Hotdog
Well-Known Member
Im not Jesus. But if I were, you'd be going to hell.
Jk.
I give you a bigger brain so you could make better and more logical arguments.
Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
Im not Jesus. But if I were, you'd be going to hell.
Jk.
I give you a bigger brain so you could make better and more logical arguments.
Red
Well-Known Member
So after reading Barr's summary, or whatever it's called, it states pretty clearly that first no criminal collusion was found. The second thing it says is that because no criminal collusion was found there is no clear case for obstruction because there was no underlying crime (collusion). However, in that statement it makes pretty clear that had evidence of collusion been found then obstruction charges would have also been made.
So the difference between Trump and Nixon is that in Nixon's case there was a crime (Watergate) and Nixon obstructed the investigation into an actual crime. Trump obstructed the investigation into a crime that didn't happen.
So it seems the debate on that is settled? You can't obstruct justice if there is no actual crime. Obstructing the investigation into a possible crime is not criminal.
So the difference between Trump and Nixon is that in Nixon's case there was a crime (Watergate) and Nixon obstructed the investigation into an actual crime. Trump obstructed the investigation into a crime that didn't happen.
So it seems the debate on that is settled? You can't obstruct justice if there is no actual crime. Obstructing the investigation into a possible crime is not criminal.
Are you attempting to make a point?
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
And this is a good thing right? Please tell me you arent disappointed that our president isnt a Russian asset
I'm happy he isn't. There was a debate during the investigation weather or not you could obstruct justice if no crime had been committed independent of the obstruction. So far the conclusion seems to be that you can't. Although I'd only try that if you're wealthy and/or powerful. I'm pretty sure regular people get convicted of obstruction when they otherwise aren't charged with a crime.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Answer the question. Did you know that Barr wrote an anti-Mueller piece?
No thanks...
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
LOL
Ok...
It’s pretty hilarious for some folks on this board claim that people are being partisan or lacking points because they highlight the partisanship of the trump administration. When you read the Barr memo from less than a year ago when he characterized this probe as a “witch hunt” and demanded an end to Mueller, can we really act surprised when this investigation ended the way it did? With the conclusions that Barr wrote up?
The summary essentially reads:
“There’s no collusion because Vlad and Donald didn’t directly plan collusion beyond a reasonable doubt. And since there’s no collusion, there can’t be any cover up or obstruction.”
- W. Barr
If we are to trust mueller then why shouldn’t we distrust Barr who was handpicked by trump to end this investigation?
@The Thriller
I don't get being offended (especially not to the extent that it seems to have affected you) about being called a very partisan person.
You are. I mean do you want to deny it? And please, please, please, don't deny it with some claim that "it's not partisan if it's true" and then post a bunch of **** to prove that you're right so therefore not partisan. Please.
I don't get being offended (especially not to the extent that it seems to have affected you) about being called a very partisan person.
You are. I mean do you want to deny it? And please, please, please, don't deny it with some claim that "it's not partisan if it's true" and then post a bunch of **** to prove that you're right so therefore not partisan. Please.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
The way it’s typically used, especially on this site, is to dismiss one’s legitimate arguments.
My argument is simple:
Barr wrote less than a year ago about how this investigation was a witch hunt and needed to be ended.
This reportedly caught trump’s eye, which is why he was nominated in the first place.
The senate confirmation process has become a joke. Republicans merely rubber stamp whatever trump wants.
Barr’s conclusion of this investigation should be rejected and absolutely trigger house and senate committees to request testimony from both Mueller and Barr. The public should have access to Mueller’s report, not Barr’s tainted summary.
We really shouldn’t act surprised that Barr completes what he set out to do back last summer when he wrote his anti-Mueller diatribe. Lastly, patriots from both side of the aisle shouldn’t accept these conclusions. Rule of law depends on the AG acting accordingly, not promoting one team’s side, as Barr has done.
lol, you had to. you just had to