The Mueller Report
The Mueller Report is in and from first reports he did not find anything to charge Trump with.
0
-
Rack Ops wrote:I just wanted to check in and see how barz was taking it.
Still hasn't thrown in the towel, I see.
All evidence points the other way. Yet she's staying the course. Guess there's that.0 -
Barzillia wrote:diver-rig wrote:Barzillia wrote:
The wall will stand as far as the evidence will allow it to be built, because it is built of bricks.
Not straw.
Despite the loud and frequent claims by POTUS to the contrary over the last two years, it has been established that the Russians interfered in the election.
We'll eventually learn more.
Perhaps we should wait until then to make any claims ?
Perhaps you are the one making clams,
There is not one shred of evidence of your ?magical? Russian meddling in the election, other than the shrill cries, of the communist left, and their henchmen, to repeat the lie, over and over and over again.
So you can keep peddling your diabolical trash, that you swallow and try and regurgitate on is.
It?s very comical.
What's funny is that even Barr contradicts your "understanding" of the matter.
Say again, Nancy?
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
Keep spinning that feeble ideology.
Keep repeating 1000% lies.
Keep telling yourself, while crying in your pillow, that Trump colluded with the Russians.0 -
0
-
Or perhaps they could focus on legislating things like budgets, immigration, and other issues more pressing than chasing ghosts 4205raymond wrote:CNN wants a second opinion from Congress. Maybe Congress should spend their time investigating Hillary.
There was NO COLLUSION! When Comey leaked that information he broke every rule in the book. It will take the FBI years to recover from this disaster.0 -
0
-
Surely you jest.GilWilson1 wrote:Or perhaps they could focus on legislating things like budgets, immigration, and other issues more pressing than chasing ghosts4205raymond wrote:CNN wants a second opinion from Congress. Maybe Congress should spend their time investigating Hillary.
There was NO COLLUSION! When Comey leaked that information he broke every rule in the book. It will take the FBI years to recover from this disaster.0 -
Didn't get what they wanted: Trump DOA
What will the traitorous crybabies attack him with next?
A devils pitch fork and a helmet? LMAO0 -
?Turn out the lights
The party's over
They say that
All good things must end
Call it tonight
The party's over
And tomorrow starts
The same old thing again?https://youtu.be/QoQZ0qmf-mk0 -
Barzillia wrote:Don McManus wrote:Barzillia wrote:
The wall will stand as far as the evidence will allow it to be built, because it is built of bricks.
Not straw.
Despite the loud and frequent claims by POTUS to the contrary over the last two years, it has been established that the Russians interfered in the election.
We'll eventually learn more.
Perhaps we should wait until then to make any claims ?
How long shall we wait?
For what are we waiting.
Apparently, the Mueller report suggests there is no evidence our President had anything to do with and no coordination with the efforts of the Russians.
The apparent fact that Russians manipulated information available to the American voter is a problem, but it is a bi-partisan American problem, not one that can be associated with or pinned to any individual.
At least any individual that we have probable cause to suspect.
I am going to wait for the report, not someone's "summary" of it.
Just as I have always suggested that we do.
I do trust the efforts of the SCO to identify the facts necessary to come to a conclusion, or to follow up as necessary.
Just reading the posts in this forum document that people still do not accept that Russia interfered in the election, or claim that POTUS was exonorated of obstruction. Still talking about "collusion". Still avoiding evidence that coordination with Russians inside the campaign was as much of the charter of SCO as personal involvement by POTUS.
How long should we wait ? Until those essential facts are clearly addressed , at least.
We know the full report will not be released. At a minimum there are statutory constraints as to what can be released from Grand Jury testimony, so the canard of 'waiting for the full report' is a non-starter. Also, there are whispers that there are 10s of thousands of pages in the report, so it is unlikely that you or I will be actually reading the entire report, even those portions of it that are released.
Given that, the vast majority of us will be accepting to some extent someone's 'summary' of it, even if that summary is one that is written by Mueller.
At this point, I am thinking that the Barr/Rosenstein summary correctly hits the major two points:
1. There is no evidence that Trump or anyone on his campaign worked with Russian state actors in the collection or dissemination of information that could be used to manipulate the 2016 Presidential Campaign.
2. There is not sufficient evidence to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice in the investigation of the above matter.
You are obviously free to wait until you find a summary to which you find yourself more politically aligned.0 -
This is another of your ?MEANINGLESS? posts. Your side lost another one so as usual instead of graciously accepting that you are wrong you attempt to change the question or the rules or whatever. Trump is president. Accept it. Barzillia wrote:dav1965 wrote:The Mueller Report is in and from first reports he did not find anything to charge Trump with.
Not true.
If Mueller was following DOJ guidelines, as he probably was, POTUS would not be indictable while he is in office.
You are giving an answer to a meaningless question.0 -
Barzillia wrote:bpost wrote:Barzillia wrote:Amazing how smart folks are when they know nothing more today than they did last week, other than the SCO investigation is complete.
Why not wait for the report ?
Okay, that seems fair and reasonable. Will your brick by brick wall then fall on your foot if it has all been a nothing burger? :shock:
The wall will stand as far as the evidence will allow it to be built, because it is built of bricks.
Not straw.
Despite the loud and frequent claims by POTUS to the contrary over the last two years, it has been established that the Russians interfered in the election.
We'll eventually learn more.
Perhaps we should wait until then to make any claims ?
OK, the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections. I hear that all the time from Libs like you. And the implication is that Trump is to blame.
Do y'all remember who was President at that time? It was Obama. He was saying at that time that it was impossible for the Russians to interfere in our elections. He did nothing about Russian interference.
And yet y'all try to blame Trump. Obama gets a pass, he never criticized for any of his mistakes.0 -
Barzillia wrote:
Just reading the posts in this forum document that people still do not accept that Russia interfered in the election, or claim that POTUS was exonorated of obstruction. Still talking about "collusion". Still avoiding evidence that coordination with Russians inside the campaign was as much of the charter of SCO as personal involvement by POTUS.
How long should we wait ? Until those essential facts are clearly addressed , at least.
If Russian "interference" was the trolls posting falsehoods on Facebook and it influenced anyone's decision to vote for Trump over Hillary I would like them to relinquish their voter registration, oh wait they don't need that anymore.
I mean seriously Mueller essentially said despite offers of Russian aide he couldn't find any instance of anyone on the Trump campaign accepting that and he DID find evidence they refused it.
Tell me that America has never "interfered" in any other countries election LOL0 -
All of the above is sensible and well said as usual.Don McManus wrote:We know the full report will not be released. At a minimum there are statutory constraints as to what can be released from Grand Jury testimony, so the canard of 'waiting for the full report' is a non-starter. Also, there are whispers that there are 10s of thousands of pages in the report, so it is unlikely that you or I will be actually reading the entire report, even those portions of it that are released.
Given that, the vast majority of us will be accepting to some extent someone's 'summary' of it, even if that summary is one that is written by Mueller.
At this point, I am thinking that the Barr/Rosenstein summary correctly hits the major two points:
1. There is no evidence that Trump or anyone on his campaign worked with Russian state actors in the collection or dissemination of information that could be used to manipulate the 2016 Presidential Campaign.
2. There is not sufficient evidence to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice in the investigation of the above matter.
You are obviously free to wait until you find a summary to which you find yourself more politically aligned.
It also clearly shows the difference between a man that thinks fully with logic,.....unencumbered by any party loyalty, vs the other side of the coin.0 -
Either "someone's summary" of it is accurate or not. You're suggesting they're lying about what was found? And that even those being lied about are complicit?Barzillia wrote:Don McManus wrote:Barzillia wrote:
I am going to wait for the report, not someone's "summary" of it.
Just as I have always suggested that we do.
I do trust the efforts of the SCO to identify the facts necessary to come to a conclusion, or to follow up as necessary.
Just reading the posts in this forum document that people still do not accept that Russia interfered in the election, or claim that POTUS was exonorated of obstruction. Still talking about "collusion". Still avoiding evidence that coordination with Russians inside the campaign was as much of the charter of SCO as personal involvement by POTUS.
How long should we wait ? Until those essential facts are clearly addressed , at least.
We know the full report will not be released. At a minimum there are statutory constraints as to what can be released from Grand Jury testimony, so the canard of 'waiting for the full report' is a non-starter. Also, there are whispers that there are 10s of thousands of pages in the report, so it is unlikely that you or I will be actually reading the entire report, even those portions of it that are released.
Given that, the vast majority of us will be accepting to some extent someone's 'summary' of it, even if that summary is one that is written by Mueller.
At this point, I am thinking that the Barr/Rosenstein summary correctly hits the major two points:
1. There is no evidence that Trump or anyone on his campaign worked with Russian state actors in the collection or dissemination of information that could be used to manipulate the 2016 Presidential Campaign.
2. There is not sufficient evidence to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice in the investigation of the above matter.
You are obviously free to wait until you find a summary to which you find yourself more politically aligned.
Since I did not ask for, or even slightly mention, or infer a 'full report' was necessary, there is no canard.
Not sure why you continue to add words to what I say, and then try to argue against what you have written that I said.
Are you not reading what I wrote, or purposely misquoting me ?
If the report contains redactions, it remains the report, albeit incomplete, but it never becomes a summary.
You can stay with the Barr report, if you wish, and base your conclusions upon it.
I'll still wait.0 -
Barzillia wrote:Don McManus wrote:Barzillia wrote:
I am going to wait for the report, not someone's "summary" of it.
Just as I have always suggested that we do.
I do trust the efforts of the SCO to identify the facts necessary to come to a conclusion, or to follow up as necessary.
Just reading the posts in this forum document that people still do not accept that Russia interfered in the election, or claim that POTUS was exonorated of obstruction. Still talking about "collusion". Still avoiding evidence that coordination with Russians inside the campaign was as much of the charter of SCO as personal involvement by POTUS.
How long should we wait ? Until those essential facts are clearly addressed , at least.
We know the full report will not be released. At a minimum there are statutory constraints as to what can be released from Grand Jury testimony, so the canard of 'waiting for the full report' is a non-starter. Also, there are whispers that there are 10s of thousands of pages in the report, so it is unlikely that you or I will be actually reading the entire report, even those portions of it that are released.
Given that, the vast majority of us will be accepting to some extent someone's 'summary' of it, even if that summary is one that is written by Mueller.
At this point, I am thinking that the Barr/Rosenstein summary correctly hits the major two points:
1. There is no evidence that Trump or anyone on his campaign worked with Russian state actors in the collection or dissemination of information that could be used to manipulate the 2016 Presidential Campaign.
2. There is not sufficient evidence to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice in the investigation of the above matter.
You are obviously free to wait until you find a summary to which you find yourself more politically aligned.
Since I did not ask for, or even slightly mention, or infer a 'full report' was necessary, there is no canard.
Not sure why you continue to add words to what I say, and then try to argue against what you have written that I said.
Are you not reading what I wrote, or purposely misquoting me ?
If the report contains redactions, it remains the report, albeit incomplete, but it never becomes a summary.
You can stay with the Barr report, if you wish, and base your conclusions upon it.
I'll still wait.
If I don't add words to what you say, you never say anything concrete.
You have now implied (though as is typical with you, you have not stated) that you will accept a redacted report. This is progress.
Also, you will note that I have never stated nor inferred that I would 'stay with the Barr report'. My statement was 'At this point, I am thinking...'
The Barr/Rosentein summary is all that we have to work with. It is illogical to think that they have deliberately misstated the major findings of the Mueller report. For one, it would be immediately proven false once the report is released. Secondly, it is not believable that Rosenstein would remain silent were Barr to have issued a false summary.
If it becomes apparent that the Barr/Rosenstein summary is false, I will be the first to admit it. At this time (there are those words again), it makes no sense to bury one's head in the sand and not at least consider the probable truth of what has been written.
I too will wait to make a final conclusion, but see no reason to ignore what is the best information that is available at present.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
45 comments