• 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!

Do you accept the Barr Report at face value?

Do you accept the Barr Report at face value?


  • Total voters
    100
From what I understand, Mueller's report was almost 500 pages. Really hard to adequately summarize that in 48 hours. But I'm sure Barr has been getting up to speed since the day he took office.

That's nonsense.

Most high school students have to read books that are 500 pages or longer in a weekend and have to provide a book report. It is fair to adequately summarize such a report in that amount of time.
 
Did congress get to decide if Ken Starr's report was on the up and up?
Just more whining from butt hurt leftists and Trump haters.
It's mostly just a continuous of the left's butt hurt since 2016, trix. As you know on that other forum we used to frequent and on this one the overriding sentiment of the left was that Mueller was going to ride out of the sunrise in full shining armor and deliver the proof that Trump stole the election from Maid Hilary whose trophy it rightfully was. And now, from their viewpoint :hitsfan: I wonder how our buddy over there is taking this. Suicide watch? :lol:
 
I accept the report, which finds there is no basis at this time for criminal prosecution for obstruction of justice "beyond a reasonable doubt". I also note that the Special Counsel specified that his evidence "does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

That means that if congress wishes to go for the political solution of impeachment, it may indeed find sufficient constitutional authority to impeach; however, unless something explosive is revealed in future releases, which I personally doubt, the majority of the American public and certainly the congress itself will never have the votes necessary for impeachment.

For me, it's over at this point; the Russian interference has been documented, those involved indicted, and no one with an IQ beyond that of a boiled turnip can deny what our intelligence agencies have told us all along. My recommendation would be that congress move on to heath care, which is what 2018 voters put them in place to do.
 
That's nonsense.

Most high school students have to read books that are 500 pages or longer in a weekend and have to provide a book report. It is fair to adequately summarize such a report in that amount of time.

Most? No try very little high schools require that. Your comments are some of the most lying and ignorant around Bucky.
 
That's nonsense.

Most high school students have to read books that are 500 pages or longer in a weekend and have to provide a book report. It is fair to adequately summarize such a report in that amount of time.

Would love to see 'you' do that.
 
Did congress get to decide if Ken Starr's report was on the up and up?
Just more whining from butt hurt leftists and Trump haters.

When did trump’s conned alt-Rightists stop smearing Mueller?
 
I accept it at face value but it leaves TONS of questions. Tons.

and when I say at face value I mean I know it is slanted in word for TRump, that is why he was appointed, but technicality within the bounds of law.

So if you truly believe Barr is covering for Trump do you likewise believe that democratic appointees have covered for other democrats in Congress, the democratic Presidents, the members of Obama's administration covered for Hillary. Or are you just so anti Trump you cant see the bad in the democrats?
 
That's nonsense.

Most high school students have to read books that are 500 pages or longer in a weekend and have to provide a book report. It is fair to adequately summarize such a report in that amount of time.

My god, how dumb can a post be.

Yes, I'm sure students have to read a 500 page legal document in a weekend and provide a book report.

Sheesh, this isn't about reading a work of fiction and coming up with a synopsis.
 
The Barr Report, of course, being distinctly Barr's own four page summary of Mueller's report.

Do you accept the Barr Report at face value?

1. Yes, I have no reason to doubt it.
2. No, I'll wait on the Mueller Report, whenever that happens.
3. I don't know.

It wasn't just Barr's summary but direct quotes from Mueller himself. Do you suspect Mueller of lying or not being able to evaluate his own work? That said, I still hope for there to be a bi-partisan review of the full report and a release of as much of the report as possible, for the sake of the country's peace of mind.
 
When did trump’s conned alt-Rightists stop smearing Mueller?

When? Mark Levin and Dershowitz are completely laying the wood on Mueller.
 
It's actually "The Barr and Rosenstein Report". They worked together on it with help from Mueller, himself. Barr and Rosenstein also came to their obstruction conclusion together.

I have no reason to doubt it.

If it was false Mueller or one of the 19 lawyers would be screaming to the press and media about it.
 
My god, how dumb can a post be.

Yes, I'm sure students have to read a 500 page legal document in a weekend and provide a book report.

Sheesh, this isn't about reading a work of fiction and coming up with a synopsis.

1. I believe Roots is based on a true story.

2. William Barr is a highly intellectual man. Graduated with high honors. He probably reads 500-page books/briefs every other day.
 
So if you truly believe Barr is covering for Trump do you likewise believe that democratic appointees have covered for other democrats in Congress, the democratic Presidents, the members of Obama's administration covered for Hillary. Or are you just so anti Trump you cant see the bad in the democrats?

This is off subject.

Do people slant things in both parties to benefit those that appointed them? LOL

Obviously.

And, I am about as anti Trump as humanly possible. He hijacked my party and converted it to lunacy.
 
It wasn't just Barr's summary but direct quotes from Mueller himself. Do you suspect Mueller of lying or not being able to evaluate his own work? That said, I still hope for there to be a bi-partisan review of the full report and a release of as much of the report as possible, for the sake of the country's peace of mind.

I'm guessing that you wouldn't trust me to take your arguments and summarize them faithfully, even if I did pepper that summary with the occasional direct quote from you.
 
I'm guessing that you wouldn't trust me to take your arguments and summarize them faithfully, even if I did pepper that summary with the occasional direct quote from you.

Are you assuming that Mueller is prohibited from making a public statement to disavow the summary? In the face of that reality, your comment falls flat.
 
Are you assuming that Mueller is prohibited from making a public statement to disavow the summary? In the face of that reality, your comment falls flat.

I believe that Mueller is indeed legally prohibited from speaking publicly about the investigation. I'm not sure if that same constraint applies to him answering questions in front of Congress.
 
No.....until Barr presents the case against Comey, Brennan, Clapper, McCabe, Stroyk, Page, the Ohrs, Lynch, Obama, Hillary it was a waste.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
I believe that Mueller is indeed legally prohibited from speaking publicly about the investigation. I'm not sure if that same constraint applies to him answering questions in front of Congress.

He doesn't have to speak about the details of the investigation. He can speak about a mischaracterization of his summery or comments.
 
He doesn't have to speak about the details of the investigation. He can speak about a mischaracterization of his summery or comments.

And to address that point, unless Barr was deliberately lying (and I believe Barr is too smart to do that), it is not in line with Mueller's temperament or character to start a public spat with the DOJ. I believe that if Mueller does say anything that directly contradicts Barr, it will only be while he's sitting in front of a Congressional panel.

I don't believe that Mueller is going to go public because Barr oversimplified his report and gave it a pro-trump spin.
 
I believe that Mueller is indeed legally prohibited from speaking publicly about the investigation. I'm not sure if that same constraint applies to him answering questions in front of Congress.

I do hope a senate committee does bring in Mueller and question his investigation. For example did he look at both campaigns or only one. If only one,why when we know that Steele worked with Russians for his dossier. Did he investigate FISA abuses if not why not.
 
I do hope a senate committee does bring in Mueller and question his investigation. For example did he look at both campaigns or only one. If only one,why when we know that Steele worked with Russians for his dossier. Did he investigate FISA abuses if not why not.

If you're so hot to see Mueller make the Republicans who ask those questions look foolish, then sure, I suppose that's one scenario you could opt for.
 
No.....until Barr presents the case against Comey, Brennan, Clapper, McCabe, Stroyk, Page, the Ohrs, Lynch, Obama, Hillary it was a waste.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Republies should have been investigated during Benghazi.
 
Back
Top Bottom