5 hours ago, ballpoint said:

This AP article has more on what Mueller actually said, plus an embedded video of his speech:

 

"If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller declared.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/trump-erupts-after-special-counsel-says-hes-not-exonerated/ar-AAC9Xzx?ocid=spartanntp

but he failed to indicate what crime the president may have committed that would have led to a successful prosecution should Trump be impeached.

Also, because he did not give any evidence of substantive crimes to bring about an impeachment, the chances of any impeachment succeeding are extremely remote. If he had any substantive evidence of a high crime or misdemeanour it would likely have led to a successful impeachment of the president and a subsequent successful prosecution in court. 

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

but he failed to indicate what crime the president may have committed that would have led to a successful prosecution should Trump be impeached.

Also, because he did not give any evidence of substantive crimes to bring about an impeachment, the chances of any impeachment succeeding are extremely remote. If he had any substantive evidence of a high crime or misdemeanour it would likely have led to a successful impeachment of the president and a subsequent successful prosecution in court. 

Not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse, but the Mueller report DID provide evidence of criminal conduct by Trump.  In fact, several hundred former federal prosecutors signed a letter supporting this fact:

 

[“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”]

[“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” i.e., it’s not even a close call.]

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hundreds-of-ex-federal-prosecutors-say-trump-would-be-charged-with-obstruction-if-he-werent-president

 

The only reason Trump hasn't been impeached already is that Pelosi knows the spineless Republican Senate would never convict him.  That's it and that's all.

 

If Disingenuous Bob Mueller felt his report "speaks for itself" why did he feel the need to speak

for it? Basically, he was troubled that the narrative wasn't going as planned and felt he had to come out,

re-set the narrative and throw some gasoline on the impeachment fire. Which btw isn't going to happen.

Just a ruse to keep the flames smouldering all the way into 2020....to make political capital.

Not going to happen. Trump will be re-elected and then all the ones protecting him will slink off

(like in 2016) and return with one of the dozen TV boardnames they've created.

On 5/30/2019 at 9:19 AM, sfokevin said:

If this would have been Obama or Hillary you would be the third guy on the left... 

 

Nah they get protection from institutionalized folk like FBI 

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

Not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse, but the Mueller report DID provide evidence of criminal conduct by Trump.  In fact, several hundred former federal prosecutors signed a letter supporting this fact:

 

[“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”]

[“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” i.e., it’s not even a close call.]

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hundreds-of-ex-federal-prosecutors-say-trump-would-be-charged-with-obstruction-if-he-werent-president

 

The only reason Trump hasn't been impeached already is that Pelosi knows the spineless Republican Senate would never convict him.  That's it and that's all.

 

Not so, IMO. Given actual real evidence of a high crime or misdemeanour, and not the opinions of people that hate Trump, the GOP members of the senate would have little choice but to convict. IMO, if Mueller had such evidence and failed to publish it, he would himself be guilty of obstruction of justice. Anyway, many GOP members of the senate would possibly be happy to get rid of a man that some dislike as much as the Dems. After all, they'd then get Pence in charge.

I have no idea why you believe that "several hundred former federal prosecutors" would be impartial. What about the  thousands of former federal prosecutors that DIDN'T sign the paper?

Whatever they signed, it's still an opinion and not hard evidence.

 

The only reason Trump hasn't been impeached already is that Pelosi knows...……………..

that if she tries to impeach and fails, she's probably going to suffer the same fate as Newt.

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

If Disingenuous Bob Mueller felt his report "speaks for itself" why did he feel the need to speak

for it? Basically, he was troubled that the narrative wasn't going as planned and felt he had to come out,

re-set the narrative and throw some gasoline on the impeachment fire. Which btw isn't going to happen.

Just a ruse to keep the flames smouldering all the way into 2020....to make political capital.

Not going to happen. Trump will be re-elected and then all the ones protecting him will slink off

(like in 2016) and return with one of the dozen TV boardnames they've created.

Brilliant reply. Worth more than a mere like.

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

If Disingenuous Bob Mueller felt his report "speaks for itself" why did he feel the need to speak

for it? Basically, he was troubled that the narrative wasn't going as planned and felt he had to come out,

re-set the narrative and throw some gasoline on the impeachment fire. Which btw isn't going to happen.

Just a ruse to keep the flames smouldering all the way into 2020....to make political capital.

Not going to happen. Trump will be re-elected and then all the ones protecting him will slink off

(like in 2016) and return with one of the dozen TV boardnames they've created.

You think maybe he spoke up because Barr had distorted the reports findings? Mueller had requested that Barr release the executive summary right away. Barr didn't but instead released his misleading summary. which was at odds with what the executive summary said. Mueller explicitly referred to the fact that Barr didn't comply with his request in his speech.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

but he failed to indicate what crime the president may have committed that would have led to a successful prosecution should Trump be impeached.

Also, because he did not give any evidence of substantive crimes to bring about an impeachment, the chances of any impeachment succeeding are extremely remote. If he had any substantive evidence of a high crime or misdemeanour it would likely have led to a successful impeachment of the president and a subsequent successful prosecution in court. 

