He may have the a55wipe on ignore. I do, so didn't see it until you posted this.View attachment 136531 You missed Mudnightrider?
Bravo, well played.
He may have the a55wipe on ignore. I do, so didn't see it until you posted this.View attachment 136531 You missed Mudnightrider?
I have no doubt that the hysterical frenzied Left will not accept that.
I plan on reading Vol II this weekend. I guess what I am most interested in is the timeline of the 10 instances. It appears that they were all within a short span of time immediately around the time the Special Prosecutor's investigation was announced. If so, it also sounds like cooler heads won out, Trump cooled down, and allowed the investigation run its course.I have read part of the report and news reports/commentary on it and have concluded that there is some sense of Trump trying to interfere with the investigation. Barr mentioned 10 instances where Mueller left the door open for attempted obstruction. Trump attempted, through several legal aids and agencies heads to either stop the investigation, fire Mueller, or limit the scope of the investigation. What's interesting to me is that Mueller still couldn't come to a legal/criminal decision on whether this defines obstruction. I have no idea if attempting or conspiring to obstruct is a crime, but it seems it was something Trump tried to do. All we have to do on, at this point, is Mueller, Rosenstein, and Barr (all lawyers and so-called legal scholars) could not definitively conclude that Trump violated the law. I find this most interesting, since this is what the democrats are claiming. It is disturbing to me that Trump was out there in front of cameras saying that he was not going to interfere in the investigation, while behind the scenes, trying to interfere in the investigation. Again, since Mueller couldn't find definitive criminality in Trump's actions, I can only conclude that this isn't illegal.
So, is this impeachable? Do these attempts to interfere in the investigation fall under the definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'? I know democrats don't care if it does or doesn't. They are going for impeachment regardless. Can they just make up what defines a crime when it comes to the president, or is there actual documentation that explicitly defines what constitutes an impeachable crime?
If so, it also sounds like cooler heads won out, Trump cooled down, and allowed the investigation run its course.
And if Eric Holder had issued a report clearing Obama you would take his word for it right? I know I didn’t/wouldn’t. That’s why I will read the report for myself. I was busy all day so I will get to it tonight.
You mean Barr’s ‘audition letter’ as it is being called doesn’t give you any reason to question his impartiality just a little?
I didn’t hear Rosenstein talk. I had to leave when Barr was taking questions. Did he actually say anything or are you basing your belief that he is in complete agreement with Barr on the fact that he stood silent behind his boss?
I plan on reading Vol II this weekend. I guess what I am most interested in is the timeline of the 10 instances. It appears that they were all within a short span of time immediately around the time the Special Prosecutor's investigation was announced. If so, it also sounds like cooler heads won out, Trump cooled down, and allowed the investigation run its course.
I have read part of the report and news reports/commentary on it and have concluded that there is some sense of Trump trying to interfere with the investigation.
He's such a fascist!"
Their self awareness switch is in the off position and permanently disconnected.They are so mindless they completely miss the irony in their ravings.
so Barr's summary was pretty far off.......I have read part of the report and news reports/commentary on it and have concluded that there is some sense of Trump trying to interfere with the investigation. Barr mentioned 10 instances where Mueller left the door open for attempted obstruction. Trump attempted, through several legal aids and agencies heads to either stop the investigation, fire Mueller, or limit the scope of the investigation. What's interesting to me is that Mueller still couldn't come to a legal/criminal decision on whether this defines obstruction. I have no idea if attempting or conspiring to obstruct is a crime, but it seems it was something Trump tried to do. All we have to do on, at this point, is Mueller, Rosenstein, and Barr (all lawyers and so-called legal scholars) could not definitively conclude that Trump violated the law. I find this most interesting, since this is what the democrats are claiming. It is disturbing to me that Trump was out there in front of cameras saying that he was not going to interfere in the investigation, while behind the scenes, trying to interfere in the investigation. Again, since Mueller couldn't find definitive criminality in Trump's actions, I can only conclude that this isn't illegal.
So, is this impeachable? Do these attempts to interfere in the investigation fall under the definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'? I know democrats don't care if it does or doesn't. They are going for impeachment regardless. Can they just make up what defines a crime when it comes to the president, or is there actual documentation that explicitly defines what constitutes an impeachable crime?
you really should read the report spitbubble. not that you will understand it, but your should tryThe bots are also saying that the report didn't "prove Trump innocent". Because that's how they think: anyone they hate is guilty and it's up to them to prove their innocence.
How it really works in this country is that it's up to the prosecutor or investigator to prove guilt, not the accused to prove their innocence. All these armchair lawyers blathering their ignorance all over social media are boring as well. "Trump has to prove his innocence! He's such a fascist!" They are so mindless they completely miss the irony in their ravings.
Their self awareness switch is in the off position and permanently disconnected.
The rantings of Sappy, Tranny, MR or COC are all the evidence needed.
My take on that is he was throwing it out there, and his peeps said, "You can't do that." That's what advisor's are for. Trump: "I should shut this bogus investigation down." Advisors: "You can't."
To me that is not obstruction, or even attempted obstruction. It's like me saying, "I should punch that bitch in the mouth," but not doing it. If I suggest it but don't do it, it's not assault.
By all accounts Trump was forthcoming and didn't try to impede the investigation at all. The bots are being told to make a big deal out of him being pissed, but I think most of us would be pissed if we were being investigated for political purposes and lied about in the media every day. It's just more bullshit from the dishonest fake news media that are trying to overthrow our government and take down our President.
The Democrats are being bratty toddlers. They don't get their way so they kick and scream and throw themselves on the floor. "I hate you I hate you I hate you! I'm gonna hold my breath and then you'll be sorry!" I'm bored with their antics and I have to believe the majority of Americans are as well.
My take on that is he was throwing it out there, and his peeps said, "You can't do that." That's what advisor's are for. Trump: "I should shut this bogus investigation down." Advisors: "You can't."
Your take...based on having read none of the report?
To me that is not obstruction, or even attempted obstruction. It's like me saying, "I should punch that bitch in the mouth," but not doing it. If I suggest it but don't do it, it's not assault.
Huh...so that's not being an "armchair lawyer"? Of course you haven't actually read the report.
By all accounts Trump was forthcoming and didn't try to impede the investigation at all. The bots are being told to make a big deal out of him being pissed, but I think most of us would be pissed if we were being investigated for political purposes and lied about in the media every day. It's just more bullshit from the dishonest fake news media that are trying to overthrow our government and take down our President.
Whose "accounts"? Who is telling you what to think? Please tell us again how you are SUCH an independent mind! Please tell us again how you are not a hypocrite?!!
The Democrats are being bratty toddlers. They don't get their way so they kick and scream and throw themselves on the floor. "I hate you I hate you I hate you! I'm gonna hold my breath and then you'll be sorry!" I'm bored with their antics and I have to believe the majority of Americans are as well.
Sounds like you would make an awesome Democrat!!
House democrats are going to use it against him anyway - and that's the angle I'm coming from.
My take on that is he was throwing it out there, and his peeps said, "You can't do that." That's what advisor's are for. Trump: "I should shut this bogus investigation down." Advisors: "You can't."
To me that is not obstruction, or even attempted obstruction. It's like me saying, "I should punch that bitch in the mouth," but not doing it. If I suggest it but don't do it, it's not assault.
By all accounts Trump was forthcoming and didn't try to impede the investigation at all. The bots are being told to make a big deal out of him being pissed, but I think most of us would be pissed if we were being investigated for political purposes and lied about in the media every day. It's just more bullshit from the dishonest fake news media that are trying to overthrow our government and take down our President.
The Democrats are being bratty toddlers. They don't get their way so they kick and scream and throw themselves on the floor. "I hate you I hate you I hate you! I'm gonna hold my breath and then you'll be sorry!" I'm bored with their antics and I have to believe the majority of Americans are as well.
In late January 2018, the media reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel fired based on purported conflicts of interest but McGahn had refused, saying he would quit instead. After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides, sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special Counsel. Each time he was approached, McGahn responded that he would not refute the press accounts because they were accurate in reporting on the President's effort to have the Special Counsel removed. The President later personally met with McGahn in the Oval Office with only the Chief of Staff present and tried to get McGahn to say that the President never ordered him to fire the Special Counsel. McGahn refused and insisted his memory of the President's direction to remove the Special Counsel was accurate. In that same meeting, the President challenged McGahn for taking notes of his discussions with the President and asked why he had told Special Counsel investigators that he had been directed to have the Special Counsel removed.
King Henry or Jim Comey?