Mueller Eviscerated by Legendary Emmett Flood

[Uncensored2008]

White House Lawyer Emmett Flood has released a letter to William Barr that utterly shreds the conduct of Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller and his highly unethical conduct during the Russian Collusion Witch Hunt.

For the leftists, who of course are stupid, SCO is "Special Counsel's Office."

{

I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO
concluded that the evidence prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred." 300 Report v.2. p2. But conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred was not the assigned task, because making conclusive determinations
of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.

What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the
grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to
charge. they make that decision not because they have conclusively determin[ed] that no
criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct
constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. any more
than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice
system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to conclusively
determine it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very
different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were
obliged to prove conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred.

............

An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing
law. Under general prosecutorial principles. and under the Special Counsel regulations specific
language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination
memoranda. By way of justifying this departure. it has been suggested that the Report was
written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of "road map" for congressional action.
See, ag. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. 4/18/19 (Press
Conference}. If that was in fact the intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the
refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its "legislative"
history make plain that the "[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose}

Read the entire letter at Read the letter White House counsel Emmet Flood wrote to AG Barr

 

[Stormy Daniels]

That doublespeak says nothing more than to claim that when the President does it, it's not illegal.

 

[beautress]

That doublespeak says nothing more than to claim that when the President does it, it's not illegal.

Even you can't be this fucking stupid.

Oh, yes she it is that stupid

She was stating an opinion. Instead of calling people stupid, why not just tell the person what your version of her material is.

 

[Oddball]

White House Lawyer Emmett Flood has released a letter to William Barr that utterly shreds the conduct of Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller and his highly unethical conduct during the Russian Collusion Witch Hunt.

For the leftists, who of course are stupid, SCO is "Special Counsel's Office."

{

I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO
concluded that the evidence prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred." 300 Report v.2. p2. But conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred was not the assigned task, because making conclusive determinations
of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.

What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the
grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to
charge. they make that decision not because they have conclusively determin[ed] that no
criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct
constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. any more
than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice
system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to conclusively
determine it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very
different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were
obliged to prove conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred.

............

An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing
law. Under general prosecutorial principles. and under the Special Counsel regulations specific
language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination
memoranda. By way of justifying this departure. it has been suggested that the Report was
written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of "road map" for congressional action.
See, ag. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. 4/18/19 (Press
Conference}. If that was in fact the intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the
refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its "legislative"
history make plain that the "[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose}

Read the entire letter at Read the letter White House counsel Emmet Flood wrote to AG Barr

Saw this about an hour ago...Pretty strong stuff.

 

[beautress]

I had to check to see if this was in the Flame Zone. lol

 

[Uncensored2008]

That doublespeak says nothing more than to claim that when the President does it, it's not illegal.

Even you can't be this fucking stupid.

Oh, yes she it is that stupid

She was stating an opinion. Instead of calling people stupid, why not just tell the person what your version of her material is.

She was blowing smoke in hopes of distracting from an utterly devastating evaluation of the contemptuous, unethical and criminal behavior of Robert Mueller and the Collusion Conspiracy theory witch hunt.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I had to check to see if this was in the Flame Zone. lol

You're right to fear this letter.

It is an opening salvo in hell raining down on the conspirators who corrupted the FBI, CIA, and NSA in an attempt to rig the 2016 election and then continued to promulgate a conspiracy theory for the express purpose of undermining the executive branch of the United States Government.

That would be treason.

This begins the prosecution of Andrew Weissmann, the corrupt pile of shit, the "dirty cop" as the president termed him who fabricated Vol. 2 of the Mueller report. Along with Andrew McCabe, who attempted to stage a coup for the first time in American history. James Comey who engaged in election racketeering using the FBI to aid the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Peter Strzok who engaged in perjury to spy on the President of the United States, Lisa Page who engaged in perjury to spy on the POTUS, John Brennan who hired foreign intelligence agents to dig up dirt which he leaked to the press in order to influence the presidential election while acting as Director of the CIA, an act of treason. James Clapper who illegally wire tapped the opposition candidate in order influence the election and then wire tapped the President of the United States in an effort to undermine the executive branch and cause the removal of said president.

