CNN poll suggests narrative is failing

a reply to: RadioRobert

surely someone who claims to work for the courts would know such?

a reply to: shooterbrody

One would suspect...

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: RadioRobert

surely someone who claims to work for the courts would know such?

I claim I witnessed on a daily basis the tactics lawyers use to confuse and deflect. I don't claim to be a lawyer.

a reply to: InTheLight

So all of the proof of collusion is in the the parts that were necessarily redacted, that leaves 448 pages of???

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: InTheLight

So all of the proof of collusion is in the the parts that were necessarily redacted, that leaves 448 pages of???

I don't know and neither do you.

a reply to: InTheLight

Oh boy
You are not siting watching matlock or ironsides as court experience are you?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight

Oh boy
You are not siting watching matlock or ironsides as court experience are you?

Nope, true life experiences, unfortunately.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: InTheLight

So all of the proof of collusion is in the the parts that were necessarily redacted, that leaves 448 pages of???

I don't know and neither do you.

I have a pretty good guess because Mueller says,

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. 

In other words, "We're not confident he's innocent, but we cannot produce a preponderance of evidence to suggest he committed a crime, either". It's weasel words. If after two years of investigating where executive privilege was never invoked (unheard of) all they have is some suspicion he may have committed a crime, then they don't have anything.

If you believe they really had a smoking gun, then you have to believe that Mueller and his team of professional prosecutors is too incompetent to recognize it.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: InTheLight

So all of the proof of collusion is in the the parts that were necessarily redacted, that leaves 448 pages of???

I don't know and neither do you.

I have a pretty good guess because Mueller says,

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. 

In other words, "We're not confident he's innocent, but we cannot produce a preponderance of evidence to suggest he committed a crime, either". It's weasel words. If after two years of investigating where executive privilege was never invoked (unheard of) all they have is some suspicion he may have committed a crime, then they don't have anything.

If you believe they really had a smoking gun, then you have to believe that Mueller and his team of professional prosecutors is too incompetent to recognize it.

"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".

Obviously some serious and difficult issues need resolving.

a reply to: InTheLight

They had two years to resolve it in favour of saying a crime was committed and could not. Sounds like they are incompetent if you believe they have the smoking gun.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: InTheLight

They had two years to resolve it in favour of saying a crime was committed and could not. Sounds like they are incompetent if you believe they have the smoking gun.

We don't know what they have because all we have to go on is a short summary from an AG that Trump put in that seat. It's now about misleading the American people into thinking that their president is squeaky clean.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: InTheLight

They had two years to resolve it in favour of saying a crime was committed and could not. Sounds like they are incompetent if you believe they have the smoking gun.

We don't know what they have because all we have to go on is a short summary from an AG that Trump put in that seat. It's now about misleading the American people into thinking that their president is squeaky clean.

Are you telling me that you have not even read the 448 page report but only Barr's 4 page summary? No wonder you are so confused. Mueller's complete report is out there to be read by anyone.

Edit add: the actual report includes those 19 pages that the Dems are squawking about too. Mueller's team wrote that 448 page report not Barr.

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: InTheLight

They had two years to resolve it in favour of saying a crime was committed and could not. Sounds like they are incompetent if you believe they have the smoking gun.

We don't know what they have because all we have to go on is a short summary from an AG that Trump put in that seat. It's now about misleading the American people into thinking that their president is squeaky clean.

Are you telling me that you have not even read the 448 page report but only Barr's 4 page summary? No wonder you are so confused. Mueller's complete report is out there to be read by anyone.

Mueller's redacted report is out there to be read by anyone not the unredacted report. Big difference.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: InTheLight

They had two years to resolve it in favour of saying a crime was committed and could not. Sounds like they are incompetent if you believe they have the smoking gun.

We don't know what they have because all we have to go on is a short summary from an AG that Trump put in that seat. It's now about misleading the American people into thinking that their president is squeaky clean.

You don't just have a four page summary. THAT is a lie. You have four-hundred some pages of the report itself. You can download it.

Congress doesn't have the Grand Jury info. That's it. They have access to the entire rest of the report in a SCIF.

You seem to be unaware or deliberately lying about what is available. The entire tiff is that Mueller wanted his executive summaries released when Barr released his four page letter. Since that time Barr released the report in it's entirety (which includes the executive summaries). There are limited redactions including Grand Jury info and classified information. Congress can choose to read all of it except the Grand Jury information. Can you cite a case of any judge allowing the release of Grand Jury proceedings? Ever?

a reply to: InTheLight

Actually this was one of the first reports I have ever read that wasn't page after page of redactions. Especially was amazed there were absolutely no executive privilege redactions.
The 2nd Volume which covered the obstruction charge is nearly complete, even less than volume 1 (the criminal part).

You should read it or even just peruse the pages. I think you might get angry at being lied to by Dems and media too. All of the redactions are coded so you know why it was redacted.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: InTheLight

Actually this was one of the first reports I have ever read that wasn't page after page of redactions. Especially was amazed there were absolutely no executive privilege redactions.
The 2nd Volume which covered the obstruction charge is nearly complete, even less than volume 1 (the criminal part).

You should read it or even just peruse the pages. I think you might get angry at being lied to by Dems and media too. All of the redactions are coded so you know why it was redacted.

I would like to read the unredacted report in its entirety so as to make a more, hopefully, informed decision, just like these folks.

The move by the journalists’ group is just the latest attempt to try to force disclosure of a broader portion or the entirety of Mueller’s report, notwithstanding Barr’s indication of the need for redactions. On the same day Mueller sent his report to Barr, a Washington-based watchdog group — the Electronic Privacy Information Center — filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit demanding access to the document.

www.politico.com...

a reply to: InTheLight

Have you read the 448 pages you already have?

CNN conducted a random

Sorry....I stopped reading at 'CNN'.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: InTheLight

Have you read the 448 pages you already have?

I don't see the point, at this point. If I am still confused after Mueller's testimony then I'll read it for more clarification. Right now, I want to keep an open mind.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: InTheLight

Have you read the 448 pages you already have?

I don't see the point, at this point. If I am still confused after Mueller's testimony then I'll read it for more clarification. Right now, I want to keep an open mind.

Don't let it fall out!