Hawktawk wrote:https://theweek.com/speedreads/833201/report-mueller-investigators-wrote-summaries-assumed-made-public
The fix is so in. I've been saying it from day one. Its not surprising with Trumps hand picked stooge at the controls. The 4 page whitewash was purely political to set the initial narrative in a positive spin for the most lawless president ever to receive a political boost. Now the same fat rodent who cvould figure aout there was no obstruction in less than 48 hours needs 3 weeks to produce a heavily redacted report. Umm Hmm...
The Justice department stonewalling on producing even these summaries proves day by day just how terribly damaging it is to Trump. Welcome to the banana republic known as the Trump administration.
Neither the Congress or the public will be satisfied until the full, unedited report is released.
RiverDog wrote:Neither the Congress or the public will be satisfied until the full, unedited report is released.
burrrton wrote:The report wasn't written for public consumption (for legal reasons, I've read)- we'll only see a redacted version.
Don't worry, though- that will allow the tinfoil hat, black helicopter brigade to keep their lives fulfilled insisting there was actually evidence of illegality in there.
Aseahawkfan wrote:How did I know once the Mueller report came out a new line of excuse making by the anti-Trump crowd would start. Why let it out? It could state he is completely innocent and the anti-Trump crowd would find tons of things to insinuate like they did with The Russian crap to begin with.
Now we get to hear all the excuses about a cover up and other such garbage.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Why let it (the Mueller Report) out?
RiverDog wrote:The American taxpayers paid for that report. We deserve to know what's in it, or if there is sensitive information, have reasonable assurances from an impartial body that there was no evidence of criminal activity regarding the 2016 election. We are an open society.
If they bring in Mueller and have him testify under oath that he did not uncover any evidence of criminal activity in either the collusion aspect or subsequent obstruction of justice charges, then I'll accept it. But I don't trust Trump or his AG any further than I can throw them.
Aseahawkfan wrote:But wouldn't that be further election tampering providing the Democrats with ammunition to use against Trump?
Aseahawkfan wrote:Or is it just ok to tamper as long as it's against the party or person you hate?
Aseahawkfan wrote:Isn't Mueller an upstanding Marine? If he found no reason to file charges, then can't we call it good? Even Hawktawk said Mueller was a stand-up guy that would do the right thing. If he didn't find a reason to file for charges, then can't we trust him? Didn't we pay a trustworthy man to conduct the investigation?
I-5 wrote:How do we know what Mueller is actually saying, if Barr is the one interpreting the results of the report? Does the AG have the prerogative to make that interpretation himself via his 4-page letter? I agree with Riv, the taxpayers paid for that report. We don't all need to see it, but someone other than Trump's guy definitely needs to be able to read it in it's entirety. Let's see Wikileaks do it's thing now...oh, they probably wouldn't want to in this case.
RiverDog wrote:
Not if all the information is accurately represented. Of course, the Dems would use it as ammunition against Trump, just like Trump and the R's would use damaging information about their opponent. That's not election tampering, it's freedom of information.
I don't like either party. But if information surfaces, like Hillary's prohibited use of an unsecured private server to conduct official government business, I want to know about it as it's important in my judgement of the candidate.
I trust Mueller, which is why I want to see his report, or at least someone besides the AG, whom I don't trust. Either that or let him testify under oath as to the contents of the report. It's simply insufficient for me to accept the word of one highly biased individual. It would be like asking me to accept Haldeman or Ehrlichman's word that there wasn't anything damning on the Watergate tapes.
If they bring in Mueller and have him testify under oath that he did not uncover any evidence of criminal activity in either the collusion aspect or subsequent obstruction of justice charges, then I'll accept it. But I don't trust Trump or his AG any further than I can throw them.
Aseahawkfan wrote:
Sorry, we could have this discussion back and forth all day. Democrats paid to dig dirt. If the report is released before the election, then we basically paid for a Democrat attack piece that they started under questionable pretenses. I don't consider that less than the election tampering they accused Russia of. This was an investigation that should have never occurred and the Democrats should not benefit from it.
I don't like Trump as president.
This was a hit job by the Democrats. They shouldn't be able to use it until after the next election. I don't want my taxpayer money going to party hit jobs in the first place, now I don't want it used for purposes that may bias the election.
burrrton wrote:
I don't either, but if there was evidence of criminal activity in there, the guilty party would have been indicted.
burrrton wrote:I don't either, but if there was evidence of criminal activity in there, the guilty party would have been indicted.
burrrton wrote:You retreated from "criminal activity" awful fast there.
I don't really disagree, though.
Hawktawk wrote:Oh and the anticipated bump for Trump post report isn't happening, down to 43% from a high of 46% a month ago and only up a fraction of a percent since the whitewash letter.
