You’re welcome. I can enlighten you some more but it doesn’t seem to stick. You must be colluding with other unenlightened Libs.Thanks for your comment. Enlightening.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You’re welcome. I can enlighten you some more but it doesn’t seem to stick. You must be colluding with other unenlightened Libs.Thanks for your comment. Enlightening.
Still a political attack by booting the obstruction charge to others.Conversely, many Republicans (most importantly Trump) have spent 2 years saying Mueller was corrupt. Now they say believe him. Aren't politics grand?
As I've said from the beginning. I trust Mueller and will wait to read the report before forming a definitive viewpoint.
So, the AG can just basically keep the report hidden and say whatever he wants to say is in it?
As I've said from the beginning. I trust Mueller and will wait to read the report before forming a definitive viewpoint.
Conversely, many Republicans (most importantly Trump) have spent 2 years saying Mueller was corrupt. Now they say believe him.
What's anyone supposed to do or say when an entire party is trying to take you out over something you know you didn't do. Now he's supposed to pretend the report is wrong? WTF?
I'm reminded of the line of questioning at the end of "A Few Good Men".Yes, he could, but that could go very badly. Someone in DoJ could leak it. It could also get subpoenaed by a court or by the House Judiciary Committee. A court probably wouldn't leak it, but the House Judiciary Committee certainly would if there was a chance to catch Barr in a lie.
A more likely scenario is that Barr wouldn't blatantly lie but would put heavy spin on it or disregard bad (but not worth pursuing) things Mueller said about Trump's actions. I'm not saying that happened. I'm saying there's a plausible reason for him to do that and therefore reason not to just automatically trust him. And just remember this. We're still talking about politicians. No politician should be given the benefit of the doubt, even if it's one we tend to like, and for the record, I like Barr. However, a politician will always save his own ***.
If there was no collusion, and no Trump campaign members committed crimes or accepted offers from Russians to sabotage the election, then why would it be necessary to obstruct justice? In this case, however, we now know the collusion and crimes didn't occur, so if the AG kept the entire report confidential, and we all know he won't, it wouldn't mean obstruction to reasonable people. The media and Dems and some others are not reasonable, however.
But Trump has said he wants the full report released, to the extent possible, so the sanctimonious calls from Nadler, et al, are BS.
O’Rourke warned that America may not see another year if details of Russian interference in the 2016 election included in the Mueller report are not made public, saying, “This is an unprecedented attack on this country and on our democracy, and we are owed the facts. And if we do not receive them, 243 years in, there’s nothing that guarantees us a 244th.”
Well he had to top AOC's 12-year Demise-of-America prediction.
So is CNN, NBC and MSNBC. In the words of Gomer Pyle,” Suprise, Suprise,suprise!”ABC News still playing up the fact that Mueller didn't exonerate Trump on obstruction.
My limited understanding is that prosecutors don't usually exonerate the party that was charged. They either indict or they don't. There wasn't enough evidence to indict. End of story.
Other than Trump himself and his very closest people, nobody knew diddly-dick. They guessed. Democrats at least seem to have guessed wrong (and with great sanctimony), and Republicans seem to have guessed right. Both parties took their positions based on convenience, not a serious look at the facts.
The republicans didn't have to guess right because we did look at the facts. This investigation had too many issues tied to it from the very start. Mchammer and I stressed this to you about a year ago. TAINT!!!!
You had no facts to look at. You had speculation to look at. Taint notwithstanding.
No facts? LOL! Okay, man.
Deez didn’t care to look at the TAINT!!!The republicans didn't have to guess right because we did look at the facts. This investigation had too many issues tied to it from the very start. Mchammer and I stressed this to you about a year ago. TAINT!!!!
NO!!! The other side relied on speculation. It was obvious which side had the greater confirmation bias.I know you value dick-slapping, and this report is understandingly a good opportunity for lots of it. But no, you did not have any facts to support your previous conclusions. You relied on speculation.
I know you value dick-slapping, and this report is understandingly a good opportunity for lots of it. But no, you did not have any facts to support your previous conclusions. You relied on speculation.
I had forgotten these 2 POS outlets won Pulitizers.
The Washington Post and The New York Times both won Pulitzer Prizes for reporting that bolstered the narrative that Trump and his associates committed treason by working with a foreign government to win an election. The two outlets shared a joint award from the Pulitzer board for national reporting:
“For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)”
In its article about receiving two Pulitzers in 2018, the Post bragged that its reporting “helped set the stage for the special counsel’s ongoing investigation of the administration.” That investigation concluded that even though the media repeatedly shouted that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” there turned out to be no fire.
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC