Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You realize the laws and regulations as written were written mostly by Democrats to reform Special Counsel appointments, and to also protect people who did nothing more than testify. Barr has no choice but to release a summary. It was Mueller who said No Collusion. Barr is just repeating what he said.This isn't going to be over until the FULL Mueller report is released to congress...and most of it is released to the public.
There's no way a summary authored by a Trump appointee is going to be the final say on this.
If there was truly no collusion and no obstruction, neither Trump, the Republicans or Trump's supporters should object to this.
Lets say the "full" report isn't released?This isn't going to be over until the FULL Mueller report is released to congress...and most of it is released to the public.
There's no way a summary authored by a Trump appointee is going to be the final say on this.
If there was truly no collusion and no obstruction, neither Trump, the Republicans or Trump's supporters should object to this.
No Crime, No Collusion, and No Reason for Mueller's Appointment.So.. Mueller did not find exculpatory evidence?
How does that change the fact the evidence collected by Mueller did not establish that Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice?
And, when did Democrats change their minds on obstruction rising to the level of an impeachable offense?
It is impossible to find exculpatory evidence for a non-event - something that did not occur.
Funny how that works.It is impossible to find exculpatory evidence for a non-event - something that did not occur.So.. Mueller did not find exculpatory evidence?
How does that change the fact the evidence collected by Mueller did not establish that Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice?
And, when did Democrats change their minds on obstruction rising to the level of an impeachable offense?
This statement has been quoted millions of times now, and it's absolutely meaningless:
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The same statement could be said by any investigator in any circumstance where no evidence has been found of a crime. For instance:
Judge: "You have been found innocent of the crime you were accused of here, but that does not exonerate you of any and all crimes you may or may not have committed throughout your life."
No duh!
Is this the best you can do, Dems? Grasp at an utterly meaningless quote?
Barr's letter SAID that Mueller found evidence to both support and deny the obstruction issue. He did NOT make a determination as to which was more compelling. We need to see the ReportSo.. Mueller did not find exculpatory evidence?
How does that change the fact the evidence collected by Mueller did not establish that Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice?
And, when did Democrats change their minds on obstruction rising to the level of an impeachable offense?
It is impossible to find exculpatory evidence for a non-event - something that did not occur.
Wrong. The WIkileaks e-mails did not expose illegality. It exposed politically embarrassing crap.Releasing a full report would be a catastrophe.
The report will show things they investigated, but could not find evidence of.
The Left media and the TDS sufferers will not be satisfied with that. We would see 24 hour a day coverage of "they investigated this...but didn't find evidence despite this guy saying that..and a witness said this...".
It would never end.
Again, it was THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE situation with Hillary Clinton. She was innocent until convicted, Trump is guilty, no evidence only means it hasn't been found yet...but he is guilty. 100%. And that is the mind of the deranged.
Wrong. The WIkileaks e-mails did not expose illegality. It exposed politically embarrassing crap.Releasing a full report would be a catastrophe.
The report will show things they investigated, but could not find evidence of.
The Left media and the TDS sufferers will not be satisfied with that. We would see 24 hour a day coverage of "they investigated this...but didn't find evidence despite this guy saying that..and a witness said this...".
It would never end.
Again, it was THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE situation with Hillary Clinton. She was innocent until convicted, Trump is guilty, no evidence only means it hasn't been found yet...but he is guilty. 100%. And that is the mind of the deranged.
We don't KNOW what the Mueller Report shows since Barr claims that obstruction in particular and virtually ANYTHING a President does could NOT be illegal.
Yea..he has pretty firmly said that the President is above the law...claiming that Impeachment is the proper course...while preventing the House from seeing evidence that might lead to impeachment (or not)
Sounds kina like a Catch 22 huh?
You need to look somewhere other than HuffPost
Mueller did not, He left that to the AG.Barr's letter SAID that Mueller found evidence to both support and deny the obstruction issue. He did NOT make a determination as to which was more compelling. We need to see the Report
Meaningless to your our white fart PhD .This statement has been quoted millions of times now, and it's absolutely meaningless:
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The same statement could be said by any investigator in any circumstance where no evidence has been found of a crime. For instance:
Judge: "You have been found innocent of the crime you were accused of here, but that does not exonerate you of any and all crimes you may or may not have committed throughout your life."
No duh!
Is this the best you can do, Dems? Grasp at an utterly meaningless quote?
the internet doesn't have enough space for that, son.You need to look somewhere other than HuffPost
Point out what I got wrong and document your claims
Barr, the AG, who, under the statute that created the Mueller investigation, gets to make the call, made the determination that Mueller's evidence was insufficient to warrant an obstruction charge.Barr's letter SAID that Mueller found evidence to both support and deny the obstruction issue. He did NOT make a determination as to which was more compelling. We need to see the ReportSo.. Mueller did not find exculpatory evidence?
How does that change the fact the evidence collected by Mueller did not establish that Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice?
And, when did Democrats change their minds on obstruction rising to the level of an impeachable offense?
It is impossible to find exculpatory evidence for a non-event - something that did not occur.
Mueller did not, He left that to the AG.Barr's letter SAID that Mueller found evidence to both support and deny the obstruction issue. He did NOT make a determination as to which was more compelling. We need to see the Report
Barr's letter said:
...the evidence developed during the Special Counsel?s investigation is not sufficient to establish that
the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made Without
regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and
criminal prosecution of a sitting president
Note the statement refers to the evidence that he did commit obstruction, without reference to evidence that he did not - is insufficient.
Why do -you- need to see the report? So you can continue to believe something is there when it isn't?
You clearly do not need anything from Mueller to do that.
He won't be prosecuted
He wont be impeached.
You lost.
No one thought the left would accept the Mueller report unless it confirmed their narrative - and they're proving us correct.
Oh, I see.. you only like the statute that allow for the creation of a special counsel when things go your way.Us?Mueller did not, He left that to the AG.Barr's letter SAID that Mueller found evidence to both support and deny the obstruction issue. He did NOT make a determination as to which was more compelling. We need to see the Report
Barr's letter said:
...the evidence developed during the Special Counsel?s investigation is not sufficient to establish that
the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made Without
regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and
criminal prosecution of a sitting president
Note the statement refers to the evidence that he did commit obstruction, without reference to evidence that he did not - is insufficient.
Why do -you- need to see the report? So you can continue to believe something is there when it isn't?
You clearly do not need anything from Mueller to do that.
He won't be prosecuted
He wont be impeached.
You lost.
No one thought the left would accept the Mueller report unless it confirmed their narrative - and they're proving us correct.
White separatists?
Why do we expect The guy who wrote to the Pres for a job extolling the Pres powers to do anything?
Wrong. The WIkileaks e-mails did not expose illegality. It exposed politically embarrassing crap.
We don't KNOW what the Mueller Report shows since Barr claims that obstruction in particular and virtually ANYTHING a President does could NOT be illegal.
Yea..he has pretty firmly said that the President is above the law...claiming that Impeachment is the proper course...while preventing the House from seeing evidence that might lead to impeachment (or not)
Sounds kina like a Catch 22 huh?
Okay, here you go.Point out what I got wrong and document your claims
Wrong. The WIkileaks e-mails did not expose illegality. It exposed politically embarrassing crap.
We don't KNOW what the Mueller Report shows since Barr claims that obstruction in particular and virtually ANYTHING a President does could NOT be illegal.
Yea..he has pretty firmly said that the President is above the law...claiming that Impeachment is the proper course...while preventing the House from seeing evidence that might lead to impeachment (or not)
Sounds kina like a Catch 22 huh?
You need to look somewhere other than HuffPost
Point out what I got wrong and document your claims
/——/ Is Mueller still connecting the dots?This statement has been quoted millions of times now, and it's absolutely meaningless:
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The same statement could be said by any investigator in any circumstance where no evidence has been found of a crime. For instance:
Judge: "You have been found innocent of the crime you were accused of here, but that does not exonerate you of any and all crimes you may or may not have committed throughout your life."
No duh!
Is this the best you can do, Dems? Grasp at an utterly meaningless quote?
