ggait wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:51 pm
I've had FNC on in the background this afternoon while working in the home office.
The coverage by most of the actual news people (Bret Baier, Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, Katherine Herridge) has been pretty credible and reasonable. Not much different than what you'd get from, say, Anderson Cooper. Most of the panelist/opinion types, however, are ridiculous. I can only imagine how over-the-top the evening line-up of Hannity etc. will be.
Kudos to Judge Napolitano for telling it pretty straight -- Barr was pretty accurate in summarizing how Mueller didn't get to prove-able conspiracy; Barr was misleading and not credible at all in his summary on the obstruction piece; while Trump is scot-free (sitting president thing) legally, he did obstruct and should be held accountable for that politically.
Nap had a nice metaphor for Mueller's and Barr's legal view of obstruction. You tackle me in the street and break my leg as I am heading into the courthouse to testify against you. I still manage to make it inside to testify. Barr says (wrongly) no obstruction because I still testified. Mueller and Nap say that is obstruction -- because you tried to interfere with my testimony.
Wrongmetaphor. Trump THOUGHT about tackling you but didn't. Big difference
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:09 pm
by CU77
No. Trump told his underlings to tackle you (multiple times), and they refused.
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:10 pm
by ggait
Six Foot -- that's bull shirt. Trump had plenty of dirty actions. On just one situation.
Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller. McGahn said he wouldn't do it and prepared to resign.
NY Times then reports that Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller. Trump pressures McGahn repeatedly to lie and say Trump didn't do that. McGahn says the reporting is true and refuses. Trump challenges McGahn for taking accurate notes and also providing accurate testimony to Mueller.
Trump then directs Rob Porter to order McGahn to create a false record that Trump didn't ask for Mueller to be fired. Porter tells McGahn he'll be fired if he doesn't write the fake letter. McGahn tells Porter to fork off.
Trump calls McGahn into the Oval Office and tells McGahn he needs to correct the NY Times story. McGahn tells Trump to fork off.
Read the report yourself. Mueller eviscerates Trump's lame explanation -- "I never directly told McGahn to fire Mueller. I told him to call Rosenstein and tell him that because Mueller was so conflicted that Mueller had to go."
Trump totally obstructed justice. But Trump is ineffective at it because he is also a wimp.
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:15 pm
by 6ftstick
ggait wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:10 pm
Six Foot -- that's bull shirt. Trump had plenty of dirty actions. On just one situation.
Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller. McGahn said he wouldn't do it and prepared to resign.
NY Times then reports that Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller. Trump pressures McGahn repeatedly to lie and say Trump didn't do that. McGahn says the reporting is true and refuses. Trump challenges McGahn for taking accurate notes and also providing accurate testimony to Mueller.
Trump then directs Rob Porter to order McGahn to create a false record that Trump didn't ask for Mueller to be fired. Porter tells McGahn he'll be fired if he doesn't write the fake letter. McGahn tells Porter to fork off.
Trump calls McGahn into the Oval Office and tells McGahn he needs to correct the NY Times story. McGahn tells Trump to fork off.
Trump totally obstructed justice. But Trump is ineffective at it because he is also a wimp.
Trump knows theres no collusion. MUELLER knows there s no collusion. Yet Mueller continues the investigation with nothing to investigate for 675 days.
Trump should have fired them all. BUT HE DIDN'T
How do you obstruct an investigation into a crime that never happened. And the investigator knows it.
ggait wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:10 pm
Six Foot -- that's bull shirt. Trump had plenty of dirty actions. On just one situation.
Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller. McGahn said he wouldn't do it and prepared to resign.
NY Times then reports that Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller. Trump pressures McGahn repeatedly to lie and say Trump didn't do that. McGahn says the reporting is true and refuses. Trump challenges McGahn for taking accurate notes and also providing accurate testimony to Mueller.
Trump then directs Rob Porter to order McGahn to create a false record that Trump didn't ask for Mueller to be fired. Porter tells McGahn he'll be fired if he doesn't write the fake letter. McGahn tells Porter to fork off.
