(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.