The report didn't fail to indicate that at all. It offered 10 incidents that could constitute obstruction of justice.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

You think maybe he spoke up because Barr had distorted the reports findings? Mueller had requested that Barr release the executive summary right away. Barr didn't but instead released his misleading summary. which was at odds with what the executive summary said. Mueller explicitly referred to the fact that Barr didn't comply with his request in his speech.

LOL.

Once he had delivered his report to Barr, he had no authority to tell Barr what to do with it. Up to the AG.

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL.

Once he had delivered his report to Barr, he had no authority to tell Barr what to do with it. Up to the AG.

Indeed Mueller had no authority to tell Barr what to do with the report. 

 

But then as AG, Barr had no business representing the President nor lying about the report.

 

We'll get to the bottom of why he did so when he is called to give testimony to Congress. 

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

The report didn't fail to indicate that at all. It offered 10 incidents that could constitute obstruction of justice.

IF that is true, why hasn't Nancy moved for impeachment? Probably because she knows that it's not enough to prove a high crime or misdemeanour, and would fail in the senate.

Could have, might have, whatever have doesn't mean much in real life.

The last 2 years has seen a plethora of unnamed individuals claiming all sorts of crimes that might have been committed by Trump, but there he is, still president.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Indeed Mueller had no authority to tell Barr what to do with the report. 

 

But then as AG, Barr had no business representing the President nor lying about the report.

 

We'll get to the bottom of why he did so when he is called to give testimony to Congress. 

He may have to present himself to congress, but he need not say anything if he uses the old "on the advice of my attorney" trick. I believe a Dem person up before a GOP majority committee used that to avoid saying anything not too long ago.

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IF that is true, why hasn't Nancy moved for impeachment? Probably because she knows that it's not enough to prove a high crime or misdemeanour, and would fail in the senate.

Could have, might have, whatever have doesn't mean much in real life.

The last 2 years has seen a plethora of unnamed individuals claiming all sorts of crimes that might have been committed by Trump, but there he is, still president.

Speaker of the House Pelosi is a bit more politically savvy than you are. 

 

She'll move to impeach when there are clear signs of a majority of the public demanding Trump's impeachment. When that happens, Republicans in the Senate will have to start making decision on what is best for their own personal future (no chance of them defending democracy or the constitution). 

 

Right now Speaker Pelosi and Democrats in the House are building the case for impeachment by means of the various testimonies being presented in Congressional hearings.

 

Trump weighing in yesterday by blurting out the 'I' word has done a great deal to ensure that's not going back in the box.

 

 

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He may have to present himself to congress, but he need not say anything if he uses the old "on the advice of my attorney" trick. I believe a Dem person up before a GOP majority committee used that to avoid saying anything not too long ago.

Why would he not say anything, has he got something to hide?

 

 

https://youtu.be/GMJn4ezFoe4

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

But then as AG, Barr had no business representing the President nor lying about the report.

 

 

 

more opinions, zero facts. yawn

6 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

more opinions, zero facts. yawn

Fact. 

 

Barr stated there were no more indictments coming from the Mueller investigation.

 

Then, when he is forced to hand over the redacted report we discover it contains 14 indictments, 12 of which have never been reported (completely new).

We later find out that there are at least one Mueller initiated on going Grand Jury  - the only reason for a Grand Jury is to examine the case for an indictment. 

 

So hey ho -  FACT. 

When Barr stated there were no more indictments coming from the Mueller investigation - He lied. 

8 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

more opinions, zero facts. yawn

Seems to me you've been engaged in one long yawn for some time now. That would explain why you've missed so much.

 

Video shows William Barr denying knowledge of Mueller's objections to his summary of the Russia probe days after Mueller sent him a letter about it

 

A video of Attorney General William Barr answering questions about the special counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Russia investigation resurfaced Tuesday night in light of new reports from The New York Times and Washington Post saying that Mueller was unhappy with Barr's characterization of the report.

According to reports, on March 27, several days after Barr released a four-page letter to Congress on March 24, Mueller wrote to Barr expressing his frustration that the letter's conclusion did not reflect the full report.

During a congressional hearing on April 10, Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland asked Barr whether Mueller supported his conclusions and Barr said, "I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion."

https://www.businessinsider.com/william-barr-video-mueller-report-objections-2019-4

So Russian attempts to influence the election of 2016 are of great importance to the American people!  As if this threat were new.  Russia has been trying to influence the American people for quite a while.  Is the old guard professing that they knew nothing of this until Trump became a candidate?  As I write this there are many disinformation campaigns run by the Russian government ongoing. One of the them is run against military veterans specifically from a website created for that purpose.  There are various others.  To imply that Russian attempts to influence American opinion are new is disingenuous to say the least.  Now Mueller’s role in the plot to remove Trump is quite clear.  It is a kind of dishonesty not to tell the whole truth - that Russian disinformation campaigns were going on long before Trump appeared on the scene.  Mueller’s report and testimony makes it seem that the Russians just cooked up their interference campaign when Trump became a presidential candidate.  The truth is much more complex and I think that the evidence will show that Susan Rice and perhaps even her boss were complicit with the Russians in a disinformation campaign against Donald Trump and his family.  Certain authorities are striving mightily to portray their actions as routine investigations.  The truth will out!

