When is Enough ,Enough?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

The fact that you think nothing has been found is comical , interesting you are comparing a 3rd rate lawyer to the president of the United States and then blame the "left " for telling lies? Trump is dirty and if he was not president would be indicted and still might be so you can take you indignant attitude about the left and their treatment of trump and stick it. Trump isn't close to being investigated as many times as Hilary was so sit back and enjoy the roasting as he lose's his cool.

Nothing criminal has been found period. Nothing burger

[sdskinsfan2001]

Whatever presidential candidate hates golf the most, gets my vote in 2020.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Nothing criminal has been found period. Nothing burger

That's a lie,simply put and you know it.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Nothing criminal has been found period. Nothing burger

My only issue with this is Mueller punted on the obstructing justice part. He laid out all the evidence and decided he would leave the conclusion to Barr, who got the job by writing a 18 page memo on how the President has practically unlimited powers and the Mueller report isn't legit.

Barr didn't even read the report before he wrote that 4 page summary exonerating Trump.(Source)

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

My only issue with this is Mueller punted on the obstructing justice part. He laid out all the evidence and decided he would leave the conclusion to Barr, who got the job by writing a 18 page memo on how the President has practically unlimited powers and the Mueller report isn't legit.

Barr didn't even read the report before he wrote that 4 page summary exonerating Trump.(Source)

It wasn’t just left to Barr, but with Rosenstein’s backing in coordination with the evidence...Barr and Mueller did speak in the review of investigation as well when it was over. Mueller could have suggested for a prosecution but from the investigation there was clearly too much to exonerate versus obstruction. While the some of the behavior of President was not cool, it was not criminal. To say there is crime, that’s simply false.

Also, the president did cooperate with the investigation...including Don McGahn to testify.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

It wasn’t just left to Barr, but with Rosenstein’s backing in coordination with the evidence...Barr and Mueller did speak in the review of investigation as well when it was over. Mueller could have suggested for a prosecution but from the investigation there was clearly too much to exonerate versus obstruction. While the some of the behavior of President was not cool, it was not criminal. To say there is crime, that’s simply false.

Also, the president did cooperate with the investigation...including Don McGahn to testify.

The president could've interviewed with the special counsel. If you have nothing to hide, why not?

I agree Rosenstein also signed off on that, but we don't know his motivations. It seems he just wanted to get out with his good name intact.

And when Mueller inevitably testifies to Congress I have no doubts he's going to say he would've indicted Trump if Trump weren't President. He felt they had enough evidence to charge Trump but since DOJ policy is a sitting President can't be charged that's where he left it at. Why else would he send a letter to Barr saying he disagrees with Barr's conclusions? (Source)

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

The president could've interviewed with the special counsel. If you have nothing to hide, why not?

I agree Rosenstein also signed off on that, but we don't know his motivations. It seems he just wanted to get out with his good name intact.

And when Mueller inevitably testifies to Congress I have no doubts he's going to say he would've indicted Trump if Trump weren't President. He felt they had enough evidence to charge Trump but since DOJ policy is a sitting President can't be charged that's where he left it at. Why else would he send a letter to Barr saying he disagrees with Barr's conclusions? (Source)

So we doing hypotheticals or we gonna deal with the facts?

The report is available to everyone and the fact is, not enough evidence for collusion or obstruction. The problem is there is no underlying crime...there is no collusion with Russia period...that would be the crime, if there was one. And motive for obstruction has to have a corrupt intent. Firing Comey was within his right and mueller finished his investigation...he wasn’t fired. No one was directed to lie to the team or under oath.

If the other investigations can use mueller report (the roadmap) to indict or impeach, so be it. But the mueller investigation itself did not lead to criminal charges because it can’t support it. Barr isn’t lying, isn’t covering up, and trump isn’t some criminal mastermind pulling all the strings perfectly to skate charges.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

So we doing hypotheticals or we gonna deal with the facts?

The report is available to everyone and the fact is, not enough evidence for collusion or obstruction. The problem is there is no underlying crime...there is no collusion with Russia period...that would be the crime, if there was one. And motive for obstruction has to have a corrupt intent. Firing Comey was within his right and mueller finished his investigation...he wasn’t fired. No one was directed to lie to the team or under oath.

