DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Mueller Objected to Barr’s Description of Russia Investigation’s Findings

j/c

As The World Turns lmao! You know whats even more hilarious, the fact that the Dems have Trump projected to win in 2020! This shows people don't give a damn or have enough sense to understand insufficient evidence means; GAME OVER!

You guys keep regurgitating crap and you can feel good about 35 mil being wasted. Man, how do I get that job?

How many times do FOXd00ps© need an answer to this st00pitazz question before it penetrates those bricks that sit atop their necks?

This entire investigation cost you, me, the American taxpayers:

Nothing.

Zero. Zich. Zip. Null set. Nada.

This entire investigation was funded by Paul Manafort's ill-gotten gains. It's called 'civil asset forfeiture.' When he copped, flipped, and took the plea deal, the US government confiscated 46 million dollars worth of personal assets, including an extremely ugly-ass ostrich skin jacket.

So get this, Tasty: America actually MADE money from this investigation. At present, we still have 11M sitting in the bank that DIDN'T get used. 11M that can be used to further investigate just how deep and wide Trump's corruption extends. Let's play some more with house money, shall we?

How do you ppl not know this? Oh, that's right: you get your 'news' from FOX. That study 3+ years ago was right: Folks who cite FOX as their primary source of news are less/worse-informed than people who watch no news at all.

This explains why so many of these PP convos (d)evolve the way they do. Low info/no info/mis info posters trying to debate with people who actually live in a world not contructed by Rupert Murdoch's Misdirection Machine. Disconnect much?


smdh.



If you don't think that finding out how deeply compromised our 2016 national election was is important, then maybe you aren't the same kind of 'everyday American' that I am.

They already did an investigation as far as I'm concerned. Weren't you paying attention?

I said the same thing 2.5 years ago that it was a huge waste. You said the opposite and you were wrong. Let's see what happens this time shall we?

Today Mueller verified that, based on his investigation, the POTUS committed obstruction. If he wasn't POTUS he'd be prosecuted. He wasn't because that's up to Congress.

Denying this is asinine. I can't say exactly how foish it is to deny this because id be banned for a period of time.

Parroting Trump and Fox is even more asinine .... Fox even said the same dang thing today. To the point the radicalized right are calling for Innocents to be fired from the station.

No, Mueller said he didn't even consider charging POTUS because it would be Unconstitutional to do so.

He presented what evidence he had, both ways, and it is for Congress to decide.

So when will Congress decide? Never.

Actually, Mueller didn't say anything that wasn't already said in his report.

All this fuss is over what we have already read.

You never read the report.

You should be praising Pelosi right now.

Sounds like Trump spin to me.

In case you might missed it, the fuss was over Mueller verifying that AG Barr acted as a political lackey when he totally and willfully lied and misdirected over the findings and content of the report. That is new news.

As for the rest, Mueller verified that it wasn't his place to charge the POTUS with a crime... And that Trump did obstruct the investigation. (which is a crime).

You can deny all you like. It don't matter. All it does is to undermine your credibility even further if that's even possible.

A little over 25% of what has been paid for Trump's golf outings.

Congress has forwarded over 100 bills to the senate that refuses to even bring them to the floor for a vote. Looks like it's the senate who isn't doing their job.

Well then perhaps you will listen to a Harvard Law professor emeritus...

"I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage."

-Alan Dershowitz

"If We Had Confidence That the President Did Not Commit a Crime, We Would Have Said So".

That wasn't in the report.

“Under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional,” said Mueller. “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

And this wasn't in the report. There are other things he said that were not in the report. But I'm not going to waste my time continuing to point them out to someone who obviously doesn't have a clue of what is and isn't actually in the report.

We've been paying attention. Have you?

Once again, you think Mueller should have stood by and be quiet about the lies Barr told. And if someone doesn't cover up the lies for Trump and his cronies, they favor the other side. Your true character is loud and clear here.

Perhaps you'll listen to Putin. I mean Trump does.....

"Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?" a reporter asked at the joint press conference Putin and Trump held after their one-on-one meeting in Helsinki, Finland.

Speaking through a translator, Putin answered, "Yes I did. Yes I did. Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal."

Why the hell not he closed his eyes on all your pond scum deep state leftys. SMFH

We currently have the scummiest, nastiest, most lying president in our lifetime and you have the nerve to talk about pond scum? Hell, you helped elect the pond scum.

And so did our enemy, Russia. Why am I not surprised you would take Russia's side over America's?

j/c

Finally Trump admits Russia helped him get elected.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrum

Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax...And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was a crime that didn’t exist. So now the Dems and their partner, the Fake News Media,.....
65.9K
6:57 AM - May 30, 2019

Maybe the will and maybe they won't.

