Summery in March (SCO v 31)

[ocean size]

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.

Umm. yeah.. you are copying the quote that says not committing a crime does NOT mean you can't have committed obstruction.

 

[glenwo2]

LOL, your definition of "trouncing" people, is reporting them for hurting your feelings, and getting banned for irritating the mods with your bleeding vagina and incessant whining.

 

[second sight]

Umm. yeah.. you are copying the quote that says not committing a crime does NOT mean you can't have committed obstruction.

does the intent part not have a legal meaning..the absence of evidence

the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.

 

[grizzard2bid]

Umm. yeah.. you are copying the quote that says not committing a crime does NOT mean you can't have committed obstruction.

Rod Rosenstein and Bill Barr both concluded Trump did not obstruct justice based on facts. Both are prosecutors and long-time lawyers. Accept it.

 

[waiguoren]

Whether or not Mueller would speak out against Barr if he disagreed, though, is pure speculation.

Not really. Mueller spoke out just two months ago when Buzzfeed mischaracterized his investigation.


Mueller’s office disputes BuzzFeed News report that Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/18/18187790/trump-mueller-buzzfeed-cohen-obstruction

That's quite different from going against Barr's decision, as you know.

Different in what way? Most of us seem to believe that Mueller is a man of integrity. Mueller decided to speak out publicly when a lower-tier media outlet mischaracterized his investigation. Why would Mueller not speak out over an infinitely more consequential mischaracterization?

 

[Jack V Savage]

A pile of dog shit? Do you think Mueller would sit idly by as Barr---his long-time friend---mischaracterized his investigation to the American public?

What's the alternative?

 

[glenwo2]

Democrats forgot how to shitpost.


I WILL TEACH THEM!

Show them the Goose-Shit GIF.

 

[waiguoren]

...unless that report contained sensitive/classified information and the experts needed some time to make redactions.

 

[waiguoren]

What's the alternative?

The alternative would be for Mueller to speak out. Remember when he did it two months ago?


Mueller’s office disputes BuzzFeed News report that Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/18/18187790/trump-mueller-buzzfeed-cohen-obstruction

 

[glenwo2]

Yeah, he apparently excluded a dependent clause. What do you think was gonna be in there? Barr and Mueller are friends BTW. Barr was Mueller's boss during his first term.

No wonder the Democrats are NOW thinking of a cover-up.

 

[glenwo2]

You joined less than month ago. I don't know who you are, you nitwit.

Yes you do.

And it starts with a Homer and ends with a Thompson.

 

[ocean size]

Rod Rosenstein and Bill Barr both concluded Trump did not obstruct justice based on facts. Both are prosecutors and long-time lawyers. Accept it.

Follow along dipshit. I didn't disagree with Barr. I am agreeing with Barr. I am correcting @second sight suggesting obstruction is impossible since trump didn't commit collusion.

 

[glenwo2]

@BarryDillon, be so kind as to stop reposting random twitter incels.
Nobody cares.

LOL @ Democrat Ultimatums.

As if Barr is going to give a shit.

He will provide the REDACTED Mueller Report when he is ready to do so and *only* then.

 

[BarryDillon]

 

[second sight]

Follow along dipshit. I didn't disagree with Barr. I am agreeing with Barr. I am correcting @second sight suggesting obstruction is impossible since trump didn't commit collusion.

no you cherry picked a couple words out of the middle of his statement and missed the main text completely

 

[glenwo2]

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

Over and over and over you state it....


and Over and Over and Over they hate it.

 

[Sketch]

<Lmaoo><45>

 

[ocean size]

does the intent part not have a legal meaning..the absence of evidence

the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.

bears upon intent, without being determinative of the crime. It means corrupt intent is harder to establish if he didn't do something himself, but it doesn't determine there is no crime.

Corrupt intent can be established in another way, like if he was on tape saying 'yeah i told Cohen to lie to congress because I didn't want heat for my Trump Tower Moscow deal.

 

[Steve-French]

 

[franklinstower]

Well the MMM sure fucked this one up completely. I wont be surprised if this goes a long way towards getting Trump re-elected in two years. Not to mention the corrupt DNC will do everything they can to put in a centrist lying shit politician against him.

Glad I watched real news commentary on this over the last long while and never hung my hat on collusion with Russia. The progressive left could see right through the whole stupid thing. I wonder why MMM could not?