Finally, Barack Obama who ordered the above actions in order to rig the 2016 presidential election.

Hell is coming for you.

 

[Dragonlady]

White House Lawyer Emmett Flood has released a letter to William Barr that utterly shreds the conduct of Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller and his highly unethical conduct during the Russian Collusion Witch Hunt.

For the leftists, who of course are stupid, SCO is "Special Counsel's Office."

{

I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO
concluded that the evidence prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred." 300 Report v.2. p2. But conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred was not the assigned task, because making conclusive determinations
of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.

What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the
grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to
charge. they make that decision not because they have conclusively determin[ed] that no
criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct
constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. any more
than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice
system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to conclusively
determine it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very
different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were
obliged to prove conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred.

............

An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing
law. Under general prosecutorial principles. and under the Special Counsel regulations specific
language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination
memoranda. By way of justifying this departure. it has been suggested that the Report was
written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of "road map" for congressional action.
See, ag. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. 4/18/19 (Press
Conference}. If that was in fact the intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the
refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its "legislative"
history make plain that the "[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose}

Read the entire letter at Read the letter White House counsel Emmet Flood wrote to AG Barr

I've read the entire letter. My definition of an "eviseration" may be different than yours. Also "legendary". Flood was the only lawyer who would work for the President. My definition of "eviseration" is the utter dismantling of a weak argument. Flood's letter is my definition of a weak argument. Denying the Consitutional duty of the House to provide oversight of the executive branch and trying to pressure the Democrats into impeaching Trump is a piss poor strategy.

Dumbass Barr was completely unaware of the level of Russian interference in the election. He hasn't even read the Mueller Report and should never have opined on the Obstruction of Justice segment without reviewing the evidence. What a putz!

Emmet Flood is another idiot who has destroyed his reputation and his legacy in service to the criminal President.

 

[Uncensored2008]

White House Lawyer Emmett Flood has released a letter to William Barr that utterly shreds the conduct of Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller and his highly unethical conduct during the Russian Collusion Witch Hunt.

For the leftists, who of course are stupid, SCO is "Special Counsel's Office."

{

I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO
concluded that the evidence prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred." 300 Report v.2. p2. But conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred was not the assigned task, because making conclusive determinations
of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.

What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the
grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to
charge. they make that decision not because they have conclusively determin[ed] that no
criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct
constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. any more
than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice
system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to conclusively
determine it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very
different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were
obliged to prove conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred.

............

An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing
law. Under general prosecutorial principles. and under the Special Counsel regulations specific
language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination
memoranda. By way of justifying this departure. it has been suggested that the Report was
written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of "road map" for congressional action.
See, ag. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. 4/18/19 (Press
Conference}. If that was in fact the intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the
refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its "legislative"
history make plain that the "[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose}

Read the entire letter at Read the letter White House counsel Emmet Flood wrote to AG Barr

I've read the entire letter. My definition of an "eviseration" may be different than yours. Also "legendary". Flood was the only lawyer who would work for the President. My definition of "eviseration" is the utter dismantling of a weak argument. Flood's letter is my definition of a weak argument. Denying the Consitutional duty of the House to provide oversight of the executive branch and trying to pressure the Democrats into impeaching Trump is a piss poor strategy.

Dumbass Barr was completely unaware of the level of Russian interference in the election. He hasn't even read the Mueller Report and should never have opined on the Obstruction of Justice segment without reviewing the evidence. What a putz!

Emmet Flood is another idiot who has destroyed his reputation and his legacy in service to the criminal President.

Feel free to point out anything untrue or inaccurate in the letter...