Trump calls McGahn into the Oval Office and tells McGahn he needs to correct the NY Times story. McGahn tells Trump to fork off.
Trump totally obstructed justice. But Trump is ineffective at it because he is also a wimp.
Trump knows theres no collusion. MUELLER knows there s no collusion. Yet Mueller continues the investigation with nothing to investigate for 675 days.
Trump should have fired them all. BUT HE DIDN'T
How do you obstruct an investigation into a crime that never happened. And the investigator knows it.
Shleprock, Um....Obstructing an investigation....um Justice is determining innocence or guilt.....
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:29 pm
by calourie
Impact of the report will come out in the approval ratings over the next week or two. Plus movement a victory for Trump and Barr, negative direction a setback for the Dumpster and his cohorts.
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:30 pm
by a fan
6ftstick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:15 pm
[Trump knows theres no collusion. MUELLER knows there s no collusion. Yet Mueller continues the investigation with nothing to investigate for 675 days.
Trump should have fired them all. BUT HE DIDN'T
How do you obstruct an investigation into a crime that never happened. And the investigator knows it.
Let me try and help you one last time.
Did you remember that it was Benghazi investigation that led to the finding of Hillary's email servers, right?
Do you remember yelling at the Forum that "we didn't understand, this investigation is supposed to be about Benghazi, and any other criminal findings about her leaving classified information exposed were just part of a witch hunt against Hillary, and "therefore" don't count"??
Yeah, I don't either. You can't see the forest from the trees anytime the letter R shows up.
What was it you wrote a page ago-----oh yeah , " Pick a name and send the US government alphabet soup togo fishing to find a crime.
What this sentence means is that you were outraged that they started with a simple investigation into Hillary's involvement in Benghazi ,and "sent the US government alphabet soup togo fishing to find a crime against Hillary.
Right? Oh yeah, I totally remember how mad you were the FBI went after Hillary, looking for a crime. Politicizing our FBI to go after Hillary.
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:33 pm
by get it to x
If Mueller had the goods on Trump for obstruction we would have seen an indictment. Instead, Mueller's move was more of a hand off to Nadler, and he and his team knew it. He was, and still is, a very dirty cop. He let innocent men die in jail and let Whitey Bulger run wild so he could have an informant. He screwed up the FBI with his "Up or Out" program. He is at least tangentially involved in the Uranium One deal.
Face it, he punted one of his sworn duties to either indict or not on the obstruction question. If he had done his job this whole thing would be over, because he admitted he didn't have enough to indict on obstruction and should have left it at that.
If a prosecutor told a judge "I'm not sure he robbed that bank but I'm not sure he didn't either" the judge would dismiss without prejudice and possibly sanction the attorney.
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:06 pm
by holmes435
get it to x wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:33 pm
If Mueller had the goods on Trump for obstruction we would have seen an indictment. Instead, Mueller's move was more of a hand off to Nadler, and he and his team knew it. He was, and still is, a very dirty cop. He let innocent men die in jail and let Whitey Bulger run wild so he could have an informant. He screwed up the FBI with his "Up or Out" program. He is at least tangentially involved in the Uranium One deal.
Face it, he punted one of his sworn duties to either indict or not on the obstruction question. If he had done his job this whole thing would be over, because he admitted he didn't have enough to indict on obstruction and should have left it at that.
If a prosecutor told a judge "I'm not sure he robbed that bank but I'm not sure he didn't either" the judge would dismiss without prejudice and possibly sanction the attorney.
This is absolutely wrong. Mueller literally wrote that if they had confidence Trump didn't obstruct that "we would so state". Yet he says "we were unable to reach that judgement".
The lack of an indictment is because of the DOJ's policy on not prosecuting a sitting president. So he passed it on to Congress who actually has the checks and balances on the president.
