Are no democrats smart enough too...

anything

lol, i was thinking the same. Having Mueller testify publicly could be disastrous! Mueller will be a piece of sh$t for the left after he testifies, he will be vilified just as Barr and Rosenstein are. It's tough times for people, they go from hero to trash in a heartbeat if they set forth any facts that don't quite fit narratives.

 

Trump doesn't play identity politics. He's always saying good things about black people, latinos... claiming his policies are good for them. He's not demonizing women or men, going after white men or claiming all religious people are freaks.

He does go after illegal, as they are ILLEGAL, not even Americans.

meanwhile Bernie and the left are spending 99% of their time demonizing jews (the symbol of democracy in middle east), white men, religious people, rich people, law enforcement.

Basically, the left doesn't care about morals or character, it's about power. Anything powerful, big = EVIL. A billionaire who gives to charity, works hard, employs, goes to church, treats everyone nicely, helps others is EVIL. A thug, dealing drugs, killing people is GOOD. This is the left for you.... same as with Jews. The left sides with sharia law where women are treated like animals, terrorism (palestinians are paid to kill jews) , why? cause Jews are powerful and many in these Arab countries not.

 

What the hell am I interpreting? It's a video and a quote. You did all the interpreting yourself. Did you not notice that?

Barr quoted Mueller in context at times, Barr quoted Mueller out of context at times. And Barr lied at other times. I just showed one lie. I have shown others elsewhere. The one he told Charlie Christ under oath, for example. When he was asked if Mueller had complained about the accuracy of his letter, and Barr said he didn't know of any complaint. Then Mueller's letter to Barr was revealed. There is no interpretation. The lie is on video. The letter is there.

I look at facts. I don't make emotional assumptions. You do! And you obviously can't get over the fact that I don't. So you project your own shortcomings I'm used to it. Many on this board done the same. But have been unable to prove it.

 

no, you are twisting facts, taking things out of context.

Let's review, i will not let you off that easy.

First collusion comment by Barr:

1. He first states: 'the investigation did not identify evidence that any US person knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA's interference operations' quote from Mueller report.

He then states: "Put another way, the special counsel found no collusion by any Americans in IRA's illegal activities"

THIS IS ALL ACCURATELY STATED AND SPECIFIC TO illegal activities.

2. On hacking activities, Barr states: 'Special counsel's report did not find any evidence that members of Trump campaign or anyone associated with Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian government in these hacking operations'

He then states: "In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government's hacking"

THIS IS ALL ACCURATELY STATED AND SPECIFIC TO hacking activities.

3. On effort to publish e-mails. Barr states: 'The special counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged of otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts' and 'here too the special counsel did not find that any person associated with Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials' and 'the special counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate US law involving Russian linked persons and any persons associated with Trump campaign'

He then states: "Special counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those efforts"

THIS IS ALL ACCURATELY STATED and specific with the illegal interference with election.

So explain to me what Barr lied about? He lied about NOTHING.. his statements were entirely accurate. Conspiring or coordinating in any of these specific activities Barr listed is the SAME DAMN thing as colluding in the same activities! same exact thing.

Then when you complain about Barr not looking at all the evidence you truly discredit yourself. Anyone with half a brain knows that the AG doesn't look into all the evidence, he relies on special counsel report, who's job is to look at all the evidence. Mueller wrote a 400 page report and needed a large team to look at all the evidence over 2 years! thousands of documents, hundreds of interviews. Barr SHOULD NOT have to review the evidence himself, his job is to rely on the thorough special counsel report to make conclusions. This BS nonsense of Barr needing to review evidence is leftwing NUTTERY!

 

Fact

What "the special counsel" actually said:

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted
a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion."​

How can they find "no collusion" if they didn't even look for it?

The rest is absolutely irrelevant.

If the AG is going to take it upon himself to make the call, then the minimum he needs to do is look at the evidence that the special counsel is presenting to him. He didn't even do that.

Yeah.... What he needed to do was... read it! He was not asked to make a determination. He took that attribution. AGs in the past who didn't consider themselves to be the President's personal attorney, but the nation's attorney, in similar situations had passed the decision to Congress. But... .ok... maybe hke could legally do that (though very dishonest). But then he needed to read what the special council wrote before making the determination. He didn't!

Facts are not on your side.

 

I have got you completely coughing up trash now. The special counsel did not use the word collusion because collusion is NOT a crime, get it? it's a vague term that could point to crimes or non-crimes. Irrespective of what Mueller stated in investigating specific crimes, Barr ACCURATELY stated, in 3 cases, that there was NO COLLUSION by trump campaign, with Russia, to commit specific crimes. Whether Mueller himself used collusion or not is completely irrelevant because Barr is making ACCURATE statements that he, himself has concluded 'in other words' or 'put another way' there was no collusion tied to specific crimes. In the 3 cases i noted where Barr stated Trump campaign did not collude with Russia to commit those crimes, IT IS TRUE... IT IS FACT. It doesn't matter whether Mueller used the word, this doesn't invalidate Barr's statements, in the slightest. Had Trump campaign colluded to commit those crimes, Trump would've been impeached by now... it would've been a crime. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN = BARR TELLING THE TRUTH.

NO, the 400 very thorough and comprehensive report is all Barr needed to make that determination, END OF IT. Barr DID not need to review the thousands of documents, go over the hundreds of interviews to basically 'check' Mueller's report was accurate. The special counsel was hired to review evidence, with a large team, and it took 2 years. Barr didn't have to review any of the evidence as the report pretty much went over what evidence was there, what wasn't there, and laid out arguments. It was 400 pages! To even suggest Barr needed to review the thousands of documents, interviews to make sure Mueller report was accurate is leftwing nuttery! desperate nonsense because you want to believe, you want to believe... you cannot accept the facts. Contrary to what leftwing nuttery claims, it was the DOJ's duty to make a determination on obstruction, they just couldn't just leave it out as inconclusive, it's their job to make a determination. The problem here is that Barr simply didn't conclude there was collusion or that there was obstruction and you all will not accept this... he can do no right unless he just goes out there are concludes Trump is a criminal. The FACT of the matter is that if Barr would've spent years looking at the evidence and concluded there was no obstruction, it wouldn't have made a BIT OF DIFFERENCE. The left would still not accept it so this is just hogwash.

 

Not fair. Spellcheck makes lots of mistakes and I am sure the people here know the difference between to, too and two. I make more mistakes than most people here and I taught English for many years. One of the things I told my students was not to worry about grammar and usage when they were doing a rough draft because ideas are more important initially get the ideas and then work in the mechanics . To me writing here is a rough draft

 

Wow...this is an example of extremist thinking...,
Let’s pretend Identity politics isn’t an issue
Let’s not care about the environment
Let’s not care about people being able see doctors
And what makes me laugh is that you say Democrats don’t debate policy anymore and here you are just attacking the messengers
I find it hard to believe that you were ever a Democrat because you could never support trump

 

Easily. Cut of all Strong Conservative information sources. That would get most Independents on their side. Worked well for Liberals since 1917.

 

seriously. Democrats do support illegal immigration. Sanctuary cities. Health care for illegals. What part don't you see?

 

Wrong, It’s not extremist thinking, quite the opostite, it’s lashing out at extremist thinking.

As a former democrat, what bothers me the most is how the party has completely morphed into something unregonizable, a party of anti-semites, party that attacks law enforcement, party that attacks rich people, party that claims world will end in 12 years and pushing through extreme ideas like green deal.

And it’s not hard to understand why many democrats switched to Trump. He won rust belt no? There were many like me that switched.. trump was never a classic conservative, he went after GOP establishment too.

But Trump, with all his shortcomings, is 1,000,000 times better than today’s left. All they do is attack groups of people and vilify them - jews, religious people, white men, cops, ICE agents and they seek to destroy anyone who disagrees with them via character assasinations. See them riot and resort to violence when conservatives go on campus, see them publicly try anyone because of one unsubstantiated allegation, see them call all in white house white supremacists.. the fact that we had someone in congress laugh at americans for being scared of al queda, dismiss 09/11 as ‘something’ and claim real terrorism is what happened after 09/11 (not 09/11) is a testament to how degenerate left has become. They will side with terrorist states who are under sharia law, under monarchies, who call for death to jews.. instead of siding with israel, the only true democratic nation in middle east. This is how extreme they have become.. jews and evil, rich people are evil, this is the stuff of tyrany and communism.

 

No, they do not support illegal immigration.

 

Bingo! But the fact that it's not illegal doesn't mean it's not a "thing".

However, you have Barr.. on tape... saying that the special council found none. However, at no point did the special council say that.

And that is the textbook definition of a lie.

And here is where my post ends. No need to read the rest. But I often like to point out, especially for any casual reader who has not been for long in a debate forum, how they can easily spot who is on the side of B.S. And usually that's the poster who feels they need to extend the posts more than is necessary. The poster who has no arguments needs to throw in smoke screen after smoke screen. The person who is on the side of facts does not.

Oh... and the final part requires no comment. I mean... your argument is that Barr can take it upon himself to declare that the President is "not guilty" of a crime without even reading the evidence. That says it all...

