Reply With Quote
Spurty "heard about it". He "knows" what it said.
Logic 101, by Robert Mueller:
"If we thought the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
We did not say so.
Ergo:_______________________________
Fill in the blank, moron.
Spurty "heard about it". He "knows" what it said.
Bridling yourself to the village cuck.
Said the delusional forum sociopath that is the personal toilet of the board.
Bill Barr just revealed how flimsy his concerns about ‘spying’ against the Trump campaign really are
Attorney General Bill Barr is leading a crusade against the people who initiated an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and its connections to President Donald Trump’s campaign,
but he has never explained why he has such serious su ions.
JAN CRAWFORD: Do you think enough was done in 2016?
WILLIAM BARR: Enough was done in 2016? Probably not. You know, I think Bob Mueller did some impressive work in his investigation, you know, identifying some of the Russian hackers and their influence campaign and you sort of wonder if that kind of work had been done starting in 2016, things could have been a lot different.
JAN CRAWFORD: Right because it’s just hard to understand why it wasn’t taken more seriously.
WILLIAM BARR: Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: Why do you think it was not?
WILLIAM BARR: I have no idea. That’s one of the things I’m interested in looking at you know–
JAN CRAWFORD: –As part of the review?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes. In other words, you know, there are statements being made that people were warned back in April–
JAN CRAWFORD: –of 2016–
WILLIAM BARR: Right and I don’t have any reason to doubt that, but I’m wondering what exactly was the response to it if they were alarmed.
Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump Campaign.
====
Consider what this last statement means. He suggests that the Obama administration probably didn’t do enough in 2016 in response to Russia’s interference and that they didn’t take it seriously.
He went on to say:https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/bill-barr-just-revealed-how-flimsy-his-concerns-about-spying-against-the-trump-campaign-really-are/
People have to understand, you know, one of the things here is that these efforts in 2016,
these counter-intelligence activities that were directed at the Trump Campaign,
were not done in the normal course and not through the normal procedures
as a far as I can tell.
And a lot of the people who were involved are no longer there.
What are the "normal procedures" for monitoring widespread, repe ive contacts between Trash's mafiya and an mortal adversary who was KNOWN to be attacking the American elections?
Will Barr ever say the it was McConnell who blocked Obama, seeking a bipartisan announcement, from announcing the Russians were attacking?
GOP attorneys release a devastating video that lays out the case for Trump’s prosecution
A group of prominent Republican attorneys this week released a new video arguing that President Donald Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice by special counsel Robert Mueller had Department of Justice guidelines allowed for the indictment of a sitting president.
The video features three prominent lawyers who have served under Republican presidents:
Jeffrey Harris, who served as deputy associate Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan;
Paul Rosenzweig, a deputy assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for former President George W. Bush; and
Donald Ayer, who served as deputy Attorney General for George H.W. Bush.
arguing that Attorney General Bill
Barr did not present a “fair and accurate” summary of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, and
they say he left out important information to make the report seem far less damning than it actually was with regards to whether the president obstructed justice.
“Obstruction of justice and perjury are far more important than most normal crimes,” Rosenzweig explains to viewers.
“They go to the absolute core of how the rule of law functions in this society.”
“One of the most disturbing things to me is the conduct of Republicans, in the Senate and in the House,” he said.
“These are actually smart people.
They know that there is a damning case, in the Mueller report, of obstruction of justice by the president, and
they are acting like it’s not.
And that’s just flatly dishonest."Honesty in Repugs? G M A F B
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/gop...s-prosecution/
If I thought you were not a pedophile, I would have said so. I didn't say so. Ergo: .................
Do you think he's a pedophile, Darrin?
I can't exonerate him.
its a bit different since you're just saying something out of your ass and mueller is saying it at the conclusion of a 2 year investigation into exactly that issue
you continue to prove that you are either stupid or disingenuous
OK, show us your investigation into his alleged pedophilia, Darrin.
You try. So. Hard.
FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”
SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.
FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government”.
... still you own yourself.
Every.
Single.
Time.
ing idiot.
Given that Darrin has bought in full the conspiracy theory that the deep state is trying to overthrow the Trump regime, I wouldn't expect him to differentiate in favor of the Mueller investigation.
Looks more like he's buying into the "dems are pedophiles" TSAQ narrative.
... and
you. Go eat a , waffle.
There are few things that I would ever really want to get in a fight over, but being accused of being pedophile is one of them. That is low even for you. Consider yourself lucky we aren't in the same room.
What is an uncons utional reason, derp?
The court said it couldn't review impeachments at all.
Period.
lol derp
There was no point in Mueller saying it. He's not in the exoneration business.
Imagine how angry you would be if you were investigated for being a pedo for two years, they found no evidence, but said they couldn't exonerate you.
changing the subject.
do you see a legitimate distinction between some arbitrary claim of RG being a pedo (or whatever, i know its all to make a point and not an actual allegation) and a statement following a 2 year investigation?
What if they found a lot of evidence but we're prohibited from indicting you because of department policy, Darrin?
This is about the point where Darrin goes onto hiding, or posts a youtube of some ty comedy routine.
they took very different tones with respect to collusion and obstruction.
if somebody investigated me for two years and concluded that their investigation did not identify any evidence of any pedophlic activity or intent, then yeah i'd be pretty satisfied with that.
thats what mueller said about collusion.
That means he absolutely won't rule it out. That's a nothing burger with cheese, kidnapper.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
