Bill Barr

[oldngray]

the other part of what conservatives said is conspiracy to collude is a crime. no conspiracy to collude. As Mueller said there was no collusion despite multiple opportunties offered the trump team to do so.

The language in the report showed it was a political hit piece. Even when stacked by pro Democrats out to get Trump they couldn't find anything.

Those extras and innuendoes should never be included in a report supposedly containing facts. All it really accomplished was to confirm the bias by investigators.

 

[newfie]

The report points out that the president may very well be indictable once he leaves office. That’s not exoneration.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bu...llman/donald-trump-obstruction-mueller-reportYou

pipe dream. I am having a hard time finding the part in this hatchet job where Mueller stated that the trump administration gave him unprecedented access to any and all requests for information including unfettered access to the white house counsel without exercising executive privledge.

no collusion no obstruction and....no consolation prize

 

[newfie]

The report also made clear that the evidence did not support exoneration.

prosecuters don't exonerate they only charge if there is evidence to do so. there was no evidence to do so. therefore by a prosecuters standards the trump team was exhonerated.

 

[It will be fine]

The language in the report showed it was a political hit piece. Even when stacked by pro Democrats out to get Trump they couldn't find anything.

Those extras and innuendoes should never be included in a report supposedly containing facts. All it really accomplished was to confirm the bias by investigators.

Pretty crazy that a Republican AG appointed a Republican special prosecutor that turned out to be a rabid democratic partisan, huh?

 

[newfie]

The Mueller report didn’t explicitly state “Trump committed several acts of obstruction. Congress must act now,” so most Americans don’t have the intellectual capacity to properly interpret the report’s significance.

most americans understand you dont charge an innocent man.

most snowflakes look for a subtle irrational consolation prize when they dont get what they want.

 

[newfie]

Pretty crazy that a Republican AG appointed a Republican special prosecutor that turned out to be a rabid democratic partisan, huh?

did you forget about the Clinton supporters working for him?

 

[newfie]

View attachment 245051

If Mueller’s office were able to conclude that Trump had not committed obstruction, “we would so state.”

“...we were unable to reach that judgment.”

I think democrats are fine with the Mueller report. I think republicans are ignoring what it says.

i seem to remember the buzz feeds and Wapo's and NY Times getting a lot of this wrong. Do you read any credible news sources or just the ones that provide you with the desired spin?

 

[oldngray]

Its a binary solution. Yes or no to whether you indict. Not a no, but response. No means no.

 

[It will be fine]

the purposes of the special prosecuter is to determine if there were any chargable offenses. what offenses was the president charged with?

The purpose was to determine how the Russians meddled in our election. There were dozens of indictments on that front. There is also plenty of evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians, but it may not have been illegal. There’s plenty of evidence Trump obstructed justice but Mueller deferred judgement to congress as he believed a sitting president can’t be indicted. Just because Trump currently has immunity from charges doesn’t exonerate him.

 

[newfie]

Its a binary solution. Yes or no to whether you indict. Not a no, but response. No means no.

no means not guilty. time to get over it snowflakes.

no collusion, no conspiracy no consolation prize

 

[oldngray]

i seem to remember the buzz feeds and Wapo's and NY Times getting a lot of this wrong. Do you read any credible news sources or just the ones that provide you with the desired spin?

I saw an AP story (via Huffpost) that still claimed the media got it right. They just can't admit they lied/misload for 2 years.

 

[newfie]

The purpose was to determine how the Russians meddled in our election. There were dozens of indictments on that front. There is also plenty of evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians, but it may not have been illegal. There’s plenty of evidence Trump obstructed justice but Mueller deferred judgement to congress as he believed a sitting president can’t be indicted. Just because Trump currently has immunity from charges doesn’t exonerate him.

if you really believe that was the purpose then I will await your vehement outrage that the obama administration dropped the ball.

you cant spin this crap here. everyone knows this was always a political witch hunt.

 

[newfie]

I saw an AP story (via Huffpost) that still claimed the media got it right. They just can't admit they lied/misload for 2 years.

democrats and the media are in serious spin mode right now trying to save face

 

[oldngray]

The purpose was to determine how the Russians meddled in our election. There were dozens of indictments on that front. There is also plenty of evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians, but it may not have been illegal. There’s plenty of evidence Trump obstructed justice but Mueller deferred judgement to congress as he believed a sitting president can’t be indicted. Just because Trump currently has immunity from charges doesn’t exonerate him.

Not illegal is not evidence. And the report goes to the AG, not Congress. Only power Congress has is to impeach. Not to indict.

 

[It will be fine]

Not illegal is not evidence. And the report goes to the AG, not Congress. Only power Congress has is to impeach. Not to indict.

You seem to be confusing evidence with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There’s plenty of evidence of crimes.

 

[newfie]

Not illegal is not evidence. And the report goes to the AG, not Congress. Only power Congress has is to impeach. Not to indict.

I think the AG has been very cooperative. legally he could have told them to pound sand

 

[newfie]

You seem to be confusing evidence with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There’s plenty of evidence of crimes.

that is one of your consolation prize arguments. you snowflakes need to move on.

 

[oldngray]

You seem to be confusing evidence with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There’s plenty of evidence of crimes.

Nope. You claim legal examples were evidence of guilt.

 

[oldngray]

that is one of your consolation prize arguments. you snowflakes need to move on.

They can't admit they have been wrong all along.

 

[newfie]

You seem to be confusing evidence with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There’s plenty of evidence of crimes.

Nope. You claim legal examples were evidence of guilt.

not to mention democrats are now trying to charge and convict Trump on a lesser standard then what he is constitutionally entitled to.

all for political gain.