 

[beautress]

I had to check to see if this was in the Flame Zone. lol

You're right to fear this letter.

It is an opening salvo in hell raining down on the conspirators who corrupted the FBI, CIA, and NSA in an attempt to rig the 2016 election and then continued to promulgate a conspiracy theory for the express purpose of undermining the executive branch of the United States Government.

That would be treason.

This begins the prosecution of Andrew Weissmann, the corrupt pile of shit, the "dirty cop" as the president termed him who fabricated Vol. 2 of the Mueller report. Along with Andrew McCabe, who attempted to stage a coup for the first time in American history. James Comey who engaged in election racketeering using the FBI to aid the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Peter Strzok who engaged in perjury to spy on the President of the United States, Lisa Page who engaged in perjury to spy on the POTUS, John Brennan who hired foreign intelligence agents to dig up dirt which he leaked to the press in order to influence the presidential election while acting as Director of the CIA, an act of treason. James Clapper who illegally wire tapped the opposition candidate in order influence the election and then wire tapped the President of the United States in an effort to undermine the executive branch and cause the removal of said president.

Finally, Barack Obama who ordered the above actions in order to rig the 2016 presidential election.

Hell is coming for you.

I meant you no disrespect, Uncensored2008. I would never fear a letter that cleans up the mess in the FBI that colluded with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to seek dirt on Trump when he was on a business trip to Russia, using a British intelligence officer by the name of Steele.

I truly was unhappy to see the diatribe of Democrats at their worse, trying to create havoc for President Trump some more. All their followers seem to be okay with perpetrating similar malicious diatribes out here in cyberland where Americans come to arms over DNC coverups and continued perpetration of imagined fiction to be a reason to impeach anyone who gets in the way of their illicit money laundering through the Clinton Presidential Library foundation and other means by which the swampy Democrats assassinate people's character just because they can.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

White House Lawyer Emmett Flood has released a letter to William Barr that utterly shreds the conduct of Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller and his highly unethical conduct during the Russian Collusion Witch Hunt.

For the leftists, who of course are stupid, SCO is "Special Counsel's Office."

{

I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO
concluded that the evidence prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred." 300 Report v.2. p2. But conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred was not the assigned task, because making conclusive determinations
of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.

What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the
grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to
charge. they make that decision not because they have conclusively determin[ed] that no
criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct
constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. any more
than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice
system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to conclusively
determine it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very
different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were
obliged to prove conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred.

............

An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing
law. Under general prosecutorial principles. and under the Special Counsel regulations specific
language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination
memoranda. By way of justifying this departure. it has been suggested that the Report was
written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of "road map" for congressional action.
See, ag. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. 4/18/19 (Press
Conference}. If that was in fact the intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the
refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its "legislative"
history make plain that the "[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose}

Read the entire letter at Read the letter White House counsel Emmet Flood wrote to AG Barr

Wow. Mueller belongs in Levenworth

 

[RetiredGySgt]

White House Lawyer Emmett Flood has released a letter to William Barr that utterly shreds the conduct of Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller and his highly unethical conduct during the Russian Collusion Witch Hunt.

For the leftists, who of course are stupid, SCO is "Special Counsel's Office."

{

I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO
concluded that the evidence prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred." 300 Report v.2. p2. But conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred was not the assigned task, because making conclusive determinations
of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.

What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the
grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to
charge. they make that decision not because they have conclusively determin[ed] that no
criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct
constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. any more
than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice
system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to conclusively
determine it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very
different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were
obliged to prove conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred.

............

An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing
law. Under general prosecutorial principles. and under the Special Counsel regulations specific
language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination
memoranda. By way of justifying this departure. it has been suggested that the Report was
written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of "road map" for congressional action.
See, ag. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. 4/18/19 (Press
Conference}. If that was in fact the intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the
refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its "legislative"
history make plain that the "[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose}

Read the entire letter at Read the letter White House counsel Emmet Flood wrote to AG Barr

I've read the entire letter. My definition of an "eviseration" may be different than yours. Also "legendary". Flood was the only lawyer who would work for the President. My definition of "eviseration" is the utter dismantling of a weak argument. Flood's letter is my definition of a weak argument. Denying the Consitutional duty of the House to provide oversight of the executive branch and trying to pressure the Democrats into impeaching Trump is a piss poor strategy.

Dumbass Barr was completely unaware of the level of Russian interference in the election. He hasn't even read the Mueller Report and should never have opined on the Obstruction of Justice segment without reviewing the evidence. What a putz!

Emmet Flood is another idiot who has destroyed his reputation and his legacy in service to the criminal President.

Hey MORON, Barr read the report, prior to Barr getting said report all the democrats were DEMANDING he accept the evidence presented in the report. Now suddenly you think Barr should question the evidence? The Investigation was 2 years long with hundreds of witnesses exactly what should Barr do, question the evidence because it did not get the resuklts YOU wanted when before its release you DEMANDED he simply accept it.?

 

[Vel]

White House Lawyer Emmett Flood has released a letter to William Barr that utterly shreds the conduct of Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller and his highly unethical conduct during the Russian Collusion Witch Hunt.

For the leftists, who of course are stupid, SCO is "Special Counsel's Office."

{

I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO
concluded that the evidence prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred." 300 Report v.2. p2. But conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred was not the assigned task, because making conclusive determinations
of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.

What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the
grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to
charge. they make that decision not because they have conclusively determin[ed] that no
criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct
constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. any more
than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice
system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to conclusively
determine it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very
different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were
obliged to prove conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred.

............

An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing
law. Under general prosecutorial principles. and under the Special Counsel regulations specific
language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination
memoranda. By way of justifying this departure. it has been suggested that the Report was
written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of "road map" for congressional action.
See, ag. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. 4/18/19 (Press
Conference}. If that was in fact the intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the
refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its "legislative"
history make plain that the "[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose}

Read the entire letter at Read the letter White House counsel Emmet Flood wrote to AG Barr

I've read the entire letter. My definition of an "eviseration" may be different than yours. Also "legendary". Flood was the only lawyer who would work for the President. My definition of "eviseration" is the utter dismantling of a weak argument. Flood's letter is my definition of a weak argument. Denying the Consitutional duty of the House to provide oversight of the executive branch and trying to pressure the Democrats into impeaching Trump is a piss poor strategy.

Dumbass Barr was completely unaware of the level of Russian interference in the election. He hasn't even read the Mueller Report and should never have opined on the Obstruction of Justice segment without reviewing the evidence. What a putz!

Emmet Flood is another idiot who has destroyed his reputation and his legacy in service to the criminal President.

You're claiming that Barr never read the Mueller report?

 

[Dragonlady]

White House Lawyer Emmett Flood has released a letter to William Barr that utterly shreds the conduct of Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller and his highly unethical conduct during the Russian Collusion Witch Hunt.

For the leftists, who of course are stupid, SCO is "Special Counsel's Office."

{

I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO
concluded that the evidence prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred." 300 Report v.2. p2. But conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred was not the assigned task, because making conclusive determinations
of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.

What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the
grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to
charge. they make that decision not because they have conclusively determin[ed] that no
criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct
constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. any more
than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice
system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to conclusively
determine it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very
different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were
obliged to prove conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred.

............

An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing
law. Under general prosecutorial principles. and under the Special Counsel regulations specific
language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination
memoranda. By way of justifying this departure. it has been suggested that the Report was
written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of "road map" for congressional action.
See, ag. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. 4/18/19 (Press
Conference}. If that was in fact the intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the
refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its "legislative"
history make plain that the "[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose}

Read the entire letter at Read the letter White House counsel Emmet Flood wrote to AG Barr

I've read the entire letter. My definition of an "eviseration" may be different than yours. Also "legendary". Flood was the only lawyer who would work for the President. My definition of "eviseration" is the utter dismantling of a weak argument. Flood's letter is my definition of a weak argument. Denying the Consitutional duty of the House to provide oversight of the executive branch and trying to pressure the Democrats into impeaching Trump is a piss poor strategy.

Dumbass Barr was completely unaware of the level of Russian interference in the election. He hasn't even read the Mueller Report and should never have opined on the Obstruction of Justice segment without reviewing the evidence. What a putz!

Emmet Flood is another idiot who has destroyed his reputation and his legacy in service to the criminal President.

Hey MORON, Barr read the report, prior to Barr getting said report all the democrats were DEMANDING he accept the evidence presented in the report. Now suddenly you think Barr should question the evidence? The Investigation was 2 years long with hundreds of witnesses exactly what should Barr do, question the evidence because it did not get the resuklts YOU wanted when before its release you DEMANDED he simply accept it.?

If a prosecutor is going to make a prosecutorial decision, it behoves him to read the fucking evidence. He didn't accept the prosecutor's report. He didn't even read it. Mueller has said that Barr's Summary and conclusions are at odds with the evidence in the report. As far as Barr was concerned, a President can't obstruct justice so it didn't matter what the report said.

Barr could not answer a single question about the contents of the Mueller Report. He was utterly clueless about the Russian interference sections, reiterating the "no collusion" lie over and over. When Corey Booker pointed out that giving the Russians Republican polling data certainly qualified as "collusion", even if not illegal or evidence of a conspiracy, Barr looked shocked and said "Who did that". When told it was Manafort, he looked like he was hearing this for the first time. Similarly, Barr wasn't familiar with any of the over 200 contacts between the Russians and the Trump Campaign, the lies Trump staffers lied about endlessly.

But the admissions that he had previously lied to Congress about Mueller taking issue with Barr's Summary and his conclusions. All through this process, I have said that Barr and Trump were trying to sell the people on this "no collusion, no obstruction" fiction and hope that by the time the 400 page report was released, the public will have forgotten about it. They figured that nobody would read it so they could lie about its contents.

It's not working. People are reading the report and they realize that Barr and Trump have been lying about EVERYTHING.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

White House Lawyer Emmett Flood has released a letter to William Barr that utterly shreds the conduct of Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller and his highly unethical conduct during the Russian Collusion Witch Hunt.

For the leftists, who of course are stupid, SCO is "Special Counsel's Office."

{

I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO
concluded that the evidence prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred." 300 Report v.2. p2. But conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred was not the assigned task, because making conclusive determinations
of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.

What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the
grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to
charge. they make that decision not because they have conclusively determin[ed] that no
criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct
constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. any more
than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice
system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to conclusively
determine it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very
different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were
obliged to prove conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred.

............

An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing
law. Under general prosecutorial principles. and under the Special Counsel regulations specific
language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination
memoranda. By way of justifying this departure. it has been suggested that the Report was
written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of "road map" for congressional action.
See, ag. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. 4/18/19 (Press
Conference}. If that was in fact the intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the
refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its "legislative"
history make plain that the "[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose}

Read the entire letter at Read the letter White House counsel Emmet Flood wrote to AG Barr

I've read the entire letter. My definition of an "eviseration" may be different than yours. Also "legendary". Flood was the only lawyer who would work for the President. My definition of "eviseration" is the utter dismantling of a weak argument. Flood's letter is my definition of a weak argument. Denying the Consitutional duty of the House to provide oversight of the executive branch and trying to pressure the Democrats into impeaching Trump is a piss poor strategy.

Dumbass Barr was completely unaware of the level of Russian interference in the election. He hasn't even read the Mueller Report and should never have opined on the Obstruction of Justice segment without reviewing the evidence. What a putz!

Emmet Flood is another idiot who has destroyed his reputation and his legacy in service to the criminal President.

Hey MORON, Barr read the report, prior to Barr getting said report all the democrats were DEMANDING he accept the evidence presented in the report. Now suddenly you think Barr should question the evidence? The Investigation was 2 years long with hundreds of witnesses exactly what should Barr do, question the evidence because it did not get the resuklts YOU wanted when before its release you DEMANDED he simply accept it.?

If a prosecutor is going to make a prosecutorial decision, it behoves him to read the fucking evidence. He didn't accept the prosecutor's report. He didn't even read it. Mueller has said that Barr's Summary and conclusions are at odds with the evidence in the report. As far as Barr was concerned, a President can't obstruct justice so it didn't matter what the report said.

Barr could not answer a single question about the contents of the Mueller Report. He was utterly clueless about the Russian interference sections, reiterating the "no collusion" lie over and over. When Corey Booker pointed out that giving the Russians Republican polling data certainly qualified as "collusion", even if not illegal or evidence of a conspiracy, Barr looked shocked and said "Who did that". When told it was Manafort, he looked like he was hearing this for the first time. Similarly, Barr wasn't familiar with any of the over 200 contacts between the Russians and the Trump Campaign, the lies Trump staffers lied about endlessly.

But the admissions that he had previously lied to Congress about Mueller taking issue with Barr's Summary and his conclusions. All through this process, I have said that Barr and Trump were trying to sell the people on this "no collusion, no obstruction" fiction and hope that by the time the 400 page report was released, the public will have forgotten about it. They figured that nobody would read it so they could lie about its contents.

It's not working. People are reading the report and they realize that Barr and Trump have been lying about EVERYTHING.

God you are STUPID.... keep proving it with IGNORANT posts like Barr never read the report. No one checked the evidence because you LOONS insisted it not be done, now suddenly because it does not say what you expected you want a do over, Barr is NOT tasked with redoing Mueller's investigation. It is NOT now nor never was his job to dispute the evidence and in fact if he did you RETARDS would be screaming bloody murder. Fuck off and die you partisan loon.

 

[bripat9643]

That doublespeak says nothing more than to claim that when the President does it, it's not illegal.

That will convince all the morons in the forum.

 

[Mike473]

"The SC0 instead produced a prosecutorial curiosity part truth commission report and
part law school exam paper. Far more detailed than the text of any known criminal indictment or
declination memorandum, the Report is laden with factual informationthat has never been
subjected to adversarial testing or independent analysis."

Mueller's report has not been subject to challenge. We are to take Mueller and his team at their word. Barr did just that, and is still asked to step down by the Dems, LMAO! No, they did not charge Trump with a crime, but chose to convict him in the court of public opinion without a defense. Mueller's team acted politically. Members of Mueller's team contributed to Clinton, worked for Clinton and attended election night parties for Clinton. Why would we expect less? This was a sham from the start.

 

[Uncensored2008]

White House Lawyer Emmett Flood has released a letter to William Barr that utterly shreds the conduct of Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller and his highly unethical conduct during the Russian Collusion Witch Hunt.

For the leftists, who of course are stupid, SCO is "Special Counsel's Office."

{

I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO
concluded that the evidence prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred." 300 Report v.2. p2. But conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred was not the assigned task, because making conclusive determinations
of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.

What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the
grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to
charge. they make that decision not because they have conclusively determin[ed] that no
criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct
constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. any more
than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice
system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to conclusively
determine it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very
different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were
obliged to prove conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred.

............

An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing
law. Under general prosecutorial principles. and under the Special Counsel regulations specific
language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination
memoranda. By way of justifying this departure. it has been suggested that the Report was
written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of "road map" for congressional action.
See, ag. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. 4/18/19 (Press
Conference}. If that was in fact the intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the
refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its "legislative"
history make plain that the "[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose}

Read the entire letter at Read the letter White House counsel Emmet Flood wrote to AG Barr

I've read the entire letter. My definition of an "eviseration" may be different than yours. Also "legendary". Flood was the only lawyer who would work for the President. My definition of "eviseration" is the utter dismantling of a weak argument. Flood's letter is my definition of a weak argument. Denying the Consitutional duty of the House to provide oversight of the executive branch and trying to pressure the Democrats into impeaching Trump is a piss poor strategy.

Dumbass Barr was completely unaware of the level of Russian interference in the election. He hasn't even read the Mueller Report and should never have opined on the Obstruction of Justice segment without reviewing the evidence. What a putz!

Emmet Flood is another idiot who has destroyed his reputation and his legacy in service to the criminal President.

Hey MORON, Barr read the report, prior to Barr getting said report all the democrats were DEMANDING he accept the evidence presented in the report. Now suddenly you think Barr should question the evidence? The Investigation was 2 years long with hundreds of witnesses exactly what should Barr do, question the evidence because it did not get the resuklts YOU wanted when before its release you DEMANDED he simply accept it.?

If a prosecutor is going to make a prosecutorial decision, it behoves him to read the fucking evidence. He didn't accept the prosecutor's report. He didn't even read it. Mueller has said that Barr's Summary and conclusions are at odds with the evidence in the report. As far as Barr was concerned, a President can't obstruct justice so it didn't matter what the report said.

Barr could not answer a single question about the contents of the Mueller Report. He was utterly clueless about the Russian interference sections, reiterating the "no collusion" lie over and over. When Corey Booker pointed out that giving the Russians Republican polling data certainly qualified as "collusion", even if not illegal or evidence of a conspiracy, Barr looked shocked and said "Who did that". When told it was Manafort, he looked like he was hearing this for the first time. Similarly, Barr wasn't familiar with any of the over 200 contacts between the Russians and the Trump Campaign, the lies Trump staffers lied about endlessly.

But the admissions that he had previously lied to Congress about Mueller taking issue with Barr's Summary and his conclusions. All through this process, I have said that Barr and Trump were trying to sell the people on this "no collusion, no obstruction" fiction and hope that by the time the 400 page report was released, the public will have forgotten about it. They figured that nobody would read it so they could lie about its contents.

It's not working. People are reading the report and they realize that Barr and Trump have been lying about EVERYTHING.

Oh, So the Grand Inquisitors report actually says there WAS collusion? But General Barr just didn't read it?

Well, here is your chance comrade, just quote the part that says this and you can humiliate the AG of the United States and make your rulers proud.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

There is the actual report, go for it.

Unless you're just a pathetic liar that is?

 

[beautress]

White House Lawyer Emmett Flood has released a letter to William Barr that utterly shreds the conduct of Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller and his highly unethical conduct during the Russian Collusion Witch Hunt.

For the leftists, who of course are stupid, SCO is "Special Counsel's Office."

{

I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO
concluded that the evidence prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred." 300 Report v.2. p2. But conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred was not the assigned task, because making conclusive determinations
of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.

What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the
grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to
charge. they make that decision not because they have conclusively determin[ed] that no
criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct
constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. any more
than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice
system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to conclusively
determine it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very
different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were
obliged to prove conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred.

............

An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing
law. Under general prosecutorial principles. and under the Special Counsel regulations specific
language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination
memoranda. By way of justifying this departure. it has been suggested that the Report was
written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of "road map" for congressional action.
See, ag. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. 4/18/19 (Press
Conference}. If that was in fact the intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the
refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its "legislative"
history make plain that the "[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose}

Read the entire letter at Read the letter White House counsel Emmet Flood wrote to AG Barr

I've read the entire letter. My definition of an "eviseration" may be different than yours. Also "legendary". Flood was the only lawyer who would work for the President. My definition of "eviseration" is the utter dismantling of a weak argument. Flood's letter is my definition of a weak argument. Denying the Consitutional duty of the House to provide oversight of the executive branch and trying to pressure the Democrats into impeaching Trump is a piss poor strategy.

Dumbass Barr was completely unaware of the level of Russian interference in the election. He hasn't even read the Mueller Report and should never have opined on the Obstruction of Justice segment without reviewing the evidence. What a putz!

Emmet Flood is another idiot who has destroyed his reputation and his legacy in service to the criminal President.

You're guessing and messing.

 

[beautress]

White House Lawyer Emmett Flood has released a letter to William Barr that utterly shreds the conduct of Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller and his highly unethical conduct during the Russian Collusion Witch Hunt.

For the leftists, who of course are stupid, SCO is "Special Counsel's Office."

{

I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO
concluded that the evidence prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred." 300 Report v.2. p2. But conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred was not the assigned task, because making conclusive determinations
of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.

What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the
grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to
charge. they make that decision not because they have conclusively determin[ed] that no
criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct
constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. any more
than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice
system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to conclusively
determine it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very
different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were
obliged to prove conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred.

............

An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing
law. Under general prosecutorial principles. and under the Special Counsel regulations specific
language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination
memoranda. By way of justifying this departure. it has been suggested that the Report was
written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of "road map" for congressional action.
See, ag. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. 4/18/19 (Press
Conference}. If that was in fact the intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the
refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its "legislative"
history make plain that the "[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose}

Read the entire letter at Read the letter White House counsel Emmet Flood wrote to AG Barr

I've read the entire letter. My definition of an "eviseration" may be different than yours. Also "legendary". Flood was the only lawyer who would work for the President. My definition of "eviseration" is the utter dismantling of a weak argument. Flood's letter is my definition of a weak argument. Denying the Consitutional duty of the House to provide oversight of the executive branch and trying to pressure the Democrats into impeaching Trump is a piss poor strategy.

Dumbass Barr was completely unaware of the level of Russian interference in the election. He hasn't even read the Mueller Report and should never have opined on the Obstruction of Justice segment without reviewing the evidence. What a putz!

Emmet Flood is another idiot who has destroyed his reputation and his legacy in service to the criminal President.

Hey MORON, Barr read the report, prior to Barr getting said report all the democrats were DEMANDING he accept the evidence presented in the report. Now suddenly you think Barr should question the evidence? The Investigation was 2 years long with hundreds of witnesses exactly what should Barr do, question the evidence because it did not get the resuklts YOU wanted when before its release you DEMANDED he simply accept it.?

You know what I think? (and it's okay if you don't) I think that the Democrats want the Republicans to be so angry over these obviously weaponized lies might irk somebody on our side to attempt to shoot, main, dismember, or blow up one of them. Of course, they will be monitoring their own screamers they put out to bring out the worst in America. Killing and torture fit in with the desperation of the Democrats, and it only takes one of them to check out by being murdered in cold blood for the rest of them to have at least 18 months to caterwaul and pretend genuine mourning for the "victim" and beating up on every single Republican who actually wishes that would happen, so they can bring home the votes of those who were ambivalent on who was telling the truth, who was not, who's naughty, and who's nice. Of course, the people picked to offend Republicans are elderly House representatives, and an elderly Senator from Hawaii, which would add numerous twists to the heinous, dismembering, assaultive murder to relieve the heinous, assaultive, dismembering rhetoric spewed. The Democrats don't know that the majority of Republicans would never, never hurt one of them except in the case of an all-out civil war, the rest is just smoke and mirrors. That's just a theory I've been working on as to why someone as important as Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, would make certain that her lie was as egregious as it could possibly be, and levelled at a man everybody knows is innocent of any and all wrongdoing whatever. It's like that business of lying to a possible perpetrator of a crime to break him or her, it sooner or later will might trigger the desired response for which the Democrat Party overall would benefit, and the Republican party, as they so desire, would be relegated to an unkindly end. Oh, the vicious little critters, which of them cooked this up? And what were they smoking?