No Collusion!

[firstfloor]

Please quote from the report where you think Mueller made this declaration.

Or don't. Barr, Rosenstein, and other DOJ officials confirmed that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a corruption charge, so it's a moot point.

This might help:
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statem...s-8ab7691c2aa1

It seems that hundreds of legal experts have signed.

The devil himself is whispering in your ear; save your soul by listening to Rachel.

[Mountain Man]

I see... so you are unable to quote Mueller's own words saying that the only reason he didn't recommend indicting the President is because of DOJ rules.

[firstfloor]

I see... so you are unable to quote Mueller's own words saying that the only reason he didn't recommend indicting the President is because of DOJ rules.

The Introduction to Volume II explains why he said “... but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement.”

Barr, as we know, did make a judgement but we also know that he did not consider the evidence or his own departments policy before doing so. He has acted in bad faith.

[One Bad Pig]

I see... so you are unable to quote Mueller's own words saying that the only reason he didn't recommend indicting the President is because of DOJ rules.

Why do that when you can find a plethora of Democrats and Never-Trumpers to partisanly parse things for you?

[Bill the Cat]

The Introduction to Volume II explains why he said “... but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement.”

Barr, as we know, did make a judgement but we also know that he did not consider the evidence or his own departments policy before doing so. He has acted in bad faith.

He did consider the evidence. He didn't personally re-investigate it, but he and his staff read and considered it.

[One Bad Pig]

He did consider the evidence. He didn't personally re-investigate it, but he and his staff read and considered it.

Funny how those who are more than willing to act in bad faith have a penchant for accusing others of doing the same.

[firstfloor]

He did consider the evidence. He didn't personally re-investigate it, but he and his staff read and considered it.

Congress asked him and he said he had not read the evidence.

[Cow Poke]

Congress asked him and he said he had not read the evidence.

It would improve your credibility if you could occasionally provide an actual cite without being pressed.

[Bill the Cat]

Congress asked him and he said he had not read the evidence.

No he didn't. He said

We accepted the statements in the report as the actual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate,

That means they read the evidence, but did not independently re-investigate the evidence. It was read.

[Cow Poke]

No he didn't. He said

We accepted the statements in the report as the actual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate,

That means they read the evidence, but did not independently re-investigate the evidence. It was read.

And that, sir, is why my good friend ff rarely uses cites or actual quotes.

[firstfloor]

No he didn't. He said

We accepted the statements in the report as the actual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate,

That means they read the evidence, but did not independently re-investigate the evidence. It was read.

The reason that Barr is AG is because he had already demonstrated a legal theory that placed POTUS above the law. He didn’t need to read the evidence in order to write his verdict other than simply check that the door was open just enough for him to creep through like a thief in the night. He is without a doubt the most villainous AG since John Mitchell.

[firstfloor]

It would improve your credibility if you could occasionally provide an actual cite without being pressed.

I was referring, of course, to the question put by the wonderful Kamala Harris to the effect of ‘did you read the evidence?’ (as opposed to the findings in Mueller’s report), to which the immediate answer was no, (why would I, I’d already made up my mind.)

How’s that for credibility?

[RumTumTugger]

And that, sir, is why my good friend ff rarely uses cites or actual quotes.

It's same reason JimL doesn't use cites or actual quotes

[Cow Poke]

I was referring, of course, to the question put by the wonderful Kamala Harris to the effect of ‘did you read the evidence?’ (as opposed to the findings in Mueller’s report), to which the immediate answer was no, (why would I, I’d already made up my mind.)

How’s that for credibility?

You're almost as credible as a used car salesman*..... keep striving!

But, again, 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.



*I could have said 'a member of Congress' but I don't think you're quite THAT bad

[Mountain Man]

The reason that Barr is AG is because he had already demonstrated a legal theory that placed POTUS above the law.

Fake news.