LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

███████████ Mueller Investigation Results Thread ███████████

HisArpy said:
Cite?

I ask, because absent factual evidence to the contrary, it is PRESUMED that government official acted within the course and scope of their lawful duties and conducted themselves lawfully.

So, do you have a cite proving that Barr is corrupt? Or is this more of your unsubstantiated malice?
Click to expand...

Ni he doesn't and neither does Silvergurl.;)
 
Carnal_Flower said:
Failure of facts 101.

Barr testified in his hearing exactly what I said. A Prez has the constitutional right to shut down any investigation if he "knows" it to be unwarranted. Not replace the lead investigator, but END IT.

No he didnt do it, but again not what I said. Barr testified that he could have.

If you agree with Barr then you accept it applies to all Presidents. And there is nothing about "passing it along to other investigators." No, he said shut it down. End it.

That is the position of the US AG.
Click to expand...

The opinion of the AG isn't historical precedent. Attempting to use his opinion, which contradicts precedent, as an authority for Trump to act in a manner HE DID NOT, is ridiculous. Your next mistake is attempting to substitute hypothetical for FACT and call them the same thing.

Your logic falls far short of the required standard.
 
Carnal_Flower said:
Failure of facts 101.

Barr testified in his hearing exactly what I said. A Prez has the constitutional right to shut down any investigation if he "knows" it to be unwarranted. Not replace the lead investigator, but END IT.
Click to expand...

He can fire the lead investigator as well.:rolleyes:
 
Im not asserting anything but that THAT is what AG Barr testified to. THAT is 100% fact. That is the official "opinion" of the AG of the United States.

And im saying if you support that "opinion" you support it for all Presidents, D and R alike.

HisArpy said:
The opinion of the AG isn't historical precedent. Attempting to use his opinion, which contradicts precedent, as an authority for Trump to act in a manner HE DID NOT, is ridiculous. Your next mistake is attempting to substitute hypothetical for FACT and call them the same thing.

Your logic falls far short of the required standard.
Click to expand...
 
Liar said:
Sorry, they get no pass for it when they literally campaigned on criticizing their opponent for exactly that.
Click to expand...



I think they do, big difference in using a cell phone for personal business and running the state department on a unsecured server and using and unsecured cell in a foreign country. They criticized Hillary for deleting thousands of subpoenaed emails
 
Carnal_Flower said:
Im not asserting anything but that THAT is what AG Barr testified to. THAT is 100% fact. That is the official "opinion" of the AG of the United States.

And im saying if you support that "opinion" you support it for all Presidents, D and R alike.
Click to expand...


I support Barr's right to have that opinion.

That doesn't mean it's "law" or "precedent".

Do not mistake the 2 things as being the same. Something you often do in order to come to the "flawed conclusions" you reach.
 
But its an opinion with consequences, since its the basis for him absolving Trump of OOJ. Do its a bit more than an "opinion."


HisArpy said:
I support Barr's right to have that opinion.

That doesn't mean it's "law" or "precedent".

Do not mistake the 2 things as being the same. Something you often do in order to come to the "flawed conclusions" you reach.
Click to expand...
 
Carnal_Flower said:
But its an opinion with consequences, since its the basis for him absolving Trump of OOJ. Do its a bit more than an "opinion."
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not.

Once again, you fail to understand the reality behind the words you choose to use.

Remember Comey's "no reasonable prosecutor would..." statement when he declined to prosecute Hillary? That's the standard. Barr applied that standard to the contents of the Mueller report and came to his conclusion. I believe he even said so in his summary.

Whether he believes a President can "shut down" any investigation at any time for any reason is irrelevant to his decision to not proceed with a recommendation regarding obstruction because Trump didn't "shut down" the investigation.

"He could have" isn't "he did".
 
Luk said:
Nope. It cannot. Don't talk to me about phones, Rapey. It's kinda my thing.
Click to expand...


What fucking planet do you come from, the secret service issued Trump an encrypted secured cell phone and only personnel with the same phone can talk to him.
 
Well first of all, Comey filled in the blanks. No reasonable prosecutor would file charges BECAUSE the evidence did not support it. I believe that was his reasoning.

That was not Barr's reasoning. He had a different REASON, actually more than one:

--Trump was "frustrated and angry" so it was ok.

--A President can fire whoever he wants to, so it's ok.

--A President can shut down any investigation if he "knows" it to be unwarranted, so all those things he did to obstruct are ok.

There's a fundamental difference. Barr's not disputing that the evidence is there; but it's all ok because reasons.

His argument is absolutely pertinent because he is admitting that Trump tried to; the only reason he did not succeed was because people like McGahn said I won't do it.

It makes no difference. If you try to rob a bank but don't succeed, you're still guilty of the crime.

Barr, unlike Comey with CLinton, fully admits there is evidence Trump tried to obstruct justice; Comey on the other hand said there was wrongdoing, but no evidence of a crime.

Barr's reasoning is well, yes, but a President cannot commit OOJ. It wasn't a crime NOT because he didn't succeed in doing it, but because a President can do whatever he wants.

Got it. Then that's a standard for all Presidents.

HisArpy said:
Actually, it's not.

Once again, you fail to understand the reality behind the words you choose to use.

Remember Comey's "no reasonable prosecutor would..." statement when he declined to prosecute Hillary? That's the standard. Barr applied that standard to the contents of the Mueller report and came to his conclusion. I believe he even said so in his summary.

Whether he believes a President can "shut down" any investigation at any time for any reason is irrelevant to his decision to not proceed with a recommendation regarding obstruction because Trump didn't "shut down" the investigation.

"He could have" isn't "he did".
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

adrina
Kremlin confirms Trump sent Russia Covid-19 tests, after former president denied Bob Woodward claim
3 4 5
Replies
119
Views
3K
Lance_Castro
Lance_Castro
Rightguide
Mueller Scope Memo Has Been Declassified
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
Rightguide
Rightguide
Talk_Radio
Confused performance by Mueller raises questions about handling of investigation
Replies
9
Views
595
69johnmichaels
6
Rightguide
Adam Schiff In Panic Mode
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
hogjack
hogjack
ll74
In a Win for Transparency, Court Rules Russia Memo Released
Replies
3
Views
178
Rotadom
Rotadom
Back
Top