(02-12-2020 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 10:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 09:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 09:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 08:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You're kidding, right?

Not at all. The only thing I've heard are those saying things to the effect that loyalty should not equal breaking the law. I've never heard anyone EVER claim your cabinet should be non-partisan. And hell, even Obama tried to get a Republican or two in his cabinet...I don't see much of anything like that from trump, not anyone coming close to demanding it.

Wow! Just wow!

Okay....just saying I've heard no such thing. Can you source any comments from anyone regarding this?

For starters, the disgust that Trump would even ask an appointee about loyalty. The outrage that Barr would not turn against Trump over a Mueller report that said essentially nothing would be another instance. The admiration for Vindman (a "decorated war hero" with one Purple Heart and one year of combat in a 21-year career, at a time when many were pulling 2 and 3 coat tours) for disclosing classified information outside his chain of command to persons who may have had the clearance but may not have had the need to know pretty clearly describes what is expected by the left. And the information disclosed by Vindman doesn't even add up to anything material.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Barr is the AG of the United States, not donald trump, right?

And FTR - Didn't the Mueller report point out several things that congress could investigate trump on for potential impeachable offenses if they so choose? And didn't he say it was not his charge to make those determinations?

(02-12-2020 11:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Barr is the AG of the United States, not donald trump, right?

And your point is?

Quote:And FTR - Didn't the Mueller report point out several things that congress could investigate trump on for potential impeachable offenses if they so choose? And didn't he say it was not his charge to make those determinations?

So he spent 2+ years as a special counsel with virtually an unlimited budget and could not find one thing to prosecute except for a bunch of unrelated process crimes by underlings?

This thing was a lynch mob from the start. I sincerely hope the senate or someone pursues this to whatever level is necessary to uncover whatever went on.

(02-12-2020 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 11:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Barr is the AG of the United States, not donald trump, right?

And your point is?

Quote:And FTR - Didn't the Mueller report point out several things that congress could investigate trump on for potential impeachable offenses if they so choose? And didn't he say it was not his charge to make those determinations?

So he spent 2+ years as a special counsel with virtually an unlimited budget and could not find one thing to prosecute except for a bunch of unrelated process crimes by underlings?

This thing was a lynch mob from the start. I sincerely hope the senate or someone pursues this to whatever level is necessary to uncover whatever went on.

Dude, the investigation was for Russian meddling, not Russian collusion. Sorry that you've been taken in by the right-wing meme machine on it. And again, per policy, the investigation never allowed him to prosecute. It left it to congress.

Quote:That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

(02-13-2020 09:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 11:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Barr is the AG of the United States, not donald trump, right?

And your point is?

Quote:And FTR - Didn't the Mueller report point out several things that congress could investigate trump on for potential impeachable offenses if they so choose? And didn't he say it was not his charge to make those determinations?

So he spent 2+ years as a special counsel with virtually an unlimited budget and could not find one thing to prosecute except for a bunch of unrelated process crimes by underlings?

This thing was a lynch mob from the start. I sincerely hope the senate or someone pursues this to whatever level is necessary to uncover whatever went on.

Dude, the investigation was for Russian meddling, not Russian collusion. Sorry that you've been taken in by the right-wing meme machine on it. And again, per policy, the investigation never allowed him to prosecute. It left it to congress.

Quote:That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

You can keep putting your head up your ass, but you will keep getting called out on it. Mueller said 3 times that the reason he didnt prosecute had nothing to do with "policy". All of your hive-mind talking points will never get you past that.

(02-13-2020 09:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 11:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Barr is the AG of the United States, not donald trump, right?

And your point is?

Quote:And FTR - Didn't the Mueller report point out several things that congress could investigate trump on for potential impeachable offenses if they so choose? And didn't he say it was not his charge to make those determinations?

So he spent 2+ years as a special counsel with virtually an unlimited budget and could not find one thing to prosecute except for a bunch of unrelated process crimes by underlings?
This thing was a lynch mob from the start. I sincerely hope the senate or someone pursues this to whatever level is necessary to uncover whatever went on.

Dude, the investigation was for Russian meddling, not Russian collusion. Sorry that you've been taken in by the right-wing meme machine on it. And again, per policy, the investigation never allowed him to prosecute. It left it to congress.

Quote:That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

That was the stated goal, but in reality the goal was to dig up dirt on Trump. If that were not the case, then why is it that they didn't come up with much in the way of recommendations to prevent Russian meddling, but did come up with a bunch of unrelated process crimes against Trump underlings?

(02-13-2020 09:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 11:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Barr is the AG of the United States, not donald trump, right?

And your point is?

Quote:And FTR - Didn't the Mueller report point out several things that congress could investigate trump on for potential impeachable offenses if they so choose? And didn't he say it was not his charge to make those determinations?

So he spent 2+ years as a special counsel with virtually an unlimited budget and could not find one thing to prosecute except for a bunch of unrelated process crimes by underlings?

