Barr voluntarily appeared before Congress and answered questions under oath.....Lets see if Mueller will have the balls to do the same. BTW....both Barr and Rosenstein said they saw no criminal wrongdoing by Trump in the Mueller report.
"If we'd had confidence the president didn't commit a crime, we would have said so,"
- Thread starter Soaring Eagle 74
- Start date
Just a political opinion.....you want me to show you the some from the other side.....there is plenty out there from some highly thought of legal minds.
Barr's first words after reading Mueller's report should have been "Mueller felt charging Biff was not an option" but instead he implied exoneration. What a POS.
Mueller's team was leaking the report info to the media and Dems during the whole charade of an investigation. That is why they wanted it all made public from the very beginning and that's why Mueller worded the report the way he did. That strategy is going to end up backfiring on them after we watch Mueller take questions under oath.
He summarized his report. You really should read the report. You obviously have not. His 9 1/2 minute statement was as apolitical as you can get. For the record, he is a registered Republican. You are a certified idiot. He complied with current DOJ policy (not law, policy) - the DOJ currently being headed by the GOP. You are conflating Mueller’s statement with Dems impeachment/not impeachment. Whether or not the Dems decide to impeach has nothing to do with the argument of whether or not Mueller is political. Your argument is flawed.
That’s not what the report stated. You really should read it.
It's really simple. With Mueller's statement to the media yesterday, it comes down to this.
"He basically admitted he desperately wanted to take down President Trump, but simply couldn’t find a way to do it."
"He basically admitted he desperately wanted to take down President Trump, but simply couldn’t find a way to do it."
None of the Leftists on here can tell you what crime(s) Trump committed. Neither can Mueller.
If it wasn't on his teleprompter he didn't know about it ....or couldn't talk about it
Of course none of this is true but it's always fun to read your crackpot theories.
Yes!! The FRAUD pardoned.. EVERYONE BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE...(The Broward county election office).. But the BEST thing is... because he was an illigimate "president"..his pardons don't mean shit!!
YES!! absolutely,do the "impeachment thing",and watch how your delusional restiance bull shit blows up BIGLY in 2020.. Your party of pedophilia addicts,have NO ONE that can sustain a logical thought process long enough to engage a crowd of more than 20 listeners..( Many of them have to be "subsidized" to sit through your BS..)
I read it in it's entirety.....You did not. Quote the sentence in the report that they had the hard evidence that Trump colluded or obstructed.
Mueller Report, Vol. II
Mueller didn't investigate for collusion, I guess you meant conspiracy (again). Gotta tell you this about twice/day.
In grade school, moe was always disciplined for never coloring within the lines.
These Lib Wing Nut Dems are similar to parents cheering for little Johnnie to score his first goal ever in the last game of the season. On the ride home proudly convincing him he did, arguing no one saw that he didn’t. You Lib Wing Nuts are unequivocally, ..... Priceless.
Holy Shit! The evidence of obstruction is very well documented. You obviously didn't read the report or you are the absolute most knuckleheaded individual on the planet with absolutely no reading comprehension. The evidence regarding obstruction is so voluminous I won't even address that.
Here are a few examples where they have evidence, insufficient to bring charges, but nonetheless, evidence of coordination between individuals within the trump campaign and Russia.
"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's (sic) 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."
"Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges."
"Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference."
"Finally, although the evidence of contacts between Campaign officials and Russia affiliated individuals may not have been sufficient to establish or sustain criminal charges, several U.S. persons connected to the Campaign made false statements about those contacts and took other steps to obstruct the Office's investigation and those of Congress. This Office has therefore charged some of those individuals with making false statements and obstructing justice."
"The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra. The Office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent ("knowing" and "willful"), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." Justice Manual§ 9-27.220."
“The Special Counsel investigation was an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and suspicious links (possible collusion) between Trump associates and Russian officials, conducted by special prosecutor Robert Mueller from May 2017 to March 2019”.
................ say that again Mr. Moe, it is always possible someone will fall for it the next time.
Thanks for finding this for me.......saved me some valuable time.....I have to vacuum the pool. BTW....Did you serve in the Military?
"evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges."
"individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign" No mention that Trump did anything.
"not have been sufficient to establish or sustain criminal charges"
"the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." Justice Manual§ 9-27.220."
Full stop. No, it's not. None of this has been contended beyond Mueller stating it in a report.
This one is rich in itself. That information comes from Cohen, who should be under indictment once again for lying to Congress, but Nadler refuses to do so, even though he said he would. What gives?
"Cohen says that Stone told them he had just spoken with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and he said there would be a big email dump in the coming days that would damage Hillary Clinton. So he's saying that Trump knew ahead of time that WikiLeaks emails were coming."
Stone refutes that that conversation occurred, so which liar do you believe? Mueller selected one, without evidence, and claimed it as truth. Then Mueller rebuts Cohen testimony by placing motive behind this knowledge, wherein Cohen denies knowledge:
"Cohen told Congress that in July 2016, shortly before the Democratic National Convention, which began on July 25, he was in Trump's office when Stone called. He later testified that he believed he learned about the upcoming WikiLeaks release of DNC emails on July 18 or 19 — but he said he did not know if Stone and Trump knew where the emails had come from."
This "factual" statement in the Mueller dossier is far from that.
The infamous Trump Tower meeting, with Trump Junior and Fusion GPS associates/assets. If it were criminal by his family, he would've charged Junior. He did not. If Junior isn't guilty of a crime, then his father certainly isn't.
Volume 2 is nothing but the Mueller dossier.
Exactly.....Mueller could have charged Jr. if he had the goods......and would have. The excuse Mueller used ( DOJ policy) did/does not apply to Jr. since he is not a "sitting President"
Last edited:
Good Luck, these Lib Wing Nuts have no other option but to argue, because they can no longer save face. Their absolute foolishness for falling for Mueller’s Dog & Pony Show is a complete and total embarrassment.
