The Mueller report for all of us to see

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Congress can investigate what they want. They are not prosecutors though, and when it comes to a special counsel, he reports to the AG, who then acts on criminal refferals. Mueller had no criminal refferal on obstrcution.

So Barr and trump rival rosenstein decided not to bring charges against Trump.

I knnow you really really want to spin this as good news; its not.

Y9u were lied to about russian collusion for 2 years.

Now those same people that lied to you are, as predicted, just moving on to the next attempt to take down trump without even adressing the lies they have been spewing.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler

Trump ordering Don McGahn to order the firing of Mueller, that resulted in McGahn's resignation, was interference.

How did it interfere with Mueller.

can you show me the page in the mueller report where he says something like

"We were humming along with our investigation, but then McGahn resigned, and that interfered with our investigation"

Please give me any page where mueller says this was interfernce into his investigation

a reply to: Sookiechacha

When was Mueller fired? I must have totally missed that happening. Though I am really confused now, since it seems Mueller is still here and even completed his report unobstructed by anyone!

a reply to: mzinga

Illegally spying on a political candidate before he was ever elected.

IS an OBSTRUCTION of justice.

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.

The report does not say he treid to obstruct justice.

Please show me the page number.

Meanwhile hillarys team destroyed subpoenaed evidnce, which is actual obstruction.

Can you link to your posts or any of the other people upset about hypothetical obstruction by trump of your outrage over that? thanks!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler

Trump ordering Don McGahn to order the firing of Mueller, that resulted in McGahn's resignation, was interference.

How do you establish his intent was improper if that occurred? There is not sufficient evidence to conclude there was an underlying crime. How do you establish the President was not exercising his Constitutional power using his best judgment that this was a distraction to his administration and waste of DOJ resources, but instead an improper attempt to end the investigation? Sounds like an "opinion" based on flimsy evidence.

a reply to: Grambler

One doesn't have to be successful to be charged with obstruction. One must have corrupt intent. You can argue that Trump's intent to have Mueller fired was pure as the driven snow, but that would be your opinion. Mueller thinks Congress' opinion is the only opinion that matters, in this case.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

When one strongly holds an opinion without strong evidence, ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary, it really only says something about the person holding the opinion.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler

One doesn't have to be successful to be charged with obstruction. One must have corrupt intent. You can argue that Trump's intent to have Mueller fired was pure as the driven snow, but that would be your opinion. Mueller thinks Congress' opinion is the only opinion that matters, in this case.

Thats not how things work.

Mueller could not prove corrupt intent, therefore he didnt represent charges. Period.

Oh, and I notice you have no problem with the media and dems lying about collusion for two years, and hillary actually obstructing by deleting subpoenaed evidence.

I would want to skip over that too i guess if I were you

there was a second attempt by the Russians to offer incrementing info to the trump campaign. that part is completely redacted because of an ongoing investigation - damn!

Nadlers reaction live

www.youtube.com...

Nadler says Barr lied by saying Mueller didnt convict or exnoerate trump, when in fact the sentence before siuad they couldnt prove Trump didnt obstruct.

Um yeah, tahts what cant exonerate means.

What a buffoon

Nadler says he wantsMORE INVESTIGATIONS!

Tad dah!

Who would have thought!

Never ending investigations

Nadler says Barr and his redactions is stopping Muellers intent to allow congress to have the info.

the only problem is guess who helped Barr with the redactions?.... Mueller!

What a moron

Wow nadler was underwhelming to say the least, done already.

So here is a few more take aways.

The redactions arent that bad at all, so all of the people screaming about that again look like fools.

Barr released this is about 3 weeks, thats incredibly fast.

Barr had every legal right to not show this to the public; instead he was incredibly transparent.

Trump had legal rights to redact info based on executive privileged, he did not and was incredibly transparent.

despite this the media is still screaming how untransparent this was.

Its mind boggling

a reply to: RadioRobert

How do you establish his intent was improper if that occurred?

IF my opinion mattered, I would consider all ten of the incidents of potential obstruction the Mueller listed and I'd include many of his tweets too.

There is not sufficient evidence to conclude there was an underlying crime.

It's already been established that an underlying crime doesn't have to be proven to determine obstruction of justice occurred.

a reply to: Grambler

They spent all this time stoking the flames,, working their gullible base into a lather, saying "Just wait. Mueller is closing in. Guilty, guilty, guilty."

They don't have anywhere else to go other than saying, "We weren't lying! We just can't prove it yet! Give us more time! Guilty, guilty, guilty "

Not sure why anyone would be surprised that this is their answer.

Now juxtapose this transparency from Barr and Trump vs. the dems and the FBI.

Congressional oversight is still waiting on loads of material they requested from the fbi on the hillary and russia investigations. The very same democrats screaming for transparency today we screaming we couldnt be transparent when it came to those fbi documents or america and law enforcement would be hurt.


And of course the media proves their dishonesty by cheerleading for these dems as always; saying transparency when they think it will hurt trump, and screaming transparency will hurt the cpuntry when they think it will help trump

originally posted by: Grambler
Nadler says Barr lied by saying Mueller didnt convict or exnoerate trump, when in fact the sentence before siuad they couldnt prove Trump didnt obstruct.

Um yeah, tahts what cant exonerate means.

What a buffoon

Keeping this going is a huge mistake for the democrats

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert

How do you establish his intent was improper if that occurred?

IF my opinion mattered, I would consider all ten of the incidents of potential obstruction the Mueller listed and I'd include many of his tweets too.

There is not sufficient evidence to conclude there was an underlying crime.

It's already been established that an underlying crime doesn't have to be proven to determine obstruction of justice occurred.

Thank you for your contribution today - believe me when I tell you it makes Trump's total vindicatiobn extra special.