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.
" Mueller was quite clear in which of Trump’s acts he thought may be criminal and why"
" he thought may be criminal"
Mueller was QUITE CLEAR he and his team could NOT find enough evidence to INDICT!
Mueller and his TEAM, mostly dem hillary supporters, were CHOSEN because of their EXPERTISE in LAW.
His JOB was to INVESTIGATE and IF evidence is found INDICT. NO INDICTMENTS MEANS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO TAKE IT TO COURT.
Put your self in the same situation. YOU are THOUGHT to be guilty of raping a teenage girl.
Your prints are found at the scene, NOTHING MORE. There is NOT ENOUGH "evidence" to charge you.
Should the populous grab you and string you up becuae SOME think you are guilty even though the greatest investigators in the country could NOT FIND ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE it in COURT?
Imagine what precedent that would do to our judicial system.
You either you HAVE ENOUGH evidence or you DON'T. PERIOD!
-Mueller is a Republican
-Mueller never stated he didn't have enough evidence. He said he didn't take it to court because of DOJ policy to not indict a sitting president. This is in the report. Making baseless claims to the contrary makes no sense. He never says in the report he didn't have enough evidence to indict, but he does say he doesn't have enough evidence to exonerate. And then he explains why he didn't move toward indicting (DOJ policy about indicting the president). You should read that part of the report.
Bingo. The fact that more than 0 posters on this board make any reference to Barr's 4 pager tells me people took it at face value.
Since I don’t take anything Barr says or writes at face value, I dispute that assessment
The only people who were in a rush to judgement to get Mueller’s report out were the GOP/Trump acolytes
And they were the only ones who seemed to believe Barr’s summary was valid...
Just like “follow the money” is one of the truisms of divining how corrupt Trump is—
“Consider the source” is another
Anyone who would trust a source like Devin Nunes obviously has a limited desire to know truth vs fiction
Anyone who would trust Barr’s pushing his “cloak of invisibility” around Trump’s involvement with the Russians and his compromising of the rule of law has suspended the powers of judgement...
They looked into Uranium One and found nothing nefarious. Look up literally any other media story outside of Sean Hannity. It doesn't have to be a left leaning source, just any independent source. Again, in trying to be objective, Saudi Arabia's big donations to the Clinton Foundation seem suspicious, though.
The contacts had plenty to do with the election. Look at the documented emails between Cohen and Felix Sater about getting a Trump Tower built.
Don Jr saying, "I love it, especially later in the summer." Like a big dumb idiot. It turned out it was a ruse by the Russian gov't to get sanctions lifted had Trump won, but the meeting occurred because Trump Jr was trying to get info.
The FBI did warn them. It had not happened yet because Trump hadn't yet accepted the nomination by the Republican party, and even after that Trump yelled in public, Russia if you're listen get those 33,000 emails.
Manafort literally gave polling data to Kiliminik.
Papadopoulos was on the campaign and trying to get contacts with Russia to get in their good graces in the name of the Trump campaign. There are several others. I'm not going through them all. Read the report if that is within your skillset.
"They looked into Uranium One and found nothing nefarious"
Who is THEY?
"The FBI did warn them" Did you watch the hearing yesterday?
First, your rape analogy doesn’t work because there is no regulation preventing a prosecutor from indicting the rapist. Trump is in a unique situation that cannot be compared to a run-of-the-mill crime. Second, the Mueller Report carefully and clearly explains why he investigated Trump’s actions despite knowing he could not be indicted - read it for yourself. Third, in this instance, Mueller clearly says “no indictment does not mean not enough evidence” but instead that “no indictment means I’m prohibited from indicting by DoJ policy, regardless of how compelling the evidence is or is not.” Again, it’s all right there. Read it for yourself.
Hey man, he's using CAPS LOCK so that makes him authoritative and more correct in spite of what the support says.
-Mueller is a Republican
-Mueller never stated he didn't have enough evidence. He said he didn't take it to court because of DOJ policy to not indict a sitting president. This is in the report. Making baseless claims to the contrary makes no sense. He never says in the report he didn't have enough evidence to indict, but he does say he doesn't have enough evidence to exonerate. And then he explains why he didn't move toward indicting (DOJ policy about indicting the president). You should read that part of the report.
Yes—totally accurate...except “making baseless claims to the contrary makes no sense”
You should have added—
Makes no sense to those who want to know the truth of what happened and who were compromised...
And the evidence of Mueller’s “snitty” letter to Barr proves that Mueller does want people to know the truth of what happened and who were compromised by their involvement...
Since I don’t take anything Barr says or writes at face value, I dispute that assessment
The only people who were in a rush to judgement to get Mueller’s report out were the GOP/Trump acolytes
And they were the only ones who seemed to believe Barr’s summary was valid...
Just like “follow the money” is one of the truisms of divining how corrupt Trump is—
“Consider the source” is another
Anyone who would trust a source like Devin Nunes obviously has a limited desire to know truth vs fiction
Anyone who would trust Barr’s pushing his “cloak of invisibility” around Trump’s involvement with the Russians and his compromising of the rule of law has suspended the powers of judgement...
Yeah, I agree. Those are the people I was referring to that took Barr's 4 pager at face value.
You didn't watch the proceedings, did you? Barr runs the DOJ and is the top Law Enforcement officer in the US. He's not running scared. You're about to see criminal indictments on many of the real criminals like Comey, Strozk, and McCabe.
And speaking of command of the English language... He said the report was "A bit Snitty"
No—I saw the “snitty” comment
That was about on a par with Trump’s command of the English language
A Yale educated attorney and “snitty” is the best he can do to downplay Mueller’s exemplary use of language and skewering Barr to the wall for his own politicization of Mueller’s investigation...
You need to have higher standards for those you respect...
Yes the FBI warned them, consistent with all presidential nominees they are notified of certain things. Consistent with my previous post. I acknowledged it was after the Trump Tower meeting. That said, just because they weren't warned beforehand doesn't make Don Jr anything more than a moron. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...mpaign-n830596
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.
"No" "Why should you have them?" LOL