If the other investigations can use mueller report (the roadmap) to indict or impeach, so be it. But the mueller investigation itself did not lead to criminal charges because it can’t support it. Barr isn’t lying, isn’t covering up, and trump isn’t some criminal mastermind pulling all the strings perfectly to skate charges.

Mueller wasn't fired because McGahn refused to go through with it. He resigned rather than do that (which give Trump all the credit for, he surrounded himself with people smart enough to know firing the special counsel would've made it Watergate 2.0 all over again).

I agree Trump is not some criminal mastermind who collaborated with Russia. He's smart enough to turn the other cheek and literally let Putin do his thing without explicitly endorsing it.

Why else does he verbally suck off Putin every opportunity and take closed meetings with no transcribers when every President of recent memory has always done so?

Also it seems pretty clear that just because Trump didn't explicitly say "Cohen you need to lie to Congress" that doesn't mean the intent wasn't there.

Just curious how you think mafia convictions happen when they speak in code all the time? (I know, I know, Trump =/= mafia)

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

So we doing hypotheticals or we gonna deal with the facts?

The report is available to everyone and the fact is, not enough evidence for collusion or obstruction. The problem is there is no underlying crime...there is no collusion with Russia period...that would be the crime, if there was one. And motive for obstruction has to have a corrupt intent. Firing Comey was within his right and mueller finished his investigation...he wasn’t fired. No one was directed to lie to the team or under oath.

If the other investigations can use mueller report (the roadmap) to indict or impeach, so be it. But the mueller investigation itself did not lead to criminal charges because it can’t support it. Barr isn’t lying, isn’t covering up, and trump isn’t some criminal mastermind pulling all the strings perfectly to skate charges.

Is the letter Mueller publicly released before sending to Barr stating he disagreed with how Barr presented the report a hypothetical or is it a fact?

I'm done with impeachment, just hope the American people get their head out of their ass and stop sipping the kool-aid.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

Is the letter Mueller publicly released before sending to Barr stating he disagreed with how Barr presented the report a hypothetical or is it a fact?

I'm done with impeachment, just hope the American people get their head out of their ass and stop sipping the kool-aid.

amen!

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

Is the letter Mueller publicly released before sending to Barr stating he disagreed with how Barr presented the report a hypothetical or is it a fact?

I'm done with impeachment, just hope the American people get their head out of their ass and stop sipping the kool-aid.

Mueller didn’t like how it was presented? Who cares? Mueller knew before Barr presented to the president lawyers and country there were no charges being filed for either collusion and obstruction. We act like mueller, Barr and hot rod didn’t speak about the investigation and it’s conclusions. The report is available for everyone to see...there was no underlying crime which the president was trying to obstruct an investigation. Per the report, the president was pissed that this lie of collusion was undermining his presidency and allowing folks to question legitimacy. The intent and motive matters. Conspiracy theories, cover up, etc...the report is in print for everyone...it’s a stiff drink and not kool aid for everyone who openly rooted against trump.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

The president could've interviewed with the special counsel. If you have nothing to hide, why not?

I agree Rosenstein also signed off on that, but we don't know his motivations. It seems he just wanted to get out with his good name intact.

And when Mueller inevitably testifies to Congress I have no doubts he's going to say he would've indicted Trump if Trump weren't President. He felt they had enough evidence to charge Trump but since DOJ policy is a sitting President can't be charged that's where he left it at. Why else would he send a letter to Barr saying he disagrees with Barr's conclusions? (Source)

Let's not forget that trump fired everyone trying to do their job in this investigation till he got Barr to cover for him.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Let's not forget that trump fired everyone trying to do their job in this investigation till he got Barr to cover for him.

No g1...he had to fire mueller. He asked 2 people to fire mueller which they refused and in one case had to explain to trump that could be interpreted as obstruction. Firing Comey was well within his power as president.

No g1, Barr cover for what? There is no collusion so there was no underlying crime to cover for. The report is available to read sans about 10% which is redacted.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

No g1...he had to fire mueller. He asked 2 people to fire mueller which they refused and in one case had to explain to trump that could be interpreted as obstruction. Firing Comey was well within his power as president.

No g1, Barr cover for what? There is no collusion so there was no underlying crime to cover for. The report is available to read sans about 10% which is redacted.

Chico ,.....you are so full of shit! Trump if not president would be in jail.