Jump to content
luv2 luv2 (New Member) New Member

Special Council Muller Report

Politics   (4,053 Views 237 Comments)
6,436 Visitors; 72 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 11 of Special Council Muller Report. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Who should redact the Muller’s Report?

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Who should redact the Muller’s Report?

    • Attorney General William Barr
      1
    • House Intelligence Committee
      4
    • Who Cares
      1

6 members have participated

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 04/20/2019 at 07:28 PM

Transparency is a spoken word, and a hard action to maintain in the world of politics, it would seem... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, No Stars In My Eyes said:

Transparency is a spoken word, and a hard action to maintain in the world of politics, it would seem... 

This is why is it very important to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, herring_RN said:

Maybe he didn't want to say the truth and didn't want to lie to congress. Or he really does not know.

I agree. If he had shared it with someone in the White House, not necessarily Trump but other council, that could look like obstruction of justice. Yes, if he says no and it it comes out he did, that would be a crime. 

It does does not seem too far fetched to me that Trump may have demanded that Barr to share what he knows. 

Edited by nursej22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

Other then the reason I presented, why would we care if Trump has read it?

I know . . . I don't get it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Spidey's mom said:

I know . . . I don't get it.  

For the same reason we don't allow the fox to guard the hen house.

The refusal of Barr to answer a simple yes or no question, that you feel is no big deal, should indicate to you, what a big deal it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure Papa Trump was very pleased with Barr stating spying took place on Trump campaign, yet offering no proof.

Feeds right into the rabid bases histrionics.

I am sure Billy got a NICE pat on the head!!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement
On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 1:45 PM, SC_RNDude said:

That is correct.  Their analysis as well as some others, like Mark Levin, have been proven to be far more accurate on the Russia hoax than that of the liberal propaganda wing of the media.

I'm with you on the idea that much of the rhetoric from the left has been overblown, giving the impression that at some point someone's going to rip of Trump's mask like at the end of the Scooby-Doo episode and it turns out it's been Putin all along.  

But I find the claim from the other end of the spectrum that the Russia investigation is just a "hoax" to be equally silly.

Of the 37 separate indictments that they Mueller investigation produced, there were 5 separate individuals associated with the Trump campaign charged with various forms of conspiring and/or lying about conspiring with the Kremlin linked individuals, a couple of which are still ongoing, and it appears likely that Stone did directly coordinate Russian linked email hacking efforts with the Trump campaign, and that the Trump inaugural committee funneled foreign contributions to Trump through entities own by the Trump Organization.

As to the question of obstruction, even Trump's handpicked friendly interpreter of the Mueller report never said there was "no obstruction" as Trump claims, Barr actually points out that the obstruction that did occur is already publically known, Trump did after all admit to it on national TV.  Overall, there's no need to see the Mueller report in order to have reason to be very concerned about the loyalties of this president.  

There are certainly those who just want to see Trump in handcuffs, but I don't think it's any better to ignore the importance of preserving our integrity as a reflexive response to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

I'm with you on the idea that much of the rhetoric from the left has been overblown, giving the impression that at some point someone's going to rip of Trump's mask like at the end of the Scooby-Doo episode and it turns out it's been Putin all along.  

But I find the claim from the other end of the spectrum that the Russia investigation is just a "hoax" to be equally silly.

Of the 37 separate indictments that they Mueller investigation produced, there were 5 separate individuals associated with the Trump campaign charged with various forms of conspiring and/or lying about conspiring with the Kremlin linked individuals, a couple of which are still ongoing, and it appears likely that Stone did directly coordinate Russian linked email hacking efforts with the Trump campaign, and that the Trump inaugural committee funneled foreign contributions to Trump through entities own by the Trump Organization.

As to the question of obstruction, even Trump's handpicked friendly interpreter of the Mueller report never said there was "no obstruction" as Trump claims, Barr actually points out that the obstruction that did occur is already publically known, Trump did after all admit to it on national TV.  Overall, there's no need to see the Mueller report in order to have reason to be very concerned about the loyalties of this president.  

There are certainly those who just want to see Trump in handcuffs, but I don't think it's any better to ignore the importance of preserving our integrity as a reflexive response to that.

I must have missed the part where Barr said obstruction did occur, and where he admitted to it.

And, if course, there is the fact no indictments have been related to any sort of Russia collusion or obstruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, SC_RNDude said:

I must have missed the part where Barr said obstruction did occur, and where he admitted to it.

And, if course, there is the fact no indictments have been related to any sort of Russia collusion or obstruction.

Trump's claim that the Barr summary found "no obstruction" is contradicted by the summary, which stated that the Meuller investigation "did not absolve" Trump of obstruction, but that Mueller "declined to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement" which is much different than saying no obstruction occurred.  As an example, someone caught going 100 mph could potentially be unable to be charged with speeding if the radar had not been calibrated in the required timeframe which means it might be off by a few mph, that doesn't mean he wasn't speeding. 

Trump admitted to obstructing the Russian investigation during an interview with Lester Holt in May of 2017, when asked why he fired Comey he stated that it was because he didn't want the Russia investigation to continue.

A number of the indictments to date have involved coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.  It started with Papadopoulos's ongoing contact with Russian officials regarding their possession of hacked DNC emails, Papadopoulos, Trump staffer Rick Gates, and Trump's campaign chairman Manafort then coordinating meetings between Trump campaign representatives and Kremlin linked individuals, both Manafort and Gates have admitted to this and pled guilty to conspiracy against the US.  And that's just a sampling since there as also Flynn and Kislyak, Manafort and Klimnik, and Stone's current trial involving his coordination between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks, which is how the Russians were dispersing their hacked data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

Trump's claim that the Barr summary found "no obstruction" is contradicted by the summary, which stated that the Meuller investigation "did not absolve" Trump of obstruction, but that Mueller "declined to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement" which is much different than saying no obstruction occurred.  As an example, someone caught going 100 mph could potentially be unable to be charged with speeding if the radar had not been calibrated in the required timeframe which means it might be off by a few mph, that doesn't mean he wasn't speeding. 

Trump admitted to obstructing the Russian investigation during an interview with Lester Holt in May of 2017, when asked why he fired Comey he stated that it was because he didn't want the Russia investigation to continue.

A number of the indictments to date have involved coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.  It started with Papadopoulos's ongoing contact with Russian officials regarding their possession of hacked DNC emails, Papadopoulos, Trump staffer Rick Gates, and Trump's campaign chairman Manafort then coordinating meetings between Trump campaign representatives and Kremlin linked individuals, both Manafort and Gates have admitted to this and pled guilty to conspiracy against the US.  And that's just a sampling since there as also Flynn and Kislyak, Manafort and Klimnik, and Stone's current trial involving his coordination between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks, which is how the Russians were dispersing their hacked data.

True, Trumps statement was an exaggeration.  However, it’s not a prosecutor position to absolve anyone of anything.  They either charge someone with a crime, or they dont.  It appears he’s not going to.

In your speeding ticket example, it also doesn’t mean that they were speeding.

Most of what you have posted today has already been said here.  Sorry you’re late to the party, but I don’t have the will or time to restate things that I have already.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

As to the question of obstruction, even Trump's handpicked friendly interpreter...

I keep hearing how Barr was “handpicked”.  How else are AG’s chosen?  

 

Edited by SC_RNDude
M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, SC_RNDude said:

I keep hearing how Barr was “handpicked”.  How else are AG’s chosen?  

 

I suggest you read up on how Billy Barr came to be AG.

Remember, Jeff Sessions previously held the position.

Read up on how he lost the job.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×