't in the Right's posts from the beginning of the fiasco.


Oh.....and whenever you're ready to compare educational resumes......let me know, dope.

 

[nat4900]

We wrote it two years ago.

Moron....you can't even write a two sentence post......LMAO

 

[PoliticalChic]

We wrote it two years ago.

Moron....you can't even write a two sentence post......LMAO

....whenever you're ready to compare educational resumes......let me know, dope.

 

[nat4900]

....whenever you're ready to compare educational resumes......let me know, dope.

Oh, sorry....you're a Trump U. graduate???............................LOL

 

[Justin Richardson]

We don’t know what Mueller told Barr at the March 5 meeting, but Mueller made it clear in his first-ever public remarks why he had not made a determination of whether Trump committed a crime.

Mueller said he did not make a determination that there wasn’t a crime for two reasons: Department policy doesn’t allow a sitting president to be charged with a federal crime, and, because of that policy, “it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.”

“Those were the principles under which we operated and from them we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller said today.

[A]s set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the department of justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. …

And beyond department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. So that was justice department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated and from them we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.

 

[PoliticalChic]

....whenever you're ready to compare educational resumes......let me know, dope.

Oh, sorry....you're a Trump U. graduate???............................LOL

One of us is an Ivy League grad, and the other is you.


Did Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Clown College give you a diploma or just that big red nose?

 

[SAYIT]

I know it may a useless task to ask for "honesty" in an anonymous forum such as this, mostly filled with right wing posters........but, let's give it a shot. How many have actually read the Mueller report especially Volume two?...

Probably a thousands times more people than the number of Democrat Congressmen that read the Obamacare bill before voting for it.

Those howling that Barr is in contempt of congress for not ILLEGALLY exposing grand jury data - our Hysterical House Dems - evidently do not really want to read it but rather just want to scream like petulant little children when Mommy says "no candy for you."

No Democrats have read the less-redacted Mueller report. But five Republicans have. - CNNPolitics
None of the six Democrats who have been provided access to a less-redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report have gone to the Justice Department to read it, according to a source familiar with the matter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We don’t know what Mueller told Barr at the March 5 meeting, but Mueller made it clear in his first-ever public remarks why he had not made a determination of whether Trump committed a crime.

Mueller said he did not make a determination that there wasn’t a crime for two reasons: Department policy doesn’t allow a sitting president to be charged with a federal crime, and, because of that policy, “it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.”

“Those were the principles under which we operated and from them we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller said today.

[A]s set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the department of justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. …

And beyond department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. So that was justice department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated and from them we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.

"Mueller said he did not make a determination that there wasn’t a crime for two reasons: Department policy doesn’t allow a sitting president to be charged with a federal crime, ..."


Actually, he not only didn't say that, but when questioned about same said it played no role.

"For what it's worth, Attorney General William Barr said that Mueller had told him expressly he was not saying that the OLC decision prevented him from finding a crime. At a press conference on April 18, Barr said,

We specifically asked [Mueller] about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime, but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime. He made it very clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime."

Now, he pretends otherwise.




"Barr said he was “frankly surprised” by Mueller’s decision and peppered him with questions about the reasoning behind it. He also defended his characterization in his March 24 letter that Mueller’s decision not to indict President Trump on obstruction did not take into account the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) rule that it’s impermissible to indict a sitting president. Barr suggested that Mueller’s team merely could not reach a conclusion, when their thought process was more nuanced than that.

“Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found obstruction,” Barr said Wednesday. “He said that in the future, the facts of the case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case.”
Barr Reveals New Details Of Meeting With Mueller About Obstruction Case



Now he claims that the OLC decision prevented him from bringing charges.


Didn't Flynn get charged with lying for this sort of thing????




All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.



He lied in either case.

 

[william the wie]

The left is terrified of Barr and Durham sending at least some house chairmen to jail based on plea bargains by the unraveling weaponized intelligence services.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The left is terrified of Barr and Durham sending at least some house chairmen to jail based on plea bargains by the unraveling weaponized intelligence services.

But, I'd have to see it to believe it.

Repubs never seem to be able to be as ruthless as the Dems......e.g., Scooter Libby.

 

[nat4900]

And beyond department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge

Read the Constitution...........The evidence MUST be submitted to Congress under Article One where the "trial" COULD be held.....

THIS was Mueller's intent,,,,,and NOT to have a stooge like Barr telling Trump's ilk...."oh, there's nothing in the report...total exoneration....can I have a SCOTUS seat now?"

 

[SAYIT]

he investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials or between such officials and Russia-linked individuals to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of a government agency during the campaign or transition period.

Just ONE kick your your gonads....

Michael Flynn quits over secret contacts with Russia - A resignation in ...

Judge orders release of transcripts of Flynn Russian contacts

The Mueller report's account of Michael Flynn's lies - AP News

"...this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..." - R. Mueller III

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute any American - including D.J. Trump - who after a thorough 2 yr, $35 million witch-hunt is found to not have committed a crime.

Case closed.

 

[nat4900]

"...this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..." - R. Mueller III

MORON..........why does an asshole like you cut out the REMAINDER of that statement ......
Is it because you ARE an asshole who likes to kiss orange asses?......................LOL

 

[SAYIT]

Somewhere in the trump CULT membership book, there is written something regarding , ".....when Trump is attacked and you have nothing to counter...YOU MUST bring up Obama....or risk being kicked off the membership rolls....."

Now picture the UPROAR if the above were to have been done by Obama......

Did Barr check with Sean Hannity to write up that BIASED little summary????......LOL

So, those daily laxatives aren't working for you, UnHinged???........LOL

... Be proud Trump ass kissers of having THIS level of "intelligence" within your cult membership.

2.5 years of acute TDS have rendered poor Nat49 a blithering idiot. Very sad.

 

[Justin Richardson]

"...this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..." - R. Mueller III

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute any American - including D.J. Trump - who after a thorough 2 yr, $35 million witch-hunt is found to not have committed a crime.

Case closed.

According to nat4900 ...case is not closed. Lol