• 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!

Legal dispute between Mueller, Barr drove end of investigation

Tanngrisnir said:
No, he simply wasn't. He took it upon himself to do so when no judgement needed to be made and the evidence didn't support exoneration. Give the evidence over to Congress w/out lying like he didn't and remain the peoples attorney, not the president's personal lawyer.

You don't seem at all familiar with how this all works.

It was a very stupid asssertion.
Click to expand...

LOL again, showing you don't know how PROSECUTORS work.....they don't investigate and then just...you know what...we don't know....let's just leave it hanging....it's either....charges...or declination....it has NOTHING do with Congress, you realize that right?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, the appropriate thing to do would have been not to come to a determination and let Congress take if from there, according to the OLC and the policies in effect.

Barr exonerated him when there was no need to and the evidence didn't support that.

It's nothing you'd be likely to understand.
Click to expand...

Mueller exonerated him.
As he said, not enough evidence to charge.
 
sjmay said:
LOL you really don't understand what the JUSTICE department does do you?

And the evidence didn't support that? Out of the 10 items on there, there's only one that's faintly damning, that's the McGahn issue.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I do understand what that dept. does. It's how I know that you don't.

And there are more than just one, but it's good to see you admit that he attempted OOJ w/McGahn.

I knew you'd come around.
 
sjmay said:
LOL again, showing you don't know how PROSECUTORS work.....they don't investigate and then just...you know what...we don't know....let's just leave it hanging....it's either....charges...or declination....it has NOTHING do with Congress, you realize that right?
Click to expand...

Mueller and Barr were not prosecutors in this case.

Thanks for exposing your laughable ignorance about this.

Not that there was any doubt.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Congress doesn't enforce laws; that's the Executive.
It's a separation of power thing.

Congress is of course free to take whatever steps they wish to take in response.
Click to expand...

Never claimed otherwise. That's completely irrelevant to what I posted.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Mueller specifically didn't not exonerate him and stated so. To assert otherwise is to lie.
Click to expand...

No conspiracy. No evidence to prosecute for obstruction.
That's what Mueller said.
An exoneration. It's how the American legal system works.
 
Athanasius68 said:
No conspiracy. No evidence to prosecute for obstruction.
That's what Mueller said.
An exoneration. It's how the American legal system works.
Click to expand...

Newp. Plenty of evidence for obstruction. Mueller didn't say otherwise.

Why are you lying about this? What's the point?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Indeed, I do understand what that dept. does. It's how I know that you don't.

And there are more than just one, but it's good to see you admit that he attempted OOJ w/McGahn.

I knew you'd come around.
Click to expand...

I never said he didn't, and no..there isn't, unless you want to be a partisan hack....

And you have NO idea how the Justice Department works if you think there wasn't going to be an outcome to the investigation....the problem is, you can't stand the outcome, so it's a farce.
 
sjmay said:
I never said he didn't, and no..there isn't, unless you want to be a partisan hack....

And you have NO idea how the Justice Department works if you think there wasn't going to be an outcome to the investigation....the problem is, you can't stand the outcome, so it's a farce.
Click to expand...

The outcome is that Mueller laid out an obstruction case for Congress to act on. And there was more than just McGahn. This clearly has you in pathological fear for whatever reason.

Why are you trying to hold forth on things you don't understand?

If you don't understand the report, why blather about it?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Newp. Plenty of evidence for obstruction. Mueller didn't say otherwise.

Why are you lying about this? What's the point?
Click to expand...

Guess you missed this,

"The Mueller report cites three problems with drawing a conclusion on obstruction: the president’s constitutional authority, the lack of sufficient evidence that Trump committed a crime related to Russian election interference that he would want to cover up and the fact that some of his actions took place in public view."
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The outcome is that Mueller laid out an obstruction case for Congress to act on. And there was more than just McGahn. This clearly has you in pathological fear for whatever reason.

Why are you trying to hold forth on things you don't understand?

If you don't understand the report, why blather about it?
Click to expand...

Then Congress is free to act upon it.
 
sjmay said:
Guess you missed this,

"The Mueller report cites three problems with drawing a conclusion on obstruction: the president’s constitutional authority, the lack of sufficient evidence that Trump committed a crime related to Russian election interference that he would want to cover up and the fact that some of his actions took place in public view."
Click to expand...

Which, again, is irrrelevant to what I've posted.

There is no need for an underlyhing crime involving Russia. That's simply Barr lying in his laughably dishonest summary.

I can see why some people would be suckered by that.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The outcome is that Mueller laid out an obstruction case for Congress to act on. And there was more than just McGahn. This clearly has you in pathological fear for whatever reason.

Why are you trying to hold forth on things you don't understand?

If you don't understand the report, why blather about it?
Click to expand...

WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT....you get that right? You understand that what Congress acts on, has nothing to do with the Justice Department....

And no, there was not more than just McGahn....

1. You only have the word of James Comey, nothing else,
2. We've established that firing Comey is a presidential right
3. Tweets...really....public tweets....good thing he was trying to hide stuff right?

That's your evidence, good luck.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Which, again, is irrrelevant to what I've posted.

There is no need for an underlyhing crime involving Russia. That's simply Barr lying in his laughably dishonest summary.

I can see why some people would be suckered by that.
Click to expand...

You do realize that was quoted came from MUELLER, not Barr right?
 
Athanasius68 said:
"Attempted OOJ"?? W hat does that even me?
Click to expand...

To attempt to obstruct justice IS obstruction of justice, according to federal law. It doens't have to be a successful attempt.

Again, since you don't understand that, why are you talking about it?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
To attempt to obstruct justice IS obstruction of justice, according to federal law. It doens't have to be a successful attempt.

Again, since you don't understand that, why are you talking about it?
Click to expand...

Tell me again how a public tweet is an attempt to do anything but tweet?
 
sjmay said:
WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT....you get that right? You understand that what Congress acts on, has nothing to do with the Justice Department....

And no, there was not more than just McGahn....

1. You only have the word of James Comey, nothing else,
2. We've established that firing Comey is a presidential right
3. Tweets...really....public tweets....good thing he was trying to hide stuff right?

That's your evidence, good luck.
Click to expand...

LOL! Good to see you braying from the rooftops that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, there was more than just McGahn. There is Trump's own admission, twice, that he fired Comey to disrupt the Russia probe. It's got nothing to do with Comey's words. And he didn't have the right to fire him for corrupt purposes.

Always happy to expose such ignorance. You're most welcome.
 
sjmay said:
Tell me again how a public tweet is an attempt to do anything but tweet?
Click to expand...

Why would I waste my time? You clearly don't understand the law and have no desire to rectify that situation.

Still always happy to have exposed your ignorance.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! Good to see you braying from the rooftops that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, there was more than just McGahn. There is Trump's own admission, twice, that he fired Comey to disrupt the Russia probe. It's got nothing to do with Comey's words. And he didn't have the right to fire him for corrupt purposes.

Always happy to expose such ignorance. You're most welcome.
Click to expand...

Lol trumps words that the Russia thing was on his mind....good luck with that.

Question, how pissed are you going to be when there is no impeachment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom