1. #16881
    Pandaren Monk Sinyc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Toppy View Post
    Mueller doesn't have that power. Mueller was following the rule of law.
    Well if he can't recommend charges be filed, is there no way, under his power given him to by the law, to convey overwhelming evidence and give his opinion on the matter? I will wait to read the entire report, because I don't fully frust Barr as he is a Trump appointee. Barr is getting to set the narrative for these first 24-48 hours, which is the most important time frame because everyone just assumes what is being relayed to them is 100% truth, and after 24-48 hours the public's attention is gone on that subject.

    Edit: Barr quotes the Mueller report where it states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    Why couldn't he do the inverse for Obstruction?
    Last edited by Sinyc; 2019-03-24 at 11:13 PM.

  2. #16882
    Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
    Yeah but no one believes this nonsense because it never happened. Hillary actually had a server in her closet ran by some fly by night company in Colorado.
    You mean like Trump's staff and own family members are doing right now?

  3. #16883
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    Taking a meeting, based on getting dirt on a political opponent ABSOLUTELY is illegal. And the report doesn't say there was no collusion, Mueller didn't make any recommendation.

    Just because there was no dirt given, doesn't make it not illegal. Let's take your shitty suggestion and say that if someone tries to kill someone else's wife, and misses with the shot, and gives up when he is caught. Does that mean that attempted murder isn't illegal? The fact that they were discussing sanctions alone makes it a Hatch Act violation because they weren't even sworn in as government officials.
    Then how come Mueller's principle conclusion was: "the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."

    You lost, its been fun but its over. You people should be eating crow at this point. There was no collusion and no obstruction of justice as there was no underlying crime.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hobb View Post
    Moving goalposts I see.
    I am not moving any goal posts. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton should have been tried because I don't think she had intent when she mishandled classified information. The emails hacked by WikiLeaks did do a lot of damage to her campaign but the emails were not fake they were real. The American people simply got to know her better.

  4. #16884
    Quote Originally Posted by Vatrilian View Post
    Again:
    "Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."
    I am so glad this attorney general is so thorough.
    Again, barr not believing a president can act with corrupt intent with regards to obstruction of justice has nothing to do with whether or not a sitting president can be indicted. I have already covered this in a previous post. Barr's footnote is specific to the constitutional considerations of whether or not a sitting president can be indicted. That has nothing to do with the constitutional considerations of whether or not a president can act with corrupt intent.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  5. #16885
    Trump attempting to stop the investigation no matter what the results were, is a crime.

  6. #16886
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinyc View Post
    If there was any doubt in Muellers mind, KNOWING that his report will first go to the DOJ and AG Barr, why wouldn't he just recommend charges there? The only possible explanation is there wasn't enough actual evidence to show they willingly and criminally obstructed justice. Unless Mueller is playing 9D chess with us all...



    Just because somone on TV said meeting or interacting with Russians/citizens is literally the worst thing a person could do, doesn't mean it's true.
    If Jr knew this person was a Russian Agent or acting on behalf of the Russian government then he would already be in jail.
    They knew she was a Russian Agent acting on behalf of the Russian government. It was in the fucking emails.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.52a9e46d8549

    If you can read that, and not come to the same conclusion as the rest of the developed world that the Russian government was coming to give dirt on Hillary Clinton, then you might need to go back to school for more reading comprehension.

  7. #16887
    Quote Originally Posted by Vatrilian View Post
    Then how come Mueller's principle conclusion was: "the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."

    You lost, its been fun but its over. You people should be eating crow at this point. There was no collusion and no obstruction of justice as there was no underlying crime.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I am not moving any goal posts. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton should have been tried because I don't think she had intent when she mishandled classified information. The emails hacked by WikiLeaks did do a lot of damage to her campaign but the emails were not fake they were real. The American people simply got to know her better.
    This isn't about winning and losing. The topline summary can be read several ways. We need to see the report.

  8. #16888
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Again, barr not believing a president can act with corrupt intent with regards to obstruction of justice has nothing to do with whether or not a sitting president can be indicted. I have already covered this in a previous post. Barr's footnote is specific to the constitutional considerations of whether or not a sitting president can be indicted. That has nothing to do with the constitutional considerations of whether or not a president can act with corrupt intent.
    That is how the justice department determined that a sitting president could not be indicted. Barr ignored this principle when he concluded that the president did not commit obstruction of justice. Any reasonable person can determine that because there was no underlying crime so why obstruct? In this country we don't make up a crime and when we find no evidence for it say the person committed crimes during the investigation. That is principally unfair and I am glad the justice department concluded there was no obstruction.

  9. #16889
    Quote Originally Posted by Vatrilian View Post
    Then how come Mueller's principle conclusion was: "the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."

    You lost, its been fun but its over. You people should be eating crow at this point. There was no collusion and no obstruction of justice as there was no underlying crime.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I am not moving any goal posts. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton should have been tried because I don't think she had intent when she mishandled classified information. The emails hacked by WikiLeaks did do a lot of damage to her campaign but the emails were not fake they were real. The American people simply got to know her better.
    But we know they tried. Just with the Trump tower meeting.

    And Wikileaks didn't hack the emails. They got them from the Russian government. And the emails had nothing of value in them.

  10. #16890
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    They knew she was a Russian Agent acting on behalf of the Russian government. It was in the fucking emails.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.52a9e46d8549

    If you can read that, and not come to the same conclusion as the rest of the developed world that the Russian government was coming to give dirt on Hillary Clinton, then you might need to go back to school for more reading comprehension.
    You need to watch an episode of Ancient Aliens. In fact please everyone who believes this hoax after two years of investigation and millions of dollars.

  11. #16891
    Quote Originally Posted by Vatrilian View Post
    You need to watch an episode of Ancient Aliens. In fact please everyone who believes this hoax after two years of investigation and millions of dollars.
    Two years of investigations 37 indictments, 7 guilty pleas and it MADE FUCKING MONEY. I don't believe conspiracy theories. You do though, considering how fucking wrong you are.

  12. #16892
    Quote Originally Posted by Vatrilian View Post
    That is how the justice department determined that a sitting president could not be indicted. Barr ignored this principle when he concluded that the president did not commit obstruction of justice. Any reasonable person can determine that because there was no underlying crime so why obstruct? In this country we don't make up a crime and when we find no evidence for it say the person committed crimes during the investigation. That is principally unfair and I am glad the justice department concluded there was no obstruction.
    Again, barr doesn't think a president can commit obstruction. That conclusion is separate from whether or not a president can be indicted. He literally doesn't believe a president can act with corrupt intent with regards to obstruction of justice when he orders an investigation to be stopped.

    Let me try to make it more clear, barr does believe a president can commit a crime. He does believe, if the president maliciously shot and killed someone, that it would be murder. Here is when his statement about "constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president." would be relevant. When he thinks a crime has been committed. Barr, quite literally doesn't think the president can commit obstruction of justice in cases like this, because he subscribes to the idea that, "when the president does it, it's not a crime."
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  13. #16893
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    Two years of investigations 37 indictments, 7 guilty pleas and it MADE FUCKING MONEY. I don't believe conspiracy theories. You do though, considering how fucking wrong you are.
    Again the principle reason we had a special counsel was the aspect of collusion. We can let this hang out:
    "the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."

  14. #16894
    Pandaren Monk Sinyc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    They knew she was a Russian Agent acting on behalf of the Russian government. It was in the fucking emails.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.52a9e46d8549

    If you can read that, and not come to the same conclusion as the rest of the developed world that the Russian government was coming to give dirt on Hillary Clinton, then you might need to go back to school for more reading comprehension.
    If what you just said is true, he would be in jail. Nowhere in that article, that I have now read multiple times, does it say that their conversations in that article get to that point. Unless my eyes don't work. Otherwise it sounds like you are seeing something that isn't there due to blatant bias.

  15. #16895
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Again, barr doesn't think a president can commit obstruction. That conclusion is separate from whether or not a president can be indicted. He literally doesn't believe a president can act with corrupt intent with regards to obstruction of justice when he orders an investigation to be stopped.

    Let me try to make it more clear, barr does believe a president can commit a crime. He does believe, if the president maliciously shot and killed someone, that it would be murder. Here is when his statement about "constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president." would be relevant. When he thinks a crime has been committed. Barr, quite literally doesn't think the president can commit obstruction of justice in cases like this, because he subscribes to the idea that, "when the president does it, it's not a crime."
    How do you obstruct justice with no underlying crime? What actions did the president take that obstructed Mueller's investigation?

  16. #16896
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinyc View Post
    If what you just said is true, he would be in jail. Nowhere in that article, that I have now read multiple times, does it say that their conversations in that article get to that point. Unless my eyes don't work. Otherwise it sounds like you are seeing something that isn't there due to blatant bias.
    It's not bias, it was from their fucking emails.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vatrilian View Post
    Again the principle reason we had a special counsel was the aspect of collusion. We can let this hang out:
    "the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."
    We know they colluded. It isn't my fault that Manafort and the people that know are protecting Trump.

  17. #16897
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    It's not bias, it was from their fucking emails.

    - - - Updated - - -



    We know they colluded. It isn't my fault that Manafort and the people that know are protecting Trump.
    Again Fact: NO COLLUSION.

  18. #16898
    Quote Originally Posted by Vatrilian View Post
    Again Fact: NO COLLUSION.
    You can keep saying that, it doesn't make it true. You must be Trump's Twitter writer.

  19. #16899
    The Insane Belize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    18,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Vatrilian View Post
    Again Fact: NO COLLUSION.
    Not fact.

    The only thing we know is that Barr decided almost unilaterally that he didn't think it was.

  20. #16900
    Quote Originally Posted by Mighty Tim View Post
    I can't answer questions about what goes on inside of peoples heads..
    But you can based on their actions, but that would mean NOT deflecting and dodging questions and actually answering them and that's never fun.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •