It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: underwerks
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: underwerks
Why would someone need a counter report for something that totally exonerates them?
Hmmm...
So I guess you don't watch the news and what they do with any information relating to Trump.
HHmmm...
If the Mueller report totally exonerates him, what's up for interpretation?
Unless it doesn't really exonerate him..
member edited
originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: underwerks
Because the entire investigation then report was based on false grounds and criminally falsified allegations
originally posted by: underwerks
Why would someone need a counter report for something that totally exonerates them?
Hmmm...
www.latimes.com...
Do presidents oversee investigations of the Justice Department?
Definitely not.
Long-standing protocol dictates that the FBI and Justice Department operate free of political influence or meddling from the White House. That's one reason that the FBI director serves a 10-year term and does not turn over the reins as presidential administrations come and go. It also means that presidents are not supposed to supervise, initiate or stop law enforcement investigations.
White House officials and Justice Department lawyers aren't even meant to talk with each other about ongoing criminal investigations or civil enforcement actions, though there is some leeway granted for matters of national security.
A 2007 Justice Department memorandum says the department will advise the White House of criminal or civil enforcement matters "only where it is important for the performance of the president's duties and where appropriate from a law enforcement perspective."
"This limitation recognizes the president's ability to perform his constitutional obligation to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' while ensuring that there is public confidence that the laws of the United States are administered and enforced in an impartial manner," the memo states.
originally posted by: underwerks
originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: underwerks
Because the entire investigation then report was based on false grounds and criminally falsified allegations
Even if that's true, he said it totally exonerates him. Do you not believe that now?
originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Sookiechacha
There was no wrong-doing... did you miss that part of Barr's report?
So the White house was offered the report prior to its release...
Because legally Trump can claim executive privilege now.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: underwerks
I won't know unless I read it
originally posted by: underwerks
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: underwerks
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: underwerks
Why would someone need a counter report for something that totally exonerates them?
Hmmm...
So I guess you don't watch the news and what they do with any information relating to Trump.
HHmmm...
If the Mueller report totally exonerates him, what's up for interpretation?
Unless it doesn't really exonerate him..
I'm sorry... I didn't realize you were that stupid.
The left will cherry-pick every single sentence in the report, parse it, attempt to spin it in a way that somehow will put Trump in a bad light.
It's called politics and the left are exceedingly good at smear campaigns because they don't have an actual positive platform to run on.
So again, I'm assuming you have not watched the news since 2016, looked at what was there, actually researched it and came to your own conclusions on the matter.
Again, if it totally exonerates him, why the extra report? Why not let it speak for itself? Why the attempt to frame it with his take on it?
None of that is needed if it is what he said it is. No matter how hard the media tries to spin something, the facts are the facts regardless of their take on it.
So, if it exonerates him like you and everyone else here have been screaming for the past few weeks, why not let it speak for itself?
originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Sookiechacha
There was no wrong-doing... did you miss that part of Barr's report?
So the White house was offered the report prior to its release...
Because legally Trump can claim executive privilege now.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
they dont understand because they dont want to. they want to cling to any thread of hope that this fiasco is still viable, and that somehow, someway, they will still get him. it is really stunning to witness at times.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lumenari
Nixon and his appointees said he was inncoent too. Still, the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon, nor any president, could use executive priviledge to cover up any wrongdoing. Mueller did not exhonerate Trump or his campaign of wrongdoing.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lumenari
Nixon and his appointees said he was inncoent too. Still, the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon, nor any president, could use executive priviledge to cover up any wrongdoing. Mueller did not exhonerate Trump or his campaign of wrongdoing.
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: underwerks
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: underwerks
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: underwerks
Why would someone need a counter report for something that totally exonerates them?
Hmmm...
So I guess you don't watch the news and what they do with any information relating to Trump.
HHmmm...
If the Mueller report totally exonerates him, what's up for interpretation?
Unless it doesn't really exonerate him..
I'm sorry... I didn't realize you were that stupid.
The left will cherry-pick every single sentence in the report, parse it, attempt to spin it in a way that somehow will put Trump in a bad light.
It's called politics and the left are exceedingly good at smear campaigns because they don't have an actual positive platform to run on.
So again, I'm assuming you have not watched the news since 2016, looked at what was there, actually researched it and came to your own conclusions on the matter.
Again, if it totally exonerates him, why the extra report? Why not let it speak for itself? Why the attempt to frame it with his take on it?
None of that is needed if it is what he said it is. No matter how hard the media tries to spin something, the facts are the facts regardless of their take on it.
So, if it exonerates him like you and everyone else here have been screaming for the past few weeks, why not let it speak for itself?
Do you even read your own responses to things, or just type and hit "reply"?
I told you exactly why.
Do you honestly think "facts" are any part of our political landscape now?
After all, if they were then there never would have been a Special Council in the first place.
It has nothing at all with facts to the left... hasn't been in some time.
It's all about selling the perception of guilt.
Remember the Kavenaugh hearings for a good example?
Nothing to do at all with "facts" but because it was political it should all be about "what you believe".
I'm done with you tonight... no human being can possibly be that obtuse to what is really going on.
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha
Who said the redactions are Executive Privilege ?
Hypocrite 😁
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust
I suppose those "counter arguments" will dovetail nicely with the redactions.
Also, pretty sure showing the report to White House before Congress gets a redacted version violates a law or policy somewhere. I'm sure we'll being hearing about it from the talking heads.
Then I'm pretty sure that you don't know what Prerogative Power means, never heard the term Executive Privilege and don't understand that Barr is just following the rules.
Trump had the choice to get the entire report first, read it, redact whatever he wanted to and turn that over to Congress.
He declined to do that.
What is happening now is the actual procedure.
/facepalm