• 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!

Bottom line-Barr told the truth

Crystal said:
So Mueller arrived at Neither Trump nor any American colluded with Russia is invalid? Or Valid?
Click to expand...
That’s your entire argument for saying $35M was wasted? You really do belong in the kiddie pool of political discussions.
 
Crystal said:
So Mueller arrived at Neither Trump nor any American colluded with Russia is invalid? Or Valid?
Click to expand...

On what page of the Mueller Report does he make that statement?
 
Idiometer said:
You can't indict a sitting president. That was Mueller's interpretation of the special council rules and the constitution. If his report had actually ACCUSED Trump of obstruction, it would have been charges outside of court, meaning that the accused would have no standing to legally refute the charges.

Mueller bent over backward on the side of fairness. Instead of entering an "I find him guilty" statement in his report, he did the only thing he could do under the circumstances, which is to lay out all of the obstruction and abuse of power evidence in his report, and direct all of that to congress for whatever actions they see fit to follow up with. Which is what they are doing.
Click to expand...

Mueller could have said he found an obstruction crime and the Report itself said that nothing prevented them from looking for one.
The OLC had no directive about it and Mueller told Barr the OLC wasn't considered in his (Mueller's) decision.


This been gone over a lot.
 
KLATTU said:
It's neat trick lefties play.

"show us the lie"
" I already did"

(Of course they never did)

Or else they posted something so lame it was laughed off the stage and they're too embarassed to revisit it.
Click to expand...

Like the 'Trump never lies' trick played by conservatives?
 
code1211 said:
Anyone who opposes illegality opposes its allies and perpetrators as well.

The Democrats have been the prime movers of this sham since Hillary and her goons conspired with the Russians to create the Steele Dossier.
Click to expand...

The Republicans are not concerned with legality especially the president who isunindicted co-conspirator in a crime who is also committed obstruction of justice. AG Barr told a flat out lie to Congress and is covering up for the president

As for the Steele dossier, please provide evidence.

No doubt coming from the likes of you it's another baseless conspiracy theory the right loves to traffick in
 
bubbabgone said:
Mueller could have said he found an obstruction crime and the Report itself said that nothing prevented them from looking for one.
The OLC had no directive about it and Mueller told Barr the OLC wasn't considered in his (Mueller's) decision.


This been gone over a lot.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. If he stated clearly that something was a crime in his opinion, and did not at the same time indict the guilty party, which he could not do in the case of a sitting president, then to Mueller it would have been unfair to make such a statement publicly. That's why his report directed further action to congress, several times.
 
wellwisher said:
The bottom line is Barr is willing to investigate the front end of the collusion delusion. Every time he mentions this the Democrats get very aggressive in a defensive type of way. Barr has the Democrats scared, with them trying to kill the messenger, before he can begin any serious investigation. When I watched the Senate questioning Barr, I got the impression the Democrats were like defense lawyers trying to create doubt in a case where the prosecutor's evidence speaks for itself.

Democrats tend to walk lockstep and because of this, so many are vulnerable to indictment. Pelosi and Schumer, who never helped Trump, are all of a sudden talking infrastructure. They are sucking up to Trump, for pardons for their crimes. I bet if the Democrats help Trump move his agenda, he will show mercy. Trump is not as evil as the Democrats.

Yesterday, the Congress wanted Barr to be questioned by subordinate lawyers, instead of Congressional leaders. This was a setup. These subordinate lawyers were supposed to use unethical tactics to make Barr mad, and thereby set him up for a perjury trap. They were willing to fall on their swords; unethical behavior, in exchange for future considerations by DNC leadership. Barr avoided the trap and expects to be questioned only by Congressional leaders. These leaders have to get reelected and can't play as dirty on TV. This shows how desparate the Democrats have become.
I heard that solid evidence is appearing that connects the DNC to using foreign nationals from Ukraine to influence the 2016 election. This was what Trump was accused of with Russia. This proof is based on the cooperation of the Ukrainian government and their contact with solicitors from the DNC.

Joe Biden used the power of the US government to blackmail Ukraine, to fire a prosecutor who was targeting his son for a shady business deal. Biden got the prosecutor fired and made justice go away. Since crime is part of the DNC this may not hurt Biden among the base. It will impact the popular vote among independents. This may be used by Bernie supporters to take out Biden, if the fix be in, again.

It turns out the Democrats have been projecting their own crimes onto Trump.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what the Dems were doing-most of them. Kamala of course and Crazy Hirono. Dems' tactic is to poison the well and cast doubt over ALL of Barr's work. They did the same with Obama's IG, Charles McCullough who was investigating the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation. Diane Feinstein and several of her ilk penned a letter, openly criticizing and accusing McCullough, as the investigation was taking place, in order to assassinate his character and reputation.
Why? They were anticipating a poor result for Hillary and the FBI, so they took offensive measures.
This is their wheelhouse.

Very interesting point about Nancy and Chuck. That palsy walsy b.s. dog and pony show in front of the WH was as phony as a 3-dollar bill.

Totally agree that Dems wanted their hired guns to set up a perjury trap. They don't want information. They're not performing oversight. Dems want Barr gone.
But it's too late. Just as Trump couldn't stop the Russian collusion investigation by firing Mueller, Dems can't stop what Barr has set in motion.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
The Republicans are not concerned with legality especially the president who isunindicted co-conspirator in a crime who is also committed obstruction of justice. AG Barr told a flat out lie to Congress and is covering up for the president

As for the Steele dossier, please provide evidence.

No doubt coming from the likes of you it's another baseless conspiracy theory the right loves to traffick in
Click to expand...

That first sentence sounds like you were trying write it in code.

From what I can understand of it, it seems you have no idea what you're talking about.

Questions:

1. What is the conspiracy in which you feel the president is an un-indicted co-conspirator?
2. What was the lie that you feel was told by Barr?

"The likes" of me? That's a weird thing to say. All I look for is actual events that occurred in the real world to support allegations.

Bruce Ohr testified under oath that he warned the FBI that the Steele Dossier was flawed and biased oppo-research and that it should not be given credibility.

Perkins Coie, the law firm laundering money from the DNC and the Hillary Campaign used to pay for the Dossier, have admitted doing so.

This is absolutely damning stuff.

FISA shocker: DOJ official warned Steele dossier was connected to Clinton, might be biased | TheHill
<snip>
“I provided information to the FBI when I thought Christopher Steele was, as I said, desperate that Trump not be elected,” he added. “So, yes, of course I provided that to the FBI.”
<snip>
“These guys were hired by somebody relating to, who’s related to the Clinton campaign and be aware,” Ohr told Congress, explaining what he warned the bureau.

Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented both the DNC and the Clinton campaign during the 2016 election, belatedly admitted it paid Fusion GPS for Steele’s work on behalf of the candidate and party and disguised the payments as legal bills when, in fact, it was opposition research.
<snip>
 
Idiometer said:
You don't get it. If he stated clearly that something was a crime in his opinion, and did not at the same time indict the guilty party, which he could not do in the case of a sitting president, then to Mueller it would have been unfair to make such a statement publicly. That's why his report directed further action to congress, several times.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I get it. You're not the first to repeat that same story.
As I noted to someone else trying the same theory on another thread ...

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Mueller’s choice not to make a decision on obstruction was “one of the biggest surprises of the report,” and he was still struggling to understand the special counsel’s thought process.
“It doesn’t make any sense, because on collusion, he seemed to be perfectly empowered to reach a conclusion on whether the president committed a crime,” Turley said. “The other problem is that his mandate clearly allowed him to make a decision, and [Justice Department headquarters] had clearly indicated he could make a decision.”
...
In releasing the report Thursday, the attorney general told reporters that Justice Department officials asked Mueller “about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion.”
“He made it very clear, several times, that he was not taking a position — he was not saying but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime,” Barr said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bf664e250e4c

​
 
bubbabgone said:
Believe me, I get it. You're not the first to repeat that same story.
As I noted to someone else trying the same theory on another thread ...

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Mueller’s choice not to make a decision on obstruction was “one of the biggest surprises of the report,” and he was still struggling to understand the special counsel’s thought process.
“It doesn’t make any sense, because on collusion, he seemed to be perfectly empowered to reach a conclusion on whether the president committed a crime,” Turley said. “The other problem is that his mandate clearly allowed him to make a decision, and [Justice Department headquarters] had clearly indicated he could make a decision.”
...
In releasing the report Thursday, the attorney general told reporters that Justice Department officials asked Mueller “about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion.”
“He made it very clear, several times, that he was not taking a position — he was not saying but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime,” Barr said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bf664e250e4c

​
Click to expand...

Hey, I never said that I agreed with Mueller's decision, just that I understand it. I'm trying to share that understanding with the righties here, but no good deed ever goes unpunished.
 
Helix said:
Bottom line : bull****.
Click to expand...
BS is the wrong response for you guys. It should be "Boo hoo". Like it or not KLATTU's summary is spot on. if not - despute

it, don't just spew profanity.
 
Helix said:
Read the article.
Click to expand...
I read the opinion Weak logic, jumping to conclusions and mindless misdirections. She seems upset Barr's synopsis of four pages wasn't 448 like the original. Barr "cherry picked" Mueller's words, HORRORS - that's usually how a summary/synopsis works.
 
Bottom line...Barr has been lying is butt off from the very beginning
 
Bullseye said:
I read the opinion Weak logic, jumping to conclusions and mindless misdirections. She seems upset Barr's synopsis of four pages wasn't 448 like the original. Barr "cherry picked" Mueller's words, HORRORS - that's usually how a summary/synopsis works.
Click to expand...

he's a lying cultist. this makes him a perfect fit for Tweety's personal lawyer.
 
Helix said:
he's a lying cultist. this makes him a perfect fit for Tweety's personal lawyer.
Click to expand...
for the well thought out and intellectually sound analysis. :roll:
 
Bullseye said:
Your sarcasm detector detector detector needs new batteries.
Click to expand...

i sense that a snarky reponse responder needs some new batteries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom