• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller report summary sent to Congress

sjmay said:
It's amazing how quickly the left on here is backpedaling.....
Click to expand...

It’s amazing 😉 how (so many on the) Right have stopped smearing Mueller, who was appointed to his job by the DoJ.

For that appointment as a Federal Employee, he was thoroughly trashed with his character impugned, starting with trump on down to the true fake news.
 
Chomsky said:
Barr claims, "I concluded".

You're telling me he doesn't drawn on his understanding of the law?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying he specifically said his conclusion isn't based on or have anything to do with the constitutional argument that the President can't be indicted:

Chomsky said:
Well he (Barr) claims "A President cannot be indicted", and perhaps that was the basis for Barr's decision not to prosecute.
Click to expand...

Look at my post #173. The second paragraph concludes:

"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."
 
Linc said:
It’s amazing �� how (so many on the) Right have stopped smearing Mueller, who was appointed to his job by the DoJ.

For that appointment as a Federal Employee, he was thoroughly trashed with his character impugned, starting with trump on down to the true fake news.
Click to expand...

You didn't really read what I said on here.....did you?
 
Bullseye said:
Mueller says it too. Read Barr's summary letter.
Click to expand...
Mueller said, "Presidents can't obstruct"? I read it, and didn't see it.

And remember, all we've got is Barr's opinion and his choosing of excerpts to bolster his opinion. This is a far cry from seeing Mueller's report, or hearing directly from him (Mueller). Hopefully, we'll soon get both.
 
MovingPictures said:
And that's what Congress needs to investigate now - that's where the meat is at.

One little thing has, thus far, gone unnoticed about Barr's letter.

"I must identify any information that could impact ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices".

Notice plural use of "matters" and "offices", which now confirms there are other investigations ongoing. It is those investigations which Flynn, Gates, and Nader are witnesses, and have produced other indictments, yet to be revealed, or at least so it appears.

Those would likely be the investigations into
1. UAE and the Saudi Nuclear deal.
2. The Inaugural Committee.
3. General influence peddling in the campaign.
Click to expand...
Something we all knew, but nice catch in verifying it for us.
 
Harshaw said:
No, I'm saying he specifically said his conclusion isn't based on or have anything to do with the constitutional argument that the President can't be indicted:
Click to expand...

That it’s based on not enough evidence is where you are ant to go.

Trying not to argue, do you think all of the investigations that Mueller has farmed out are “consequentially” over?
 
Linc said:
That it’s based on not enough evidence is where you are ant to go.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this grouping of words is supposed to mean.

Trying not to argue, do you think all of the investigations that Mueller has farmed out are “consequentially” over?
Click to expand...

No. Why would I think that, and why did you put "consequentially" in quotes? I never used the word.
 
Cardinal said:
If the Barr report is an accurate read of the Mueller report, then the next step is to focus on the 2020 election in its entirety. If it's true that Trump isn't criminally liable for obstruction of justice or conspiracy with Russians, it's no less true that he's repulsive as a human being with regards to our national character and respect for democratic institutions. That has not changed.
Click to expand...

:lol: So to you this all has nothing to do with government and only to do with hating Trump as a person. That viewpoint of your message is exactly what being inflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome means.

Rational people don't care whether he is repulsive. That is of the juvenile mind of electing high school president.

The ONLY rational consideration is whether he had done a better job than what the Democratic challenger would do. Everything else is just cheap grocery store scandal publication material, nothing else.
 
Verax said:
Barr's summary is extraordinarily insufficient. It contains two things.

1. The Trump administration did not conspire with the Russians. This is the only noteworthy piece of information and obviously is significant.

2. Mueller made no determinations on everything else and is leaving it up to the DOJ to decide. Barr took that and said "no crimes, all good!".

We need the full report and I can guarantee you they are going to aggressively stonewall despite what they've said.
Click to expand...

As far as your point 2. That's not at all what it states. I know you were trying to be funny but in fact you are just lying. He stated that there was not enough evidence for obstruction. That is very different from what you stated. Not surprising.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
??

Despite your claims, for some reason Mueller specifically put in his report that Trump is "not exonerated" in obstruction. Something compelled Mueller to include that in his report.

But regardless as I posted above - Trump indeed lied - and you've done nothing to disprove my claim to that effect.
Click to expand...
And that is one area the House/Nadler etc will vector in on.
Reports underlying documents.
The political fight is just beginning.
 
sjmay said:
You didn't really read what I said on here.....did you?
Click to expand...

I thought it was understood you knew it was fake-equivalence to say lefties were back-pedaling.

Your definition of Lefties would understand that they were waiting for the report. Righties had dismissed the report if it didn’t exonerate trump?

Are all the State investigations over?
 
ludin said:
Aaccording to Barr's letter, "The special counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its effort" to interfere with the 2016 presidential election in that manner.

Not that hard to understand IE no collusion with russia.
Click to expand...
You are omitting the next paragraph of Barr's letter. How come? Is it because Barr narrowly defined the conspiracy scope in the next paragraph? Because I have already addressed that. No one accused Trump of working with IRA or with the hackers executing the hack (the closest anyone came was Mueller himself, when stated that Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton and Russia immediately tried to hack Clinton).

Please see the previous statements.
"The Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated" with Russians who worked on those hacking efforts, according to Barr's letter, "despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

again no collusion
Click to expand...
It's like you are deliberately ignoring the point.

Typical.

Because all of his indictments had nothing to do with the investigation. They were all part of past crimes
that were ousted during the election and had nothing to do with the campaign russia or anything else.
Click to expand...
This is just a flat out lie.

As I said earlier:

PapaD was indited for lying about his work with Russian asset Mifsud. Flynn was indicted for lying about his illegal back channel communications with Russia officials regarding sanctions for Russia's attack. Manafort was found by the judge to have lied about his communications with Kilimnik during the campaign. Cohen was found to have lied to Congress about his work in Russia on Trump Tower.

there was no evidence of obstruction so what are you talking about?
Click to expand...
That is not what Barr or Mueller said.

Why are you making things up?
apdst said:
Mueller made no "conclusion" because he didn't have the evidence to support such a conclusion.
Click to expand...
The letter does not say that at all. Why are you making things up?
 
Athanasius68 said:
Her couldn't interview Trump because he didn't have the evidence.
Click to expand...
Possible. But we don't know. It's now being reported that Mueller met with Rosenstein to discuss the possibility of indicting Trump, but they declined.

Like I earlier stated, we need to see the report and hear from Mueller in order to put this to bed.
 
Special counsel ‘did not draw a conclusion . . . as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction,’ Barr says
“Complete and Total EXONERATION,” President Trump tweeted after a summary of Robert S. Mueller III’s findings was sent to lawmakers. On the question of whether the president might have sought to obstruct the high-profile investigation, “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him’,” attorney general William P. Barr wrote.




Read: Barr’s letter on the principal conclusions of the Mueller report


 
Mueller Report Summary:

The Mueller investigation had 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents plus analyists, accountants, and other staff, issuing 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants and 500 interviews. The report did not find that anyone with the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with any Russians to influence the election.

It did find that Russians hacked into Clinton's and the DNC's unsecured email accounts (thus the “recklessness of Clinton benefited Russians – though doesn't point out that obvious aspect.)

Democratic Party Response: "Yeah, well we still say Trump colluded with Russians. Besides, we really, really, really hate him more then ever."
 
Chomsky said:
Barnacle, is there a reason why you cut the entire excerpt short?

You omitted the rest:
Click to expand...
They know it says ‘no exoneration’, which means we’re headed to the House. Thus the attacks on the House already. Good thing Pelosi has said No on Impeachment.

Let the State Courts do their job and have the House gather info and evidence. The ongoing threats to us from Russia completely dwarf what the GOP did to either Clinton.
 
Jack Hays said:
Special counsel ‘did not draw a conclusion . . . as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction,’ Barr says
“Complete and Total EXONERATION,” President Trump tweeted after a summary of Robert S. Mueller III’s findings was sent to lawmakers. On the question of whether the president might have sought to obstruct the high-profile investigation, “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him’,” attorney general William P. Barr wrote.




Read: Barr’s letter on the principal conclusions of the Mueller report
Click to expand...

Unless you read it all, where it says that's up to the DOJ - and the DOJ said "Nope, no obstruction of justice."

You could go down to the local municipal judge or Justice of the Peace asking the judge declare a state's right 2nd civil war and declare s/he as a local judge will put the President of the United States on trial. Or did you mean prosecutors Pelosi and Schumer?

Besides, I bet if searched hard enough that at some time in history some car owned by the a corporation Trump has stock in got a parking ticket and didn't pay it. So keep looking! There HAS to be SOMETHING you can find.
 
PoliSciXtina said:
Agree with this. But now the narrative is out, and I’m sure republicans in Congress will not care since AG Barr has already made that determination for everyone. Can’t say that I’m shocked in the slightest.

I never thought trump was getting impeached anyway. I am glad to see there was no collusion, though, and that it’s finally over. I would like to see the details on obstruction and why mueller did not exonerate trump, though. Also, why was trump never put under oath? This has me scratching my head. How do you complete and conclude an obstruction of justice investigation thoroughly without probing intent? Even Hillary and bill were grilled under oath. I don’t get it. Kinda confused.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Mueller is not under the Independent Counsel law, he's under DOJ rules governing Special Counsel's.

Special Counsel rules are there to prevent another Starr like investigation that just goes on forever, and focuses on impeachment. The rules prevent investigators from **** talking in their driveway, hanging on to every matter unrelated to their mandate, and harassing high officials and creating media spectacles for politics.

Mueller never forced Trump to go under oath because he declined, and Mueller wanted to respect the office and Trump's civil liberties, even Trump doesn't respect him or the rules.

The rules might be frustrating, but they are there for good reason.
 
Last edited:
Nancy Pelosi isn't as dumb as she usually sounds. I bet she wishes every Democrat in Congress could just shut up for one day and stop pretending they are going to say the rant that magically will make each of them the next president. Just ONE DAY of Congressional Democrats not talking out their ass trying to get on camera any way possible. However, she is finding she can't control her children.
 
Chomsky said:
Possible. But we don't know. It's now being reported that Mueller met with Rosenstein to discuss the possibility of indicting Trump, but they declined.

Like I earlier stated, we need to see the report and hear from Mueller in order to put this to bed.
Click to expand...

If they met about indicting him, there most certainly is something there. We’ll give it a of 5 or so out of 10. History will tell if they apply the JFK rule.
 
Chomsky said:
Except for the obstruction cloud, yes Trump got a stellar report.

And still he just went on TV and lied, claiming he was exonerated on obstruction. He's his own worst enemy, and why so many like myself cannot believe him.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed the letter from DOJ just released that exonerated Trump of the obstruction and any other charge. Or are you lying?
 
joko104 said:
Unless you read it all, where it says that's up to the DOJ - and the DOJ said "Nope, no obstruction of justice."

You could go down to the local municipal judge or Justice of the Peace asking the judge declare a state's right 2nd civil war and declare s/he as a local judge will put the President of the United States on trial. Or did you mean prosecutors Pelosi and Schumer?

Besides, I bet if searched hard enough that at some time in history some car owned by the a corporation Trump has stock in got a parking ticket and didn't pay it. So keep looking! There HAS to be SOMETHING you can find.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom