Mueller Report Imminent

#4,902
#4,902
AG Barr told the committee "I don't remember if I gave information on ongoing investigations to White House officials".

Translation: "I did".


If this guy can't remember what he does from one day to the next he doesn't have the grey matter to be AG.
 
#4,903
#4,903
luthervol said:
And Barr just said he did not exonerate Trump. He said it is in the hands of the American people (congress).
Click to expand...
Barr cannot stop the House Dims from committing political suicide. He did not offer any charging basis from the report, but he cannot stop the Dims from being dim...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4,905
#4,905
AM64 said:
So if a bridge was in sight, I had gasoline, a match, and a desire to burn the bridge, but I simply turned and walked away, did I commit arson or any other crime? What if a good natured passer by or a friend said, "you really don't want to do that" and changed my mind? Are we really talking thoughts or deeds? If thoughts are criminal acts ... even to the point of expressing them, my guess is we are all in serious trouble. Don't forget the he said she said aspect of things, too.
Click to expand...
Didn't they just arrest someone for planning to some attacks in CA? They didn't have to wait until the act was committed. Provable intent was sufficient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel
#4,906
#4,906
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, NorthDallas40, AM64 and 1 other person
#4,908
#4,908
1972 Grad said:
I guess we are in for another 5 years and 9 months of this sh!t. The election of Nov. 2024 won't end it, but hopefully a new President being sworn in Jan. 2025 will...………………….hopefully.
Click to expand...
The minute he leaves office it will end, especially if that's in 2020 because for them that's mission accomplished
 
#4,909
#4,909
hog88 said:
Enough of this complete bull.

No, the Muell could not indict the president through a grand jury but the house impeachment hearings are effectively the same thing as a grand jury. So the Muell could if he thought Trump had committed a crime submit those findings in his report and just like a grand jury the house would decide if there was enough to indict (impeach).
Click to expand...

I am not sure what, if any, of my post you deem to be complete bull.

I think you discredited what I said and then reiterated the same message I put in my post.

Mueller (and his team) did not make a decision on whether Trump was guilty, not guilty, or innocent. Each of those three words mean different things. Mueller did not indict.

Based on the questioning/testimony elicited this afternoon, it does not appear that each legal element for obstruction exists in Mueller's report. I don't think that precludes our legislature from initiating an impeachment proceedings, because Mueller did submit his findings in a report. Now the House has an opportunity to determine if there is enough evidence to indict.
 
#4,914
#4,914
hog88 said:
Enough of this complete bull.

No, the Muell could not indict the president through a grand jury but the house impeachment hearings are effectively the same thing as a grand jury. So the Muell could if he thought Trump had committed a crime submit those findings in his report and just like a grand jury the house would decide if there was enough to indict (impeach).
Click to expand...

But if he didn’t, he might be able to string along the fantasy for just a bit longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and AM64
#4,915
#4,915
Attorney General William Barr: I did not personally review all underlying evidence in the Mueller report.

Attorney General William Barr: No, I did not exonerate President Trump.

What exactly would you say it is that you DO here, Bill?
 
#4,917
#4,917
volfan4lyfe said:
I am not sure what, if any, of my post you deem to be complete bull.

I think you discredited what I said and then reiterated the same message I put in my post.

Mueller (and his team) did not make a decision on whether Trump was guilty, not guilty, or innocent. Each of those three words mean different things.

Based on the questioning/testimony elicited this afternoon, it does not appear that each legal element for obstruction exists in Mueller's report. I don't think that precludes our legislature from initiating an impeachment proceedings, because Mueller did submit his findings in a report. Now the House has an opportunity to determine if there is enough evidence to indict.
Click to expand...

I find it odd that the Muell was able to come to a conclusion about collusion but not obstruction and left that up to the AG. A prosecutor does not decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty. They present their evidence and opinion to a grand jury then if they feel there is enough evidence to indict then to a jury. If the muell thought he had enough evidence of obstruction to justify going to a grand jury he should have stated so and the same if he didn't.

He elected to punt on purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and AM64
#4,918
#4,918
volfanjustin said:
If more people on my side would understand that you all don't really care if Trump broke the law or not, that you all just want him removed by any means possible then we would be better off.
Click to expand...
Not by any means possible but by any legal means possible.
 
#4,919
#4,919
Barr - You can't see my notes of my phone call with Mueller because Mueller is yelling at me the majority of the time. Lol
 
#4,920
#4,920
1972 Grad said:
I guess we are in for another 5 years and 9 months of this sh!t. The election of Nov. 2024 won't end it, but hopefully a new President being sworn in Jan. 2025 will...………………….hopefully.
Click to expand...

If the new guy is a Republican and not a RINO, in 2025 it'll just be new face and same schiff. Libs only accept one way, one view, one party line. It's truly a good thing that libs are compassionate and understanding with empathy for all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad
#4,921
#4,921
BowlBrother85 said:
Attorney General William Barr: I did not personally review all underlying evidence in the Mueller report.

Attorney General William Barr: No, I did not exonerate President Trump.

What exactly would you say it is that you DO here, Bill?
Click to expand...
Did you not read the entire quote? The Justice Dept is not for exonerating people. It’s for prosecuting crimes. There was no crime. End of discussion
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4,922
#4,922
luthervol said:
Didn't they just arrest someone for planning to some attacks in CA? They didn't have to wait until the act was committed. Provable intent was sufficient.
Click to expand...

Thought police. I guess Carter was a criminal because of that lust in his heart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad
#4,924
#4,924
golfballs said:
Did you not read the entire quote? The Justice Dept is not for exonerating people. It’s for prosecuting crimes. There was no crime. End of discussion
Click to expand...
lol...end of discussion? You really think so? Today just reopened the discussions. Barr came out of this damaged goods.
 
#4,925
#4,925
hog88 said:
Did you even read the letter?

You are completely mischaracterizing it if you have.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did and the Mueller letter concluded that the Barr summary: "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the full report." Mueller also added that, "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of our investigation," and "This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department appoint the special counsel to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

In light of those critical words in the Mueller letter, it is clear that Attorney General Barr was lying in his response to Senator Charlie Crist on April 9th. It is hard to understand why he didn't mention the Mueller letter in that testimony. He had to know it would leak.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top