Members banned from this thread: Cypress, evince, CharacterAssassin and reagansghost


Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 234

Thread: Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    The only reason Mueller didn't bring criminal charges against Trump was because of OLC rules that he lays out in the Executive Summary of Volume II.

    Anyone who has read the report will know that.
    LIE and LAME. The reason is there is insufficient evidence to support such a moronic claim.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Have you read the actual document to which they're referring for yourself?
    I have; and it is apparent that even if a low IQ whiny little cunt like you read it a million times, you still wouldn't actually comprehend what it says.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,966
    Thanks
    12,109
    Thanked 14,172 Times in 10,390 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grab 'em by the pussy View Post
    That's right, DEMOCRAT.

    Suck it.

    Suck it real hard.

    Loser.

    Yeah, and that makes all his lies and obstruction OK, doesn’t it gullible Trumptard? You love that a corrupt cocksucker like Trump skates. What a fucking patriot!

    Fucking loser.

  4. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,532
    Thanks
    65,153
    Thanked 38,090 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    "If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime,
    we would have said so," Mueller announced. He once again pointed to inconclusive evidence.
    They did not have that confidence. They did not have that evidence to indict.

    Therefore, if Mullet DID conclude he committed a crime, he would indict. Oh wait......he did NOT indict.
    Because he wouldn't indict a sitting president, he said it would be unconstitutional.

    Do you understand this sentence: "If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so...

    It can be read as "if the president had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so.

    IOW it's not clear that he didn't commit a crime.


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  5. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    9,090
    Thanks
    3,487
    Thanked 3,433 Times in 2,367 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 888 Times in 802 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    THE most significant thing he said: "...if (IF) we had had confidence that the president clearly DID NOT commit a crime, we would have said so. (caps added to reflect his emphasis) ...under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office....Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider."

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...RqhgE-2kTypf4c

  6. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,623
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 779 Times in 572 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 41 Times in 41 Posts

    Default

    "The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision."

    From the horse's mouth this morning. Anything about lying or misrepresenting the report? Nope, there is no such thing outside the fevered anti-Trump mind.
    The anti-Trumper's new mantra:

    “B-b-but muh White supremacy”

  7. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    Because he wouldn't indict a sitting president, he said it would be unconstitutional.

    Do you understand this sentence: "If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so...

    It can be read as "if the president had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so.

    IOW it's not clear that he didn't commit a crime.
    I know you just got here, but have you gone back and seen the posts on this already first?
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  8. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,532
    Thanks
    65,153
    Thanked 38,090 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    THE most significant thing he said: "...if (IF) we had had confidence that the president clearly DID NOT commit a crime, we would have said so. (caps added to reflect his emphasis) ...under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office....Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider."

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...RqhgE-2kTypf4c
    Exactly. Mueller could have said "We had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime...Obviously his innocence wasn't clear despite what RWNJs are crowing about.


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to christiefan915 For This Post:

    jimmymccready (05-29-2019)

  10. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,532
    Thanks
    65,153
    Thanked 38,090 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    I know you just got here, but have you gone back and seen the posts on this already first?
    Mueller could have said "We had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime...Obviously his innocence wasn't clear despite what RWNJs are crowing about.


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to christiefan915 For This Post:

    jimmymccready (05-29-2019)

  12. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    Because he wouldn't indict a sitting president, he said it would be unconstitutional.

    Do you understand this sentence: "If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so...

    It can be read as "if the president had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so.

    IOW it's not clear that he didn't commit a crime.
    "If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime,
    we would have said so," Mueller announced. He once again pointed to inconclusive evidence.
    They did not have that confidence. They did not have that evidence to indict.

    Therefore, if Mullet DID conclude he committed a crime, he would indict. Oh wait......he did NOT indict.

    There was no confidence that he committed any crime.
    Last edited by Stretch; 05-29-2019 at 04:02 PM.
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  13. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,966
    Thanks
    12,109
    Thanked 14,172 Times in 10,390 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    "If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime,
    we would have said so," Mueller announced. He once again pointed to inconclusive evidence.
    They did not have that confidence. They did not have that evidence to indict.

    Therefore, if Mullet DID conclude he committed a crime, he would indict. Oh wait......he did NOT indict.

    There was no confidence that he committed any crime.
    Why didn’t he indict, dumbfuck?

    Try to not lie this time.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    jimmymccready (05-29-2019)

  15. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    Because he wouldn't indict a sitting president, he said it would be unconstitutional.

    Do you understand this sentence: "If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so...

    It can be read as "if the president had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so.

    IOW it's not clear that he didn't commit a crime.
    How many of Mullet’s witnesses are they going to recall just to see if Trump obstructed an investigation that produced no crime?

    And no one knows whether or not it’s unconstitutional to indict a sitting president—because no one ever has. It’s some people’s *opinion* that you can’t indict a president. If Mullet felt strongly that Trump was guilty of a crime [that would not exist but for the investigation, itself] he should have indicted him and allowed SCOTUS to determine the constitutional question. That’s the whole point to having the Supreme Court.

    Mullet is either spineless or he had nothing. Pick one.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    anatta (05-29-2019), Stretch (05-29-2019)

  17. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    La Pine, Oregon
    Posts
    5,218
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 1,548 Times in 1,137 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 215 Times in 201 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    "If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime,
    we would have said so," Mueller announced. He once again pointed to inconclusive evidence.
    They did not have that confidence. They did not have that evidence to indict.

    Therefore, if Mullet DID conclude he committed a crime, he would indict. Oh wait......he did NOT indict.

    One of the things that is relevant in the world of dumb f**ks is that one be able to ignore reality, and facts. That is how he draft dodging lying coward go as many votes as he did. He relied on the ignorance of the American voter just as he is not with the Mueller Report, and his authorizing of his lapdog Barr to investigate anyone that opposes him.

    If you had honestly read the article, and God knows you doing anything honestly strains ones credulity, you would have seen this, and understood it:

    "In his first and only public address about his 22-month-long Russia investigation, Mueller said: "As set forth in the report after that investigation,
    if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so."


    Citing long-standing Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel policy, Mueller said he never considered charging a sitting president with a crime and noted that doing so would be unconstitutional.

    "The special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider," he said. "The department's written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation."

    Although Mueller declined to make a decision on obstruction, despite laying out 10 possible scenarios in his report, Barr said he and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish a crime." (That was a lie)

    But even after all of that you had to edit the article to suit your own lies, and mental illness. The article itself says:

    "if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so."

    But you in your state of lack of integrity posted this:

    "If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime, we would have said so,"

    Even your grammar is like that of a dumb f**k.

    Trump committed crimes. Mueller was not allowed to report those crimes.
    "2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"

  18. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    9,090
    Thanks
    3,487
    Thanked 3,433 Times in 2,367 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 888 Times in 802 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Trumpsplainin going on

  19. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    9,164
    Thanks
    3,635
    Thanked 6,593 Times in 4,192 Posts
    Groans
    130
    Groaned 1,203 Times in 1,060 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    THE most significant thing he said: "...if (IF) we had had confidence that the president clearly DID NOT commit a crime, we would have said so. (caps added to reflect his emphasis) ...under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office....Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider."

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...RqhgE-2kTypf4c

    "If we had had confidence that the president clearly DID NOT commit a crime, we would have said so."

    Worth repeating over and over and over again.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cinnabar For This Post:

    christiefan915 (05-29-2019), jimmymccready (05-29-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-01-2019, 10:12 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-19-2019, 03:52 PM
  3. The Mueller standard of Obstruction of Justice
    By tsuke in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-18-2019, 08:36 PM
  4. Barr said no collusion/obstruction ... not Mueller
    By reagansghost in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-24-2019, 11:59 PM
  5. MUELLER- HERE’S SOME OBSTRUCTION THAT YOU’VE BEEN LOOKING FOR.
    By volsrock in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-16-2018, 03:15 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •