- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,138
- Reaction score
- 15,130
Barr and Mueller's Two Testie-fy (SCO v. 34)
- Thread starter Quipling
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 80,738
- Reaction score
- 67,755
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 8,385
- Reaction score
- 4
Let’s just say those Mueller prayer candles aren’t being lighted with the fervor they were before
This has been a farce since version 1 man, the goalposts have shifted so much I don’t even know where this investigation ended. It started with Russia... and now where is it?
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2017
- Messages
- 9,384
- Reaction score
- 0
I believe he said it was correct, but he wanted more emphasis on things that remind people that trumps a man child when he gets angry.
Mueller was given the authority to bring charges against trump himself. That’s why liberals were so thrilled, everyone knows that mueller disdains trump as a human being. Mueller couldn’t find any collusion. End of story.
He agreed with Barr, he just wanted emphasis. So end of story.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45,243
- Reaction score
- 6,620
And again, regardless of what your (lol awful) opinions are, Quipling has done a good job with these threads and there's no justification for filling them with human shit, and you made a really dumb comment about him that you should take back.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 8,385
- Reaction score
- 4
Nah, it’s a farce thread through and through all 34 versions
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 80,738
- Reaction score
- 67,755
Do you ever stop and think to yourself:
"Man, maybe I'm taking this Sherdog thing a little too seriously."
If not, you should.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2014
- Messages
- 15,458
- Reaction score
- 768
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,138
- Reaction score
- 15,130
You should really read the Mueller report for yourself...it says exactly the opposite.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Messages
- 6,580
- Reaction score
- 1,261
You should really check the wiring on your brain.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2017
- Messages
- 9,384
- Reaction score
- 0
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...-muellers-distinctly-american-indictments/amp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/news/yes-mueller-can-indict-trump
And he could say whether he thinks the president SHOULD be indicted as well.
Which he refrained from doing.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45,243
- Reaction score
- 6,620
To bring it back to the latest development:
"The summary letter...did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern [to you]. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."
There is no wiggling out of the fact that Mueller specifically characterizes Barr as having misrepresented the Counsel's findings, and that it was in effect an assault on public perception about the findings. I don't think anybody honestly disputes this, though lots of people dishonestly dispute it. One reason this is important is that Congress has the duty to make a decision here.
There is a lot of evidence pointing to obstruction of justice, which even Barr admits in his "both-sides" spin when he says that there is evidence on both sides of the question. It's a tough political question for Democrats, because the right thing to do (impeachment) is doomed to failure in the Senate. When something like this comes up, it's never an easy decision whether to take a stand that won't amount to anything tangible, but is just, or to weigh all of the costs associated with taking a doomed stand. I wouldn't want to have to make that decision here.
"The summary letter...did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern [to you]. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."
There is no wiggling out of the fact that Mueller specifically characterizes Barr as having misrepresented the Counsel's findings, and that it was in effect an assault on public perception about the findings. I don't think anybody honestly disputes this, though lots of people dishonestly dispute it. One reason this is important is that Congress has the duty to make a decision here.
There is a lot of evidence pointing to obstruction of justice, which even Barr admits in his "both-sides" spin when he says that there is evidence on both sides of the question. It's a tough political question for Democrats, because the right thing to do (impeachment) is doomed to failure in the Senate. When something like this comes up, it's never an easy decision whether to take a stand that won't amount to anything tangible, but is just, or to weigh all of the costs associated with taking a doomed stand. I wouldn't want to have to make that decision here.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,138
- Reaction score
- 15,130
According to DOJ guidelines he explicitly could bring no indictment against a sitting president, which he clearly made note of in his report...and he also could suggest no indictment because the president couldn't defend himself from an accusation with no action behind it.
Read the report, Barr is a liar.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 80,738
- Reaction score
- 67,755
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,138
- Reaction score
- 15,130
Mueller testifying and confirming the legitimacy of Barr's actions will end the issue for me. Mueller has integrity. You think old Bob is happy with his AG colleague?
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Messages
- 6,580
- Reaction score
- 1,261
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,737
- Reaction score
- 4,941
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Messages
- 6,580
- Reaction score
- 1,261
Bullshit. That's what he said, and he has repeatedly made it clear that he thinks the President is completely above the law.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 26,138
- Reaction score
- 15,130
The irony is mind bending.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Messages
- 6,580
- Reaction score
- 1,261
*As long as the President is a Republican.
- Status
