Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
May I ask what the folks on the right/conservatives/deplorables/MAGA people are so happy about? The only emotion I can summon is relief that this is over, if even that.
This was a concocted, sham investigation to begin with and the people involved are criminals, IMO. And how can you even validate this by saying Trump was "exonerated" or whatever? Exonerated by a sham investigation based on lies and the sick inventions of rogue deep state actors? NEWSFLASH: Every one of them walks free. And Mueller should NEVER have been special counsel, given that he and Trump had private business disputes to begin with. And yet he failed to recuse himself.
Where's the declass? Where's the phony FISA info? And how did that sham surveillance rabbit Carter Page just disappear into the woodwork while George Papa got put through the wringer? (Speaking of which, Papa has some things he'll be revealing tomorrow, I'm looking forward to that)
What's to be happy about? Justice in the US? Don't make me laugh. It's been politicized and it's never going to be set right, depend on that.
I'm happy and relieved it's over. It's also nice to be right, that evidence on Trump wouldn't be found.
It would be a lot better if there was some accountability for the pony FISA info. That's where the corruption is.
I still don't like the white male supremacist overtones and destructive environmental policy of the Trump administration. Not proving collusion with the Russians doesn't change that.
Soooooooooooo The Russian angle failed so it's back to the race card? Yep you are right, the Mueller investigation hasn't changed the left's play book. When all else fails make it about race.
I think that the conclusions cannot be fully understood unless the full text of the Mueller report is released. Russian interference in the elections was the core issue of the Special Counsel mandate and after two years we get a nebulous wishy washy maybe the President did or did not have any personal intervention in the matter. Was Mueller afraid of sparking a constitutional crises and just sidetracked the whole matter. We may never know the full story.
the full story is Mueller after 2 years and millions of dollars spent didn't find any evidence that Trump and his campaign or any American colluded with the Russian government to interfere in the elections.......END OF THE STORY!
if you have any evidence you had 2 years to contact Mueller.....move on!
More absurd uninformed comments from Individual 1.
The investigation was not illegal, and he has only his actions to blame for how it started.
'An illegal takedown that failed' are the words he used.
The investigation was caused by illegal attempt of a takedown because of the actions of Hillary and now that President Trump is exonerated, the investigation of Hillary, Obama and their cronies can begin.
Bernie is now declaring that the great injustice here is that we can't see the entire report! Really, so they think combing over each page is going to somehow reverse the summary? The only thing you can count on is that the liberal media and Democrats will NEVER admit that they were wrong. They will always find some way to spin it to make themselves look more high and mighty.
I like Bernie but he needs to drop it. Well, what I would like to see is him say "I feel for you, they cheated me also".
Why - after two years of investigations - did Mueller decide to state that Trump did not commit a crime and Trump is not exonerated?
He had two years plus and gave a no decision. I don't understand the point of that (other than to allow Trump to be demonized). Why not continue until you came to a decision - OR - why even mention it at all?
Mueller & Co. know Trump obstructed justice. His firing of Comey, meeting w/Rosenstein asking for grounds, meeting with Russians and public statements on TV are evidence of that - but, it is not their perview to make that determination. Further, there is the issue proving "intent." Hard to do. Had Trump ORDERED Comey to stop Russian investigation, the issue would be determined. But, he didn't.
So...
Mueller was NEVER going to indicate guilt or innocence - I've said that for a long while, now.
This decision is up to the AG.
The AG says "in our judgment" (that means his and Rosenstein's).
Can you imagine the brouhaha in this country if AG and Rosenstein said Trump DID obstruct?
No, neither guy is willing to start that sh*tstorm. This "conclusion" made "in our judgment" is competely predictable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
I can certainly accept that Donald JOHN Trump did not conspire with the Russians. As I have said before, if one wishes to engage in a secret conspiracy, best not included an idiotic loudmouth.
However, the sentence 'or his campaign staff' (from memory) is puzzling. Paul Manafort was Trump's campaign manager and manager of the Republican National Convention, so I would consider him part of the campaign staff. Persuading the Republicans to change their platform to favor the Russians? Giving Russians detailed polling data? Agreeing to work for free for the Trump campaign? Yet, again, I can see Manafort using Trump as a patsy.
We may also add the Trump Tower meeting, with Mr. Trump dictating the initial, false, statement (meeting was about adopting poor Russian babies!).
Anyway, this summary was just that: a summary. It will be interesting to see the full report. While Mr. Trump may not have conspired with others, he certainly surrounded himself with swamp creatures, some of whom are in prison or awaiting prison.
My feeling: Donald Trump was played as a patsy by those surrounding him. While he himself may not have coordinated with Wikileaks, Mr. Trump surely should have thought to himself "Why is Wikileaks for helpful? Why did they release that batch of Podesta emails hours after BillyGate erupted?"
A patsy, and a dumb one at that.
I don't think all that dumb and I do think he "conspired" and so does Mueller. They just couldn't prove it. Trump may be as dumb as a box of rocks, but he's managed his entire life to break almost every law and get away with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redwood66
If Trump did not collude with Russia why would firing Comey to stop the investigation be obstruction? This will be a very important point when all of the information is reviewed and Dems go down their endless hearings road. It basically removes the motive in the case for obstruction.
Then why did Trump tell Russian guys in the Oval Office he fired Comey and took care of the "Russia" thing? Of course, Trump colluded with the Russians - he said so on the campaign trail. So did Roger Stone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
Yet, we still have a ways to go. Contrary to some remarks in here, the letter did not totally exonerate Mr. Trump from obstruction of justice, although Mr. Barr does insert his judgment that Mr. Trump did not.
Mr. Barr did write an odd sentence:
"In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."
The 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard applies to the standard of proof for a conviction of a criminal offense.
A criminal offense is brought if there 'reasonable cause' to suspect that a crime has been committed, with the grand jury then indicting based on said reasonable cause.
It is, as I said, up to the finder of fact to determine if the person were guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
As I said, it is curious language for an experienced attorney. It is almost like Mr. Barr acted a jury.
Beyond curious. Revelatory. Barr wants the matter closed. He's always said so. Feels any indictment undermines the ability of the president to "lead."
"In our judgment" allows Barr to act as judge and jury. And, he did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
Oh come on. Barr chose the words he did because there IS evidence of obstruction of justice but chose to not pursue it. If there was no evidence both Mueller and Barr would've said so.
Trump picked Barr to protect him and Barr followed through.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
What a pity we don't have Barr's justification for his opinion.
We don't need it. He so stated long ago. He doesn't want to undermine the ability of the president to "lead."
One of these days it will come out that it was an internal release. Because it was.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