This thing was a lynch mob from the start. I sincerely hope the senate or someone pursues this to whatever level is necessary to uncover whatever went on.

Dude, the investigation was for Russian meddling, not Russian collusion. Sorry that you've been taken in by the right-wing meme machine on it. And again, per policy, the investigation never allowed him to prosecute. It left it to congress.

Quote:That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

The investigation was for Russian meddling—but it didn’t investigate that. It investigated Donald Trump and never looked into how Russian meddling was part of the Hillary campaign (the dossier is widely believed to Russian disinformation by the intelligence community—even Democrat favorite Fiona Hill admits that). How on earth do you investigate Russian meddling and not be familiar with Fusion GPS? It’s clear the Mueller “investigation” was never about Russian Interference.

Furthermore, it’s clear the Collusion Delusion part of the investigation was completely debunked. In fact, if Mueller was as ethical and pure as claimed—he would have walked away from the assignment the day he steps into his new office, asks for the case file evidence of collusion and found it was completely empty other than the already debunked dossier—-that was known to be false by the DOJ long before Mueller was even appointed. The entire function of the Mueller collusion investigation was to inflict political damage using a knowingly fake narrative. In other words, like the Ukraine impeachment—it was without substance and entirely politically driven. They spent two years building an elaborate “process crime” obstruction trap. Nobody they sent to jail had a thing to do with Russian interference. They were all jailed for process crimes or for crimes committed in the past that were totally unrelated to their time with the Trump campaign.

(02-13-2020 11:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 11:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Barr is the AG of the United States, not donald trump, right?

And your point is?

Quote:And FTR - Didn't the Mueller report point out several things that congress could investigate trump on for potential impeachable offenses if they so choose? And didn't he say it was not his charge to make those determinations?

So he spent 2+ years as a special counsel with virtually an unlimited budget and could not find one thing to prosecute except for a bunch of unrelated process crimes by underlings?
This thing was a lynch mob from the start. I sincerely hope the senate or someone pursues this to whatever level is necessary to uncover whatever went on.

Dude, the investigation was for Russian meddling, not Russian collusion. Sorry that you've been taken in by the right-wing meme machine on it. And again, per policy, the investigation never allowed him to prosecute. It left it to congress.

Quote:That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

That was the stated goal, but in reality the goal was to dig up dirt on Trump. If that were not the case, then why is it that they didn't come up with much in the way of recommendations to prevent Russian meddling, but did come up with a bunch of unrelated process crimes against Trump underlings?

First, you know how these things work...when they find crimes, they are duty bound to refer them for prosecution...so they did.

And the SC can really only relay what they found to congress and it's their job to curb it in the future. Sadly, as expected, they appear to have failed bigly so far.

(02-13-2020 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 11:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Barr is the AG of the United States, not donald trump, right?

And your point is?

Quote:And FTR - Didn't the Mueller report point out several things that congress could investigate trump on for potential impeachable offenses if they so choose? And didn't he say it was not his charge to make those determinations?

So he spent 2+ years as a special counsel with virtually an unlimited budget and could not find one thing to prosecute except for a bunch of unrelated process crimes by underlings?

This thing was a lynch mob from the start. I sincerely hope the senate or someone pursues this to whatever level is necessary to uncover whatever went on.

Dude, the investigation was for Russian meddling, not Russian collusion. Sorry that you've been taken in by the right-wing meme machine on it. And again, per policy, the investigation never allowed him to prosecute. It left it to congress.

Quote:That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

The investigation was for Russian meddling—but it didn’t investigate that.

Complete nonsense.

Quote:Consistent with the special counsel’s mandate, the first volume of the Mueller report focuses on “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.” Toward this end, its first two substantive sections go into depth on Russia’s “active measures” social media campaign, as well as the “hacking and dumping” operations through which it accessed and disseminated private emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and others. Both provide a fascinating account of Russian influence operations, but neither adds much to the indictments that the Mueller team has previously filed against involved persons. Instead, the important element of Volume 1 is the discussion of “Russian government links to and contacts with the Trump campaign”—or the possibility of what some might describe as “collusion.”

What Mueller Found on Russia and on Obstruction: A First Analysis

(02-13-2020 11:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 11:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 11:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Barr is the AG of the United States, not donald trump, right?

And your point is?

Quote:And FTR - Didn't the Mueller report point out several things that congress could investigate trump on for potential impeachable offenses if they so choose? And didn't he say it was not his charge to make those determinations?

So he spent 2+ years as a special counsel with virtually an unlimited budget and could not find one thing to prosecute except for a bunch of unrelated process crimes by underlings?
This thing was a lynch mob from the start. I sincerely hope the senate or someone pursues this to whatever level is necessary to uncover whatever went on.

Dude, the investigation was for Russian meddling, not Russian collusion. Sorry that you've been taken in by the right-wing meme machine on it. And again, per policy, the investigation never allowed him to prosecute. It left it to congress.

