Let’s first be clear about what the letter does not say.

[OscarLevant]

I know repubs like to think Barr's letter to congress is the final word.

I doubt it. Lots or reasons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...eport-says-doesnt-say/?utm_term=.1165f3c5c1b8

It does not say whether Mueller found a preponderance of evidence of crimes. (The criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt, is much higher.)

It does not say whether Mueller found President Trump lied to the American people.

It does not say Mueller exonerated the president; to the contrary, it says the opposite. It does not say anything about possible financial crimes under investigation in the Southern District of New York.

It does not say why there were more than 100 contacts between the Trump presidential campaign and transition team and Russia-linked operatives, or why so many people denied there were contacts.

The report does not say whether Trump and his associates welcomed the help of a foreign hostile power.

It does not say anything about possible state prosecutions.

The Mueller report will be made public, the pressure will simply be too great from both the right and left.


Trump's drivel about being a victim is rich, considering he is the master victim creator.

 

[Common Sense 1]

I know repubs like to think Barr's letter to congress is the final word.

I doubt it. Lots or reasons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...eport-says-doesnt-say/?utm_term=.1165f3c5c1b8




The Mueller report will be made public, the pressure will simply be too great from both the right and left.


Trump's drivel about being a victim is rich, considering he is the master victim creator.

What it says..... Trump is our president! There was NO Russian collusion! MSM lied for 2 years about the Russian collusion story.

It's over now!

 

[Captain Adverse]

I know repubs like to think Barr's letter to congress is the final word.

I doubt it. Lots or reasons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...eport-says-doesnt-say/?utm_term=.1165f3c5c1b8

The Mueller report will be made public, the pressure will simply be too great from both the right and left.


Trump's drivel about being a victim is rich, considering he is the master victim creator.

A prosecutor seeks sufficient evidence to indict for a crime. Presidents can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

There is no "preponderance of the evidence" standard for crimes; that is the standard for civil matters where the only "punishment" is financial liability for alleged harms.

You seem to be arguing that as long as there is a good faith belief the person is guilty, then to hell with insufficient evidence to prove it, just "burn the witch" anyway. :roll:

Whenever I hear someone argue like the OP I immediately think of the OJ Simpson case. You know, where he was found not guilty of the actual crime, but then taken to civil court in a more segregated locale with a less "diverse" community and found "more likely than not" guilty for the tort of "wrongful death" and punished by destroying him financially? IMO an example of vindictive "by any means necessary" thinking just like the OP.

Edit: I know that while impeachment is supposed to be based on "high crimes and misdemeanors" giving the impression of a criminal requirement but really being just a political tool to overthrow a President Congress does not like (see Andrew Johnson), the standard for a DOJ Prosecutor remains beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Mycroft]

I know repubs like to think Barr's letter to congress is the final word.

I doubt it. Lots or reasons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...eport-says-doesnt-say/?utm_term=.1165f3c5c1b8




The Mueller report will be made public, the pressure will simply be too great from both the right and left.


Trump's drivel about being a victim is rich, considering he is the master victim creator.

Well, lets see...

"It does not say whether Mueller found a preponderance of evidence of crimes. (The criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt, is much higher.)"

This is what Barr said:

"The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

"...the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts..."

So...what Barr and Mueller are saying is...it didn't happen.

Preponderance of evidence doesn't apply anyway. That term is associated with a court case. There was no court case.​

"It does not say Mueller exonerated the president; to the contrary, it says the opposite. It does not say anything about possible financial crimes under investigation in the Southern District of New York."

Saying nobody conspired or coordinated with Russia is an exoneration, since those are the charges the media, the Dems and the Trump haters have made.

Mueller is not investigating possible financial crimes, so Mueller's report shouldn't have anything to say about that.​

"It does not say why there were more than 100 contacts between the Trump presidential campaign and transition team and Russia-linked operatives, or why so many people denied there were contacts."

Barr's letter to Congress addresses the "principle conclusion" of the Mueller investigation. He didn't intend to get into the weeds...and he didn't.​

"The report does not say whether Trump and his associates welcomed the help of a foreign hostile power."

What part of "did not conspire or coordinate with Russia" does that WaPo writer not understand?​

"It does not say anything about possible state prosecutions."

