I keep hearing, there is nothing to investigate:

[Getin the ring]

come on nut**bags, don't leave us hanging.

Why would Mueller investigate and bring charges and convict Flynn, Cohen, and MAnafort, but not Trump?

[Jarod]

come on nut**bags, don't leave us hanging.

Why would Mueller investigate and bring charges and convict Flynn, Cohen, and MAnafort, but not Trump?

And poof, they are gone.

[Stretch]

You have clearly not read the Mueller report, he did nothing of the sort.

Mullet said that AG Barr was "accurate" in his his report.

[Stretch]

The phone call is the act. You are dumb.

nothing wrong with phone call. It's the SUBSTANCE of the phone call (murdering somebody) that was the problem.

[Grokmaster]

I keep hearing, there is nothing to investigate:

1. Trump asked the FBI director to stop investigating Michael Flynn, who had been his campaign adviser and national security adviser, and who had already committed a crime by lying to the FBI. That should be investigated.

2. After AG Sessions recused himself from the Russian investigation on the advice of DoJ ethics lawyers, Trump directly asked Sessions to reverse his recusal so that he could retain control over the investigation and help the president. That should be investigated.

3. Trump directed the White House counsel, Don McGahn, to have Special Counsel Mueller removed on the basis of pretextual conflicts of interest that Trump’s advisers had already told him were “ridiculous” and could not justify removing the special counsel. That should be investigated.

4. When that event was publicly reported, Trump asked that McGahn make a public statement and create a false internal record stating that Trump had not asked him to fire the special counsel, and suggested that McGahn would be fired if he did not comply. That should be investigated.

5. Trump asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to tell AG Sessions to limit the special counsel’s investigation only to future election interference. Trump said Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired if he would not meet with him. That should be investigated.

These events need to be hashed out, Trump is invoking executive privilege to prevent the background information from being shared with Congress, so their own investigation is necessary.

These are very likely impeachable offences that Congress MUST INVESTIGATE.

1. Flynn forgot the exact details of a perfectly legal conversation. Wow. ENTRAPMENT. The Witch Hunt withheld exculpatory evidence.

2. The AG works for the POTUS. Please cite any "crime" involved.

3. Bullshit. Not what he said at all. Makeup whatever nonsense you need to pretend happened.

4. The President is NOT REQUIRED to KOWTOW to the New York Slimes. More NONSENSE.

5. TOTAL LIE. Sessions had NOTHING TO DO with the Special Counsel. MORE MADEUP BULLSHIT.


You made a GREAT CASE FOR "THERE IS NOTHING TO INVESTIGATE"...


GREAT WORK!!

[Jarod]

Mullet said that AG Barr was "accurate" in his his report.

so?

[Stretch]

No, but if you say it to someone under your employ who you pay... yes you would likely get charged.

Trump is known for firing people who do not carry out his orders.

Trump did what he was allowed to do as President.
Mullet did not recommend anything against him to Barr.
And, Mullet stated that Barr's summary report was accurate.

[Superfreak]

Quote the statement, because its not there.

"The
investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the
IRA. " Page four of the summary.

"Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to
the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was
not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to
charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian
principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks' s releases of hacked
materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence
was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with
representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. " Page 9 of the summary

[Jarod]

"The
investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the
IRA. " Page four of the summary.

"Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to
the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was
not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to
charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian
principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks' s releases of hacked
materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence
was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with
representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. " Page 9 of the summary

So, you see, that is significantly different than your original claim.

[Jarod]

Trump did what he was allowed to do as President.
Mullet did not recommend anything against him to Barr.
And, Mullet stated that Barr's summary report was accurate.

Ignorance of the law is now an excuse?

[Superfreak]

And poof, they are gone.

Who is gone Garud? What charges did Mueller bring against Flynn, Cohen and Manafort? Can you list them?

[Superfreak]

Ignorance of the law is now an excuse?

That is funny. You are ignorant of the law and demanding more information be provided. Whining about redactions when you should know they are required by law.

[Superfreak]

So, you see, that is significantly different than your original claim.

Please elaborate.

[Jarod]

Please elaborate.

You claimed one thing, then provided a quote of a very different thing. I guess you got nothing, as usual.

Dance candy, dance.

[Superfreak]

You claimed one thing, then provided a quote of a very different thing. I guess you got nothing, as usual.

Dance candy, dance.

Once again you prove yourself a liar. You stated Mueller did not make any conclusions. I stated he did. You asked for the quote of the conclusions. I provided them.

Now you say that my original and subsequent comments were very different. I ask you to elaborate on why you think that. You spew forth your nonsense above.

You are a liar. You know it, the board knows it.