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Right now Speaker Pelosi and Democrats in the House are building the case for impeachment by means of the various testimonies being presented in Congressional hearings.

Build away, build away. As you probably know, I really want her to move to impeach, as after it fails she'll be toast and the Dems will have lost the last great hope they had after the Mueller investigation was cut short.

In the unlikely event they do uphold impeachment, we'll get Pence, and I'll really enjoy seeing him in action, though I'm sure the Dems will not.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Fact. 

 

Barr stated there were no more indictments coming from the Mueller investigation.

 

Then, when he is forced to hand over the redacted report....

Moe fiction...Barr was not forced to hand over anything....he didn't have to hand over a goddamn thing.

Keep spinning....

 

 

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Seems to me you've been engaged in one long yawn for some time now. That would explain why you've missed so much.

 

Video shows William Barr denying knowledge of Mueller's objections to his summary of the Russia probe days after Mueller sent him a letter about it

 

The letter was about Disingenuous Mueller pouting about how displeased he was that the media was

spinning the report....you keep spinning away as well.....the two best fiction writers on TV!

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL.

Once he had delivered his report to Barr, he had no authority to tell Barr what to do with it. Up to the AG.

 

Let's celebrate the AG abusing his position? Yay.

 

 

For all the anti trump fiction writers here, two great quotes from my hero Bill Barr, hot off the press:

 

1. "The Department of Justice doesn't use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress."

 

2. "The Department of Justice is all about the law, and the facts and the substance," "And I'm going to make the decisions based on the law and the facts and I realize that's in tension with the political climate we live in because people are more interested in getting their way politically."

 

Mic drop!!!!!! Bill Barr is a law genius...he always follows rules.

 

Mueller could have reached a conclusions  with regards to criminal activity (without indicting as per OLC regs) but chose instead to abdicate his duties, after wasting 30 million of public funds. He abdicated to his boss who along with (a trump-hating) deputy AG, applied the law and found no crime. Mueller should be prosecuted for gross dereliction of duty.

 

Case closed.

Fact. 

 

Barr stated there were no more indictments coming from the Mueller investigation.

 

Then, when he is forced to hand over the redacted report we discover it contains 14 indictments, 12 of which have never been reported (completely new).

We later find out that there are at least one Mueller initiated on going Grand Jury  - the only reason for a Grand Jury is to examine the case for an indictment. 

 

So hey ho -  FACT. 

 

When Barr stated there were no more indictments coming from the Mueller investigation - He lied. 

 

Who has not been indicted?

 

Please don’t tell me to read the report, if you you don’t know, just say you don’t know.

Sombody has the trump delusion syndrome bad I think it’s chronic or maybe he is an enemy of democracy I don’t know 

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Who has not been indicted?

 

Mr muller says he cannot indite a sitting pres he also says he cannot absolve Donald sooo there you go

Mr muller says he cannot indite a sitting pres he also says he cannot absolve Donald sooo there you go

I meant besides Trump.

If he can’t indict a sitting President, why indict him while he’s walking to the helicopter?

(Just kidding)

16 minutes ago, Tug said:

Mr muller says he cannot indite a sitting pres he also says he cannot absolve Donald sooo there you go

Cannot absolve him of what? Mueller didn't say what he had done to be not absolved of, so it is a nonsense statement.

Had Mueller stated the crimes that he discovered Trump had done, then he would have had something to not absolve him of, but he didn't, hence there is apparently no crime committed and therefore nothing to be absolved of.

Mueller appears to be trying to have his cake and eat it as well.

41 minutes ago, Tug said:

Mr muller says he cannot indite a sitting pres he also says he cannot absolve Donald sooo there you go

 

Mueller is a shirker who did not have the 'nads nor the evidence to reach a legal conclusion that a crime was committed by the Prez. He says nothing that can be seen in his favour by applying the law....just spouts vague, subjective nonsense. He abdicated his duty to the AG....who boldly stepped up without fear or favour and ruled after applying the law. As Mueller's boss, Barr found his work lacking and shoddy. He stopped short of saying this as Corpulent Jerry Nadler would have a real stroke.

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

Moe fiction...Barr was not forced to hand over anything....he didn't have to hand over a goddamn thing.

Keep spinning....

 

Let me meet you half way.

 

Regardless of how we got to see the redacted Mueller report, when we did we discovered Barr had lied about ‘no more indictments from the Mueller investigation’.

 

It’s Barr’s lies that matter, not how we came to discover he was lying.

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Cannot absolve him of what? Mueller didn't say what he had done to be not absolved of, so it is a nonsense statement.

Had Mueller stated the crimes that he discovered Trump had done, then he would have had something to not absolve him of, but he didn't, hence there is apparently no crime committed and therefore nothing to be absolved of.

Mueller appears to be trying to have his cake and eat it as well.

Read the Mueller report.