The summary of Part II: Obstruction is basically, "Because of DOJ guidelines we cannot submit a decision on whether or not Trump committed obstruction of justice. But here is 100+ pages of evidence showing you he did in case Congress wants to act".
get it to x wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:33 pm
If Mueller had the goods on Trump for obstruction we would have seen an indictment. Instead, Mueller's move was more of a hand off to Nadler, and he and his team knew it. He was, and still is, a very dirty cop. He let innocent men die in jail and let Whitey Bulger run wild so he could have an informant. He screwed up the FBI with his "Up or Out" program. He is at least tangentially involved in the Uranium One deal.
Face it, he punted one of his sworn duties to either indict or not on the obstruction question. If he had done his job this whole thing would be over, because he admitted he didn't have enough to indict on obstruction and should have left it at that.
If a prosecutor told a judge "I'm not sure he robbed that bank but I'm not sure he didn't either" the judge would dismiss without prejudice and possibly sanction the attorney.
This is absolutely wrong. Mueller literally wrote that if they had confidence Trump didn't obstruct that "we would so state". Yet he says "we were unable to reach that judgement".
The lack of an indictment is because of the DOJ's policy on not prosecuting a sitting president. So he passed it on to Congress who actually has the checks and balances on the president.
The summary of Part II: Obstruction is basically, "Because of DOJ guidelines we cannot submit a decision on whether or not Trump committed obstruction of justice. But here is 100+ pages of evidence showing you he did in case Congress wants to act".
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:24 pm
by holmes435
6ftstick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:15 pmHow do you obstruct an investigation into a crime that never happened. And the investigator knows it.
This is an idiotic argument.
Case 1: You murder someone and pay someone else $50k to say you were 1,000 miles away. The police have no evidence you committed the murder.
Case 2: You may or may not have murdered someone and pay someone else $50k to say you were 1,000 miles away.
Case 3: Someone was murdered and you were off laundering money somewhere else. You didn't commit the murder but pay someone $50k to say you were 1,000 miles away from the murder.
Case 4: Someone was murdered. You are innocent but pay someone else $50k to say you were 1,000 miles away.
get it to x wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:33 pm
If Mueller had the goods on Trump for obstruction we would have seen an indictment. Instead, Mueller's move was more of a hand off to Nadler, and he and his team knew it. He was, and still is, a very dirty cop. He let innocent men die in jail and let Whitey Bulger run wild so he could have an informant. He screwed up the FBI with his "Up or Out" program. He is at least tangentially involved in the Uranium One deal.
Face it, he punted one of his sworn duties to either indict or not on the obstruction question. If he had done his job this whole thing would be over, because he admitted he didn't have enough to indict on obstruction and should have left it at that.
If a prosecutor told a judge "I'm not sure he robbed that bank but I'm not sure he didn't either" the judge would dismiss without prejudice and possibly sanction the attorney.
This is absolutely wrong. Mueller literally wrote that if they had confidence Trump didn't obstruct that "we would so state". Yet he says "we were unable to reach that judgement".
The lack of an indictment is because of the DOJ's policy on not prosecuting a sitting president. So he passed it on to Congress who actually has the checks and balances on the president.
The summary of Part II: Obstruction is basically, "Because of DOJ guidelines we cannot submit a decision on whether or not Trump committed obstruction of justice. But here is 100+ pages of evidence showing you he did in case Congress wants to act".
DOJ guidelines had zero to do with that. Most of their concerns were his public statements. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that Mueller abrogated his duty that the law that governs Special Counsels requires.
BTW, I hope the Dems rev up the impeachment mobile, which is more like a clown car. America will reject that move and we'll stave off socialism for another four years.
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:54 pm
by ggait
If Mueller had the goods on Trump for obstruction we would have seen an indictment.
X -- you have to read what Mueller himself says. Not what Barr or Trump says.
He says that it was impossible for him to charge the president with obstruction due to the DOJ OLC policy. Since he could not charge him (regardless of the evidence) he says it would be unfair to conclude he committed a crime when no charges could be brought. So Mueller "determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes." Page 2 of Volume 2; page 214 of the PDF.
