Trump Issues Authorization Memorandum for Declassification

will you accept that Mueller failed to prove Trump did?

 

yes that Mueller failed to prove Trump or any American colluded with Russia and he also failed to prove Trump obstructed justice

 

Hahaha! I am glad to see Barr advising Trump correctly. The President can declassify documents and thumb his nose at Congress.

 

No he won't that's why he's doing this.

 

Hilarious. I don't have a side. I speak for myself. I oppose riots and violence.

And you just keep squirming. I've asked several times, and you keep avoiding an answer. Maybe you will have the courage to answer this time (but I doubt it):

"So you accept that Mueller did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice.

You accept that Mueller's investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.

You accept both of those things, right?"

 

I will accept that Mueller did not conclude that Trump committed obstruction of justice, because he determined that as president Trump could not be indicted. Therefore he did not reach a prosecutorial conclusion on whether or not Trump obstructed justice.

In short, he did not reach a conclusion either way. But he very specifically said that he did not exonerate Trump.

 

You say you accept the Mueller report in its entirety. Fine.

Then you accept that Mueller's investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.

Would you come out and just say you accept this?

 

Naturally ... Russigate hasn't exposed a Russian conspiracy, it's revealed several conspiracies undertaken by Obama's "17 separate intel agencies". Nunes first began, and still is, relying on internal documents, and sworn testimony to support all of these allegations of abuse and criminal misconduct. Literally everyone being investigated has named someone else as being responsible for something "sketchy". You can count on me ... I'll "come back" when ... "ever happens" ::

 

I don't accept every argument in a case, do you? So no I don't accept that statement. If they find Trump guilty and he's impeached or convicted sure I'll accept it. And that's same for any other statements, rulings I accept. Arguments no I don't accept every argument. Now please bookmark this so I don't have to answer this for a 12th time, it's annoying.

 

So you pick and choose what parts of Mueller's report you accept, based on what fits in with your partisan narrative. No surprise.

 

AG Barr just agreed to give Schiff's committee a big batch of Mueller's "sensitive" investigative mat'l. From reports it sounds like counter-intel Strzok likely collected whilst working for Mueller. Devin Nunes is equally pleased about the release of the mat'l ... leading me to believe Schiff needs to start prepping another "counter-memo" for MSNBC fans. ::

 

People are so divided, it's insane.

When BO became president, Democrats basically had their way for years politically. Then, they lost.

With that, they also lost all sanity because things arent going their way. The spoiled, coddled kids who were 16 and 18 when Obama was elected had only ever known what it was like to be in charge, so when the tables were turned, they lost their ****ing minds.

Which is what happens when you raise a kid and tell them that everyone is special and were all winners, only for them to find out that that's not the case in adult world. But they were never a 'loser' in their life before then, so they dont know how to handle it. They've been given participation trophies just for showing up, only to find out your job doesnt give a **** if mommy thought you were awesome.

 

The ruling was no collusion, no obstruction. Ok, continue on with your spin.

 

I took two word-for-word quotes directly from the report itself. You would not accept them. You are the one who is spinning things.

 

What was the ruling B?

 

One of them was that Mueller did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice

Another was that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts

 

Take the Mueller report meme as a sign of hopelessness. Nadler's still "negotiating" Bob's testimony. Bob insists on a "private" hearing, and there's no indication the DOJ or (R)'s have requested it be held "privately". Adam Schiff was quich to make himself look like a jackass again. Saying declassification of mat'l is un-American. Schiff for brains followed up by bragging about how his threats to fine, or jail AG Barr for not declassifying DOJ mat'l finally paid off. Nadler, not to be outdone says "there's no basis whatsoever" to suspect the FBI did anything wrong. Jackass Jerry cites the IG report, kinda saying "bias wasn't a factor" ... omitting the IG found Comey was insubordinate, and McCabe was leakin' & lyin' about it to the IG.

 

I think that any investigation about Trump by little Jimmy Comby and Peter Strozk ti be deeply flawed because of their bias for Hillary Clinton and anti Donald Trump.
I don't trust a thing they say.
So to any extent that their testimony and investigations added to the Mueller report i distrust it. Anything they added to the Mueller report should be inadmissible in any legal proceedings.

 

Maybe people should start a thread on who does, or does not, accept the Mueller report or parts thereof?

 

Barr said the rules were twisted against Trump.

 

"(d) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

Any expert comprehenders care to interpret this part?

I'm reading it as: People are free to continue stonewalling; without fear of consequences.

I believe that I'm wrong, but that's what I'm getting from it.

 

Prosecutors prosecute. They don't exhonerate.
Failure to prosecute is exhoneration

 

It does the opposite, it puts the AG in charge. No more stonewalling, it puts Wray in a position where he must get the AG what he wants.

 

https://twitter.com/jsolomonReports/status/1131874675603251205

 

Odds are good some people will die because of this.