I have read some of the report but not all and have read some of the cliff notes. The dems should do their due diligence and if they decide to bring impeachment proceedings they should do the following listed in lawfare;

The better approach, in my view, is to focus on live testimony from witnesses who supplied the material about President Trump’s conduct that Mueller made public in the report—mostly but not exclusively in Volume II. There are a lot of these witnesses. Congress could easily hold weekly hearings that would be riveting television. Who knows? They might even get what the president most values in the world: good ratings. The goal would be to focus public attention on the president’s abuse of the intelligence and law enforcement communities and his individual conduct with respect to Russia. Such hearings could develop new information. They could also enrich our understanding of the existing factual record. They would serve to publicly validate and elucidate Mueller’s findings and, critically, to shift those findings from the voice of Mueller himself to the voice of the president’s closest aides. Perhaps most importantly, they would create a sustained vehicle for focusing on Trump’s conduct—which is, and needs to be, the central issue.

If I were in charge of the House judiciary committee, a wide array of witnesses named in the report would receive an invitation for public testimony—and any of them who did not immediately agree to appear would receive a subpoena in short order. The idea would be to bring the Mueller report to life and, along the way, to establish clearly in case law the ability of Congress to conduct such oversight hearings against a recalcitrant executive.

Trump attacks Mueller as a 'true never-Trumper' after admitting for first time that Russia helped elect him

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-...t-time-n1011861

This idiot has become so predictable.

Not only is Dershowitz something of a shill for Trump .... if he wants to know the plausible and valid reason for Mueller's actions, I am very happy to educate him. Tell him to get in touch.

As YOU said early - he didn't say anything new. He repeated what is in the Report. The report clearly indicates Trump committed obstruction. The report says if they could have cleared the POTUS they would have, but they could not. . . . you are lying out both sides of your mouth with these 2 arguments by the way.

whats a 'deep state lefty'?

The boogie man to trumpian bedwetters.

Rand Paul on fellow libertarian Amash's impeachment call: Russia probe was 'un-libertarian'

Rand Paul, R-Ky., said on "America's Newsroom" Thursday that he takes the opposite view from Amash, seeing the origins of the Russia investigation as being "un-libertarian."

He explained that the powers, specifically FISA surveillance, utilized in the FBI counterintelligence probe are the kind that libertarians have long warned could be abused by the government.

"I see an abuse of power from Comey, Clapper, Brennan, from all these guys," Paul said.

"I think they took this great power we entrusted with them to spy on foreigners and they directed it against Americans for partisan reasons. So, I think this has to be investigated and I think it’s wrong for any Republican to think, 'Oh gosh, this is a legitimate investigation.' I think it’s a very partisan investigation."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-justin-amash-mueller-probe

posting loony right opinions from Trump stooges that bear no reflection of the facts does not make an argument. Try harder.

Some people have to bring fake ass pebbles to a battle of the wits.

Makes good sense. So that won’t happen.

“A true never trumper”. Lol
He’s TNT ..he’s dynamite.

Anything that comes out of your mouth is a loony left opinion.

You and the democrat party don't have a damn thing. You know it and I know it. I said the same thing years ago. You still don't have anything.

If you have something bring it now, bring it tonight. Bring it, bring it. You've got nothing.

I can't help it if you don't pay attention or struggle to comprehend - but by all means continue to laugh at your own jokes.

40 reply...

Amash had won his seat in a squeaker as it was and probably thinks he can't win it again.
So he made his break by hating Trump and thus alienated the Republicans in his district.

Now he is free to run for President as an Independent or Libertarian and then when he loses, he will run in his district as an "I" or "L", getting votes from Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and maybe some Republicans.

----------------------------------------------------------

and now this...

Highlights from Amash’s Grand Rapids town hall

Third-party presidential run

Speculation has swirled in recent weeks that Amash is considering a third-party challenge to Trump. Libertarians are reportedly trying to convince him to leave the Republican Party and mount a third-party challenge to President Donald Trump. The congressman on Tuesday said he doesn’t “rule things out,” but added that if he were considering such a challenge, “this is not how I would do it.”

“I don’t think impeachment is the way to roll out some kind of announcement,” he said. “But again, I don’t rule things out. I think that in life if you’re fighting to defend the constitution and you find a way to do it that’s different and maybe more effective, then you have to think about that.”

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2019/05/6-highlights-from-amashs-grand-rapids-town-hall.html

Hmmmmmm.

Republicans should nominate Bill Weld for 2020, he gets it.



https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/g...nts-60585029772

Conservatives Stunned by Mueller Suggesting Trump Is Not Innocent

By Jonathan Chait

Robert Mueller’s brief, eight-minute remarks on Wednesday about his investigation left the non-conservatives who closely follow his work fairly nonplussed. Mueller was simply reiterating things he had already written in his report. Conservatives, on the other hand, erupted in outrage.

What so vexed the right about Mueller’s curt affirmation of his previous conclusions? The answer, as we’ll see, seems to be that they believed their own propaganda about what Mueller had (and had not) found. Presented even briefly with reality, their minds have reeled in shock.

