Mueller vs Barr round 1

[spurraider21]

1) they agreed with white house counsel that they lacked authority to indict a sitting president

2) when somebody faces an accusation, they typically have the recourse of standing trial and being found not guilty. there's a process to clear their name.

3) as they could not indict trump, there would be no parallel to that. if they just said "we cant charge trump, but we conclude he's guilty of crimes" then its basically just a smear with no chance for him to defend himself in court and clear his name. that's the "fairness" concerns they cite

4) therefore they decided that they were not allowed to come to a formal conclusion that the president committed any crime


i posted about this in another thread... predictably didnt get a single response

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...=1#post9782553

[a777pilot]

What are all those people going to be charged with?

You keep ducking that question.

I'm sorry, I did not know I had been asked a question.

To take just one crime, giving false testimony before a federal court justice: Members of the office of Whitehouse National Security, the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the DNI and individual members of the Whitehouse staff all gave false testimony before the FISA Court. It appears the Senior Justice, Rosemary Mayers Collyer, is pissed. It's not smart to with a senior Federal Judge.

[Spurtacular]

Having an impartial AG is essential to protecting the integrity of our highest offices. I never thought Jeff Sessions would look good next to anyone else in that position but Barr has set a new low. He should be forced out of office as soon as possible before he can do any further damage.

Were Janet Reno, Eric Holder, and Loretta Lynch fine upstanding examples of impartial AG's?

[Pavlov]

I'm sorry, I did not know I had been asked a question.

To take just one crime, giving false testimony before a federal court justice: Members of the office of Whitehouse National Security, the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the DNI and individual members of the Whitehouse staff all gave false testimony before the FISA Court. It appears the Senior Justice, Rosemary Mayers Collyer, is pissed. It's not smart to with a senior Federal Judge.

So which (at least seven) people are up on charges that resulted in the Page warrant's being renewed for a full year?

Also, explain how pissed Collyer is and what that means.

I'm sure it all sounds great in your mind.

[DarrinS]

1) they agreed with white house counsel that they lacked authority to indict a sitting president

2) when somebody faces an accusation, they typically have the recourse of standing trial and being found not guilty. there's a process to clear their name.

3) as they could not indict trump, there would be no parallel to that. if they just said "we cant charge trump, but we conclude he's guilty of crimes" then its basically just a smear with no chance for him to defend himself in court and clear his name. that's the "fairness" concerns they cite

4) therefore they decided that they were not allowed to come to a formal conclusion that the president committed any crime


i posted about this in another thread... predictably didnt get a single response

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...=1#post9782553

Seems like a moot point if no crime was committed.

[Pavlov]

Seems like a moot point if no crime was committed.

But if there was one committed by Trump, you wouldn't read about it in the Mueller report for the reasons mentioned above.

Do you understand that?

[Will Hunting]

Yeah you clearly didn’t understand “my” post

I guess I didn’t. Can you elaborate?

[DarrinS]

But if there was one committed by Trump, you wouldn't read about it in the Mueller report for the reasons mentioned above.

Do you understand that?

I understand this

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"

[Pavlov]

I understand this

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"

I understand you didn't answer and immediately changed the subject.

what a little

[TSA]

1) they agreed with white house counsel that they lacked authority to indict a sitting president

2) when somebody faces an accusation, they typically have the recourse of standing trial and being found not guilty. there's a process to clear their name.

3) as they could not indict trump, there would be no parallel to that. if they just said "we cant charge trump, but we conclude he's guilty of crimes" then its basically just a smear with no chance for him to defend himself in court and clear his name. that's the "fairness" concerns they cite

4) therefore they decided that they were not allowed to come to a formal conclusion that the president committed any crime


i posted about this in another thread... predictably didnt get a single response

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...=1#post9782553

And Mueller’s team did the exact opposite of what they claimed they were trying to avoid doing.

[spurraider21]

Seems like a moot point if no crime was committed.

moving the goalpost

[spurraider21]

And Mueller’s team did the exact opposite of what they claimed they were trying to avoid doing.

no, they never reached a conclusion that he committed a crime, which is literally in the line that you bolded

just because they couldn't make a formal finding that trump committed a crime doesnt mean that their duty to investigate and report to congress goes away.

[TSA]

I guess I didn’t. Can you elaborate?

It was a copy/paste of Spurminator’s post directed at me in this thread.

[Pavlov]

Man, board Trumpistas can't stand having things explained to them in plain text.

Maybe we should try starting an alt-right conspiracy twitter account.

Instant credibility!

[TSA]

no, they never reached a conclusion that he committed a crime, which is literally in the line that you bolded

just because they couldn't make a formal finding that trump committed a crime doesnt mean that their duty to investigate and report to congress goes away.

It was nothing but a smear they gift wrapped for Dems in Congress. No different then Mueller’s team omitting emails in the report to make them sound nefarious.

[Pavlov]

It was nothing but a smear they gift wrapped for Dems in Congress. No different then Mueller’s team omitting emails in the report to make them sound nefarious.

So Mueller isn't working with Trump to pwn the Dems?

[a777pilot]

So which (at least seven) people are up on charges that resulted in the Page warrant's being renewed for a full year?

Also, explain how pissed Collyer is and what that means.

I'm sure it all sounds great in your mind.

Do your own research. Look up who Rosemary Mayers Collyer is. When you are researching this, see if you can figure out who this unsung hero might be that I keep thinking one of you might figure out. So far, no joy.

This story is far from over....sad.

[Will Hunting]

It was a copy/paste of Spurminator’s post directed at me in this thread.

I didn’t read the whole thread

[Pavlov]

Do your own research.

It's like you've been posting here for years.

It's your claim, back it up.

And no one cares about your "hero" dad trivia.

[Spurminator]

It was a copy/paste of Spurminator’s post directed at me in this thread.

I didn’t read the whole thread

I'm fine with that post being used as a response in this case as well. I disagree that challenging the Attorney General on his blatant and dishonest spinning to protect the President will have significant impact on the next election. And things like this shouldn't be done for political gamesmanship anyway. It's the right thing to do to hold Barr accountable.

If the GOP was anything resembling a party that cares about the country and the integrity of its highest offices, they'd be asking Barr tough questions too, instead of still talking about Hillary Clinton.

[DarrinS]

I'm fine with that post being used as a response in this case as well. I disagree that challenging the Attorney General on his blatant and dishonest spinning to protect the President will have significant impact on the next election. And things like this shouldn't be done for political gamesmanship anyway. It's the right thing to do to hold Barr accountable.

If the GOP was anything resembling a party that cares about the country and the integrity of its highest offices, they'd be asking Barr tough questions too, instead of still talking about Hillary Clinton.

Protecting him from what?

[Spurminator]

Protecting him from what?

Bad press uncombatted by POTUS-friendly talking points. Or do you think having a press conference to discuss the Mueller Report prior to its release was normal practice? This dude is basically Rudy Giuliani but in an actual position of power. You should be embarrassed that he's your AG.

[Nbadan]

Darrin is an idiot in the same league as David Lee and our own embarrassment Ted Cruz.....all of them are so far up Trumps ass they probably smell his breath...

[DarrinS]

Bad press uncombatted by POTUS-friendly talking points. Or do you think having a press conference to discuss the Mueller Report prior to its release was normal practice? This dude is basically Rudy Giuliani but in an actual position of power. You should be embarrassed that he's your AG.

I'm still waiting to hear what Barr is protecting Trump from.

[DarrinS]

Darrin is an idiot in the same league as David Lee and our own embarrassment Ted Cruz.....all of them are so far up Trumps ass they probably smell his breath...

^This dork is a 9/11 twoofer