Mueller also says that if they concluded that Trump DID NOT obstruct justice, "we would so state. Based on the facts...we are unable to reach that judgment."
Mueller lays out the obstruction evidence for Congress and voters because he is prohibited from making any conclusions and charges against Trump. This is not in dispute at all.
My synopsis -- Mueller is saying he would charge Trump with obstruction if he could. But since he can't, ball is in your court Congress.
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:59 pm
by RedFromMI
ggait wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:54 pm
X -- you have to read what Mueller himself says. Not what Barr or Trump says.
He says that it was impossible for him to charge the president with obstruction due to the DOJ OLC policy. Since he could not charge him (regardless of the evidence) he says it would be unfair to conclude he committed a crime when no charges could be brought. So Mueller "determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes." Page 2 of Volume 2; page 214 of the PDF.
Mueller also says that if they concluded that Trump DID NOT obstruct justice, "we would so state. Based on the facts...we are unable to reach that judgment."
Mueller lays out the obstruction evidence for Congress and voters because he is prohibited from making any conclusions and charges against Trump. This is not in dispute at all.
My synopsis -- Mueller is saying he would charge Trump with obstruction if he could. But since he can't, ball is in your court Congress.
So you have two choices here due to the strict following of the current policy (do not indict a sitting President) - you hand off everything to Congress to deal with the criminal activity as a crime (high crimes or misdemeanors), or you wait until Trump is out of office and open the case up and actually bring charges...
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:14 pm
by a fan
get it to x wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:25 pm
America will reject that move and we'll stave off socialism for another four years.
Right. Whew. Good thing.
Remind me again, which Division I lacrosse team is #1 in the Coaches Poll this week?
Oh, right. It's the socialist team from the State of Pennsylvania, owned and operated by the government.
Quick, you should call Tambroni at Penn State and let him know they can't exist for four more years!!!
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:23 pm
by wahoomurf
I love some of Trump's comments.He was "effed" ; "His Presidency is over";"McGahn...you must s-can Mueller"; "Then, Trump asked McGahn to write a bullfrofth memo,denying he(Trump) asked McGahn to fire Mueller".
I get a kick out of 72" kindling's take on what he,72",read in the report.
"There was no collusion". Again"there was no collusion".Yup..."no collusion".
WONDER IF THERE WERE ANY ATTEMPTS TO OBSTRUCT?
Ah the beauty of facultative interpretation.
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:48 pm
by youthathletics
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 6:40 pm
I read it from start to finish.
Don't lie. Don't meet with spies in Hotels. Don't fire Comey. Don't obstruct justice.
You want to ignore all this, and we both know why.
You are ignoring (maybe intentionally) the fact that BHO said Russia or any country can not influence our election, you are ignoring how HRC AND the !7 intel agencies provided her talking points, you are ignoring that we were ALL set up by the left for this to only be Political Hit job to get HRC into office and make Trump appear like a traitor.
Trump comes out this clean as snow, probably the cleanest President evah....who else has been investigated this deep and still comes out without more than little scratch.
Just admit it, we got duped by the last admin, and HRC set the all the wheels in motion with the OP Research project.
Re: The Mueller Investigation
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:59 pm
by old salt
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 4:51 pm
Waiting on Captain Binghamton to give a read out
get it to x wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:25 pmBTW, I hope the Dems rev up the impeachment mobile, which is more like a clown car. America will reject that move and we'll stave off socialism for another four years.
Be careful what you wish for. The obstruction of justice impeachment clown car worked for Republicans in the 2000 election, even with a booming economy (though it was on the brink of collapse).
Now you have potential obstruction of justice impeachment alongside him on tape bragging about sexual assault, not just getting a hummer in the white house.
I guess the rape accusation, sexual assaults and bragging about it doesn't matter anymore to the moral majority though.
Oh yeah, I totally remember how mad you were the FBI went after Hillary, looking for a crime. Politicizing our FBI to go after Hillary.
. ....