Summery in March (SCO v 31)

[BarryDillon]

Except, it’s literally illegal to do that.

That's not true. It's at the discretion of the AG and the President. Of course they could simply make it all available. They could release most of the underlying evidence too.

 

[glenwo2]

This is one of the most brutal rants I've seen in a long time.
The guy with the fat face on the right looks like he's trying not to cry.
Greenwell is no friend of trump but sees clearly what's happening.
Its a clip from Democracy Now so libs don't have to be nervous.

"It's over!.... they just handed trump the biggest gift he could have hoped for!" ( some people want that gift to expand )

The salt is flowing like a tidal wave here.

 

[bobgeese]

That's not true. It's at the discretion of the AG and the President. Of course they could simply make it all available. They could release most of the underlying evidence too.

You know damn well that’s untrue.

 

[grizzard2bid]

Except, it’s literally illegal to do that.

You're actually reading those tweets? I click....and it's some unknown goof giving his opinion. If he's gonna retweet, then at least retweet politicians and prominent lawyers....ex-officials. Barry might be a loser.

 

[glenwo2]

You see, this is the argument of a child.

“Trump wasn’t exonerated by Meullers report”

That’s because Meuller decided not to make a decision. His decision was to leave the decision up to his boss.

Your point is wholly meaningless. You keep using this talking point, but it means nothing. That’s what a child does, repeat the same meaningless, mindless thing over and over.

The adults are trying to tell you that Meuller did make a decision. To pass the decision onto his boss.

Perhaps you should listen to the folks who’ve been right since day 1.

There are adults here?

Seems like you're speaking to little kids who say "WHY?" endlessly.

 

[second sight]

I dunno if it is quite representative of Barr's letter -

Barr states that the first bullet point is "not determinative" of obstruction occuring and just bears upon proving intent - the second bullet point.

Barr then says "the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent."

So it isn't stated he didn't do those second two, it just wasn't with the same action beyond reasonable doubt.

I wish he addressed whether executive constitutional power was considered when assessing 'obstructive conduct', because if so that statement is entirely consistent with "He had corrupt intent with nexus to ongoing proceedings, but the president can fire whoever and tell people to stop investigating whoever the fuck they want, and therefore constitutionally protected conduct isn't obstructive"

Only the full report can tell.

There's also the bit of the letter that says the special counsel investigated “a number of actions by the president — most of which have been the subject of public reporting.”

Will be really interesting to see what Trump actions got investigated that weren't publicly reported.

1. Barr concludes that no charges of obstruction are warranted under DOJ rules because there was no underlying crime to obstruct

 

[ocean size]

Yes or no. Do you accept the findings? Should be a very simple answer, not requiring a bunch of paragraphs explaining why you may or may not, sorta, kinda, non-committal garbage.

Yes or no. What say you?

I accept the no collusion. The most telling thing for me was the mention of offers of help getting turned down.

Honestly I wouldn't mind more legal brains having a look at the obstruction evidence since it sounds equivocal but I find it probable there's not enough for a charge to stick.

The letter wording though leaves room for minor surprises. For example why would Barr write the report "did not establish" someone committed a crime, when only a jury could do so anyway?

 

[glenwo2]

Did anyone actually expect posters to admit they have been wrong for the last 2 years? Admit that they lapped up the media propaganda?

I didn't expect it

I admit....I was fooled into believing that there was a small ounce of DIGNITY remaining in the leftists here.

But unfortunately, they're so brainwashed by the Fake News Media that they're doing whatever it took to prevent the actual TRUTH to seep into what passes for their brain.

 

[second sight]

I accept the no collusion. The most telling thing for me was the mention of offers of help getting turned down.

Honestly I wouldn't mind more legal brains having a look at the obstruction evidence since it sounds equivocal but I find it probable there's not enough for a charge to stick.

The letter wording though leaves room for minor surprises. For example why would Barr write the report "did not establish" someone committed a crime, when only a jury could do so anyway?

how do you obstruct something that didn't happen

 

[glenwo2]

I’ve addressed it multiple times.

You repeating

“Meuller didn’t exonerate him”

Is literally meaningless. That was his decision, and his boss along with RR and legal experts (which again you were wrong in claiming it was Barr’s decision, I’ve noted it could have been you using a bad choice of words) decided there was none.



Now, you answer my question.


Why do you keep repeating it? It means literally nothing.

Like a fucking broken record. <{cruzshake}>

 

[bobgeese]

You're actually reading those tweets? I click....and it's some unknown goof giving his opinion. If he's gonna retweet, then at least retweet politicians and prominent lawyers....ex-officials. Barry might be a loser.

I can see them when he posts without clicking through to twitter. Don’t know about you.


I do know following the word of random Twitter users can cause a mid life e suicide tho...

 

[ocean size]

1. Barr concludes that no charges of obstruction are warranted under DOJ rules because there was no underlying crime to obstruct

Barr writes explicitly otherwise.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.....

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.

The lack of establishing Trump committed a crime does not determine charges aren't warranted, it only makes it harder to establish corrupt intent.

You don't have to commit the crime being investigated to obstruct the investigation.

 

[glenwo2]

 

[grizzard2bid]

It's very simple.

The left are livid that they can't control the narrative. With Barr's report and Mueller's end of investigation without any new indictments, they're left with nothing. They want report to nitpick and distract. As of right now, they have nothing but a crow to feast on.

Trump will most likely declare executive privilege on any part of the report and that's politically the smartest thing to do. Let them squirm.

You wanted to confirm if there was "COLLUSION"? Here you go- no collusion. Adios.

 

[bobgeese]

Like a fucking broken record. <{cruzshake}>

I’m not angry.
you’re angry.

The absolute state of @computer fogie

 

[grizzard2bid]

 

[ocean size]

how do you obstruct something that didn't happen

Crimes didn't happen? We don't even know all of the instances that were investigated as possible obstruction by Trump.
Barr's words:

The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President — most of which have been the subject of public reporting — that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns.

And considering there have been any number of investigations and dozens of convictions, there have certainly been obstructable things happening.

 

[second sight]

Barr writes explicitly otherwise.


The lack of establishing Trump committed a crime does not determine charges aren't warranted, it only makes it harder to establish corrupt intent.

You don't have to commit the crime being investigated to obstruct the investigation.

I think you need to reread what he wrote

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.

 

[second sight]

Crimes didn't happen? We don't even know all of the instances that were investigated as possible obstruction by Trump.
Barr's words:

And considering there have been any number of investigations and dozens of convictions, there have certainly been obstructable things happening.

NONE of which involve Trump or his campaign in any way

 

[second sight]

ocean your ninja edits fuck up the quotes