Letâs see the report. No one trusts Barrâs wordThere is a lesson there as well. The Star report failed to establish that Clinton was guilty of the whitewater charges but the republicans went ahead and tried to impeach him for perjury - an actual crime they had strong and unequivocal evidence of. It failed and he left office enormously popular.There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.
https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf
There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.
Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."
It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;
"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?
The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasnât Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasnât Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, âThe Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.â
âThe regulations speak of the public interest, and I canât imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,â Alonso says. âOn the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or donât. When they donât, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.â
Alonso adds that even Barr âcanât authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,â he says. âAdditionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.â
Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr âdoesnât have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.â But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. âAnything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,â Iyer explains.
There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify âin the near future,â intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. âMueller could also be called to testify,â Iyer says. âThis fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.â . . . . "
Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.
Huh?
Were you even alive during that time period?
The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.
Now the dems failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russia. They want to impeach over a related issue in the investigation (obstruction) without even the material facts that were present in Clinton's case. Pelosi knows this is a massive loser right out the gate and that is why she is trying to moderate her base. The public has very little patience for prosecuting a president when the original crime that was being investigated turns out to be bullshit.
No reason not to. Do you really think the partisans on Mueller's team would allow lies about their work to stand unchallenged?
Face reality, this report will not give you Trump in handcuffs. You're just going to have to deal with that.