Muller report AG new conference

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not an idiot, and I don't see huge differences between what you claim Mueler said, and what you claim Barr said. They are both saying there was no evidence sufficient to charge anyone, so let's move on.

Barr's summary basically said nobody did anything wrong, that's a far cry from what the report actually said.

Why do you think Mueller was so pissed at Barr?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Barr's summary basically said nobody did anything wrong, that's a far cry from what the report actually said.

Why do you think Mueller was so pissed at Barr?

Barrs summary said there was insufficient evidence to support criminal charges, didn’t it?

For the 5th time, It’s reported that Mueller called Barr and said his
conclusions were not inaccurate.

this collusion hoax is just about three years old now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Barrs summary said there was insufficient evidence to support criminal charges, didn’t it?

For the 5th time, It’s reported that Mueller called Barr and said his
conclusions were not inaccurate.

this collusion hoax is just about three years old now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who reported Mueller told Barr that? I want to hear from Mueller, nothing Barr says can be trusted, he spins things in favor of his boss.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Who reported Mueller told Barr that? I want to hear from Mueller, nothing Barr says can be trusted, he spins things in favor of his boss.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

chris wallace ( who spence cited as a trustworthy source) and Brett Baier reported it.

i do not think the report was unicorns and rainbows. but the report did not call for criminal charges, and Barrs letter said the same thing.

i have zero trouble believing Trump was a hostile
baby within the investigation. That’s who he is.

Time to switch gears, not it’s the rights turn, let’s investigate whether the obama justice department was acting intentionally to get Hilary elected. let’s investigate that ( because there’s evidence of serious wrongdoing),, then move on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

chris wallace ( who spence cited as a trustworthy source) and Brett Baier reported it.
They reported Barr's version of his phone call with Mueller, neither was on that phone call

i do not think the report was unicorns and rainbows. but the report did not call for criminal charges, and Barrs letter said the same thing.

The report said they could not prosecute a sitting president: "Vol. II, Page 2: Second, while the O.L.C. opinion concludes that a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the president’s term is permissible. The O.L.C. opinion also recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office."
Because they could not indict a sitting president, they went on to say: "Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."

What do you think could happen after Trump leaves office and no longer has immunity? There is sufficient evidence in the report to charge him with obstruction, any other citizen would have already been indicted. Being mad about being investigated is not a viable defense, though it is apparently acceptable to his base.

i have zero trouble believing Trump was a hostile
baby within the investigation. That’s who he is.

Time to switch gears, not it’s the rights turn, let’s investigate whether the obama justice department was acting intentionally to get Hilary elected. let’s investigate that ( because there’s evidence of serious wrongdoing),, then move on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What evidence of serious wrongdoing have you seen? Be specific

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What evidence of serious wrongdoing have you seen? Be specific

"They reported Barr's version of his phone call with Mueller, neither was on that phone call"

Mueller was. Is Mueller saying that Barr was lying about the call?

"What do you think could happen after Trump leaves office and no longer has immunity?"

Lots of things could happen. If I were Trump, I'd think seriously about retiring to a nice place with a non-extradition treaty with the US.

What about the fact that no one close to Trump was indicted? Are their rules that say that no one on the staff, or in the inner circle, of a sitting president can be prosecuted? I heard an awful lot over the last 3 years, that his staff and at least some of his family, would be charged. Didnt happen. Not a single solitary indictment for actions that took place before the investigation started. Zero. You can't tell me, that's not exculpatory. Trump doesn't do it all himself, he delegates the vast majority of what gets done. Mueller found zero chargeable crimes.

"What evidence of serious wrongdoing have you seen? Be specific "

Sure. The DOJ used that garbage Steele dossier (paid for by the Hilary campaign) to get FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page, a US citizen. Page's name was then leaked by the DOJ to the media, who happily reported that he was a Russian agent. They never told the FISA judge the source of the made-up dossier. Would you like it if that happened to you, or to someone you care about?

We also have the emails and texts among senior FBO and DOJ officials who (1) hated Trump and wanted Hilary to win, and (2) were helping to run the investigations into Hilary and Trump. Now, that doesn't mean they did their jobs inappropriately, but we can, and should, look into that.

I'm not a lawyer. And I don't pretend to be non-partisan. But Alan Dershowitz is a highly resected legal mind, and also a diehard liberal, and he was appalled by what he saw, he thinks there's plenty of evidence that the DOJ was acting as an arm of the Hilary campaign. He's just one guy sure, and he can be wrong, but I believe him more than I believe Sean Hannity or Rachael Maddow.

Regarding Russian collusion, many times I hoped for a fair and thorough investigation. It's totally consistent for me to call for the same thing, with regards to whether or not Obama's Justice Department colluded with Hilary's campaign.

I cannot stand the thought that Trump sought Russian help to win. I'm just as concerned (more, probably) at the thought that Hilary sought help from Obama's Justice Department to help her win.

We investigated the first. Time to investigate the second. The only possible reason why anyone would support one of those investigations but not both, is partisan politics.