Why should it? Go ask the states about that.​

Now...I'm sure these are things that Trump haters want to know. Too bad. Since the DOJ is bound to protect those not charged with crimes, that writer...and anyone who agrees with that writer...can go pound sand.

 

[ludin]

I know repubs like to think Barr's letter to congress is the final word.

I doubt it. Lots or reasons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...eport-says-doesnt-say/?utm_term=.1165f3c5c1b8




The Mueller report will be made public, the pressure will simply be too great from both the right and left.


Trump's drivel about being a victim is rich, considering he is the master victim creator.

The letter is clear
No collusion
No obstruction.

THe fact you can't accept it is not anyone's issue denial
if the leftist favorite argument.

 

[trouble13]

I know repubs like to think Barr's letter to congress is the final word.

I doubt it. Lots or reasons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...eport-says-doesnt-say/?utm_term=.1165f3c5c1b8




The Mueller report will be made public, the pressure will simply be too great from both the right and left.


Trump's drivel about being a victim is rich, considering he is the master victim creator.

If there isnt evidence of any collusion in it then the doj is going to have a lot of explaining to do about why they opened the investigation.

There may be a lot of people getting fired and a lot of people going to jail.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Cardinal]

The right wing reaction to Barr's letter has been weapons-grade crazy. Their reaction to winning the 2016 election was tempered and humble compared to what they're doing now.

 

[Bullseye]

I know repubs like to think Barr's letter to congress is the final word.

I doubt it. Lots or reasons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...eport-says-doesnt-say/?utm_term=.1165f3c5c1b8




The Mueller report will be made public, the pressure will simply be too great from both the right and left.


Trump's drivel about being a victim is rich, considering he is the master victim creator.

I bought stock in Kleenex first thing this morning; with all the whining and crying you guys have been doing their sales must have doubled. :lamo

The first issue cracks me up: IF the "preponderance of evidence" points at Trump but does qualify as "beyond reasonable doubt" what exactly do you or the author think is going to happen. If Mueller and his merry men didn't find it and the AG didn't find it - who exactly is going to prosecute? Come? :lol:

 

[Bullseye]

The right wing reaction to Barr's letter has been weapons-grade crazy. Their reaction to winning the 2016 election was tempered and humble compared to what they're doing now.

And, to be fair, the hair-tearing, wailing and moaning, uncontrollable crying and screaming from the left has been just as much a back to the future response as well. Probably more so.

 

[Cardinal]

And, to be fair, the hair-tearing, wailing and moaning, uncontrollable crying and screaming from the left has been just as much a back to the future response as well. Probably more so.

All in your head.

 

[Bullseye]

All in your head.

And you guys think with your ***. Head works better. :lamo

 

[tres borrachos]

It doesn't say that Trump was exonerated of obstruction of justice. Now it's up to the Democrats where they take that from here. None of us have any idea what they will do with that - will they investigate it (likely)? Will they be able to prove it (unknown)?

Trump supporters won't care either way. If he obstructed, that's fine with them.

 

[jnug]

Wish I had seen this thread. This is the thread where this post actually should be.

We don't even know if Mueller looked at collusion AT ALL. I will repeat something I have said for months. Collusion is not an offense that can lead to a Federal Indictment to Prosecute. Collusion is an Impeachable offense but not an indictable offense. Conspiracy is an indictable offense. But you either need reliable flippers or RICO to make a Conspiracy case that will stick. Without RICO you even need reliable flippers at every link in the Conspiracy chain.

Notice if you will that after hearing Trump and Rudy and Cable News scream the word COLLUSION for two years, the word does not appear ONCE in the Barr letter.....NOT ONCE. Did Mueller look at it at all? If I had to guess, I would say no because he could not prosecute a Collusion. He could only prosecute a Conspiracy. We need the full Mueller report and we need Barr, Rosenstein and Mueller on the Hill and if we don't all of that then I suspect the American public will rise up in righteous indignation not over any actual Collusion and maybe not even over Russian Election Interference but because they paid for 22 months of Investigation and got a partisan political whitewash called the Barr letter for its trouble.

 

[OscarLevant]

I bought stock in Kleenex first thing this morning; with all the whining and crying you guys have been doing their sales must have doubled. :lamo

The first issue cracks me up: IF the "preponderance of evidence" points at Trump but does qualify as "beyond reasonable doubt" what exactly do you or the author think is going to happen. If Mueller and his merry men didn't find it and the AG didn't find it - who exactly is going to prosecute? Come? :lol:

Drivel.

The report is coming out.


What is going to happen? A full portrait of the truth, not that of his political appointees.

That is what is going to happen.

There is no greater weapon that the truth.

 

[OscarLevant]

If there isnt evidence of any collusion in it then the doj is going to have a lot of explaining to do about why they opened the investigation.

There may be a lot of people getting fired and a lot of people going to jail.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Oh puh-leeze. That is absolutely ridiculous.

There were some 100 contacts with Russians by 19 different campaign staffers while it was known that Russians were committing cyber espionage on America to promote Trump's presidency.

The DOJ does not have to justify itself, it had probable cause for an FBI counterintelligence investigation on Trump's campaign

Trump fires Comey "because of the Russia thing" and Trump's has private meeting with Comey to "ease up on Flynn" ( why would he ask everyone in the room to leave if he didn't feel that asking Comey such a thing was wrong ).

Rosenstein has Probable cause to reassign the investigation to and refocus it with a Special Counsel.

The purpose of an investigation, where there is probable cause, is to determine if there are crimes, or there are NOT crimes .

EITHER OUTCOME IS A SUCCESSFUL WORK PRODUCT.

The "explaining to do" is a misconception of the purpose of investigations, for it arises out of a sentiment that believes an investigation equals "out to get someone".


No, it does not.

 

[Bullseye]

Drivel.

The report is coming out.


What is going to happen? A full portrait of the truth, not that of his political appointees.

That is what is going to happen.

There is no greater weapon that the truth.

So, your argument is political appointees can't be trusted to do the right thing?

 

[OscarLevant]

So, your argument is political appointees can't be trusted to do the right thing?

"Political appointees" is referring to Barr, whose statement before becoming AG clearly shows he's biased against the appointment of SC.


I'm certain Mueller had a different conclusion than Barr arrived at but given that Barr is his boss, it wouldn't be politically prudent for him to openly oppose his boss, in this effort.

I do respect Rosenstein's opinion, but his is just one opinion. I think it will be up to the House, after studying the report, to arrive at the best course of action. Many more questions are not answered by Barr's anemic summary.

 

[Bullseye]

"Political appointees" is referring to Barr, whose statement before becoming AG clearly shows he's biased against the appointment of SC.

So what? So were many others.

I'm certain Mueller had a different conclusion than Barr arrived at but given that Barr is his boss, it wouldn't be politically prudent for him to openly oppose his boss, in this effort.

How is he opposing his "boss"?

I do respect Rosenstein's opinion, but his is just one opinion. I think it will be up to the House, after studying the report, to arrive at the best course of action. Many more questions are not answered by Barr's anemic summary.

If he'd answered every BS question the left is dreaming up and answered all the "what abouts. . ." it wouldn't have been a "summary" nor would it have been delivered in three days. Barr addressed the issues Mueller was charged to investigate.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Whenever I hear someone argue like the OP I immediately think of the OJ Simpson case. You know, where he was found not guilty of the actual crime, but then taken to civil court in a more segregated locale with a less "diverse" community and found "more likely than not" guilty for the tort of "wrongful death" and punished by destroying him financially? IMO an example of vindictive "by any means necessary" thinking just like the OP.

Sounds like you have a problem with justice.

How upset were you when OJ did get locked up?

 

[lwf]

Mueller is not investigating possible financial crimes, so Mueller's report shouldn't have anything to say about that.

ANY crime uncovered in the course of the investigation is fair game.

 

[Mycroft]

ANY crime uncovered in the course of the investigation is fair game.

Yeah, yeah...and Mueller used that clause to his advantage. He correctly figured that going after Trump financials is not to his advantage.

 

[lwf]

Yeah, yeah...and Mueller used that clause to his advantage. He correctly figured that going after Trump financials is not to his advantage.

How would that not be to his advantage? And how do you know Mueller came to that conclusion?

 

[OscarLevant]

So what?

So what?

So what are they hiding? that's what.

House is going to get that document, one way or the other. The pressure is going to go national, it is already there.

 

[jnug]

The letter is a sham. It becomes more obvious every day. Good luck with that Bill Barr.