"this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate"

[jc456]

The left here is over focusing on an idiotic point - that Muller did not 'exonerate' the charge of obstruction - something that no one anywhere actually expected. At no point was Muller going to state that Trump was exonerated from obstruction nor is that what the average person really cares about. For two years the left has been Trumpeting Putin's lap dog, Russian plant and other such nonsense. The investigation revealed that there was no conspiracy and that the Trump campaign did not work with the Russians.

The results are in - the investigation found out that Trump did not work with the Russians.

since there is no crime, there is no obstruction of looking for a crime.

 

[Rambunctious]

The left here is over focusing on an idiotic point - that Muller did not 'exonerate' the charge of obstruction - something that no one anywhere actually expected. At no point was Muller going to state that Trump was exonerated from obstruction nor is that what the average person really cares about. For two years the left has been Trumpeting Putin's lap dog, Russian plant and other such nonsense. The investigation revealed that there was no conspiracy and that the Trump campaign did not work with the Russians.

The results are in - the investigation found out that Trump did not work with the Russians.

since there is no crime, there is no obstruction of looking for a crime.

And.....after firing Comey the investigation continued...and not only that but Trump could have fired Mueller anytime he wanted as long as he replaced him....the investigation continued till its end and Trump cooperated far more than the media has given him credit for...the Benghazi investigation for example could have been over in a week if Obama and Hillary had cooperated....NO OBSTRUCTION and NO COLLUSION....period....

 

[MisterBeale]

NOW, explain to me how one can be guilty of trying to obstruct justice of a crime that does not exist?

A, I doesn't exonerate Trump of anything. It SAYS that Mueller didn't prosecute

B. Of COURSE successful Obstruction of Justice can be prosecuted without the underlying crime being prosecuted.

It happens all the time..

Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby are two famous examples.

SUCCESSFUL Obstruction could very easily prevent a crime from being prosecuted

I see, Thank you.

(I don't watch TEE VEE, so I had to look that up. ) I AM glad you are coming around on the Putin/Trump thing though.

Martha Stewart to Donald Trump: Can there be obstruction of justice with no underlying crime?
Can obstruction of justice exist with no underlying crime?

". . . Three elements are generally required for a conviction on obstruction of justice: the existence of a pending federal judicial proceeding; the defendant’s knowledge of this proceeding; and the defendant’s corrupt intent to interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, the proceeding.

Ultimately, Barr and Rosenstein determined that the three elements that are required to prove obstruction were not met.

Barr wrote that in making a determination not to prosecute for obstruction, he considered that evidence did not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime.. . . "

Once again, I reiterate, in order to prosecute, the elements needed were;

the existence of a pending federal judicial proceeding;
the defendant’s knowledge of this proceeding;
the defendant’s corrupt intent to interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, the proceeding.
As it was, there were no pardons, no existent proceedings having to do with collusion, no attempts to stop the investigation, etc., and since there was no collusion, as this piece notes, it makes such a case doubly hard to try.

 

[MisterBeale]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

 

[FA_Q2]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

There is a lesson there as well. The Star report failed to establish that Clinton was guilty of the whitewater charges but the republicans went ahead and tried to impeach him for perjury - an actual crime they had strong and unequivocal evidence of. It failed and he left office enormously popular.


Now the dems failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russia. They want to impeach over a related issue in the investigation (obstruction) without even the material facts that were present in Clinton's case. Pelosi knows this is a massive loser right out the gate and that is why she is trying to moderate her base. The public has very little patience for prosecuting a president when the original crime that was being investigated turns out to be bullshit.

 

[Mike473]

It’s pretty clear that

A. Barr is covering Trump’s voluminous ass. He was hired FOR that job

B. Mueller in making no determination of guilt was presenting the evidence to Congress for THEM to decide.

DOJ guidelines say that a sitting President can not be indicted. That means that whatever evidence Mueller found NEEDS to be presented to Congress. Not to Bill Barr

The Dems believe Americans will want to impeach Trump for firing Jim Comey to stop an illegal coup put in motion by the Clintons (if he did even obstruct)? Impeach him for obstructing a phony investigation into a crime everyone knew he didn't commit? Not likely. The Dems are just grandstanding now. The hoax is over. The only mistake Trump made was not firing Comey, McCabe and the others sooner.

 

[MisterBeale]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

There is a lesson there as well. The Star report failed to establish that Clinton was guilty of the whitewater charges but the republicans went ahead and tried to impeach him for perjury - an actual crime they had strong and unequivocal evidence of. It failed and he left office enormously popular.


Now the dems failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russia. They want to impeach over a related issue in the investigation (obstruction) without even the material facts that were present in Clinton's case. Pelosi knows this is a massive loser right out the gate and that is why she is trying to moderate her base. The public has very little patience for prosecuting a president when the original crime that was being investigated turns out to be bullshit.

 

[Lesh]

The American People want the Report released to Congress.

The Trump Admin is obviously hiding something...maybe many things

 

[Lesh]

Now the dems failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russia

That's not even what Barr said....although that is the impression he wants to convey in covering this up

 

[Lesh]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

Let's put Trump on the stand and see if he lies...about matters far more important

 

[MisterBeale]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

Let's put Trump on the stand and see if he lies...about maters far more important

Like?

 

[hadit]

The American People want the Report released to Congress.

The Trump Admin is obviously hiding something...maybe many things

Nah, they just like watch your heads explode in frustration.

 

[hadit]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

Let's put Trump on the stand and see if he lies...about matters far more important

For what crime?

 

[gipper]

That is one way to look at it. However, the MSM and many Dems made it clear that collusion was evident. After all the witnesses, 2.5 years of investigation, and millions spent, exoneration would appear a fair conclusion.

I wouldn't be from a legal standpoint since the evidence doesn't justify exoneration and thus it would have been highly inappropriate for Barr to utilize that terminology.

From a practical perspective it seems to me that exoneration would be nearly impossible for an investigation with a scope that expansive. What exculpatory evidence could one produce for the question of "obstruction"? "According to hospital records he was in a coma since the beginning of 2017 and thus couldn't have possibly obstructed Justice"?

It is my understanding those were the words of Mueller, not Barr. Am I wrong?

Has Mueller publicly disavowed those words?

As far as I know, neither Barr nor Mueller ever publicly pronounced or authored a conclusion that Trump has been exonerated of anything nor have they implied such a conclusion.

Do you have a source that differs?

Mueller’s report specifically states the following:

..“…while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Also direct from Mueller:
“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Nope...that's "direct" from Bill Barr.

We have no idea what Mueller actually put in his report

WRONG WRONG WRONG

Read Barr's summary in the OP. Can you read?

 

[FA_Q2]

Now the dems failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russia

That's not even what Barr said....although that is the impression he wants to convey in covering this up

Yes, it is what Barr said. You not wanting to accept that is not really relevant.

 

[imawhosure]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

There is a lesson there as well. The Star report failed to establish that Clinton was guilty of the whitewater charges but the republicans went ahead and tried to impeach him for perjury - an actual crime they had strong and unequivocal evidence of. It failed and he left office enormously popular.


Now the dems failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russia. They want to impeach over a related issue in the investigation (obstruction) without even the material facts that were present in Clinton's case. Pelosi knows this is a massive loser right out the gate and that is why she is trying to moderate her base. The public has very little patience for prosecuting a president when the original crime that was being investigated turns out to be bullshit.

The American People want the Report released to Congress.

The Trump Admin is obviously hiding something...maybe many things

Mr B, I read this whole thread, and was it ever a waste of time. By page 3, I knew this clown was just trying to yank your chain.

I know the Leftists are screwed. You know the Leftists are screwed. And even the Leftist yanking your chain knows the Leftists are screwed, he is just retaliating for it by screwing with you. Right now, it is the only way he can get enjoyment from a miserable month for his team.

You must realize that he would much rather yank your chain than talk about Ukraine, or the fact that the co-sponsors of the green new deal just voted present, or the fact that now they are going to INVESTIGATE how this HOAX started, etc.

You of course, being a nice guy and all, are trying to convince him and the rest of the Leftists with logic, that your points are correct.

Why?

They already know you are correct, lol. They are just practicing their spin on something they know is a slam dunk loss! If they can hold the attention on such an obvious LOSS for them with spin that they insist is REALLY NOT a loss, they will accept rotator cup surgery from patting themselves on the back so hard as a definitive win. That is how they think!

We both know that within another month, the 1st arrest or indictment for one of the perps of this hoax is going to happen. They will spin that too, lol. We don't have to convince people like him of ANYTHING, only the independents, and much to the chagrin of people like your friend there, the tide is already turning.

And by the way, know why he is pushing so hard against you? Because they took a poll and discovered that most people think that the report didn't exonerate the President on obstruction. A RAY OF HOPE FOR THEM! So they can't allow people like you to FORCE people to think for themselves, so they need muddy the waters.

Anyway, THEIR SCREWED! The Trump Administration is going to arrest, or indict quickly, watch! Most people already have a pretty good idea what happened, the Administration knows they have to put a face or 2 in the publics eye to keep it rolling. You should start a poll on who the 1st person arrested for this will be, lol. If you think LUSH went crazy in this thread, watch what he does in that one-)

 

[gipper]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

There is a lesson there as well. The Star report failed to establish that Clinton was guilty of the whitewater charges but the republicans went ahead and tried to impeach him for perjury - an actual crime they had strong and unequivocal evidence of. It failed and he left office enormously popular.


Now the dems failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russia. They want to impeach over a related issue in the investigation (obstruction) without even the material facts that were present in Clinton's case. Pelosi knows this is a massive loser right out the gate and that is why she is trying to moderate her base. The public has very little patience for prosecuting a president when the original crime that was being investigated turns out to be bullshit.

The American People want the Report released to Congress.

The Trump Admin is obviously hiding something...maybe many things

Mr B, I read this whole thread, and was it ever a waste of time. By page 3, I knew this clown was just trying to yank your chain.

I know the Leftists are screwed. You know the Leftists are screwed. And even the Leftist yanking your chain knows the Leftists are screwed, he is just retaliating for it by screwing with you. Right now, it is the only way he can get enjoyment from a miserable month for his team.

You must realize that he would much rather yank your chain than talk about Ukraine, or the fact that the co-sponsors of the green new deal just voted present, or the fact that now they are going to INVESTIGATE how this HOAX started, etc.

You of course, being a nice guy and all, are trying to convince him and the rest of the Leftists with logic, that your points are correct.

Why?

They already know you are correct, lol. They are just practicing their spin on something they know is a slam dunk loss! If they can hold the attention on such an obvious LOSS for them with spin that they insist is REALLY NOT a loss, they will accept rotator cup surgery from patting themselves on the back so hard as a definitive win. That is how they think!

We both know that within another month, the 1st arrest or indictment for one of the perps of this hoax is going to happen. They will spin that too, lol. We don't have to convince people like him of ANYTHING, only the independents, and much to the chagrin of people like your friend there, the tide is already turning.

And by the way, know why he is pushing so hard against you? Because they took a poll and discovered that most people think that the report didn't exonerate the President on obstruction. A RAY OF HOPE FOR THEM! So they can't allow people like you to FORCE people to think for themselves, so they need muddy the waters.

Anyway, THEIR SCREWED! The Trump Administration is going to arrest, or indict quickly, watch! Most people already have a pretty good idea what happened, the Administration knows they have to put a face or 2 in the publics eye to keep it rolling. You should start a poll on who the 1st person arrested for this will be, lol. If you think LUSH went crazy in this thread, watch what he does in that one-)

i don't think Trump will go for arrests. He has too many skeletons in his closet, to go after others...well maybe he is just that arrogant to just that.

 

[sealybobo]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

The question is imagine how you’d lose your shit if Clinton and Reno did this.