Mueller produced massive evidence that President Trump committed Nixonian-scale obstruction of justice in office. But Department of Justice policy prevented him from charging a sitting president with a crime, and Mueller reportedly believes he can’t openly state that this policy prevented him from accusing Trump of crimes. Mueller views his job as sending his evidence to Congress without prejudice, where the impeachment mechanism serves as a substitute for the jury trial that such crimes would normally call for.

Trump, William Barr, and the Republican Party followed a strategy of systematically lying about this. Barr repeatedly suggested that Mueller, rather than being unable to charge Trump with crimes, simply didn’t have enough evidence of misconduct to make up his mind. By all indications, the conservative intelligentsia has failed to read the report and believes the misleading spin emanating from the president and his loyal attorney general.

Shortly after Mueller finished speaking, National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke complained, “Investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed, they are supposed to say ‘We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed’ … If a person doesn’t have enough evidence that someone committed a crime to contend that a crime was committed, he is obliged to presume his innocence.”

Of course. But the explanation for this apparent paradox, which apparently hasn’t crossed Cooke’s mind, is that Mueller does have evidence that Trump committed crimes. Pages and pages and pages of evidence, in fact.

And as silly and basic as his error may be, fellow conservatives followed the same fundamentally mistaken premise. “By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings,” writes a stunned Alan Dershowitz. “Obstruction of justice is a ‘high crime and misdemeanor’ which, under the Constitution, authorizes impeachment and removal of the president.”

Right. Mueller found clear and extensive evidence that Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Dershowitz proceeds from his confusion to complain that Mueller’s insinuation that Trump committed high crimes could only be resolved through “a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross-examination, exclusionary rules of evidence, and other due process safeguards.” That process is called impeachment. Dershowitz is describing the reason why Mueller is leaving the decision to prosecute the crimes he discovered to Congress. Because Dershowitz cannot surrender his belief in Trump’s innocence, he sees Mueller as carrying out an unfathomable Kafkaesque travesty, rather than a straightforward application of the system of processing presidential crimes.

John Podhoretz laments that Mueller emphasized his lack of exoneration of Trump’s conduct. “Granted, [Mueller] said pretty much the same thing in the report he produced,” Podhoretz concedes, but “[i]t matters what he chose to repeat from it and what he did not. He wanted the American people to hear him speak those words.” Podhoretz is aghast that Mueller would emphasize this, but the reason is perfectly obvious: It’s because Barr lied about it.

Rather than reach this obvious conclusion, Podhoretz decides Mueller has bungled the job: “If Mueller didn’t intend to signal to Congress that his report could serve as the basis for an impeachment,” he writes, “his statement was wildly incompetent.” But maybe Mueller did intend to signal to Congress that his report could serve as the basis for impeachment? And maybe Mueller specifically asked Congress to decide whether Trump’s misconduct amounts to crimes because the DOJ does not allow him to? Podhoretz, of course, does not consider such an explanation.

Ironically, it was Fox News meathead Dan Bongino, ranting to his radio audience, who came closest to grasping reality. Bongino notices that Mueller heavily signaled that he did find behavior that, if the perpetrator was not the president, would be crimes:



How does Bongino know what Mueller told Barr? Because Barr insists Mueller didn’t hold back from charging Trump because of DOJ policy. And Barr would never lie:



Bongino realizes this comes down to either Barr or Mueller misleading the country about what Mueller’s report concluded. And yet, perched one step away from the correct answer, he insists it must be Mueller who is lying about the Mueller report. Ignore all the evidence of obvious crimes in the Mueller report. Ignore Mueller telling us that department policy prevents him from labeling those actions as crimes. The one reliable truth Bongino returns to is the sacred value of Bill Barr’s word.

If you can’t trust the slavishly loyal attorney general, handpicked by a president whose sole criterion for the job is to ignore its ethical guidelines and protect him at all costs, who can you trust?

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/c...t-innocent.html

The truth hurts.

Whoa dude... you and your ilk here had Russias, Irans, N.K.s, Cuba,s Chinas, Venezuela,s ,Mexicos,s back,so please look in the mirror ,oh and by the way I wonder if Russia is using the uranium that your pond scum gave to them to help them destroy America , or murica as you so put it pffffft

If you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, don't call somebody a "meathead" because you don't agree with them.. and second, look up the definition of nonplussed before you use it in a sentence.

Or maybe he has simply had enough and needs to speak to the truth of what the report states. I know that's hard for someone that has closed their mind off to what's in the report based on [1] Barr misrepresenting the report's context [2] Trump claiming he was completely exonerated ..... but the fact is you did nail it yesterday. Mueller didn't say anything new in his presser - but he did speak to what is in the report that Barr wished to try to lie about. Deep down inside you know it - but feel free to keep deflecting and lying.

Oh the hypocrisy... If you guys want to be taken seriously, stop supporting and enabling trump’s name calling because he doesn’t agree with, well.. most everyone.