"this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate"

[NightFox]

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."

I highly doubt the DNC believes "they can nail Trump" .. that's not the point of the exercise.

The point of the exercise is to cherry pick quotations from the full report and use them to convince the masses of mindless, attention deficit disorder sheeple (aka voters) that while the report didn't implicate Donny in any wrongdoing that he's guilty as sin anyways, in other words due to a "whitwash"/"cover up"/"pay off"/<fill in the blank malfeasance> Donny got away with "collusion" and obstruction.

It's a political thing, not a reason and evidence thing.

Exactly. It's what the GOP does as well.

Yep... they both do it.

We need to hold both sides accountable for cherry picking detail and using those to paint a broad but false narrative or conclusion.

How can you hold them accountable when it's what "The People" clearly want? The American Public at large wants sound bytes and headlines that feed its confirmation bias, we don't want objective analysis and nuance, that takes time and effort to digest.

The chattering classes are just giving us what we say we want.... INFOTAINMENT.

 

[gipper]

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this?

I don't think the debate is over. I think it will last until the next federal election. Hopefully it will fade to the background but another Fauxrageous fight is just around the corner. I'm sure something new will take center stage for while, with the whole Russian/Obstruction thing popping up from time to time.

Why don't you think the debate over Russian collusion is over?

why?

because Trump hasn't been frog marched out of the Oval Office in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit.

Until THAT happens, the investigations will never stop.

Agreed.

Mueller said...“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Well this statement does appear contradictory. The report clearly does exonerate Donnie. Maybe Mueller was covering his ass with the kook fringe left, by leaving the door just slightly open.

 

[whitehall]

If there was no evidence of collusion after two years, 2,000 subpoenas, midnight search warrants and over 500 witnesses there can be no obstruction. Let it go lefties, for the sake of your mental health.

 

[NoVote]

Please tell me, how can you exonerate someone who has committed no crime? Duhhh.

 

[jc456]

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 Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The 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.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, 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.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t 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,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” 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 “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

"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 “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report."​

You think the House of Representatives of the Legislative branch of government can beat up on the Attorney General, who is a part of the Executive Branch and closely associated with the Judicial Branch of government?

I seriously hope Representative Nadler takes into consideration that his proposal could violate the separation of powers statutes implied in the Constitution of the United States of America which he pledged in his Oath of Office to the House of Representatives to uphold. His saber-rattling is duly noted, however. He is a powerful man.

didn't rosenstein flip a congressional subpoena off? Nadler thinks he has power, and he doesn't. The AG is greater than him and congress on this.

 

[MisterBeale]

...

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."

I highly doubt the DNC believes "they can nail Trump" .. that's not the point of the exercise.

The point of the exercise is to cherry pick quotations from the full report and use them to convince the masses of mindless, attention deficit disorder sheeple (aka voters) that while the report didn't implicate Donny in any wrongdoing that he's guilty as sin anyways, in other words due to a "whitwash"/"cover up"/"pay off"/<fill in the blank malfeasance> Donny got away with "collusion" and obstruction.

It's a political thing, not a reason and evidence thing.

Exactly. It's what the GOP does as well.

Yep... they both do it.

We need to hold both sides accountable for cherry picking detail and using those to paint a broad but false narrative or conclusion.

How can you hold them accountable when it's what "The People" clearly want? The American Public at large wants sound bytes and headlines that feed its confirmation bias, we don't want objective analysis and nuance, that takes time and effort to digest.

The chattering classes are just giving us what we say we want.... INFOTAINMENT.

ABSOLUTELY!


I premised this thread on a discussion of the summary of Mueller's report, only for those who would actually read the summary to comment on it.

I believe that, as a rough estimate, 20% of the folks that have commented in the thread so far, STILL have not read the link. It is only four pages.

Hell, half the first page is addresses, and the last page is only half a page. It's not really four pages, maybe three and a third? My OP is probably more boring. And yet, for those who fancy themselves political aficionados, they can't be bothered?

 

[jc456]

The Dems are grasping the very last straw.

Sure hope it continue through 2019. They will be handing Trump the 2020 election.

The Dem led House sure isn't doing their party any favors. They are showing everyone what ineffectual idiots they are.

I'm wondering if they keep the House in 2020??