I'm lucky that I can comfortably say that both investigations are warranted, because my loyalty is to common sense and fairness, I'm not a blind, thoughtless partisan. It makes my life a whole lot easier than it would be if I always had to defend the bad things my side does, and ignore the good things that the other side does. Spence has to pretend that Trump isn't helping the economy, and he has to pretend that Hilary isn't a deeply flawed individual. That takes a lot of effort and a willingness to humiliate yourself. It's easier when you can offer praise or criticism to either side.

The liberals were devastated after the 2016 election. The then put all of their eggs in the collusion basket, and look like idiots again. On top of that, there will now be an investigation to see whether or Trump was the victim of collusion between Hilary and the FBI. So not only have the democrats in charge failed at getting rid of Trump, they may have royally f*cked themselves in trying to sabotage Trump. I still don't think they have the slightest clue who he is.

I truly hope there wasn't collusion between Hilary and the DOJ, because what a blow to our process that would be. Let's do an investigation that's as thorough as Mueller's (not as slow), and get it behind us once and for all. I will happily abide by the results of that investigation (and it has already started, terrifying the left), just as I abide by the Mueller findings.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"They reported Barr's version of his phone call with Mueller, neither was on that phone call"

Mueller was. Is Mueller saying that Barr was lying about the call?

"What do you think could happen after Trump leaves office and no longer has immunity?"

Lots of things could happen. If I were Trump, I'd think seriously about retiring to a nice place with a non-extradition treaty with the US.

What about the fact that no one close to Trump was indicted? Are their rules that say that no one on the staff, or in the inner circle, of a sitting president can be prosecuted? I heard an awful lot over the last 3 years, that his staff and at least some of his family, would be charged. Didnt happen. Not a single solitary indictment for actions that took place before the investigation started. Zero. You can't tell me, that's not exculpatory. Trump doesn't do it all himself, he delegates the vast majority of what gets done. Mueller found zero chargeable crimes.

"What evidence of serious wrongdoing have you seen? Be specific "

Sure. The DOJ used that garbage Steele dossier (paid for by the Hilary campaign) to get FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page, a US citizen. Page's name was then leaked by the DOJ to the media, who happily reported that he was a Russian agent. They never told the FISA judge the source of the made-up dossier. Would you like it if that happened to you, or to someone you care about?

We also have the emails and texts among senior FBO and DOJ officials who (1) hated Trump and wanted Hilary to win, and (2) were helping to run the investigations into Hilary and Trump. Now, that doesn't mean they did their jobs inappropriately, but we can, and should, look into that.

I'm not a lawyer. And I don't pretend to be non-partisan. But Alan Dershowitz is a highly resected legal mind, and also a diehard liberal, and he was appalled by what he saw, he thinks there's plenty of evidence that the DOJ was acting as an arm of the Hilary campaign. He's just one guy sure, and he can be wrong, but I believe him more than I believe Sean Hannity or Rachael Maddow.

Regarding Russian collusion, many times I hoped for a fair and thorough investigation. It's totally consistent for me to call for the same thing, with regards to whether or not Obama's Justice Department colluded with Hilary's campaign.

I cannot stand the thought that Trump sought Russian help to win. I'm just as concerned (more, probably) at the thought that Hilary sought help from Obama's Justice Department to help her win.

We investigated the first. Time to investigate the second. The only possible reason why anyone would support one of those investigations but not both, is partisan politics.

I'm lucky that I can comfortably say that both investigations are warranted, because my loyalty is to common sense and fairness, I'm not a blind, thoughtless partisan. It makes my life a whole lot easier than it would be if I always had to defend the bad things my side does, and ignore the good things that the other side does. Spence has to pretend that Trump isn't helping the economy, and he has to pretend that Hilary isn't a deeply flawed individual. That takes a lot of effort and a willingness to humiliate yourself. It's easier when you can offer praise or criticism to either side.

The liberals were devastated after the 2016 election. The then put all of their eggs in the collusion basket, and look like idiots again. On top of that, there will now be an investigation to see whether or Trump was the victim of collusion between Hilary and the FBI. So not only have the democrats in charge failed at getting rid of Trump, they may have royally f*cked themselves in trying to sabotage Trump. I still don't think they have the slightest clue who he is.

I truly hope there wasn't collusion between Hilary and the DOJ, because what a blow to our process that would be. Let's do an investigation that's as thorough as Mueller's (not as slow), and get it behind us once and for all. I will happily abide by the results of that investigation (and it has already started, terrifying the left), just as I abide by the Mueller findings.

Carter Page had been investigated for years prior to his involvement with the Trump campaign regarding Russia. The first FISA warrant was in 2014. Just more garbage Trump did not vet prior to getting him involved.
https://www.justsecurity.org/46786/t...ntacts-russia/

Lot's of far more conservative lawyers than Dershowitz have big concerns that directly conflict with Dershowitz's opinions. Just because he is liberal does not make his opinion correct. Of course he's also a buddy of Trump, Acosta and Epstein.

Have you read the Mueller report?
Glad to hear that Trumps acceptance of Russian help is acceptable to you. Check your soul for bite marks.

As far as Hillary goes, let the cards fall where they may. I did not support either main party candidate in the 2016 election and still don't. What about Hillary etc is a pretty weak defense.

Non-farm payroll is still on the same trajectory it has been for the past nine years.