Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Talon, May 30, 2019.

  1. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    35,878
    Likes Received:
    13,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sean Davis of The Federalist delivered one of the most thorough beat-downs on the Obama-Clinton crime family's lead "insurance" agent and his dishonest and cowardly performance yesterday. Be sure to read the whole thing - I've omitted Davis' comparison of Lavrentiy Beria 2.0's antics to those of the other disgraced weasel who succeeded him at the FBI (which begs the question WTF is up with the leadership at the FBI?).

    Mueller made that crystal clear yesterday in what was a fittingly disgraceful end to his Stalinesque show "investigation". :boo:
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
    logical1 likes this.
  2. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    35,878
    Likes Received:
    13,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Evidently, Lefty legal expert and erstwhile Democrat Alan Dershowitz agrees with Sean Davis about Bobby the Weasel's antics yesterday:

     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
  3. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    26,405
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mueller’s unfair and unethical hit job on Trump is done. He refuses to answer questions from Republicans in Congress.

    What doesn’t kill Trump will make him stronger.
     
  4. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    31,737
    Likes Received:
    8,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah but didn't we pretty much know this was a political hit job from day one?
     
    Gatewood likes this.
  5. ImNotOliver

    ImNotOliver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    11,062
    Likes Received:
    3,599
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trumpians are so funny. First they insisted that the Mueller report exonerated Great Leader. Now they claim Mueller was wrong. So, if the Mueller report exonerated him and the Mueller report was wrong, does that mean Great Leader is guilty?
     
  6. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    16,436
    Likes Received:
    5,508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do think that Mueller put his elbow on the scale against Trump yesterday. And that was to counter the fact that Barr put his own on the scale in favor of Trump. So they cancel out. The rest of the stuff on the scale is the actual evidence. And that definitely tilts the scale against Trump.

    And this is the reason why none of the articles, comments or threads by Trump loyalists (including Barr's) refer to the evidence.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
  7. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    22,500
    Likes Received:
    5,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump friendly William Barr was interviewed on CBS, and important excerpts of the interview were televised today. It is quite evident that Barr's obvious bias compels him to act more like Trump's defense lawyer than the U.S. Attorney General.

    So I looked all over for a thread started by a Trump fan that concerns Barr and Trump. Then I remembered that Trump's fans rarely start a thread about Trump. Consequently, this is the closest one I could find. It loosely relates to Trump. Barr was critical of Mueller, thereby defending Trump once again.

    The quotes are from CBS.

    "In his first network interview since being sworn in, Barr said the special counsel, who gave a rare public statement Wednesday reiterating some of the key findings in his more than 400-page report, could have concluded the president broke the law without actually charging him — or cleared him of wrongdoing.

    "I personally felt he could've reached a decision," he told CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford."

    "Could've?" Mueller "could" have, but he would not. This is what Mueller said. "So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime."

    Mueller also said, "The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing."

    Put another way, Mueller had provided over 400 pages of evidence. He felt it would be highly presumptuous of him to make a decision for Congress.

    I personally felt he could've reached a decision. Mueller was quite clear with his meaning yesterday. Would Trump's lawyer, er, attorney general, be happier if Mueller had forcefully said Trump should be impeached? Does Barr really understand what he said?

    "The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office, but he could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity," Barr added. So, again, Barr would have been happy if Mueller had charged Trump with a crime. Is that what Barr is saying?

    "But he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons," Barr said.

    Then why raise the issue at all? Barr is a lawyer. He could have given some B.S. to the question. It is what lawyers do. Answer: He wanted to discredit Mueller, thereby helping Trump.

    It just didn't come out right.

    "When he became aware that Mueller would not make a determination in his obstruction of justice probe — which investigated 11 instances in which Mr. Trump tried to derail the Russia investigation — Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "felt it was necessary" for them to make decision on the issue.

    "In a letter to Congress after Mueller submitted his report, Barr said he and Rosenstein concluded that the nearly two-year investigation did not contain sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump obstructed justice.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/willia...d-whether-trump-obstructed-justice-exclusive/

    At the conclusion of Volume Two (obstruction of justice) Mueller concluded, If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

    Did Trump's lawyer just make a complete fool of himself?

    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ars-of-silence-mueller-finally-speaks.556615/
     

Share This Page