Should be one entertaining show to watch. LOL

the democratic party...

 

[MisterBeale]

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this?

I don't think the debate is over. I think it will last until the next federal election. Hopefully it will fade to the background but another Fauxrageous fight is just around the corner. I'm sure something new will take center stage for while, with the whole Russian/Obstruction thing popping up from time to time.

Why don't you think the debate over Russian collusion is over?

why?

because Trump hasn't been frog marched out of the Oval Office in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit.

Until THAT happens, the investigations will never stop.

Agreed.

Mueller said...“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Well this statement does appear contradictory. The report clearly does exonerate Donnie. Maybe Mueller was covering his ass with the kook fringe left, by leaving the door just slightly open.

I had to smirk at the sentence right before the one in question. I notice the whole thing turned on a key word that pissed off the conservatives when cankles was let go;

". . . . "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction."

 

[Camp]

Please tell me, how can you exonerate someone who has committed no crime? Duhhh.

The memo does not say no crime or no evidence. Says in the writer's opinion there is not enough to bring to trial or make formal charges. In addition, it's not the report. It's a memo voicing an opinion.

 

[jc456]

looks like the whole dossier thing may nudge itself forward.

It's important to realize that the Dossier was an alert signal.

The Mueller investigation was not about proving or disproving that memo. It was an investigation in to what happened in the election and onward.

The Dossier is long in the tail lights

 

[NoVote]

If there were a crime, it would be in the report moron. Get over it dufus. Your pissing and moaning will give you tards another loss next cycle.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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 Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The 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.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, 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.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t 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,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” 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 “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

You may have taken the time to read it but you obviously didn't understand it.

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion.

Not having enough evidence to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same thing as none, fool.

Bullshit.

I QUOTE;

"But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

IOW, NONE.

Damn you folks will not be deterred, will you?

That's the AG's quote. Not Mueller's, fool.
You have no idea what Mueller found.

 

[jc456]

no crime was mentioned. no indictments means no crime. it's actually very simple.

 

[jc456]

are you calling Barr a liar?

 

[Edgetho]

Are there any Lawyers in here that can educate the dimocrap SCUM among us?? (If there are, they are almost certainly dimocrap scum anyway)

But please tell these FUCKING IDIOTS that it is neither the job nor the duty of a Prosecutor to exonerate anybody.

The stupidity on display in this forum is mind-boggling

 

[jc456]

Are there any Lawyers in here that can educate the dimocrap SCUM among us?? (If there are, they are almost certainly dimocrap scum anyway)

But please tell these FUCKING IDIOTS that it is neither the job nor the duty of a Prosecutor to exonerate anybody.

The stupidity on display in this forum is mind-boggling

the report is just a report. A SP doesn't pass judgement. They provide facts. It's up to the AG and to act on the facts. Barr has. not sure enough of you in here knows our country's law.

 

[SmokeALib]

Huh?
It has not been proven that I sneak out at night and mow all my neighbors yards.
I have not been exonerated from it, either.
Therefore, an investigation must be warranted to determine if I am the frantic night lawn mower?
You worthless leftist traitors crack me up.

 

[Edgetho]

the report is just a report. A SP doesn't pass judgement. They provide facts. It's up to the AG and to act on the facts. Barr has. not sure enough of you in here knows our country's law.

If they're not on Comedy Central, they don't know about them

 

[MisterBeale]

Please tell me, how can you exonerate someone who has committed no crime? Duhhh.

The memo does not say no crime or no evidence. Says in the writer's opinion there is not enough to bring to trial or make formal charges. In addition, it's not the report. It's a memo voicing an opinion.

That quite some spin. They ought to hire you at MSNBC!


"In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of -justice offense."

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this?

I don't think the debate is over. I think it will last until the next federal election. Hopefully it will fade to the background but another Fauxrageous fight is just around the corner. I'm sure something new will take center stage for while, with the whole Russian/Obstruction thing popping up from time to time.

Why don't you think the debate over Russian collusion is over?

LOL.....

Just because sufficient evidence to indict was not found doesn't mean it didn't happen. Don jr. certainly was ready and eager to take a meeting predicated on the offer of Russian assistance and then lie to cover it up.

Impeachment certainly has no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that a criminal prosecution would.