RiverDog wrote:The American taxpayers paid for that report. We deserve to know what's in it, or if there is sensitive information, have reasonable assurances from an impartial body that there was no evidence of criminal activity regarding the 2016 election. We are an open society.
If they bring in Mueller and have him testify under oath that he did not uncover any evidence of criminal activity in either the collusion aspect or subsequent obstruction of justice charges, then I'll accept it. But I don't trust Trump or his AG any further than I can throw them.
I-5 wrote:How do we know what Mueller is actually saying, if Barr is the one interpreting the results of the report? Does the AG have the prerogative to make that interpretation himself via his 4-page letter? I agree with Riv, the taxpayers paid for that report. We don't all need to see it, but someone other than Trump's guy definitely needs to be able to read it in it's entirety. Let's see Wikileaks do it's thing now...oh, they probably wouldn't want to in this case.
Hawktawk wrote:A sitting President cant be indicted and I would surmise Mueller extended it to Trumps immediate family as he understood it would cause an immediate constitutional crisis. Trump was "not exonerated" by Mueller. Neither Nixon nor Clinton was indicted but as you know one resigned knowing he would be impeached and the other was.
Trump Jr provably perjured himself before congress and had told associates he expected to be indicted which netted Cohen a felony conviction . Lets just see the report, all of it.
RiverDog wrote:Not necessarily. As Hawktalk indicated, there is a reluctance to indict a sitting POTUS. There's also non criminal activity that the public has a right to know about.
For example, negotiating with the Russians over a Trump Tower in Moscow might have been perfectly legal, but it might make a difference to me if I knew a candidate was negotiating a deal for a for-profit real estate project with a hostile country while he was a nominee. It's no different than the Clintons accepting donations from foreign entities to their Clinton Foundation. It's called a conflict of interest, and it's not always a criminal act.
RiverDog wrote:If I did, it wasn't intentional. The Mueller Report did not rule out criminal activity regarding the obstruction of justice accusation.
But whether or not the report includes evidence of any criminal activity, it's still the paid property of us taxpayers and we deserve to know what's in it. It's not the personal property of the Trump Adminstration.
Hawktawk wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8gAYUupm2k
I dare you trumpies to watch this. I would likely disagree with a majority of Adam Schiffs politics but he nails these blind shill Republican sheep to the wall with this. As I've said if this aint collusion with our greatest geopolitical foe I don't know what is and not sure what it takes to prove it. I'm not sure why any patriotic american puts up with it.
I-5 wrote:Can someone explain why Barr would need to redact Mueller's report? For the public I can understand, but why redact it for congress? As someone else said, I don't need to see every page, but I want someone other than Trump's guy to be able to read the report in its entirety.
idhawkman wrote:I can explain that. Under the Clinton administration the democrats were furious that the independent counsel that was put in place by congress to investigate Clinton decided to change the laws and they did away with the independent Counsel statute. Because Congress commissioned Starr, they got the unredacted report and because you can not hold a member of congress accountable for leaking information, the full report was released to the public and did a lot of damage to the Clinton administration.
They decided to put rules in place so that this would never happen again and turned over any "special Counsel" investigations over to the DOJ who would protect the innocent 3rd parties, classified info and grand jury info before a report would be published. Now the Democrats have the shoes on the other feet and want the Independent counsel statute and guidelines back but Barr is specifically prohibited by the Special Counsel rules from doing that. Also, since we know the dem congressmen will "leak" the info if they got an unredacted copy and they are exempt from the leaking laws, Barr isn't going to give the info to them just to smear innocent people who are not being charged with any wrong doing or criminal acts.
I think if the dems want dirt on Trump, they need to fund it themselves and see if their constituents have a stomach for more of what we've already investigated with 4 different entities. They need to move on and find policies that the masses want to get behind but they are stuck on identity politics and will be crushed because of it in the 2020 election. Pretty sad state that the dems find themselves in at this point.
Aseahawkfan wrote:
Typical Washington D.C. hypocrisy. When it's your guy, the other group is wrong. When it's the guy you hate, his people are always hiding something or doing something nefarious. This tiresome investigation should be over by now, but the idgits on both sides think they're going to find something that a 2 year investigation game headed by the meticulous Marine former FBI director couldn't find. It's pretty dumb.
Mueller was the guy that was going to get Trump, until he wasn't. Now they want to keep on digging until they get him on something. Usual scumbag politics using the courts and all the little laws they've put in place to criminalize life.
idhawkman wrote:Yeah, now they are back to the tax returns issue because the witch hunt has been foiled... The tax returns will also be foiled and in the meantime, the Dems have not proposed one bill or law that actually makes life better for anyone. Sad.
I-5 wrote:Could we apply this logic to the numerous, costly, and time-consuming investigations of HRC?
I-5 wrote:Could we apply this logic to the numerous, costly, and time-consuming investigations of HRC?
I-5 wrote:All of it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests