Question to republicans???

[plutonium]

Why do to this day Trump says lock Hillary up for emails but its quite okay for his Daughter and son in law can use there private email for gov business?? Is there something different or its only okay for republicans to use any electronic device they want?? by the way us dems are glad there was no direct collusion found by Mueller for our country's sake not ours..all Americans.. But obstruction will be another show!!!

 

[haymarket]

What does it mean when Barr sums the Mueller report up with "it does not exonerate the President"?

from the NY Times

“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Mueller as writing.

Sounds like lots and lots of wiggle room for both sides there.

 

[TheRepublican]

Ok so someone should blow the whistle! I don’t think that people should say ya so what? Here’s a tissue! No one should use a private email account for any government business. No one is a president or his or her family. I would call a investigation on this. Moreover, I will not support someone who does the same thing as Hillary Clinton did. I think we should have a equal across the board. But, since we never charge Hillary something. Then why are you jumping around and pointing out the first daughter?

 

[Excon]

Why do to this day Trump says lock Hillary up for emails but its quite okay for his Daughter and son in law can use there private email for gov business?? Is there something different or its only okay for republicans to use any electronic device they want?? by the way us dems are glad there was no direct collusion found by Mueller for our country's sake not ours..all Americans.. But obstruction will be another show!!!

Not the same thing.
Hillary had a server, lied about it and the information it contained and handled confidential government business on it and destroyed evidence it contained.
vs
Just used private email.

 

[Grokmaster]

What does it mean when Barr sums the Mueller report up with "it does not exonerate the President"?

from the NY Times


Sounds like lots and lots of wiggle room for both sides there.

It means that HE IS NOT A PROSECUTOR..so he presented the evidence to men who ARE....


…"DID NOT REACH A CONCLUSION on OBSTRUCTION"....will "LEAVE IT TO THE USAG..."



And the USAG and ASSITANT USAG (Rosenstein) " CONCLUDED EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT to ESTABLISH an OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE..."

Mueller is NOT A PROSECUTOR...the USAG IS. IT'S OVER.


But "Keep the Hope Alive"...it's a source of great joy for me to behold....need a tissue?


Hilarious how you keep tryng to RUN FROM THE ENTIRE QUOTE.....

 

[haymarket]

It means that HE IS NOT A PROSECUTOR..so he presented the evidence to men who ARE....


.....

“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Mueller as writing.

 

[Excon]

“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Mueller as writing.

And?
All that means is that Mueller was not able to determine if a crime had been committed.
You have no valid point.
There is no evidence that the President was involved in any collusion/conspiracy with the Russians to influence the election.
So what in your mind was he trying to obstruct?


Maybe you should take off the partisan blinders and read the below part to get a better understanding.

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions. Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a a sitting president.[SUP]2[/SUP]

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, actin with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgement, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Link​

 

[Bullseye]

Why do to this day Trump says lock Hillary up for emails but its quite okay for his Daughter and son in law can use there private email for gov business?? Is there something different or its only okay for republicans to use any electronic device they want?? by the way us dems are glad there was no direct collusion found by Mueller for our country's sake not ours..all Americans.. But obstruction will be another show!!!

Because Clinton violated laws for protecting and storing highly classified information; until edited by Strzok the report contained language that merited indictment. As far as I know nothing like that has come up for Ivanka or Kushner.

 

[haymarket]

And?
All that means is that Mueller was not able to determine if a crime had been committed.
You have no valid point.
There is no evidence that the President was involved in any collusion/conspiracy with the Russians to influence the election.
So what in your mind was he trying to obstruct?


Maybe you should take off the partisan blinders and read the below part to get a better understanding.

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions. Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a a sitting president.[SUP]2[/SUP]

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, actin with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgement, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Link​

We all must read the Mueller Report.

 

[apdst]

Why do to this day Trump says lock Hillary up for emails but its quite okay for his Daughter and son in law can use there private email for gov business?? Is there something different or its only okay for republicans to use any electronic device they want?? by the way us dems are glad there was no direct collusion found by Mueller for our country's sake not ours..all Americans.. But obstruction will be another show!!!

Did they mishandle classified materials?

 

[Excon]

We all must read the Mueller Report.

iLOL It wont change a damn thing.

The report confidential. You will get what they want to release and nothing more.

 

[haymarket]

iLOL It wont change a damn thing.

The report confidential. You will get what they want to release and nothing more.

Which by itself should tell you something.

Not you - but people with rational minds.

 

[Excon]

Which by itself should tell you something.

Not you - but people with rational minds.

iLOL No it shouldn't tell anyone anything.

And no, those who think rationally do not have idiotic thoughts like that.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

iLOL No it shouldn't tell anyone anything.

