Mueller Report Imminent

#4,828
#4,828
Velo Vol said:
This is how you do it.

D5f8gI9WwAgDfKb.jpg:large
Click to expand...
That’s a lot of red boxes for somebody who only needed one dude’s conclusion to totally lift the cloud of suspicion.
 
#4,832
#4,832
BowlBrother85 said:
"I suspect" ? He didn't have to "suspect" anything. He had a letter from Robert Mueller. He knew how Mueller felt about what he had written. Barr never mentioned the Mueller letter.
Click to expand...

Good luck with perjury on an evasive answer where he still identified the only criticism Mueller made in the letter - that Mueller wanted more information released.
 
#4,834
#4,834
volfan4lyfe said:
I am not sure who you mean by "they."

If you mean Mueller and his team, they did not make a decision to indict the President. Therefore, there has not been a determination by anyone (a judge or jury) as to whether or not Trump is guilty (or innocent for that matter) of the acts set forth in the Mueller Report. As it stands, the public is discussing the evidence contained in the Mueller Report. But whether or not obstruction has been proven, is a question for a court of competent jurisdiction.

If you mean the democrats, then I don't consider it to be a "last straw." I don't think it can be questioned that Trump made orders that, if they had been carried out by his subordinate (McGahn), could have amounted to obstruction. McGahn appears to have saved Trump by disobeying his orders. Based on that scenario, it looks like Trump had the intent, but not the act sufficient to create a legal case for obstruction of justice. While this might not be enough for a prosecutor to act on, it could certainly be enough for our legislature to act on.
Click to expand...

Good analysis.
 
#4,838
#4,838
RockyTop85 said:
That’s a new and interesting approach to personal accountability.

Or are you saying Trump’s actions detailed in the report are above reproach?
Click to expand...
Not in the least. How about Mueller’s accountability to the charter he accepted in taking the role and then willfully abdicated? 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4,841
#4,841
vols4sure said:
Good luck with perjury on an evasive answer where he still identified the only criticism Mueller made in the letter - that Mueller wanted more information released.
Click to expand...
It was more than evasive. He answered "No, I don't" in his response to Crist... that meant that he had not received any negative feedback from Mueller on his "summary of principal findings" ... Perjury.
 
#4,844
#4,844
C-south said:
How long have they had it? Are the dims incapable of reading comprehension?
Click to expand...
Not in the least. Their reading comprehension leads them to conclude that there was in fact plenty of evidence of obstruction and that Barr intentionally misled in his 4 page "report" and in his pre-release press conference.
 
#4,845
#4,845
BowlBrother85 said:
It was more than evasive. He answered "No, I don't" in his response to Crist... that meant that he had not received any negative feedback from Mueller on his "summary of principal findings" ... Perjury.
Click to expand...

FYI, I do believe he should have been more forthcoming but it in no way amounts to perjury given the question asked and his full response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#4,846
#4,846
luthervol said:
Not in the least. Their reading comprehension leads them to conclude that there was in fact plenty of evidence of obstruction and that Barr intentionally misled in his 4 page "report" and in his pre-release press conference.
Click to expand...

There was evidence it could have potentially have happened but never did. In the end how would you obstruct an investigation that you were exonerated of? Lol. It’s the idiotic dim way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4,847
#4,847
C-south said:
There was evidence it could have potentially have happened but never did. In the end how would you obstruct an investigation that you were exonerated of? Lol. It’s the idiotic dim way.
Click to expand...

I don't think that word means what you think it means.
 
#4,848
#4,848
RockyTop85 said:
Know how to play the game? The rule “don’t commit a crime” seems pretty intuitive.

Do those same people usually come in and draft resignation letters and pack up their offices and tell co-workers that the new guy “asked them to do crazy ****?”
Click to expand...

Well, now, that gets to the definition of "crime". In business if someone isn't getting the job done, he/she gets replaced, fired, shoved aside. In the military the current trend is to summarily fire the commander if something happens ... even if there's been no investigation linking him/her to any part of the "failure". I understand lawyers love billable hours and expend lots of time accruing them, but to somebody with a business background that wouldn't be acceptable. You are asking that we accept DC with warts and all ... keep the status quo, when we specifically hired an outsider to shake up the place. Sorry if that intrudes on your sense of how things work, but it doesn't mean wanting to fire someone for not getting the job done is a criminal act.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top