THE REPORT, buttoned up (SCO Thread v. 33)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bargey said:
Well Congress is Dem controlled with plenty of Trump haters even on the GOP side. Want to bet if they actually attempt it or is this just another desperation heave?
Click to expand...

Congress isn't going to do anything. Only the most vocal extreme minority of dems will raise anything but that's it. At least in my opinion.
 
Edison Carasio said:
Congress isn't going to do anything. Only the most vocal extreme minority of dems will raise anything but that's it. At least in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Yep, maybe let your friends know as they’ve gone off again on another little ‘this is it’ TDS episode.
 
MFIC said:
The purpose was to impeach Trump & it failed. Sorry you had your hopes for 2 years & now you’re let down & miserable. Life is tough sometimes. Go drink your sorrows away, but please don’t commit suicide over this. Trump is still your president. Sorry.
Click to expand...
It really wasn't
 
Partial transcript


Host: You said the Mueller report would be devastating for President Trump but he and his supporters seem to think he's been vindicated. What's your take?

Alan Dershowitz: Well, both of us are right. He's been vindicated legally, but factually, morally and politically there's a lot in there that will be used by Democrats to try to show that although you may not have committed criminal conduct he certainly committed conduct that's not desirable by a president. That's exactly why there should never have been a Muller report. The tradition of the Justice Department---a very good one that we remembered back from when Comey violated it with Hillary Clinton---is that when you decide not to charge somebody with a crime you don't write a series of essays or in this case a book about all the bad things that they did that didn't amount to criminal conduct. That seems to be very unfair. That's the negatives that have come out of this for President Trump. The positives are that there is no case against him for either obstruction or for collusion.

Host: One of the things that seems to be lost on all these Democrats that are just beating up on William Barr is the fact that he was not required by law to even release this report in the first place, right?

Alan Dershowitz: Not only was he not required but the whole thrust that the change of the special prosecutor law to the special counsel law was in reaction to the the Starr Report, where all those salacious things were made public even though there was really no criminal conduct, certainly no impeachable conduct against President Clinton. Here we have conclusions that there's no criminal conduct---although on the obstruction there's no exoneration---but nonetheless all the negative evidence is laid out in great detail that raises some very serious questions about what the role of prosecutors are. Special prosecutors make one-sided investigations. They don't try to find exculpatory evidence. That's why I urge everybody to wait for the Trump legal team's response and read them side-by-side. Also I graded the Mueller Report and I gave the legal analysis a C+. It's very very weak legal analysis. Barr and Mueller fundamentally disagree as to whether a president can be charged with obstruction of justice if the act involved was a constitutionally-authorized act like pardoning or firing. Muller says 'yes' and Barr says 'no'. Barr gets far the better of the argument.

 
Last edited:
waiguoren said:
Partial transcript


Host: All right. Joining us now is Harvard Law Professor Emeritus and Newsmax contributor Alan Dershowitz. Professor Dershowitz always great to have you with us especially when something as important happens as it did today. Now you said the Mueller report would be devastating for President Trump but he and his supporters seem to think he's been vindicated. What's your take?

Alan Dershowitz: Well, both of us are right. He's been vindicated legally, but factually, morally and politically there's a lot in there that will be used by Democrats to try to show that although you may not have committed criminal conduct he certainly committed conduct that's not desirable by a president. That's exactly why there should never have been a Muller report. The tradition of the Justice Department---a very good one that we remembered back from when Comey violated it with Hillary Clinton---is that when you decide not to charge somebody with a crime you don't write a series of essays or in this case a book about all the bad things that they did that didn't amount to criminal conduct. That seems to be very unfair. hat's the negatives that have come out of this for President Trump. The positives are that there is no case against him for either obstruction or for collusion.

Host: One of the things that seems to be lost on all these Democrats that are just beating up on William Barr is the fact that he was not required by law to even release this report in the first place, right?

Alan Dershowitz: Not only was he not required but the whole thrust that the change of the special prosecutor law to the special counsel law was in reaction to the the Starr Report, where all those salacious things were made public even though there was really no criminal conduct, certainly no impeachable conduct against President Clinton. Here we have conclusions that there's no criminal conduct---although on the obstruction there's no exoneration---but nonetheless all the negative evidence is laid out in great detail that raises some very serious questions about what the role of prosecutors are. Special prosecutors make one-sided investigations. They don't try to find exculpatory evidence. That's why I urge everybody to wait for the Trump legal team's response and read them side-by-side. Also I graded the Mueller Report and I gave the legal analysis a C+. It's very very weak legal analysis. Barr and Mueller fundamentally disagree as to whether a president can be charged with obstruction of justice if the act involved was a constitutionally-authorized act like pardoning or firing. Muller says 'yes' and Barr says 'no'. Barr gets far the better of the argument.

Click to expand...

He and Barr could hack a forest down with their fringe legal opinions.
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
What a silly article. The reason people think Barr is dishonest is that they simply cannot handle the truth that Trump neither colluded with Russia nor did he obstruct justice. It is not surprising; it's common for people to become irrationally angry when their dogma is questioned.
Click to expand...

Sad that @Jack V Savage would even give such a silly article the time of day. He's slippin'. He'll be spamming Vox articles by the end of the year.
 
MikeMcMann said:
Yup, there is no denying he is a political partisan and considers himself the Republican POTUS cleanup man. he has played the exact same role twice now, doing the same thing and getting the same rightful heat when he did it prior for George Bush Sr.
Click to expand...

He put a punctuation mark on an investigation that was given too wide a latitude and too long a leash and that still came up with nothing. Given how poorly Dems are accepting the news that there is no collusion or ooj, they need help terminating an affair they had become overly emotionally invested in.
 
Was gonna paste the lyrics to The Pot by Tool in here cause they’re hilariously fitting but it was kind of a scroll bomb. Just go read them and smile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,965
Messages
58,331,515
Members
176,002
Latest member
Shock7

Share this page

Back
Top