William Barr appoints U.S. attorney to investigate Russia probe origins

a reply to: CynConcepts

There was no absence of evidence just a road block to submit it to a jury.
But the walls are still closing in on him.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Oh my god yes there was.... the whole policy of not indicting a president.

Stop playing dumb. if you have internet access you already know this...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Fortunately one does not get punished based on "public consciousness".

No but they do get elected or not based on it.
The point is that innocent until proven guilty doesnt come into play and peoples opinions will prevail.
And that even if someone is acquitted they can still be deemed guilty by the public at large. Just ask Casey Anthony.



Authoritarians on the left... good one...

So you claim he is guilty and your track record is spotless....

Lol

Maybe Trump obstructed some justice because he was 100% sure there was no crime.

Now he is obstructing the crap out of the dems daring them to impeach him. The only idiot dumb enough so far is Pocahontas but we already knew where her IQ is at....

Good luck in 2020 with your silly ol reeeeeeee

a reply to: Dfairlite

no you're right... what they said was if we could exonerate him we would....
What we need is Mueller to speak.

IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President ' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time , 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RadioRobert

Oh my god yes there was.... the whole policy of not indicting a president.

I missed the part where Mueller indicates he found the President committed a crime and/or that he would indict if he could but the OLC policy prevented him.

Can you provide that for us?

Wouldn't that conclusion look like "The OLC policy on indictment of a sitting President prevents us from indicting the President. Accordingly, while this report does conclude the President did commit a crime, we are unable to indict" ?


Instead the report says, "this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, ...". Why is that?

a reply to: Sillyolme

Noone has to be exonerated by the government in this country. The government does not need to convince itself you are innocent. Nor do you need to convince it of your innocence. It works the other way around.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Special "Counsel's" don't have authority to "exonerate".

They are not Judges and Juries 😎

a reply to: Sillyolme

"IF" is the biggest word in the Dictionary 😎

a reply to: Sillyolme

For some reason Jerry Nadler is afraid to subpoena Bob Mueller to testify. I don't know why, he subpoenas everyone and everything else.

a reply to: carewemust

Has Senator Graham ever received any response from Mueller? When watching the Senate Hearings with Barr, Graham stated that they were going to send him a letter asking for clarification about his initial letter to Barr. Has the Senate Comittee done this? Has anyone heard?

At this point, it is up to Mueller to step forward and testify, but frankly his delay does not bode well for the Dems misinterpretations.

a reply to: carewemust

Called this weeks ago. He can't testify because it would be game over.

Shocking they won't call the one guy they could get a clear answer from. Maybe ask him to send them a letter or summary answering a specific question. It's almost like they are content to smear with innuendo and don't want an actual answer...

a reply to: chr0naut

The crime is conspiracy and Kilimnik was charged with conspiracy and obstruction.

No, he was charged with Conspiracy TO obstruct justice and obstruction of justice. He conspired to do it and he did it, allegedly. Funny that they didn't charge manafort with that, though, isn't it? Since that's who he supposedly conspired with and they had manafort in hand already. LOL

Barr's summary was untrue, at least on those grounds.

LMAO, no it wasn't.

Here, right from the mueller report:

[this investigation] did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

GAME OVER, now move on.

Which differs from Barr's summary such that Barr is being held in contempt of Congress about his misrepresentation of the facts, even when the evidence was before him and the Congressional committee.

Holy cow man, you need to stop watching msnbc. Barr has not been held in contempt. A committee voted to move the contempt vote to the floor. That vote may pass or it may fail but it is not for misrepresenting anything. It is for not giving up grand jury material which the law requires him not to give up. It is a stunt. If congressional dems want the material they can sue the DoJ for them and the court can rule one way or another. Republicans did it countless times to the obama administration. Eric holder was held in contempt because he defied their subpoena which had been upheld in court. Barr has done nothing to deserve being held in contempt. Congressional dems are just putting on a show for their rabid base.

What mueller says now means exactly jack squat.
He gave his report to his boss.
Mueller has NO other purpose.
He should crawl in a hole with whitey bulger.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut

The crime is conspiracy and Kilimnik was charged with conspiracy and obstruction.

No, he was charged with Conspiracy TO obstruct justice and obstruction of justice. He conspired to do it and he did it, allegedly. Funny that they didn't charge manafort with that, though, isn't it? Since that's who he supposedly conspired with and they had manafort in hand already. LOL

I can quite see that a charge of 'conspiracy to obstruct justice' is neither 'obstruction of justice' nor 'conspiracy'.

It's exactly like 'tripping and falling' is neither 'tripping', nor 'falling'.

Not.

Barr's summary was untrue, at least on those grounds.

LMAO, no it wasn't.

Here, right from the mueller report:

[this investigation] did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

GAME OVER, now move on.

Whole paragraphs please, not truncated bits that misrepresent what was actually said (from page 1, last paragraph, & page 2, continuation of that paragraph):

"As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Changes the slant of the paragraph when you chop out so much content, doesn't it.

It was this sort of 'creative editing' that Barr stands accused of.

Which differs from Barr's summary such that Barr is being held in contempt of Congress about his misrepresentation of the facts, even when the evidence was before him and the Congressional committee.

Holy cow man, you need to stop watching msnbc. Barr has not been held in contempt. A committee voted to move the contempt vote to the floor. That vote may pass or it may fail but it is not for misrepresenting anything. It is for not giving up grand jury material which the law requires him not to give up. It is a stunt. If congressional dems want the material they can sue the DoJ for them and the court can rule one way or another. Republicans did it countless times to the obama administration. Eric holder was held in contempt because he defied their subpoena which had been upheld in court. Barr has done nothing to deserve being held in contempt. Congressional dems are just putting on a show for their rabid base.

Barr has been held in contempt of Congress. The vote occurred on Wednesday 8 May, 2019. It's a done deal.

a reply to: xuenchen

Well that doesnt matter because they said they couldnt anyway.

a reply to: carewemust

I am so sure..... He was scheduled to appear on Thursday.

a reply to: CynConcepts

His delay is due to presidential orders.
This wont fly for very long. The day that he no longer works for trumps admin is right around the corner.

a reply to: RadioRobert

He will.
It not his decision right now.
Stop acting like this delay is his choice.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Lets ignore where he said.... because they either lied or refused to answer questions.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RadioRobert

He will.
It not his decision right now.
Stop acting like this delay is his choice.

The problem was with scheduling, was it not? I've seen Trump say he should not testify, but I haven't seen anything suggesting that's why it hasn't happened. Can you provide a citation?

Still no subpoena? Just waiting for Mueller to clear his busy schedule to wrap up this insignificant "matter", I guess. getting a straight answer is Dem-priority #1, clearly...