No Collusion!

[JimL]

Your puppetmasters at LiberalTalkingPointsForDummies are so proud of you.

(and it's "misled", if, in fact he did that)

"If in fact he did that?" Just can't overcome that bias enough to admit to reality when you see it, eh CP?

[JimL]

So you’re going to call for the arrest of James Clapper?

It"s telling how you all seem to unconsciously admit to knowing the President is guilty, but defend it anyway because you think someone else got away with it. Seems to be a pattern with you people. Consciousness of guilt I'd call it! Really sad when your Country, when democracy itself is at stake. Long live King Trump!

[JimL]

There was a commercial running here (don't know about elsewhere) pushing to have the entire Mueller report released^[1] in which some guy was ranting about how Barr released his summary within a day of having officially been given the report and saying that he could not have read the report in that amount of time.

He is right.

But what he got wrong is that Barr was given a copy about a week before it was officially turned over. So he and Rod Rosenstein (who the left always conveniently leave out of the process) had a week to read through it not less than a day. So it is utter nonsense to claim that they didn't read the report. Moreover Mueller saw all the evidence including that concerning Manafort. An entire section was dedicated to it. And he concluded that Manafort's handing some polling data over to a Ukrainian (not a Russian as you keep saying and have been corrected about) operative did not involve any sort of collusion.

So unless you believe that both Rosenstein (the same guy who tried to get people to secretly wear a wire to gather evidence to have Trump removed from office) and Mueller himself are part of some sort of conspiracy to cover up Trump colluding with the Russians, you can stop [ATTACH=CONFIG]36832[/ATTACH]


And btw, the MSM and other liberals have started attacking Barr the moment he mentioned that Trump had been spied upon. That is what started it.





1. all these campaigns were unnecessary since Barr had already made it clear it would be released in a couple weeks -- unless the motive was to confuse people by making them (falsely) think that he was resisting releasing it.

The Atty General was asked several questions regarding events that took place as detailed in the Mueller report and his answers made clear that he had no idea what the questioners were talking about. That can only mean that he never even read the report. He for certain never read the underlying evidence supporting the facts of those events, because he admitted to never seeing it. So, how can he, the Atty General, come to his own conclusions, since he said that Mueller left it up to him to decide the matter, if he never even read the evidence as detailed in the underlying report? It was a bag job, pure and simple. And now, should the President, with the aid of the DOJ, led by Barr, be allowed to get away with this, then you can kiss the seperate but equal branch system and oversight of the executive branch goodby and welcome in the above the law executive.

[JimL]

What Lies? No evidence that AG Barr lied (as stated before).

About AG Barr acting as Trumps Attorney:
I seem to remember all the Democrat Senators calling on AG Holder to resign after he said he was "Obama's Wingman", Oh wait, not a one said anything about that so non of them have any right to complain about it now.

Plus, Since Mueller said he did not have the evidence to convict Trump on Obstruction of Justice, legally the only thing AG Barr could do was pronounce Trump not guilty. If you have a problem with that blame Mueller for being to chicken to do his job, not Barr for doing his.

You guys, unconsciously, keep giving yourselves away. 'We believe Obama was a dictator therefore it's okay if Trump is!"

[JimL]

Hillary could say "I won the election" and Jimmy would attempt to prove that she had (she got more votes).
Barr could say "I am the AG of the US" and Jimmy would find a way to argue that he's not.

It's only a lie if Jimmy says it is.

[JimL]

I don't get the sense that Barr is going out of his way to defend Trump or act as the President's "wingman". He's done nothing more than affirm Mueller's findings that Trump committed no crimes. What else can he do?

Except that Mueller never found that Trump, or his campaign, was innocent of anything. Mueller didn't conclude anything. That was Barr's cherry picked, out of context, spin on the special councels work. Since a sitting President can't be indicted, then the only body able to decide the matter is Congress, not Mueller, and not the Atty Gen. But the Atty Gen took it upon himself anyway (bag job) to declare the President innocent without even reading the report or the underlying evidence supporting the report.

[JimL]

I mean as far as Trump is concerned. It's not like Barr could have indicted him without evidence, which appears to be what the Democrats want.

A sitting President can not be indicted, he can be impeached, but not indicted, or did you forget about that?

[Cow Poke]

"If in fact he did that?"

Misled, yes. Not mislead.

[RumTumTugger]

"If in fact he did that?" Just can't overcome that bias enough to admit to reality when you see it, eh CP?

JimL you really need to give Starlight his Mirror back and invest in a monitor.

[Tassman]

Again, prosecutors don't exonerate. The "applicable legal standard" referred to is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which Mueller didn't have, and AG Barr and DAG Rosenstein affirmed Mueller's decision not to pursue indictment.

Mueller’s decision not to pursue indictment was solely because he was observing DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president. Nevertheless, he made clear that he very specifically does not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. We are unable to reach such a judgment.” IOW: it's now over to Congress.

[rogue06]

Mueller’s decision not to pursue indictment was solely because he was observing DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president. Nevertheless, he made clear that he very specifically does not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. We are unable to reach such a judgment.” IOW: it's now over to Congress.

How many times do you need to be told that a special prosecutor does not exonerate, and cannot exonerate? That is because making conclusive determinations of innocence is never the task of a special prosecutor. Their job is to complete an investigation and then either ask the grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case and nothing more.

If the special prosecutor doesn't think that they can make the case then they're supposed to drop it. It isn't like they keep searching until they can exonerate the accused because that is not the job of any prosecutor. Ever.

[Mountain Man]

Mueller’s decision not to pursue indictment was solely because he was observing DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president. Nevertheless, he made clear that he very specifically does not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. We are unable to reach such a judgment.” IOW: it's now over to Congress.

He also never clearly stated that the President did commit obstruction of justice, and Barr and Rosenstein affirmed this conclusion:

"Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

And pay attention to this next sentence:

"Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."

[firstfloor]

Barr told congress that he did not read the evidence before coming to a conclusion based on the evidence he failed to consider. The AG is in Trump’s pocket just like Trump is in Putin’s pocket.
We are watching a rerun of Watergate with bells on.

[Cow Poke]

Barr told congress that he did not read the evidence before coming to a conclusion based on the evidence he failed to consider.

It's understandable why you didn't include an actual link or cite or quote. What he actually said was:

"No, we accepted the statements in the report as a factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate," Barr said of himself and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

So, your account is inaccurate, at best.

The AG is in Trump’s pocket just like Trump is in Putin’s pocket. We are watching a rerun of Watergate with bells on.

Jimmy is sharing his LiberalTalkiingPointsForDummies with you, eh?

[The Pendragon]

You guys, unconsciously, keep giving yourselves away. 'We believe Obama was a dictator therefore it's okay if Trump is!"

JimL, you are really bad a mind reading. Show me where I ever said "'We believe Obama was a dictator therefore it's okay if Trump is!"?

It's you that keep calling Trump a dictator and if you see a similarity in Obama's actions that you attribute to a dictatorship it's you that is making that connection. Why are 'You' calling Obama a dictator?

In Your words, it is plain to see the evidence is right there in plain site, I was showing the hypocrisy of the Dem's and Press. "Those who live in glass house ...".

Also, where was a second paragraph in my post. I know its hard for you to make it through the whole post but try.

Plus, Since Mueller said he did not have the evidence to convict Trump on Obstruction of Justice, legally the only thing AG Barr could do was pronounce Trump not guilty. If you have a problem with that blame Mueller for being to chicken to do his job, not Barr for doing his.

So, that you don't strain you brain trying to read my mine, here is the explanation (Please read it a few time so that we don't have to repost it 10 to 15 times):

Mueller's Job was to see if he could find enough evidence to prove "Collusion of Conspiracy between Trump and the Russians" , He widened his scope to include "Obstruction of Justice", So in the end the report was suppose to say 'I have evidence that it happened or I don't have evidence'. If Mueller says No Evidence that ends it, and that is what he did on both counts, nothing else matter and is just 'Political Whining'. "Including any DOJ rule about indicting a sitting Pesident"

Remember Mueller said that he did not enough evidence to prove Trump innocent, this is not his job and was out of scope for the investigation, I don't remember any one appointing Mueller "Special Council for the Defense". He Job is only to present evidence of guilt, and after 2yrs., 300 interviews, Millions of pieces of documentation, He came up with 10 or 11 weak hearsay with no hard evidence to back it up, on Obstruction. I say weak for two reasons:

1. Mueller admitted that it was not strong enough to convict.
2. If there was hard evidence and enough to convict (or Impeach) It would have been in the report and congress would not have to do any farther hearings or investigation. They would not have to see the underlying documents or testimony. The report would be all they needed to prove Impeachment.

Now comes the very important part to listen up:
Mueller did not complete his job, he was suppose to make a decision on "Obstruction", but he dropped the ball and did a wishy-washy we could not find the evidence to convict, but we still think he did it, so he's not guilty, but he's not innocent.
In the real world if an employee or contractor does not finish the Job the manager needs to see that its finished. In the case where a decision needs to be made and it not made the manager makes that decision. So, in this case Mueller did not make the decision that needed to be made, it fell to AG Barr (His manager) to make.

Since, Trump can't be guilty and not guilty at the same time, AG Barr had to make the decision on the fact that although there was evidence, that evidence was so weak that not even Mueller was confident in it. Under those conditions AG Barr had to come back with the decision that the evidence was not in the report that Trump was guilty of "Obstruction".

By the way how many times have I heard from the press and the democrats say, "Wait for the Mueller report that will be that final word on all of this." Now that the report does not say what they want and give them enough to Impeach Trump, they are saying "The Mueller report did not go far enough, we need to Investigate more and do what Mueller could not do."

Questions:

1. With all the time, witness, documentation, and money spent on this investigation. What does the congress think they are going to find that Mueller and his team missed?
   
2. During the Cavanaugh hearings I remember the Democrats where calling for an FBI investigation because they where unable to investigate it themselves. If they could not do the investigation then, What makes them think they can do it better then Mueller and the FBI, in a much more complex case here?

JimL, Tass, I've bolded some of the important parts of this post to make them look more like headlines, because I know that that is mostly where you get your information.

But just once please read more the just the bolded parts.