Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It’s pretty clear that
A. Barr is covering Trump’s voluminous ass. He was hired FOR that job
B. Mueller in making no determination of guilt was presenting the evidence to Congress for THEM to decide.
DOJ guidelines say that a sitting President can not be indicted. That means that whatever evidence Mueller found NEEDS to be presented to Congress. Not to Bill Barr
Concerning WHAT though?
THIS IS KEY.
I have seen you, yes YOU, still make snide comments about Trump and Putin, mostly b/c you have not read this report or do not understand it's implications.
OR;
You are just a liar.
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.
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.
It's illegal for a prosecutor to discuss the evidence in a case when he doesn't prosecute. If he doesn't have evidence that Trump colluded or obstructed, then Trump is innocent. The law states innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
That's it, where it begins and where it ends.
It's illegal for a prosecutor to discuss the evidence in a case when he doesn't prosecute. If he doesn't have evidence that Trump colluded or obstructed, then Trump is innocent. The law states innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
That's it, where it begins and where it ends.
So when the So-called President calls Hillary Clinton a criminal, he is simply lying. Correct?
...
ABSOLUTELY!Yep... they both do it.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.
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.We need to hold both sides accountable for cherry picking detail and using those to paint a broad but false narrative or conclusion.
The chattering classes are just giving us what we say we want.... INFOTAINMENT.
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?
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.
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.
If you read the synopsis of the report, which you obviously didn't, you would notice that mewler said that the Trump Team rebuffed several attempts by the Russians to work with them by offering such information.
So you're either a lying cocksucker or a stupid little bitch.
Try again
...
ABSOLUTELY!Yep... they both do it.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.
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.We need to hold both sides accountable for cherry picking detail and using those to paint a broad but false narrative or conclusion.
The chattering classes are just giving us what we say we want.... INFOTAINMENT.
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?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.
It is not a summary of the Mueller report. It's two bullet points presented with zero context from the actual report.
She is a criminal.
however, if there are no indictments to act on, then there is no crime mentioned in the report. yes, we can deduce that piece. no crime was found. Need nothing else after that. anything else is just people with a bug or two up their asses spewing nonsense.It’s pretty clear that
A. Barr is covering Trump’s voluminous ass. He was hired FOR that job
B. Mueller in making no determination of guilt was presenting the evidence to Congress for THEM to decide.
DOJ guidelines say that a sitting President can not be indicted. That means that whatever evidence Mueller found NEEDS to be presented to Congress. Not to Bill Barr
Concerning WHAT though?
THIS IS KEY.
I have seen you, yes YOU, still make snide comments about Trump and Putin, mostly b/c you have not read this report or do not understand it's implications.
OR;
You are just a liar.
It's not a report. It's a memo. The AG quotes just two sentences from the Mueller report that may be hundreds if not thousands of pages. It in no way is anything other than an interpretation of two points made in a much lager report.
That quite some spin. They ought to hire you at MSNBC!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.Please tell me, how can you exonerate someone who has committed no crime? Duhhh.
"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."
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."
not necessarily. one can be a criminal and never have been prosecuted. criminal behavior implies criminal. sorry bout that. Who do cops arrest?She is a criminal.
LOL.
"The law states innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."
When was she convicted again?
Did they put her in that fucking cell and not tell us about it? Damn those Mutherfockers!
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.
If you read the synopsis of the report, which you obviously didn't, you would notice that mewler said that the Trump Team rebuffed several attempts by the Russians to work with them by offering such information.
So you're either a lying cocksucker or a stupid little bitch.
Try again
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.
Keep trying to grasp that last straw..its right there...if only we can see the full report....Barr said he will release what he can in a few weeks. But that won't be enough either. Then the dems will take it to court, then Trump wins because that's what the LAW says the dems get, period. This is even more delicious than hearing no collusion, no obstruction, the dems believe their own KoolAde, and won't let go of it.
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.
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.” . . . . "
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.
If you read the synopsis of the report, which you obviously didn't, you would notice that mewler said that the Trump Team rebuffed several attempts by the Russians to work with them by offering such information.
So you're either a lying cocksucker or a stupid little bitch.
Try again
Or he just refused to read the memo. PERIOD.
From his second response, it is clear, he thinks the entire memo on the report is just made up bullshit about it.
