Real estate agent (and previous owner) omit to tell one little detail, liable for damages ?

[ballpoint]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

As I’ve said elsewhere.

 

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

 

 

An innocent Trump would be demanding the report be made public.

As would his "Drain the swamp" supporters, no matter what the result was.  I guess some swamps are meant to be drained, some are meant to be drained into.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, quandow said:

I heard some of the details in this deal. It basically said if the FBI even catches a HINT of deception, they will hound Cambridge for the next three lifetimes of everyone involved in a cover up and make their lives a living hell.

Unlike the UK’s Parliamentary Inquiry which let CA off the hook.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[TopDeadSenter]

30 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Unlike the UK’s Parliamentary Inquiry which let CA off the hook.

Ooooh, love a mystery like this. Is your deflection "CA" regarding Chet Atkins? Christina Aguilera?, Cooper Alice?, Captain America? People might think that a wild deflection after 2 years of "any second now we got him!" is a sign of desperation. Is it?

[riclag]

webfact: "If you're not going to indict someone, you don't stand up there and unload negative information about the person," Barr told his Senate confirmation hearing last month. "That's not the way the department does business."

"Barr told senators he would release as much detail as possible about Mueller's findings. But he also cited a Justice Department policy to avoid publishing derogatory information about people who aren’t charged criminally. The department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has an opinion that a sitting president can’t be indicted, and several Democrats worried that the combination of those two things could lead Barr to keep confidential parts of the report dealing with President Donald Trump".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/29/william-barr-senate-panel-postpones-vote-trump-attorney-general/2703583002/

 

 

 Seeing that the Mueller investigation made of ,what Mr. Trump refers to ,13 angry democrat prosecutors, have to file a confidential report and present it to the AG(his eyes only) who in turn will present his findings (and this is important ,according to DOJ rules)is a giant blow to the resistance. For over 2 years they were in search of a Trump crime ,found none and now have resorted in trying to change and control the policies that have been in place for special counsel! This is exactly what schiff and the  anti Trump conspiracy theorist, dems and no trump haters want,  "publishing derogatory information about people who aren’t charged criminally", all in a organized effort to further their agenda to persuade public opinion !

Elections had consequences, Mr. Wittaker and Mr. Barr was a result of that! 

Edited February 26, 2019 by riclag

[riclag]

 

 

Rosenstein: Government transparency isn’t always appropriate.

 "The man who long oversaw special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation said Monday that it is not always appropriate for the government to be transparent about its work as he argued that prosecutors should not level public allegations against people they do not charge".

“The guidance I always gave my prosecutors and the agents I worked with during my tenure on the front lines of law enforcement were if we aren’t prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens,” Rosenstein said.

Rosenstein’s comments stand in contrast to congressional Democrats who are aggressively pushing the idea that Mueller’s full report, plus the underlying documents, should be made public.

https://www.apnews.com/5dede9c0dedb477fb3dd817784bfd603

 

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by riclag

[Hanaguma]

Sounds like a desperation, hail Mary type of play from the Democrats. If they had any confidence in former Director Mueller, they would wait for the findings.  Instead, they are going to try and string things out until the next election. And as with most short-sighted political moves, it would set a bad precedent for the future. 

[traveller101]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the critics will never shut up, regardless of whether the report exonerates him. One only has to read what the anti Trumpers on TVF say to know that. To them, Trump has to be guilty of something, regardless.

Guilty of something? IMHO Trump is guilty every single day of lying to the public.

[55Jay]

When did Bob Mueller cease to be respected and trusted by the Dems and Resistance?

 

After all this, do they really think he might have missed something or worse, is trying to shield Trump from indictment?

[Scott]

Troll posts removed.

[heybruce]

17 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Let's face it, with all the leaks that came out from this shambles of an investigation, if there was anything of significance - anything at all - we would have long been hearing about it. The only thing that raised my eyebrows was that Mueller stacked his team with anti-Trump extremists like Page and Strzok and from that moment on it was pure Benny Hill.

 I would advise the anti-Trumpers just to forget about this Mueller thing, it will be embarrassing and hugely disappointing. And when the repercussions begin for this flake having wasted 2 years of the best Presidents term there will be big trouble. Mueller is more likely to find himself in Guantanamo with Christopher Steele, than Trump is to be impeached.

 

17 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO if there were any actual charges against Trump, it would have been leaked long ago.

The report isn't even out yet and the Dems are already preparing the story that there must be something that wasn't made public so they can continue to harass Trump. Poor Dems, they have been putting so much attention on the Mueller investigation, hoping that it would provide a "smoking gun" to bring down Trump, and it's unlikely to do so. They don't have much else to use, so just going to have to go home and "kick the dog":-)

The Trump administration leaks like a sieve.  Can either of you give an example of a leak from the Mueller team?

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Sounds like a desperation, hail Mary type of play from the Democrats. If they had any confidence in former Director Mueller, they would wait for the findings.  Instead, they are going to try and string things out until the next election. And as with most short-sighted political moves, it would set a bad precedent for the future. 

Read the initial article for this topic.  The Democrats have been waiting for the finding.  They are making it clear that they want to see the report.

 

If Trump's Attorney General doesn't want to release the report, he will be the one guilty of stringing things out.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Roger Stone has only recently been arrested and charged, his (current) indictmentss have multiple references (in the unredacted parts) to collusion between Stone, Wikileaks, Russian Intelligence and the Trump Campaign.

 

Stone is not known to have started cooperating yet, but he will.

 

 Cambridge Analytica has only just been subpoenaed, they will turnover everything they have.

 

Mueller has only recently gotten hold of official transcripts of 50+ testimonies sworn before the House (many with Perjury in plain sight).

 

Mueller’s report is not coming any time soon.

 

And when it does, what he has to say will already be revealed in indictments and sentencing notes held as public record by the courts.

 

 

Illiberals, get your denial glasses on, the truth will (despite Individual-1’s best efforts) out!

Perhaps you should wait to see if anything Stone is charged with are proven. Wishin' and hopin' don't make it so.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps you should wait to see if anything Stone is charged with are proven. Wishin' and hopin' don't make it so.

Says the man who just claimed there is no smoking gun in the report.

 

Maybe wait and see what is in the report?

[scorecard]

On 2/26/2019 at 6:27 AM, keemapoot said:

I fully expect it to leak by Justice, with careful redaction of any true national security concerns. To not leak it would be almost treasonous. I think everyone in the US has a vested interest in knowing the truth that was discovered.

And a right to know.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, scorecard said:

And a right to know.

I too want to know what is in the report, along with everyone else that contributes to these pages. However, I'll be surprised if Trump ends up in serious trouble from anything in it.

However, there is no "right to know" what is in a confidential government report. If people want that they need to change the law.

[riclag]

On 2/26/2019 at 6:06 AM, webfact said:

Under the regulations, it is up to Barr to decide whether to release Mueller's report to the public. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said on Sunday his fellow Democrats would be prepared to subpoena the report to win its release, call Mueller to testify and take the fight to court if necessary.

 Mueller works for the DOJ he will follow the guidelines and law,regarding Special Counsel ! When it comes to a subpoena ,Schiff will face  a constant barrage of Mueller deflection upon deflection in answering questions on his confidential report! 

Elections had consequences,resulting in Mr. Barr 

Edited February 27, 2019 by riclag