Not Guilty!

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
The irony in barr determining trump didn’t commit obstruction because he didn’t have ‘intent’is freaking incredible.
Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.

Barr isn't commenting on intent, he is pointing out what is said in the report.

Damn, you are stupid.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.

Barr isn't commenting on intent, he is pointing out what is said in the report.

Damn, you are stupid.
You obviously haven’t read the entire letter
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Crazy Mofo's they wanted an investigation into collusion.
Mueller says there is no collusion.

They don't like that so they will now be screaming and shouting about obstruction which we all know is BS, just like the collusion, but they will cry about obstruction for the next 2 years while Trump wins in a landslide.
The Schmuck and Pelosi say they want the full report because Barr is not a neutral observer.

Like they are neutral ?? These people are a joke. The think the entire democrat party is too stupid to see what is going on with their lies.
Ya know what?? Most of the Democrats are that stupid. At least the ones in this forum are.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Crazy Mofo's they wanted an investigation into collusion.
Mueller says there is no collusion.

They don't like that so they will now be screaming and shouting about obstruction which we all know is BS, just like the collusion, but they will cry about obstruction for the next 2 years while Trump wins in a landslide.
The Schmuck and Pelosi say they want the full report because Barr is not a neutral observer.

Like they are neutral ?? These people are a joke. The think the entire democrat party is too stupid to see what is going on with their lies.
Ya know what?? Most of the Democrats are that stupid. At least the ones in this forum are.
This is interesting...https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/who-robert-mueller-man-behind-report-trump-n974296
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
The Dem's reaction to this has been revealing - now that collusion is off the table, they're going after --
ANYTHING.

Because despite their posturing and pronouncements, it's never ever been about justice or the security of the American people
or any such thing. It's been about removing him from office when he won an election they were certain he could not win.
From imploring for recounts in states that didn't require it and begging electors to be faithless and vote for Hillary ANYWAY,
to pleas to invoking the 25th amendment and calls for impeachment BEFORE INAUGURATION - it has always been getting rid
of Trump.

The Mueller investigation was just a great big horse they could ride to victory on - even though the rest of us knew it
wasn't going to go anywhere.

True to form and predicted repeatedly on here by yours truly and many others - they wouldn't accept the outcome.
What is strange to me is, those deep in the know HAD to know from the beginning this was never going to go anywhere.
Those smart enough had to know their ONLY chance was to drag it out for four years and use it to taint his time in the
White House to beat him in 2020. It amazes me that there were ANY Democratic leaders who were banking on it to
find him guilty of Russian collusion.

The entire narrative never made any damned sense to begin with. As I've said before, if you're going to make something up,
why not just make it the North Koreans or Iranians. Seriously, Russia? The man is a billionaire and successful businessman who
is highly unlikely to take a bribe. It's unnecessary. He spent a billion dollars on his campaign - unless it was to learn some
previously unknown "dirt" on Hillary, there was never anything the Russians could offer.

You might as well accuse the Patriots of colluding with the hot dog and beer vendors in the stands for turning the tide at
the Super Bowl.
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
The Dem's reaction to this has been revealing - now that collusion is off the table, they're going after --
ANYTHING.
Tranny, Sappy etal demostrate that daily for the SOMD community.

It is all about their inability to get past the last election and their 2 year plus :tantrum
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
When is the report coming out?

Right now there is nothing to deny.
We know this... The whole collusion bull#### was bull####. This is what you Trump-haters wanted. Now that there is DEFINITIVELY no collusion - none at all - you're not satisfied.

We know this... No obstruction of justice. How could Trump have obstructed a crime that never happened?

We know this... no more indictments.

We know this... not one person prosecuted in this bull#### witch hunt had one single thing to do with collusion or obstruction.

So, what else are you people looking for? What great piece of evidence are you expecting to come out actually seeing the report? What are you clinging your hopes on now? You Trump-haters really need to be careful for what you ask for, because now the DOJ is going after Clinton, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, and the whole ilk that illegally started this whole debacle. It's going to come around and bite you people in your collective asses.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
We know this... No obstruction of justice. How could Trump have obstructed a crime that never happened?
Actually, this is not strictly true, and it's one of the things about so-called process crimes that I don't like -
that you could send a ton of people to jail for perjury or obstruction of justice in the investigation of, say,
a murder and it is later found that the victim is still alive. No crime - but - you're still going to jail for lying
or interfering with the investigation. You still have to cooperate and tell the truth.

What I've learned however, is that in the process of investigation, prosecutors have been known to pressure
people into confessing to lesser crimes because they've threatened people like spouses and family members.
I believe this is what they refer to as a "perjury trap" - someone correct me if I'm wrong - where later testimony
can legitimately be called a lie if it conflicts with testimony they've been corralled into confessing to.

This is what I hated so much about the whole Plame affair and Scooter Libby, because the prosecutor knew BEFORE
he asked a single question who was guilty of the underlying crime - but he was successful in nailing Libby anyway.

But if there's no collusion, that really is it. And it's not as though they didn't talk to hundreds of people and collect
thousands of pages of evidence and spend an extraordinary amount of money.

I always thought the entire idea of a Presidential candidate with extremely deep pockets would waste any time
consorting with our arch enemies to win an election was entirely ridiculous.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Actually, this is not strictly true, and it's one of the things about so-called process crimes that I don't like -
that you could send a ton of people to jail for perjury or obstruction of justice in the investigation of, say,
a murder and it is later found that the victim is still alive. No crime - but - you're still going to jail for lying
or interfering with the investigation. You still have to cooperate and tell the truth.

What I've learned however, is that in the process of investigation, prosecutors have been known to pressure
people into confessing to lesser crimes because they've threatened people like spouses and family members.
I believe this is what they refer to as a "perjury trap" - someone correct me if I'm wrong - where later testimony
can legitimately be called a lie if it conflicts with testimony they've been corralled into confessing to.

This is what I hated so much about the whole Plame affair and Scooter Libby, because the prosecutor knew BEFORE
he asked a single question who was guilty of the underlying crime - but he was successful in nailing Libby anyway.

But if there's no collusion, that really is it. And it's not as though they didn't talk to hundreds of people and collect
thousands of pages of evidence and spend an extraordinary amount of money.

I always thought the entire idea of a Presidential candidate with extremely deep pockets would waste any time
consorting with our arch enemies to win an election was entirely ridiculous.
Well, we're not talking about someone who lied under oath in order to obstruct; we're talking about the president firing a guy he had a constitutional right to fire. Trump had to know that the investigation against him would have continued anyway. Comey ####ed up on the Hillary investigation, and he lied to Trump. Why would any president keep someone in the executive branch that lied to the boss? He was justified in firing Comey, and going after Trump for obstruction was just another failed way to take him down.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Well, we're not talking about someone who lied under oath in order to obstruct; we're talking about the president firing a guy he had a constitutional right to fire. Trump had to know that the investigation against him would have continued anyway. Comey ####ed up on the Hillary investigation, and he lied to Trump. Why would any president keep someone in the executive branch that lied to the boss? He was justified in firing Comey, and going after Trump for obstruction was just another failed way to take him down.
Well, hell, some of them are claiming his TWEETS are obstruction. So - ridiculous.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
We know this... The whole collusion bull#### was bull####. This is what you Trump-haters wanted. Now that there is DEFINITIVELY no collusion - none at all - you're not satisfied.

We know this... No obstruction of justice. How could Trump have obstructed a crime that never happened?

We know this... no more indictments.

We know this... not one person prosecuted in this bull#### witch hunt had one single thing to do with collusion or obstruction.

So, what else are you people looking for? What great piece of evidence are you expecting to come out actually seeing the report? What are you clinging your hopes on now? You Trump-haters really need to be careful for what you ask for, because now the DOJ is going after Clinton, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, and the whole ilk that illegally started this whole debacle. It's going to come around and bite you people in your collective asses.
i am pointing out that the letter barr released is not the report. You cant pretend to know you agree with barrs assesment until you read the report for yourself. I know you didn't accept Comey's assesment of the investigation into clintons email server, and neither did I.

Its funny that you have been hanging on collusion for 2 years now and I have never, not even once said the president colluded with russia. I said from the begining that they should investigate anything that looks improper and charge anyone who commited a crime.



If they go after clinton i would be thrilled. I seriosuly doubt that will happen, but i would be thrilled. Trump gave her a pass right after the election on the server and i dont see any other crimes they are going to link to her.
Like i said, make it all public and let the chips fall where they may
 
Reactions: BOP

ginwoman

Well-Known Member
I just finished reading Mueller's Synopsis of the report.
Mueller spent 2 years finding nothing about any collusion.

IMO if the report does nothing else it found that the Russians were reading Hillary's emails.
If the report does anything it should lead to an indictment for Hillary.
Hillary is teflon
 
Top