Don’t be dishonest. For a change just admit this is a bullshit move trump and his very loyal friend mr Barr pulled.

 

[sealybobo]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

There is a lesson there as well. The Star report failed to establish that Clinton was guilty of the whitewater charges but the republicans went ahead and tried to impeach him for perjury - an actual crime they had strong and unequivocal evidence of. It failed and he left office enormously popular.


Now the dems failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russia. They want to impeach over a related issue in the investigation (obstruction) without even the material facts that were present in Clinton's case. Pelosi knows this is a massive loser right out the gate and that is why she is trying to moderate her base. The public has very little patience for prosecuting a president when the original crime that was being investigated turns out to be bullshit.

Let’s see the report. No one trusts Barr’s word

 

[Mike473]

There were two parts to Mueller's report. I wonder how many folks actually took time to read just those four short pages. Take some time, just read them. Please.

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.co...note/6f3248a4-4d94-4d5f-ad42-8ff6ccb1a89e.pdf

There is pretty much NO argument, NONE, the debate is over, there is no conspiracy, no collusion. Can we just drop this? If you have any delusions at this point, you are just being stupid.

Now, to the second point, the reason the DNC still believes they can nail Trump if they can just get the full report released, is if, maybe, just maybe, there was a subjective opinion on whether there was an opinion on whether their was "obstruction."

It's over those lines, it was teased out, obviously to keep this going, so that the public would fight to see the report;

"while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The simple fact, for those who had the decision to prosecute was probably this; If you had two years chasing shadows, if there was no crime, how on Earth can someone obstruct the investigation of a non-existent crime?

The only probably crime was a frame up. So why on Earth would they prosecute "obstruction?" of. . . nothing?

How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
How Did the Mueller Report Show Up on Amazon When It Hasn’t Been Made Public?
". . . . According to federal guidelines, “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”


“The regulations speak of the public interest, and I can’t imagine anything more in the public interest than the release of this report,” Alonso says. “On the other hand, prosecutors generally charge people or don’t. When they don’t, they are discouraged from speaking about the evidence they had, which might have come close to being sufficient for a criminal charge, but was ultimately not.”


Alonso adds that even Barr “can’t authorize the public release of (1) Grand Jury information, or (2) classified information. I expect that, if the AG releases the report, those items would be redacted,” he says. “Additionally, some information may pertain to ongoing investigations, which could be damaged if the information were made public.”


Court TV anchor and former prosecutor and State and Federal Defense Attorney, Seema Iyer agrees. She says Barr “doesn’t have to disclose more than the summary he wrote.” But Barr can release more or all of it, if he chooses, she says, subject to redactions. “Anything redacted would be to protect witnesses, grand jury and other investigations, classified material, as well as ongoing prosecutions,” Iyer explains.


There is another way in which the full report could see the light of day. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet late Sunday that he would call on Barr to testify “in the near future,” intimating that the committee will use its subpoena power to obtain the full Mueller report. “Mueller could also be called to testify,” Iyer says. “This fight could go to the Supreme Court, with Congress boasting its investigative powers, and the Justice Department arguing that confidentiality must be maintained.” . . . . "

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Huh?

Were you even alive during that time period?

The flaw in your analogy is that Clinton testified and there was physical evidence, nobody NEEDED the AG to re-write reality, they already knew what it was for themselves.

There is a lesson there as well. The Star report failed to establish that Clinton was guilty of the whitewater charges but the republicans went ahead and tried to impeach him for perjury - an actual crime they had strong and unequivocal evidence of. It failed and he left office enormously popular.


Now the dems failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russia. They want to impeach over a related issue in the investigation (obstruction) without even the material facts that were present in Clinton's case. Pelosi knows this is a massive loser right out the gate and that is why she is trying to moderate her base. The public has very little patience for prosecuting a president when the original crime that was being investigated turns out to be bullshit.

Let’s see the report. No one trusts Barr’s word

I trust him 100%

What is your strategy involving evidence that involves open grand juries and other investigations. Should that info be released unredacted and just say the hell with other open investigations?