Quote:That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

That was the stated goal, but in reality the goal was to dig up dirt on Trump. If that were not the case, then why is it that they didn't come up with much in the way of recommendations to prevent Russian meddling, but did come up with a bunch of unrelated process crimes against Trump underlings?

First, you know how these things work...when they find crimes, they are duty bound to refer them for prosecution...so they did.

But as a general rule, you tend to find stuff where you look, and it's pretty obvious where they looked. If you can find a legitimate connection between Manafort's failure to check a box on his 2008 (I think that's the right year) federal income tax return and Russian interference in the 2016 election, I'd be interested in knowing what it is.

Quote:And the SC can really only relay what they found to congress and it's their job to curb it in the future. Sadly, as expected, they appear to have failed bigly so far.

Sadly, the SC doesn't appear to have made any recommendations to congress for specific actions to take. So sadly, it would appear that the SC failed his mandate.

(02-13-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 11:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Barr is the AG of the United States, not donald trump, right?

And your point is?

Quote:And FTR - Didn't the Mueller report point out several things that congress could investigate trump on for potential impeachable offenses if they so choose? And didn't he say it was not his charge to make those determinations?

So he spent 2+ years as a special counsel with virtually an unlimited budget and could not find one thing to prosecute except for a bunch of unrelated process crimes by underlings?

This thing was a lynch mob from the start. I sincerely hope the senate or someone pursues this to whatever level is necessary to uncover whatever went on.

Dude, the investigation was for Russian meddling, not Russian collusion. Sorry that you've been taken in by the right-wing meme machine on it. And again, per policy, the investigation never allowed him to prosecute. It left it to congress.

Quote:That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

The investigation was for Russian meddling—but it didn’t investigate that.

Complete nonsense.

Quote:Consistent with the special counsel’s mandate, the first volume of the Mueller report focuses on “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.” Toward this end, its first two substantive sections go into depth on Russia’s “active measures” social media campaign, as well as the “hacking and dumping” operations through which it accessed and disseminated private emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and others. Both provide a fascinating account of Russian influence operations, but neither adds much to the indictments that the Mueller team has previously filed against involved persons. Instead, the important element of Volume 1 is the discussion of “Russian government links to and contacts with the Trump campaign”—or the possibility of what some might describe as “collusion.”

What Mueller Found on Russia and on Obstruction: A First Analysis

It was NOT the Investigation of Russian Collusion. It was the Investigation of Russian Collusion and the Trump Campaign, because there is not a damn word about the OTHER presidential campaign mentioned and their relationship with Russians.

(02-13-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2020 11:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Barr is the AG of the United States, not donald trump, right?

And your point is?

Quote:And FTR - Didn't the Mueller report point out several things that congress could investigate trump on for potential impeachable offenses if they so choose? And didn't he say it was not his charge to make those determinations?

So he spent 2+ years as a special counsel with virtually an unlimited budget and could not find one thing to prosecute except for a bunch of unrelated process crimes by underlings?

This thing was a lynch mob from the start. I sincerely hope the senate or someone pursues this to whatever level is necessary to uncover whatever went on.

Dude, the investigation was for Russian meddling, not Russian collusion. Sorry that you've been taken in by the right-wing meme machine on it. And again, per policy, the investigation never allowed him to prosecute. It left it to congress.

Quote:That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

The investigation was for Russian meddling—but it didn’t investigate that.

Complete nonsense.

Quote:Consistent with the special counsel’s mandate, the first volume of the Mueller report focuses on “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.” Toward this end, its first two substantive sections go into depth on Russia’s “active measures” social media campaign, as well as the “hacking and dumping” operations through which it accessed and disseminated private emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and others. Both provide a fascinating account of Russian influence operations, but neither adds much to the indictments that the Mueller team has previously filed against involved persons. Instead, the important element of Volume 1 is the discussion of “Russian government links to and contacts with the Trump campaign”—or the possibility of what some might describe as “collusion.”

What Mueller Found on Russia and on Obstruction: A First Analysis

This proves exactly what I said. Where is the part about Fusion GPS and the dossier? Where is the part where Hillary uses disinformation from Russia to attack the Trump campaign? The Mueller team was rabidly interested in the short Russian "Honey pot" meeting with Donald Trump Jr----but never looked into the fact that sme Russina Honeypot met with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson both hours BEFORE the Trump meeting and then again shortly after the Trump meeting. Seriously? Despite these HUGE red flags----the firm that prepared the dossier for the Hillary campaign isnt even known to Mueller? Like I said---Mueller only attempted to link Russian interference to Trump and made no attempt to look into Russian interference that was helpful to Hillary. In fact, Mueller himself stated that looking into the Fusion GPS and any Russian links to the Hillary campaign "was outside his purview".

The truth is even huge left leaning Democrat rock star hero Fiona Hill says that the Russians undermined BOTH candidates and didnt care who won. She stated flatly that the Russians entire purpose was to make whoever was elected ineffective. In that manner---the Democrats have be useful bots for Putin's work.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/honeypot-co...rump-camp/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/...rview.html