SheepDog4Life
Natural Gray Man
As Barr's memo on the principal findings made clear, this "loophole" was not exercised... plain old insufficient evidence of the elements of a crime... which pre-Trump was called innocent until proven guilty.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Mueller report delivered
- Thread starter Mgderf
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
As Barr's memo on the principal findings made clear, this "loophole" was not exercised... plain old insufficient evidence of the elements of a crime... which pre-Trump was called innocent until proven guilty.
Interesting the NYT headline: "Some on Mueller’s Team Say Report Was More Damaging Than Barr Revealed."
The 1500 word bombshell article was reduced to a rumor...
"Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to,' anonymous and probably made-up, 'government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.'"
"'The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging"
The 1500 word bombshell article was reduced to a rumor...
"Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to,' anonymous and probably made-up, 'government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.'"
"'The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging"
Incorrect. Having in the collection of facts available, a summary that Mueller has undoubtedly read and has not publicly corrected, is an indication that the summary Barr released is not materially inaccurate. You can speculate that Mueller’s silence is for other reasons than the obvious one, but then that would be speculation with no basis.
At some point given the collection of facts available, “wait for all the facts to come out” becomes a desperate plea to cling to the hope that the thing one wants to be true could still possibly be true. We saw “wait for all the facts to come out” with the Smallot truthers when sufficient facts came out to manifest his guilt.
I guess we’re gonna have to put up with some collusion truthers. Because maybe there’s a fact of hope buried in the 400 pages that makes Trump guilty of a crime. And then once the report is released it’ll be, oh, now show us all the redacted stuff. It’s there. I know it must be there somewhere. The hope I clung to for the past two years HAS to be true. CONSPIRACY!
They have never accepted they lost... the media spent every moment after Trump announced he was running telling everyone (especially themselves) Trump was a joke and he would never win.
They are still shellshocked... their bias is just horrible. I know you have seen this before but it's just too delicious to not give another viewing.
[video=youtube;G87UXIH8Lzo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87UXIH8Lzo[/video]
I can't think of any. Best thing I can say about him was he presided over a non-fatal crash landing from The Great Recession, at the cost of nearly doubling the national debt. Since we only really had one data point to extrapolate from, I am willing to allow that the typical Democratic solution to a problem - throw (other peoples) money at it - quite possibly could have been the better option. We know Hoover got it wrong. The collapse of Bear-Stearns arguably could have prefigured the results of a policy of austerity at that time
As for the rest, from the viewpoint of a self-sufficient, gainfully employed someone who's income was being re-distributed
ACA - a disaster. Can't even allow them leeway for unintended consequences. Everyone without a hand in the till told them what to expect
Foreign policy - a disaster. Pushing Libya over a cliff, cozying up to Iran, supporting the Libya solution in Syria, endless war in Afghanistan and Iraq, aquiescing to China's economic and territorial ambitions - how did that all work out?
Border security and rational immigration policy - a disaster
The economy - dusted off the Carteresque critique of high expectations, 1% was to be the new normal. Disaster
Energy - joined the church of climate change, failed to support domestic energy production of any kind that [STRIKE]wasn't speculative and renewable[/STRIKE] didn't benefit his cronies. Disaster
Civility, race relations, bridging our divides - utter disaster
Have I left anything out?
And just why did Democrats change the law at the time?
Because they didn't want the American public seeing all of the sordid details of President Clinton and his various interactions with women, including Ms. Lewinsky. Of course we did eventually learn about the unorthodox method in which Mr. Clinton liked to store his cigars, but Dems did manage to keep much of the rest from getting out.
Actuall it kind of got out, as I read in the day, the downloads from the government computers caused them to crash, but the MSM still had a pretty good lock on information flow and most of the public never heard the truly bad parts, just the salacious parts about things like cigar storage...
I have not heard this. Can you point me to the source material in the memo? The way I see it, personally, is that if DoJ policy is followed, then the full report should be handed to congress (House then Senate) to determine culpability. The AG while stating there was no collusion, stated that the president was not exonerated for obstruction. If the special counsel declined to make a decision on such, then congress needs to have oversight to determine the reasonings for the non-exoneration.
Barr's summary states that the reason for no indictments is not because the DOJ does not indict sitting presidents.
"I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel?s investigation is not suficient 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."
Of course we don't know if Mueller declined to make a determination because of that. Surely if that was his conclusion he would have included it in his report. And again I have to point out that it's going to come out anyway because Barr is going to release the entire report, albeit with the things required by law to be redacted.
Mueller has released public statements during the investigation to correct false information being reported about the facts of his investigation. There's no reason why anyone but "truthers" should believe that Mueller would not speak up if Barr tried to cover up material facts. If you think at this point that the report will reveal things that are materially different from the summary, I think you're revealing yourself as a partisan. Sure, let's wait and see if there are any politically salacious tidbits revealed. But if you think there's anything significantly beyond that, your "wait for the facts" plea is pretty much a wistful fantasy.
C'mon man. You should know better than to make that lame ass argument. Let's make your comparison comparable then. Say someone wrote a book about Obama's presidency which detailed some good things and some bad things, and someone else wrote a summary of the book which only summarized the good things. That summary would be materially inaccurate because it does not include a summary of the whole report.
If you think the facts you're waiting on will make the difference whether Trump committed a crime or not, THAT would certainly be materially different and you know it. Barr's summary said that Mueller's report neither indicated a crime was committed nor exonerated Trump for collusion, and that because no determination is made, it is left to the AG to make that determination. If that's not true that the Mueller report made no determination, then that would be materially inaccurate. And if it IS true, it really doesn't matter what the details of the report says. Barr already said that Mueller did not make the non-determination because the DoJ can't indict a sitting president. Mueller's silence gives a pretty good indication that this is over other than the truthers bitterly clinging to fantacy.
Yeah, but Kut's point wasn't about what Obama did or didn't do. He was trying to question the argument of "materially inaccurate". Is it materially inaccurate to leave out information? When I brought "materially inaccurate into the converse I meant it to convey that that it would change a conclusion. So if someone only summarized Obama's Presidency by saying only positive things, yes, that would be materially inaccurate because it would cause reasonably objective people to make a different conclusion.
I said that Mueller would complain if Barr's summary were materially inaccurate. Which means that if he's not complaining about it, it's likely that Barr's summary isn't materially inaccurate. I doubt that objective people would change their opinion much about whether a crime was committed after reading the Mueller report compared to the Barr summary.
Originally Posted by Kutnupe14
Is it materially inaccurate to say that Obama did good things while president? Omission is often used to avoid telling the full story.
Ah, he did have an impact Bug. Give the guy some credit... biggest losses since Eisenhower.
Oh and he had the beer summit and used a selfie stick. ( < not a reference to Reggie Love )
I don't have much problem with "obstruction". Reminds me too much of a cop saying "stop resisting" when you aren't doing anything of the kind. Murder, bribery, yeah. Obstruction is normally a bs charge and I don't buy it in almost any case. A president should resist the excercise and potential abuse of power by congress and the judiciary. When it's his own AG staff? Maybe he should have fired a few more at the beginning of this mess.
SheepDog4Life
Natural Gray Man
Jamil did so in the post immediately following yours.
There is no such DoJ policy.
Perhaps you're conflating Mueller with the defunct INDEPENDENT prosecutor and INDEPENDENT counsel LAWS prior to 1999. Those laws expired and are no longer in effect. Muller is NOT another Starr. Apples and oranges.
Mueller was appointed under the special counsel REGULATIONS, created by then AG Janet Reno, to fill the void. The summary of principal findings is the only report to congress required under those regulations.
There is no such thing as a prosecutorial "exoneration". There is either sufficient evidence to support an indictment or not. "Exoneration" only occurs when a prosecutor (or by extension, a grand jury) indicts, and a jury determines otherwise by a not guilty finding.
From Barr, quoting Mueller:
That is pretty clear, the Mueller "dream team" did not conclude that the President committed obstruction of justice by the evidence and the law.
One minor nit in logic. Mueller said the report just lays out the facts found in the obstruction part of the investigation, and that he did not make a determination either way, and leaves that determination up to the DoJ to make. It is within Congress’s role and duty in oversight to review the evidence the DoJ used to determine Trump did not obstruct an investigation. So I would not say that Congress is acting inappropriately by wanting to see the same facts to make sure no charges are nustified.
But. That oversite role doesn’t give congress the power of a kangaroo court, which it looks like is what’s forming. Vultures wearing D’s on their chests are circling Mueller’s report hungrily anticipating juicy tidbits of scandles from which they can fabricate a case for impeachment.
Bottom line, Congress has a responsibility to the people to prevent the outcome of corrupt government declaring “I have thoroughly investigated myself and have found not one smidge of corruption.” You know. Like the Congress let Eric Holder get away with.
This is pretty much the point I was making earlier. The Democrats want to view the whole un-redacted report so they can comb through it for any little bit of dirt that they think they can exploit for political purposes.