And no, those who think rationally do not have idiotic thoughts like that.

It should if the report isn't made totally public.

Why, you ask? Well, lets put it this way. Barr's statement about there not being enough evidence to prove any wrongdoing on the Presidents fault and also not enough to exonerate him is being portrayed as a quote from the report. That matters....if that is what Mueller actually said, it means that he provided the evidence to Barr, and as he isn't a prosecutor, was leaving it to his discretion as to do what he would with it. If that ISN'T what he actually said, and that was Barr's interpretation of what is actually there, it leaves all kinds of gray area to discuss later, since its totally possible that the report say something different and Brother Barr is simply choosing to take it a different way.

In any case, this really matters not. Trump was never going to answer for anything he may have done while in office, and once out of office, the Mueller report is really the least of his worries, considering the SDNY investigations could be a whole lot worse for him, as he couldn't self pardon for state offenses.

The dog and pony show is over. Lets see if we can get back to the business of the American people.

 

[Excon]

It should if the report isn't made totally public.

No.
By law it is a confidential report. Only those being irrational would imply such.

Why, you ask?

No, I didn't ask why.

Well, lets put it this way. Barr's statement about there not being enough evidence to prove any wrongdoing on the Presidents fault and also not enough to exonerate him is being portrayed as a quote from the report.

No it was not portrayed as a quote.

That matters....if that is what Mueller actually said, it means that he provided the evidence to Barr, and as he isn't a prosecutor, was leaving it to his discretion as to do what he would with it. If that ISN'T what he actually said, and that was Barr's interpretation of what is actually there, it leaves all kinds of gray area to discuss later, since its totally possible that the report say something different and Brother Barr is simply choosing to take it a different way.

No. It could not say something totally different. That is irrationality. Did you think like this when they announced the Russian program to sew discord? Or when they falsely claimed 17 agencies?

Barr laid it out plainly why the decision was made. It is based in intent. No underlying crime so what was he trying to obstruct?

In any case, this really matters not. Trump was never going to answer for anything he may have done while in office, and once out of office, the Mueller report is really the least of his worries, considering the SDNY investigations could be a whole lot worse for him, as he couldn't self pardon for state offenses.

The dog and pony show is over. Lets see if we can get back to the business of the American people.

All you are doing is confirming your own absurd bias here.
SDNY is a federal agency.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

What Jared and Ivanka are doing violates regulations. What Hillary did violates the law. Both bad. One is worse.

 

[haymarket]

iLOL No it shouldn't tell anyone anything.

And no, those who think rationally do not have idiotic thoughts like that.

You got the answer you want. Is it the answer the report supports? That is the question?

 

[Excon]

You got the answer you want. Is it the answer the report supports? That is the question?

Do you honestly believe the AG would report something otherwise?
If so, you are demonstrating your previous reply of not thinking rationally.

 

[independentusa]

Not the same thing.
Hillary had a server, lied about it and the information it contained and handled confidential government business on it and destroyed evidence it contained.
vs
Just used private email.

Of course when a Trump family members does something it is always different than when a Dem does something, always, at least in the small minds of Trumpsters. Clinton never "lied" about her use of a server and when she started using it there was no law against it. The FBI also said at the time of her messages there were only three classified messages ever on the server and she had the server monitored and there was never a breach. The Trump family is using unsecured phones and doing government business, including classified info, but that is okay as they are Trump's and a Trumpster can never say anything bad about them. I say, LOCK THEM UP.

 

[Hypothetical]

“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mr. Barr quoted Mr. Mueller as writing.

which MEANS he left it up to the AG,.. and WHAT DID THE AG say later in the summary?

(mind you also, this is SPECIFICALLY in the part about obstruction charges, NOT collusion which Trump was MOST CERTAINLY exonerated for)


try this on for size:

"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."

 

[haymarket]

which MEANS he left it up to the AG,.. and WHAT DID THE AG say later in the summary?

The Special Counsel was established to AVOID the AG from doing what he did in the first place.

 

[Hypothetical]

The Special Counsel was established to AVOID the AG from doing what he did in the first place.

well that's interesting, considering the special counsel apparently falls under the AG and congress did not legislate otherwise.

 

[haymarket]

well that's interesting, considering the special counsel apparently falls under the AG and congress did not legislate otherwise.

The Special Counsel was created so that the AG did not have to render and opinion himself.

 

[TheRepublican]

Do you honestly believe the AG would report something otherwise?
If so, you are demonstrating your previous reply of not thinking rationally.

No, I would be surprised if the report did

 

[Hypothetical]

The Special Counsel was created so that the AG did not have to render and opinion himself.

well, maybe you better tell the special Counsel that , cuz apparently he left it up to the AG to do so.