I find it nearly impossible to believe that Mueller neither received nor requested clear guidance from the DoJ as to whether he could indict Trump, recommend indicting Trump, or recommend impeachment. To find ourselves in a situation where this wasn't clear before delivering the report to Barr is bad enough.
But then Barr took a position that it was his responsibility to make the determination of a crime without consulting Mueller or reviewing any of the underlying evidence directly. And he made a decision where Mueller clearly indicated misrepresented his findings and objected as damaging to the country in doing so. And the fact that he made a decision at all is expressly outside Mueller's expectations for what would happen with the report as Mueller specifically identifies it to be Congress' job to determine.
Even more than that, the reason why Mueller stated he ultimately did not interview Trump is that he felt the underlying evidence was so compelling that undergoing the legal battle to obtain his testimony would delay delivering these findings to Congress to act upon them. If Mueller felt no action was appropriate, he would not make such a statement. But if we take the best case scenario and accept that Barr has valid reasons to think reasonable doubt for corrupt intent by Trump exists (which I think his arguments don't hold up), then the best he could actually say is that the investigation is incomplete. Clearly interviewing Trump is of relevance to examining his intent if evidence of this was otherwise insufficient.
But then Barr took a position that it was his responsibility to make the determination of a crime without consulting Mueller or reviewing any of the underlying evidence directly. And he made a decision where Mueller clearly indicated misrepresented his findings and objected as damaging to the country in doing so. And the fact that he made a decision at all is expressly outside Mueller's expectations for what would happen with the report as Mueller specifically identifies it to be Congress' job to determine.
Even more than that, the reason why Mueller stated he ultimately did not interview Trump is that he felt the underlying evidence was so compelling that undergoing the legal battle to obtain his testimony would delay delivering these findings to Congress to act upon them. If Mueller felt no action was appropriate, he would not make such a statement. But if we take the best case scenario and accept that Barr has valid reasons to think reasonable doubt for corrupt intent by Trump exists (which I think his arguments don't hold up), then the best he could actually say is that the investigation is incomplete. Clearly interviewing Trump is of relevance to examining his intent if evidence of this was otherwise insufficient.
MomentsofSanity
Lifer
- Jan 25, 2011
- 17,046
- 9,509
- 146
Imma throw up...
- Deleted Tweet
New link. Original reporting was Trump asking if he "could" let McGahn testify. It's been clarified.
OMG Second tweet deleted.
Nothing happened!
Fuck off.
- Deleted Tweet
New link. Original reporting was Trump asking if he "could" let McGahn testify. It's been clarified.
OMG Second tweet deleted.
Nothing happened!
Fuck off.
Last edited:
WTF?! hahahaha He needs to be impeached for being the world's biggest IDIOT.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,204
- 32,698
- 136
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,862
- 17,403
- 136
I think it was a tweet about Sara Huckabee saying the President has an hour long phone call with Putin about the Mueller investigation
MomentsofSanity
Lifer
- Jan 25, 2011
- 17,046
- 9,509
- 146
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,204
- 32,698
- 136
MomentsofSanity
Lifer
- Jan 25, 2011
- 17,046
- 9,509
- 146
The tweets were news items from Sanders about the call with Putin. First once was he asked Putin. If he COULD let McGahn testify. Second was he discussed whether he should let him
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,204
- 32,698
- 136
I am trying to wrap my brain around what you are saying. It just keeps getting rejected though.
MomentsofSanity
Lifer
- Jan 25, 2011
- 17,046
- 9,509
- 146
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,204
- 32,698
- 136
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nadler-makes-another-accommodation-barr-151442382.html
Nadler playing the part of Charlie Brown to Barr's Lucy.
Nadler playing the part of Charlie Brown to Barr's Lucy.
Well folks, here is Mueller's chance to be a hero or the GOP's little bitch.
Barr is working his ass off to end the 14 ongoing investigations.
Barr is working his ass off to end the 14 ongoing investigations.
MomentsofSanity
Lifer
- Jan 25, 2011
- 17,046
- 9,509
- 146
Substance of the phone call, not the report.Well folks, here is Mueller's chance to be a hero or the GOP's little bitch.
Barr is working his ass off to end the 14 ongoing investigations.
Testimony regarding the substance of the phone call will determine whether or not Barr lied to congress, that works well enough. I imagine there'll be a few other questions they'll have once they've got him in the room.
So...we are in a situation where Trump is free to discuss the election attack with the man his campaign teamed up with to attack us, while simultaneously the Attorney General refuses to speak to the House of Representatives about that very topic.
Obviously the logic in sending SHS out to a press pool to talk about how Trump and Putin spoke about the report is they're pretty much telling Democrats they can kiss his fat orange ass.
Obviously the logic in sending SHS out to a press pool to talk about how Trump and Putin spoke about the report is they're pretty much telling Democrats they can kiss his fat orange ass.
It's about Barr's summary of the report. Barr was saying Mueller didn't think his summary was inaccurate/misleading. Graham is asking Mueller if he can refute it. Important! I HOPE Mueller wasn't pulling a Romney here. The good thing is that Barr has given little room for Mueller to give him anything nice. Barr didn't read the report, he's disingenuously arguing that Mueller could have made a charging decision, etc.
Btw guys, GREAT idea by Seth:
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,788
- 31,213
- 146
I don't understand how it's not aiding and abetting. Even if not criminal, he's clearly compromised. We don't need the counterintelligence investigation findings to know that. He's signaling he wants help, and will reward them for doing so. The GOP itself has made clear they'll make compromises on their position with Russia if they do it.
Any rational conclusion from the Mueller report based on Russian coordination clearly demonstrates that Trump shows clear alliance with a foreign power who actively undermined the integrity of our election, that Trump clearly knew about it and repeatedly misled the government and the public from understanding the truth about what happened, failed to start and in some cases thwarted initiatives to discover what happened and protect us from future attack.
I'm not sure I buy that these actions are not criminal, but certainly Mueller didn't find conspiracy under the narrow definition he was allowed to look for.
And yet his actions are unquestionably an egregious dereliction of duty. Those grounds ought to be sufficient for his swift removal. It's sickening how completely our system of government has been usurped.
hal2kilo
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2009
- 25,878
- 12,170
- 136
Not doing much protection and defending us is he. That's a constitutional mandate.
New Rules! But only after the fact, of course. None of which really matters, given that the House defines what's an impeachable offense, not a prosecutable offense. The Constitution is a higher order of the Law.
He can say anything he wants. Barr can fire him for it but I don't think he's skeered.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Facebook
Twitter