• 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!

[W:914,1223] Robert Mueller's report is out

Napoleon said:
Stone is going down for wiki. The only thing that saved Don Jr was his willful ignorance of the source of those documents.
Click to expand...

Stone didn't talk to wiki.
 
Napoleon said:
Stone is going down for wiki. The only thing that saved Don Jr was his willful ignorance of the source of those documents.
Click to expand...

Do you know who sent the Russian to talk to Junior?
 
Mycroft said:
A very good interview with Rudy Giuliani.

What I find most interesting is the notion that the Mueller team could not find any proof that Trump did not obstruct justice. As Rudy says, how do you prove a negative?

Click to expand...
Rudy's got a point. Not that it'll make any difference to the unhinged mobs on the left.
 
Mithros said:
I read about 50 pages... but it should take less than a page to realize that Barr's take and the Barr "narrative" so far is a complete lie.

It's monumentally damning.. Easily worse than Watergate.

  1. There are 14 additional investigations farmed out from Muellers initial investigation, only two are unredacted
  2. Mueller determined that Trumps obstruction was not due to fear of revaluations of a criminal conspiracy with Russia, but Trump feared that any investigation into his campaign, businesses, and personal finances was likely to uncover significant criminality.
  3. We know that the FBI opened a counter intelligence investigation examining if Trump is a Russian asset. Since no mention of that investigation has been made, we must assume it is still ongoing.
  4. Mueller made it very clear that if Trump were not president, he would have been indicted for obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

Barr is a fat toadie, a liar and apologist for trump and his goons...Nothing more
 
Winston said:
it's my understanding that the Mueller team consulted with the DoJ on whether or not they could indict a president and came back with a 'No' answer, since an impending criminal case would interfere with a President's ability to govern.

Rather they passed it to Congress.

The Mueller Report Is an Impeachment Referral - The Atlantic
Click to expand...
Cherry picking phrases or sentences from a four-hundred page document can probably be used to prove or disprove just about anything.
 
Bullseye said:
Cherry picking phrases or sentences from a four-hundred page document can probably be used to prove or disprove just about anything.
Click to expand...

Then suffer with the rest of us and read it for yourself. Pretty damning stuff.
 
MovingPictures said:
The obstruction of justice case is pretty damning.

The "collusion" investigation found a lot of evidence of corrupt conduct and lies, as well.

It looks as bad as anticipated.
Click to expand...

Sure looks bad from a democrats point of view. Corrupt liars who fabricated an investigation based on fraudulent evidence.
 
Well ... some of it.
 
Bullseye said:
Rudy's got a point. Not that it'll make any difference to the unhinged mobs on the left.
Click to expand...

Same here.
That was a strange way for whoever wrote that segment of the report to say they couldn't prove obstruction. In essence they had to grudgingly conclude "We couldn't prove he didn't."
 
Integrityrespec said:
Sure looks bad from a democrats point of view. Corrupt liars who fabricated an investigation based on fraudulent evidence.
Click to expand...

Yeah...The Whole report makes trump look good...........Sure....You Bootlickers need to give it a rest
 
bomberfox said:
It depends on if the electors feel like giving us more reasons to throw them out on the streets.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure what you're talking about. Each state chooses or awards their electors according to whom wins that state. Hillary's problem was 58% of independents voted against her and 52% of all those who voted. Of course since Trump won independents 46-42 with 12% voting third party. One can also say 54% of independents voted against him. 12% voted against both Trump and Hillary, 6% of all those who voted cast their ballot for third party candidates also against both Trump and Clinton. So Trump had 54% of all of America voting against him.

Neither candidate was wanted by America as a whole. Both were forced on us by a very small minority of the total electorate.
 
Bullseye said:
Cherry picking phrases or sentences from a four-hundred page document can probably be used to prove or disprove just about anything.
Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Bullseye said:
Cherry picking phrases or sentences from a four-hundred page document can probably be used to prove or disprove just about anything.
Click to expand...

I just read that one of the cherries picked was that the report confirmed the pee tape ... even though it did the opposite.
 
bubbabgone said:
Same here.
That was a strange way for whoever wrote that segment of the report to say they couldn't prove obstruction. In essence they had to grudgingly conclude "We couldn't prove he didn't."
Click to expand...

Except that wasn’t the conclusion. The conclusion was that DOJ policy prevented them from making a “traditional prosecutorial judgement” on the issue. And that if they could have exonerated the President they would have, but the facts didn’t bear out innocence.
 
Uh oh. My understanding from Mueller is that the pee tape isn't real. That must be shattering to those here who've insisted all along that it was real. Maybe we can get around to Steele's testimony in Florida. Won't that be great?
 
Perotista said:
Not quite sure what you're talking about. Each state chooses or awards their electors according to whom wins that state. Hillary's problem was 58% of independents voted against her and 52% of all those who voted. Of course since Trump won independents 46-42 with 12% voting third party. One can also say 54% of independents voted against him. 12% voted against both Trump and Hillary, 6% of all those who voted cast their ballot for third party candidates also against both Trump and Clinton. So Trump had 54% of all of America voting against him.

Neither candidate was wanted by America as a whole. Both were forced on us by a very small minority of the total electorate.
Click to expand...

What counted was the Putin wanted Trump that made the whole difference. He spent millions electing him and has enjoyed a big payoff.

Putin’s Payout: 12 Ways Trump has Supported Putin’s Foreign Policy Agenda - The Moscow Project
 
Mycroft said:
A very good interview with Rudy Giuliani.

What I find most interesting is the notion that the Mueller team could not find any proof that Trump did not obstruct justice. As Rudy says, how do you prove a negative?

Click to expand...


It is absolutely bizarre to read a prosecution report that says that couldn't prove innocence. That isn't their job!

Can they prove guilt? NO? Full stop.
 
Napoleon said:
Except that wasn’t the conclusion. The conclusion was that DOJ policy prevented them from making a “traditional prosecutorial judgement” on the issue. And that if they could have exonerated the President they would have, but the facts didn’t bear out innocence.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between the bolded and "We couldn't prove he didn't."?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom