Some in Mueller's team see report as more damaging to Trump than Barr summary: New York Times

[thaibeachlovers]

46 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The report detailed many crimes, resulted in many indictments, prosecutions, and guilty pleas.  It also detailed the crimes that Mueller felt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Obviously you want to believe that if Trump is not indicted it is a total vindication, while if Hillary it not indicted it is evidence of corruption in the system.  You are wrong on both counts.

Wrong. If Trump is not indicted it doesn't mean he is innocent, just that the opposition isn't able to prove anything. IMO most people have done something wrong, but never got caught ( he who is without sin etc ).

IMO HRC was a very guilty person who committed many crimes, but like Trump, nothing was proven, so she got away with her crimes, just as, IMO, Trump will.

[Chomper Higgot]

50 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Says the long-term trump hating liberal and ardent Hillary supporter who defends her every moment her name is brought into a discussion.

But but but... Hillary!

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Wrong. If Trump is not indicted it doesn't mean he is innocent, just that the opposition isn't able to prove anything. IMO most people have done something wrong, but never got caught ( he who is without sin etc ).

IMO HRC was a very guilty person who committed many crimes, but like Trump, nothing was proven, so she got away with her crimes, just as, IMO, Trump will.

Wrong.

 

Mueller states right at the beginning of Volume 2 of his report why he has not indicted the President - Mueller's decision had nothing to do with a lack of evidence of Trump and his team committing crimes. 

 

You either haven't read the Mueller report or you are deliberately misrepresenting what it says.

 

My guess, you haven't read the Mueller report and you are eagerly believing the misrepresentation of what it say other are providing you with. 

 

Indict Sitting President.pdf

[Becker]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-did-president-trump-obstruct-justice

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Don't need to. If there was even the suggestion of an actual crime in the report we'd all have heard of it by now. That we haven't says that there isn't.

So you don't go to the source, you rely on laundered information from your right-wing news sources.  Ok, how's this:

 

https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-judge-napolitano-mueller-report-shows-trump-obstructed-justice-001202876.html

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

Says the long-term trump hating liberal and ardent Hillary supporter who defends her every moment her name is brought into a discussion.

Can't refute my post so you bring in a "But, but, but....Hillary!"

[Jingthing]

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Can't refute my post so you bring in a "But, but, but....Hillary!"

Sometimes a but, but, but … Hillary is as good as it gets. But don't forget but, but, but Obama. 

[Tug]

13 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

Says the long-term trump hating liberal and ardent Hillary supporter who defends her every moment her name is brought into a discussion.

Is this his version of a safe room?when  worryed or losing an argument starts with hate liberal but but Hillary?

[riclag]

20 hours ago, heybruce said:

Substitute "no crimes" with "insufficient evidence for prosecution" and we are in agreement.  Go back to the incorrect and intentionally misleading "no crimes, no collusion" and expect to be corrected.

I stand by my comment the people  responsible for appointing,discharging overseeing and supervising the SC office in accordance to the rules and reg,  came to the conclusion no obstruction,no obstruction of justice ,no collusion  by  President Trump . If you don't want to see  that was the final result ,then you  can agree to disagree

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

I stand by my comment the people responsible appointing,discharging overseeing and supervising the SC office in accordance to the rules and reg,  came to the conclusion no obstruction,no obstruction of justice ,no collusion  by any Americans  . If you don't want to see  that was the final result ,then you agree to disagree

Once again, Rosenstein came to the conclusion of insufficient evidence to prosecute. 

 

Barr auditioned for the job of AG by writing, uninvited, a nine page letter stating that in his opinion the President couldn't obstruct justice.  He made it well known he was willing to politicize the Justice Department, which is exactly the kind of AG Trump wanted.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, riclag said:

I stand by my comment the people  responsible for appointing,discharging overseeing and supervising the SC office in accordance to the rules and reg,  came to the conclusion no obstruction,no obstruction of justice ,no collusion  by  President Trump . If you don't want to see  that was the final result ,then you  can agree to disagree

And the people with oversight of tge executive want a full, frank and open explanation of how they came to that decision and why the head of the DoJ thought it his job to do so and not the responsibility of Congress and the Senate.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Once again, Rosenstein came to the conclusion of insufficient evidence to prosecute. 

 

Barr auditioned for the job of AG by writing, uninvited, a nine page letter stating that in his opinion the President couldn't obstruct justice.  He made it well known he was willing to politicize the Justice Department, which is exactly the kind of AG Trump wanted.

I fail to understand why you continue to claim that the report must condemn Trump because Barr is flawed. Plenty of people have seen the full report, and we have not heard of any actual indictable proof against Trump.

If there were, impeachment would already be under way, IMO.

 

Once again, Rosenstein came to the conclusion of insufficient evidence to prosecute. 

Exactly, and Rosenstein ain't a Trump buddy. No actual proof, no indictment.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And the people with oversight of tge executive want a full, frank and open explanation of how they came to that decision and why the head of the DoJ thought it his job to do so and not the responsibility of Congress and the Senate.

I believe congressional rules explains that.

[heybruce]

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I fail to understand why you continue to claim that the report must condemn Trump because Barr is flawed. Plenty of people have seen the full report, and we have not heard of any actual indictable proof against Trump.

If there were, impeachment would already be under way, IMO.

 

Once again, Rosenstein came to the conclusion of insufficient evidence to prosecute. 

Exactly, and Rosenstein ain't a Trump buddy. No actual proof, no indictment.

I never posted "the report must condemn Trump", I corrected you and others who claimed the report exonerated Trump or concluded "no collusion, no obstruction".

 

Once again, insufficient evidence to prosecute does not prove innocence.

[Ahab]

On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 9:16 AM, heybruce said:

You've clearly missed a lot.  From the Mueller report:

 

"The president's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."

 

Specific examples are here:  https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/22/politics/donald-trump-disobey-mueller-report/

And he fired how many of these people for not carrying out his desires?  I will help you out the answer is none.

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And he fired how many of these people for not carrying out his desires?  I will help you out the answer is none.

So he's a weak leader with a short attention span.  We already knew that.

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So he's a weak leader with a short attention span.  We already knew that.

That did not obstruct anything. Talking about firing someone is not obstruction of anything.

[heybruce]

51 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That did not obstruct anything. Talking about firing someone is not obstruction of anything.

Trump ordered others to fire Mueller, but his orders were not obeyed.  Clearly attempted obstruction.

[Jingthing]

Trump ordered others to fire Mueller, but his orders were not obeyed.  Clearly attempted obstruction.

Which is beyond any doubt an impeachable offense.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

I never posted "the report must condemn Trump", I corrected you and others who claimed the report exonerated Trump or concluded "no collusion, no obstruction".

 

Once again, insufficient evidence to prosecute does not prove innocence.

Once again, insufficient evidence to prosecute does not prove innocence.

Who's saying he's innocent? If there isn't proof he won't be impeached and will spend the next 8 years in the big chair, IMO, helped in part, by Mueller's report.

[thaibeachlovers]

50 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Which is beyond any doubt an impeachable offense.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Just do it, Pelosi, impeach!

[Chomper Higgot]

7 hours ago, Ahab said:

That did not obstruct anything. Talking about firing someone is not obstruction of anything.

If the purpose of the firing is to obstruct justice then discussing execution of the firing is conspiracy to obstruct justice.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just do it, Pelosi, impeach!

Somebody else who fails to understand that Subpoenaing Barr, McGahn, Mueller, Rosenstein et al is the commencement of impeaching Trump.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

 

[Tug]

17 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just do it, Pelosi, impeach!

Hey be patient lol they are working on it just lining up their little ducky’s Nancy is waaaaay smarter than Donald she won’t react on a gut like Donald lol

[wayned]

54 minutes ago, Tug said:

Hey be patient lol they are working on it just lining up their little ducky’s Nancy is waaaaay smarter than Donald she won’t react on a gut like Donald lol

I don't think that Pelosi will ever agree to impeachment.  It would just be playing into Trump's hand as it would never pass the Senate and it would be another "win" for him!  An all out heavy weigh battle in November 2020 is the only way to get rid of Trump.

[Ahab]

13 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If the purpose of the firing is to obstruct justice then discussing execution of the firing is conspiracy to obstruct justice.

 

 

So in your world talking about something (with your lawyer) is now equal to committing the crime. I am glad I do not live in that world. I would be in prison multiple times over for saying I wanted to kill some idiot driver on the roads. I would be guilty of conspiracy to murder.

[Ahab]

13 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If the purpose of the firing is to obstruct justice then discussing execution of the firing is conspiracy to obstruct justice.

 

 

If he had fired him someone else would have taken his place, and the people actually doing the ground work on the investigation would still be in place and investigating whatever they were before the firing. Trump knew he was not guilty of "collusion" and was frustrated with an investigation that seemingly would never end. Bottom line he did not obstruct the investigation by discussing removing Mueller, to me the most serious charge in the Mueller report was when Trump told some of his subordinates to lie (but they did not, and they also were not fired by Trump).

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, wayned said:

I don't think that Pelosi will ever agree to impeachment.  It would just be playing into Trump's hand as it would never pass the Senate and it would be another "win" for him!  An all out heavy weigh battle in November 2020 is the only way to get rid of Trump.

Well said. Something some of the posters on here fail to understand with their calls for impeachment.

I want them to impeach him so he can get off in the senate and then use it to win the next election.

[metisdead]

An off topic post and a reply has been removed.