Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-02-2019, 11:35 AM
 
11,046 posts, read 5,271,700 times
Reputation: 5253

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
Mueller COULD not indict Trump, and left the decision to Congress, which has that responsibility. A real AG acting in the interest of the country would not hesitate to give them access.

There is allegedly a report coming in the next day or so having to do with Mueller being told by Barr to abruptly end his investigation and go home. Mueller is a seasoned prosecutor, and would not have voluntarily folded up the tent with so many loose ends hanging such as the subpoena request for an unknown foreign company to produce information, Flynn and Stone still unsettled, and the 14 referrals he made to other LE entities. He was obviously pushed out, and Trump is the likely suspect who hired Barr as his new fixer.

Yes, I have read the report, what there is of it, which puts me far ahead of Barr and Graham, both of whom admitted they had not. If it "completely exonerates" Trump, what is the problem with letting Congress see the full report? I would think Donnie himself would be demanding that Fox read it on air at least once a day and twice on Sundays. But that isn't going to happen, is it? Wonder why not...?


Congress can’t indict. They can impeached which is political not criminal. Congress has full access to the report.

This is a nothing burger. Democrats won’t impeached, its all to discredit Barr and Tump for the 2020 election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2019, 11:37 AM
 
9,254 posts, read 3,586,584 times
Reputation: 4852
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
He did not have to indict him....he could have said here is the evidence that proves he has done "this."
Actually Mueller did say "here is the evidence that proves Trump did [this]" and also analyzed each act as to why it could constitute obstruction of justice. And while Mueller did not ultimately concluded that Trump definitevely committed a crime, he explained why he did not do so in light of the OLC restrictions. Its right there on pages 2 and 3 of Volume II.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
"I can’t say I’ve read it all, but I’ve read most of it.”- Lindsey Graham, May 1, 2019
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 11:41 AM
 
46,281 posts, read 27,099,738 times
Reputation: 11126
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
Actually Mueller did say "here is the evidence that proves Trump did [this]" and also analyzed each act as to why it could constitute obstruction of justice. And while Mueller did not ultimately concluded that Trump definitevely committed a crime, he explained why he did not do so in light of the OLC restrictions. Its right there on pages 2 and 3 of Volume II.

"I can’t say I’ve read it all, but I’ve read most of it.”- Lindsey Graham, May 1, 2019


And all that evidence did not met the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold.....


O.K....to Lindsey....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
7,826 posts, read 2,728,246 times
Reputation: 3387
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
And all that evidence did not met the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold.....


O.K....to Lindsey....
That worked for John Gotti for quite a few years as I recall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 11:48 AM
 
8,196 posts, read 2,844,795 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post
Same as BB, you may want to reread Mueller's letter to Barr.
I rest my case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 11:49 AM
 
7,447 posts, read 2,833,471 times
Reputation: 4922
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
I have...have you, or if you did, di you comprehend the report?
You say this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
Then where are the charges.
Then you say this, which contradicts your next sentence:


Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
Listen, Mueller did not have to indict trump, all he had to say is that yes, he did these things and here is our evidence....yet nothing....
Which describes exactly what he ACTUALLY DID DO IN THE REPORT. Which you say you read. Which you clearly did not, or if you did; did not comprehend it. Which hilariously, brings us full circle to your first sentence, which at this point can only be assumed to be pure projection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 11:49 AM
 
4,798 posts, read 3,508,949 times
Reputation: 2301
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
Notice you did nothing to state I was wrong....congrats....
Had no reason to.. I am more center on things than my typing shows..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,286 posts, read 26,206,502 times
Reputation: 15644
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
Wrong, try again....what comey said about her would have everyone else with any type of SC, they would have no job and be in jail...if you've ever had a SC, you'd understand that.....but as we can see....
How many days in jail did General Petraeus serve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
37,192 posts, read 19,200,869 times
Reputation: 14904
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
As of Wednesday morning, Lindsey Graham said he hadn't read it. I wonder what the holdup is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2019, 12:05 PM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,975,567 times
Reputation: 16155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
I don't think impeachment should happen, and there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Everyone should accept that.

But William Barr = Trump's latest personal attorney. Insofar as he was supposed to be Attorney General, he is a disgrace. He could have said "no charges" and left the report to speak for itself. He could have let the same conclusions settle without the PR blitz, saving some semblance of impartiality. Instead, he went out of his way to proactively shill for Trump ahead of the report release. Disgraceful. He is not an objective prosecutor; he is a Trump yes-man.
Right. Because THAT would have happened.

He's not answering questions right now, and the left is vilifying him for that.

He was in a lose/lose, as it's hard to fight a side that will lie, cheat and steal to bring you down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:26 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top