• 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

The Mark said:
Actually, I thought it was "no proof one way or the other".
Click to expand...

They spent 3 years and more than $30 million looking for evidence and couldn't find any. As close to proof as one can get when trying to prove a negative.
 
Barnacle said:
In that case his "testimony" was a farce, because Schiff's staff had worked on him for 10 hours prior to the testimony.
Click to expand...
I've seen no evidence of the bolded, and the public believed his testimony over Trump by a wide margin.
 
Linc said:
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.
Click to expand...
JFK rule???
 
dixon01767 said:
Perhaps you missed the letter from DOJ just released that exonerated Trump of the obstruction and any other charge. Or are you lying?
Click to expand...
I'm quoting Mueller in Barr's letter.
 
Idiometer said:
With all due respect, it's a pretty easy assumption. Conservatives here on this forum as well as all over the country have been trying for two years to discredit Mueller, pulling out all the stops in their lame attempts to besmirch his good name and solid reputation.

This investigation was not about anyone's beliefs. This isn't a religious question, it's a question of facts. As long as facts rule the outcome, I'm fine with that. Are you?
Click to expand...

I think you need to go outside of this forum. Its very naïve to rely on this forum as the sole supplier of opinions of our nation. You asked me if I am willing to allow facts to rule the outcome. Yes...I am. I have not besmirched Muellers name, or reputation. I was willing to accept his determination of this case. Are you?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Mueller will not override the assessment of the Attorney General. But the Attorney General was nominated specifically because of his broad view of the President's powers.

We need to see the Mueller report so the American people can decide.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But we still need to hear from Mueller (and see the report).
 
Chomsky said:
I'm quoting Mueller in Barr's letter.
Click to expand...

You should have kept reading a little bit further to see the part where the DOJ exonerated Trump of any obstruction charges.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Because Mueller said there is no there there. So what was the basis for beginning the investigation-- back during the Obama Admin?
It's what Nunes was investigating during the last Congress. Release everything.
Click to expand...
Mueller didn't "say there's no there, there", that's Barr's opinion.

I want to see Mueller's report, and hear his decision process, not read the opinion of Trump's appointee with his selected excerpts.
 
MovingPictures said:
You can bet they will drag their feet in releasing the report, which is just absurd considering the IG report was released in full.

Congress will win the battle.
Click to expand...

Well, I would hope the law would win the battle.
 
Linc said:
Let’s see how the GOP and INDY Polls change on “release the report”. We can only speculate at this point, as I’ll mention that trust in Mueller is soaring.

Let’s get to Issues. As for ISSUES, present your platform with a condensed Cabinet. Of the 22 Cabinet Level positions I counted, you could easily combine those of Energy, Agriculture, Interior, Transportation, and EPA to get a coordinated “Infrastructure”.

The other Three Categoties of the Cabinet would be Economic, Defense/Foreign, and Executive, with the other 17 Cabinets going into them. Time to Streamline, Coordinate, Reorganize, and Move On.

I care that this gets done to help our Nation. It can’t happen without both parties working together.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm eager for those polls too, particularly the Indies.
 
Idiometer said:
With all due respect, it's a pretty easy assumption. Conservatives here on this forum as well as all over the country have been trying for two years to discredit Mueller, pulling out all the stops in their lame attempts to besmirch his good name and solid reputation.

This investigation was not about anyone's beliefs. This isn't a religious question, it's a question of facts. As long as facts rule the outcome, I'm fine with that. Are you?
Click to expand...

Enough.

The Democrats didn't like the results of the 2016 election. Ever since then they are trying to undo this election and challenge the results of a democratic election.

They are creating their own facts to conform to their own twisted narrative.

Democrats demanded Obama fire Comey.

When Trump fires Comey it all of a sudden is an abuse of power?

:confused:

If Trump were involved in Russian Collusion it would have been in the Mueller Report.

It is over. We should now investigate the investigators and see why Hillary Clinton got off despite this:

3. Breaking and smashing

Longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who helped set up the private email account that Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state, was the person “usually responsible” for setting up her new devices and syncing them to the server. Top aides Huma Abedin and Monica Hanley, as well as another person whose name is redacted, also helped Clinton set up her BlackBerry.

According to Abedin and Hanley, Clinton’s old devices would often disappear to parts “unknown once she transitioned to a new device.”

Cooper, according to the report, “did recall two instances where he destroyed Clinton’s old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer.”
Click to expand...

The 12 juiciest bits from the FBI's Clinton report - POLITICO
 
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...

Indicting him or subpoenaing him? I heard the latter.
 
Slyfox696 said:
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).

It's like you are deliberately ignoring the point.

Typical.

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.

That is not what Barr or Mueller said.

Why are you making things up?
The letter does not say that at all. Why are you making things up?
Click to expand...

This is literally what YOU posted:

Slyfox696 said:
"the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.

...

[/b]while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime[/b], it also does not exonerate him"

Source: Read the Mueller report findings: Barr’s letter to Congress | Fox News


Mueller specifically did not make a determination.
Click to expand...

...I'm not making up a ****ing thing.
 
Bucky said:
Enough.

The Democrats didn't like the results of the 2016 election. Ever since then they are trying to undo this election and challenge the results of a democratic election.

They are creating their own facts to conform to their own twisted narrative.

Democrats demanded Obama fire Comey.

When Trump fires Comey it all of a sudden is an abuse of power?

:confused:

If Trump were involved in Russian Collusion it would have been in the Mueller Report.

It is over. We should now investigate the investigators and see why Hillary Clinton got off despite this:



The 12 juiciest bits from the FBI's Clinton report - POLITICO
Click to expand...
The Mueller report didn't find criminal conspiracy, that doesn't mean there are no important events that or actions that while not criminal, that the Congress and the public deserve to know about to interpret for themselves.
 
Chomsky said:
Mueller didn't "say there's no there, there", that's Barr's opinion.
Click to expand...

If it was Mueller's opinion that there was obstruction then he should have acted on it. But he did not and Barr ruled with Muller there was no evidence to warrant any action.

I want to see Mueller's report, and hear his decision process, not read the opinion of Trump's appointee with his selected excerpts.
Click to expand...

What you want you probably will not get. Barr will follow the laws imposed upon him, I've never seen a full unredacted report of this nature ever being released. Maybe you have but I don't think one exist. Even if Barr is in front of congress he has a bunch of "I can't discuss that as there are ongoing investigations. We've all seen this same thing time and time again.
 
PoliSciXtina said:
True. I take it we will learn eventually. It’s really up to congress whether the president obstructed justice, not the AG. They have the final say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I'm not a hack like 90% of the people on here.

You break the rules.....you go to jail.
Click to expand...

The people at MSNBC are now playing the race card and saying Trump wouldn't have gotten off if he were black.
 
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...

We need to read the final Mueller Report - it is imperative now more than ever .
 
Barnacle said:
I think we are going in circles here, so here is my last comment to you on this matter:

"... and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. ...

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. ..."


The DOJ took Mueller's findings and concluded NO CRIME ... in other words EXONERATED.
Click to expand...
Alright, that's fair enough. But remember, the guy making the decision has already stated "the President cannot obstruct", before he even had the report. Most of us - 80% - want to hear what Mueller has to say. Instead we get the opinions of a Trump appointee with preconceived notions, who only gives us his opinion along with a few select excerpts without us seeing the rest.

And as to Barr's statement claiming, "I and Rosenstein"? Let's remember Barr is Rosentein's superior and makes the final decision; Rosenstein subordinates himself to Barr.
 
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:



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."
Click to expand...
Yes, I did see the above; but that is a separate from Barr believing a President cannot obstruct. Two seperate issues, Harshaw.
 
Chomsky said:
Alright, that's fair enough. But remember, the guy making the decision has already stated "the President cannot obstruct", before he even had the report. Most of us - 80% - want to hear what Mueller has to say. Instead we get the opinions of a Trump appointee with preconceived notions, who only gives us his opinion along with a few select excerpts without us seeing the rest.

And as to Barr's statement claiming, "I and Rosenstein"? Let's remember Barr is Rosentein's superior and makes the final decision; Rosenstein subordinates himself to Barr.
Click to expand...

Rosenstein will soon resign, go straight to reporters, and state “it’s a lie, I never agreed with that, Barr made that decision all on his own, over my objections.”
 
dixon01767 said:
You should have kept reading a little bit further to see the part where the DOJ exonerated Trump of any obstruction charges.
Click to expand...
Please feel free to quote & cite, in support of your argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom