Muller report AG new conference

[Got Stripers]

If that happens you will get what you deserve.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

If that happens you will get what you deserve.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More investigations?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

If that happens you will get what you deserve.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Endless hours of online entertainment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Endless hours of online entertainment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and a roaring economy, and watching cnn and
msnbc melt down 24/7?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

If the snowflakes only knew how entertaining they are.
It’s obvious the naysayers have a lot less to say after their big investigation nothing burger,lots of broken hearts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

If the snowflakes only knew how entertaining they are.
It’s obvious the naysayers have a lot less to say after their big investigation nothing burger,lots of broken hearts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

have you seen the ratings at CNN and MSNBC, since we learned Mueller found nothing to indict on?

Enron is doing better.

It’s terrific entertainment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Wayne,this disjointed gibberish is a little tough to follow but my guess is more

Conservative = bad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Wayne,this disjointed gibberish is a little tough to follow but my guess is more

Conservative = bad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

now you got it.

WDMSO, for the ten millionth time, Trump is a disgusting person. But three separate investigations have concluded that with regards to russia, there’s not enough to bring charges.

you say he didn’t get convicted? No. He didn’t even get charged.

The Mueller report was
exculpatory. i’m sorry, but it was. How about we start talking about whether or not his policies are making things better for the nation? there is a reason why the left is this desperate, to avoid having that conversation. they humiliate themselves to avoid having that conversation.

ANYTHING to avoid talking about policy.

Russia! Racism! People aren’t illegal! LGBTQ!! Gender isn’t binary! Hitler! The polar bears! Free stuff! Waaahhhh!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

now you got it.

WDMSO, for the ten millionth time, Trump is a disgusting person. But three separate investigations have concluded that with regards to russia, there’s not enough to bring charges.

you say he didn’t get convicted? No. He didn’t even get charged.

The Mueller report was
exculpatory. i’m sorry, but it was. How about we start talking about whether or not his policies are making things better for the nation? there is a reason why the left is this desperate, to avoid having that conversation. they humiliate themselves to avoid having that conversation.

ANYTHING to avoid talking about policy.

Russia! Racism! People aren’t illegal! LGBTQ!! Gender isn’t binary! Hitler! The polar bears! Free stuff! Waaahhhh!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

again yes no charges.. I get it and i understand why .. seems your willing ignore the behavior As if were talking about the guy Down the Street .. and not the Office of the POTUS ... Thats the part that i dont understand how republicans can just look the other way ... after making bigger issue over less concerning the last Potus .. its amazing

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

again yes no charges.. I get it and i understand why .. seems your willing ignore the behavior As if were talking about the guy Down the Street .. and not the Office of the POTUS ... Thats the part that i dont understand how republicans can just look the other way ... after making bigger issue over less concerning the last Potus .. its amazing

"seems your willing ignore the behavior"

I call him out all the time. Bit I'm not willing to call for impeachment or imprisonment just because you hate him.

"Because I hate his guts", isn't valid reason for impeachment. He won. Deal. With. It. There's another election next year.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"seems your willing ignore the behavior"

I call him out all the time. Bit I'm not willing to call for impeachment or imprisonment just because you hate him.

"Because I hate his guts", isn't valid reason for impeachment. He won. Deal. With. It. There's another election next year.

I wish it was as simple as Hate That's your sides way of Governing we saw 8 years of it..

These are actual problems with Trump .. We are not crying over just how many golf outings he's gone on or the cost to the public.. that scrutiny was for the last POTUS (shocking) and so so important to Fox and other conservatives

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Wayne,this disjointed gibberish is a little tough to follow but my guess is more

Conservative = bad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

its very simple even if your not convicted or charged for soliciting sex

you were still hanging out with hookers ..

its as easy as that .. unless your a Trump supporter it's all good cuz He didn't stick it in

[wdmso]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...arning-sign-2/ good read on how wrong you are about your stable genius

From the article "It is not hard to see why Trump’s senior staff treat him as they do. They understand better than any of us that his distinct disabilities as a decision maker have to be accommodated in some extraordinary ways to prevent them from exacting terrible costs. But these extraordinary accommodations are unlikely to be sustainable in truly extraordinary circumstances. We can hope that the country is lucky enough to avoid a serious crisis of some kind that requires a functional emergency-management response under time pressure."



ps founding father's are no actually our fathers .. it's called a metaphor. as was wife and husband

And what does the market and unemployment have to with other than for you to excuse his behavior
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

I think with each party there are those willing to overlook indiscretions as long as things are going in the right direction for the country. There is evidence of this type of tolerance with each loyal party member. I feel those whose values are down the middle are more likely to give an accurate evaluation of such indiscretions. This is why it comes as no surprise that the hardcore snowflakes simply detest the president and will stop at nothing to discredit the man. Where there is smoke you usually find fire,this investigation found some hot coals admittedly but no flames except on this board.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

spence, what bothers you more, that the wikileaks
email hack happened and hurt hilary, or that her campaign was engaged in the unethical, undemocratic actions that were revealed?

she didn’t lose because if russia. she lost because she’s impossible to like, she’s like the whole
country’s miserable ex-wife, because no matter what she says, all any man hears is a shrill voice yelling “take out the garbage!!”. and she was too good to bother with the middle of the country, and called them deplorable. then she calls them sexist for not voting for her.

Good riddance to bad garbage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

No surprise that Trumps hand picked AG, spun the report to favor his boss, what is surprising is that if Mueller made him aware he disagreed with his conclusion; then Barr came close to lying to Congress. When asked if he was aware members of the investigation were not in agreement with his conclusions on obstruction, he said no he wasn’t.

If Barr had been honest about summarizing the report, he would have stated DOJ policy prohibits charging a sitting president and that is why Mueller’s team felt they could not move forward with an indictment on obstruction. Those that see it any other way based on what is reported in volume two, are drunk on the red coolaid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

No surprise that Trumps hand picked AG, spun the report to favor his boss, what is surprising is that if Mueller made him aware he disagreed with his conclusion; then Barr came close to lying to Congress. When asked if he was aware members of the investigation were not in agreement with his conclusions on obstruction, he said no he wasn’t.

If Barr had been honest about summarizing the report, he would have stated DOJ policy prohibits charging a sitting president and that is why Mueller’s team felt they could not move forward with an indictment on obstruction. Those that see it any other way based on what is reported in volume two, are drunk on the red coolaid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Came “close” to lying to Congress?

And how about lying to the American people?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

No surprise that Trumps hand picked AG, spun the report to favor his boss, what is surprising is that if Mueller made him aware he disagreed with his conclusion; then Barr came close to lying to Congress. When asked if he was aware members of the investigation were not in agreement with his conclusions on obstruction, he said no he wasn’t.

If Barr had been honest about summarizing the report, he would have stated DOJ policy prohibits charging a sitting president and that is why Mueller’s team felt they could not move forward with an indictment on obstruction. Those that see it any other way based on what is reported in volume two, are drunk on the red coolaid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"what is surprising is that if Mueller made him aware he disagreed with his conclusion"

Where is the evidence of this? Because I keep hearing that Mueller said Barr's letter was not inaccurate.

We have the fact that Mueller didn't decide to indict anyone for collusion or obstruction. We have the Mueller report. We have Barr's summary. What is the biggest discrepancy between the two?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

If Barr had been honest about summarizing the report, he would have stated DOJ policy prohibits charging a sitting president and that is why Mueller’s team felt they could not move forward with an indictment on obstruction. Those that see it any other way based on what is reported in volume two, are drunk on the red coolaid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Barr testified that Mueller had told him 3 times that DOJ policy prohibiting the charging of a sitting President was not the reason for not indicting Trump on obstruction.

[PaulS]

Don't be a snowflake - Trump lowered taxes.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

If Barr had been honest about summarizing the report, he would have stated DOJ policy prohibits charging a sitting president and that is why Mueller’s team felt they could not move forward with an indictment on obstruction. Those that see it any other way based on what is reported in volume two, are drunk on the red coolaid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, by that reasoning, Mueller could not have moved forward with an indictment on conspiracy with Russia either if he had found sufficient evidence. So, then, he could only present conclusive evidence of guilt. Which he could not do re conspiracy. Neither could he do re obstruction.

That was the scope of his power. To find conclusive evidence of guilt. Not to find conclusive evidence of innocence. If it cannot be concluded that Trump obstructed justice, that's as far as the investigation can proceed. The jury says either guilty or not guilty. It does not say "innocent."

[Jim in CT]

Brett Baier is on Fox obviously ,but h eisn't Sean Hannity, he has attacked Trump. And if Barr lied, it should be very easy to point to what he wrote in the letter, and point to places in Mueller's report that dispute Barr's letter. If Barr lied, that would be something a 12 year-old could do. If we're talking about context and nuance, that means we're talking about nothing.

If Barr lied, he should be severely punished. But it woul dbe ridiculously easy to prove he lied nby showing the discrepancies between his letter and the Mueller report.

There's also this...Mueller found nothing to justify indictments. That's a pretty crucial element to all this, one that the snowflakes are desperately trying to avoid.



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bre...ent-inaccurate

[Got Stripers]

So you saw nothing in the mueller report suggesting obstruction? You need to get some reading glasses, CVS or job lot have them pretty cheap. I find it ironic that you constantly hold up the founding fathers intent and distain for government over reach, yet you are ok with clear over reach and obstruction by the executive branch of our government. No need to respond, I’m pretty sure I have your number and can predict your response. The new norm for our government should concern us all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So you saw nothing in the mueller report suggesting obstruction? You need to get some reading glasses, CVS or job lot have them pretty cheap. I find it ironic that you constantly hold up the founding fathers intent and distain for government over reach, yet you are ok with clear over reach and obstruction by the executive branch of our government. No need to respond, I’m pretty sure I have your number and can predict your response. The new norm for our government should concern us all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

^^^ this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

^^^ this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mueller chose not to indict. I heard for two years, that Mueller was the final word. That is exculpatory.

Can we at least conclude that you are no longer shrieking about collusion, that you have at least moved on to obstruction?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So you saw nothing in the mueller report suggesting obstruction?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how can you obstruct an investigation into collusion that never existed?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

how can you obstruct an investigation into collusion that never existed?

Maybe you could think about this one for a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Maybe you could think about this one for a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right he was obstructing injustice

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So you saw nothing in the mueller report suggesting obstruction? You need to get some reading glasses, CVS or job lot have them pretty cheap. I find it ironic that you constantly hold up the founding fathers intent and distain for government over reach, yet you are ok with clear over reach and obstruction by the executive branch of our government. No need to respond, I’m pretty sure I have your number and can predict your response. The new norm for our government should concern us all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Plenty of evidence that Trump was being a vindictive baby as always. Mueller chose not to indict, which is exculpatory. If it was "clear obstruction", why didn't Mueller choose to indict?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Plenty of evidence that Trump was being a vindictive baby as always. Mueller chose not to indict, which is exculpatory. If it was "clear obstruction", why didn't Mueller choose to indict?

Policy and tradition you can’t indite a sitting president, I guess you have not been paying attention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device