 

No, there is no BINGO, because EVERY STATEMENT BARR MADE WAS TRUE:

"Put another way, the special counsel found no collusion by any Americans in IRA's illegal activities"

"In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government's hacking"

"Special counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those efforts"


ALL TRUE... your argument is invalid as you are twisting this into a false premise that if Barr and Mueller use different wording to pretty much allude to same thing, it is a LIE. This is an INVALID ARGUMENT.

Barr cleverly linked collusion to specific crimes and what he states that Trump's campaign didn't collude in perpetrating any of these crimes, IS TRUE.

I win, you lose.

 

another false premise that if AG doesn't review underlying evidence, he cannot conclude anything. AG is Mueller's boss and he had Mueller look at the evidence, took Mueller 2 years to review thousands of documents, conduct hundreds of interviews etc.... His report was thorough, 400 pages, discussed evidence and laid out arguments for his boss to review. He provided the report to his boss and his boss made the final decision. This is the way it's supposed to work and AG followed standard protocol. Another INVALID argument from the start..

you lose, i win.

 

Well... if you put it in all caps, then... it must be so, I guess...

Anyway.... we haven't progressed much since the first post. The video, in which Barr states that Mueller says one thing, the report in which Mueller says a different one... Not much more can be added.

Maybe they did.... maybe they didn't. Point is that what the special prosecutor "found" had nothing to do with that either way.

"Collusion", as per Mueller's words, is not a prosecutable crime. That doesn't mean it's not an impeachable high crime or misdemeanor. And, for that reason, it was not Mueller's place to make a judgement about it. Nor was it Barr's to attribute a judgement to Mueller that he didn't make. It's what, here in the south is technically known as a "g0ddamn lie".

Oooh... All caps, bold... and underlined? Never saw that one coming!

So... there you have it, boys and girls. To win a debate, you don't have to be right. You just have to be loud.

 

Then file impeachment charges. Just quit beating the rest of America over the head with this ****...... file the damn charges..... It appears that is the ONLY thing the Democratic party cares about any more (other than opening the borders and giving handouts to illegals). Awesome platform you got going there.

 

invalid points... people don't have to use the same exact wording when discussing things. So a report says person X murdered person Y and i then say the report stated person X assassinated person Y, am i lying? Conspiring and coordinating with Russia government to commit a crime is the same thing as colluding with Russia Government to commit a crime. Different wording, same meaning.

No, Trump campaign did not collude with Russia government to commit any crime, otherwise Mueller would've said Trump campaign participated in crimes and Trump would've been impeached the day after report came out. It would've happened in a heartbeat!

Collusion by itself is not a prosecutable crime but collusion to commit crimes IS a prosecutable crime. Do you not see the difference? If i collude with person X to play a prank on person Y, it is not a crime. If i collude with person X to murder someone, IT IS A CRIME.

In the end, Barr was right, there was no collusion from Trump campaign with Russia to commit crimes... FACT.

Look up collusion synonyms... you will find 'conspiracy, cooperation' in there. What words did Mueller use? 'conspired or coordinated'. What exactly is the difference? conspiracy, cooperation vs conspiring and coordinate? In the end, Barr's statements are 100% accurate. There was no collusion to commit crimes....

 

Based on what?

 

Look... don't strain yourself. I know you're desperate for attention, but you're completely lost. That's not what this discussion is about.

 

Mueller report.

 

actually, when i see posters going after typos, responding with one liners and ^, it's a tell tell sign that there is a lack of substance.

 

Exactly!!!!

And for this same exact reason, Mueller wrote

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted
a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion."(Page 2)​

But Barr said


Which is a lie!

Because the fact that they didn't conspire to commit a crime, does not mean that they didn't collude. As a matter of fact, they did! They had meetings. Trump tower meeting comes to mind. It did not rise to the level of "crime" as per Justice Department Manual. In the report Mueller explains why they didn't prosecute.

The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in
connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra. The Office
concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent
("knowing" and "willful") , and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information,
criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will
probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. "​

Was there collusion? Yes! Was it prosecutable? No!

You have proven my point.

 

So looks like you just caught Barr in another lie.

On Barr's "letter" he says

But you say it was based on Mueller's report. And Mueller's report was completely influenced by consideration that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

This is all over the report. Because of the OLC instructions, Mueller purposefully avoided any path that would lead to determining that the President had committed any crime.

For example

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (201 (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .
​

Congratulations! You just found another Barr lie!

 

"Typos"? Do you know what a typo....

Never mind....