If the Republican Senate refuses to acknowledge...

[I-5]

No, and I don't understand what difference that makes, unless you are suggesting that Trump is wrong 100% of the time and every word of his should be automatically disregarded as false. Did you ever hear of the old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day?

Trump has zero credibility. which he earned the hard way. You can reference him if you like, but I won't accept him as a lone source of 'criticism'.

Not sure what your question is. My analogy had to do with jury selection in a trial in which the accused is a high profile partisan politician.

I don't have a question...I was answering your question to me. You had asked if I was going to make a motion that Juror X be excused from the pool of potential jurors because he had contributed to Bush, and my client is Clinton, and I'm saying if the foreman of the jury was a lifeling democrat, I would think that having both in the jury is acceptable.

[RiverDog]

No, and I don't understand what difference that makes, unless you are suggesting that Trump is wrong 100% of the time and every word of his should be automatically disregarded as false. Did you ever hear of the old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day?

Trump has zero credibility. which he earned the hard way. You can reference him if you like, but I won't accept him as a lone source of 'criticism'.

I was NOT referencing Trump. You're the one that's been trying to link my opinion with Trump's, which I can only surmise is an attempt to undermine my credibility as you know how little respect I have for him. As a matter of fact, I intentionally avoided drawing Trump's complaints of bias into the discussion as I knew you were trying to set me up.

I agree, Trump has zero credibility. But, if he happens to say something that I know to be a fact or that aligns with something I believe from some other source or experience, such as it's dark at midnight, today is Tuesday the 22nd, I'll believe him. In this case, there is verifiable proof that individuals hired on Mueller's staff had donated heavily to Democratic causes and I believe that such evidence represents a potential conflict of interest. Apparently unlike you, there are some things that Trump has said and done over the course of the past 4 years that I have agreed with. I don't automatically reject something j/b I heard it come out of his mouth.

Not sure what your question is. My analogy had to do with jury selection in a trial in which the accused is a high profile partisan politician.

I don't have a question...I was answering your question to me. You had asked if I was going to make a motion that Juror X be excused from the pool of potential jurors because he had contributed to Bush, and my client is Clinton, and I'm saying if the foreman of the jury was a lifeling democrat, I would think that having both in the jury is acceptable.

The question I put to you was a yes/no. You added your own little twist to it.

Generally I like debating you, but this last exchange has left me frustrated because you are veering off on tangents, playing a sort of dodge ball, so let's just terminate this phase of our discussion.

[RiverDog]

https://apnews.com/article/william-barr-hunter-biden-election-047487650cd50f5a874c406aad214ce7

So Barr downloads again. When the guy who a month ago was sending prosecutors out for a look into the election at trump's behest has turned this hard maybe a bit of fear of what an untethered Trump might try to do has crept in. Its a stunning 180 from the most corrupt AG I've ever been aware of.

Barr's conversion has been a surprise to me, too, and is a breath of fresh air coming out of a rather stale atmosphere inside the White House.

He has openly contradicted Trump over at least 4 major subjects in past couple weeks: He's stated that he has seen no evidence of election fraud large enough that it would have affected the results, he has said that he sees "no legal basis" for the federal government to seize voting machines that Trump and Rudy G. have suggested, he's said that there is no need for a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, and he's re-affirmed SOS Pompeo's statement that the Russians appear to have been behind the recent cyber attack. That's quite a list that even the most hard core Dem would have a hard time topping.

Perhaps he was paid a visit by the Ghost of Christmas Future.

[NorthHawk]

Barr is gone in a couple of days. Who's going to replace him and will they do what Barr has refused to do?
If so, more chaos will ensue and if they appoint a Special Prosecutor, this could drag on for quite a while poisoning the well for the Biden Administration to
get things done and keeping alive the conspiracies. Is he going to appoint Sydney Powell as interim AG or Special Prosecutor? She seems to have his ear
at the moment and with 30 days left could do some real long term damage.

[I-5]

Generally I like debating you, but this last exchange has left me frustrated because you are veering off on tangents, playing a sort of dodge ball, so let's just terminate this phase of our discussion.

Sorry you’re taking it the wrong way, it’s not the intention, nor is it any kind of attack. I hate dodgeball both as a sport and as a conversational style. I’ll try again, and be as direct as possible (I actually thought I was extremely direct, or I’m misreading you).

1. Criticism of Mueller. Only Trump has actually criticized Mueller’s team as being democrats, the clear implication is that they can’t do their job. They’re not all democrats, and Mueller himself is a lifelong republican. And even if they were, I find it irrelevant to their job doing what they do. You didn’t reference Trump explicitly, but he’s really the only one i’ve heard make that criticism, which I called out.

2. For your jury question, as a defense lawyer I would accept that jury understanding it’s a mix of people. Absolutely.

[Hawktawk]

Barr is gone in a couple of days. Who's going to replace him and will they do what Barr has refused to do?
If so, more chaos will ensue and if they appoint a Special Prosecutor, this could drag on for quite a while poisoning the well for the Biden Administration to
get things done and keeping alive the conspiracies. Is he going to appoint Sydney Powell as interim AG or Special Prosecutor? She seems to have his ear
at the moment and with 30 days left could do some real long term damage.

Good point. Barr said what he said as guidance for his acting replacement in terms of how to handle these matters. Interestingly he didn't comment on the LEGALITY of seizing voting machines but rather said he sees no reason to do it. That's an interesting distinction, unnerving actually. Undoubtedly trump will pressure this acting AG to do what Barr wouldnt so we will see. I'm more alarmed that he has a Trumpanzee conspiracy espousing acting Sec of Defense who will likely follow any military command given by Trump. Scary. Especially with this utter crackpot Sydney Powell and Felon Flynn floating martial law.

[Hawktawk]

I'm going to try one more time to put the Mueller investigation in perspective. Hindsight is 2020 of course. In the last few months we learned that Rod Rosenstein who appointed Mueller was a double agent. Publicly he said Mueller was authorised to pursue any and all contacts between trump and russia but in reality he was presented with an almost impossible mandate of finding something serious enough to recommend indicting a sitting president for actual election and related crimes. Rosensteins televised appearance with Barr to deliver the misleading to false 3 page cover up letter of a 500 plus page investigation was the first clue to his actual intentions all along.

Any business dealing with Russia were off limits. Mueller also made clear that the persistent dishonesty of such principals as Manafort and Stone as well as Kushner, Don Jr,Trump, Flynn etc made it impossible to arrive at the truth. He also cited encrypted communications ande secret back channels he did not have authorization to access as impediments to his investigation. Rosenstein likely would not allow him to subpoena Trump and compel testimony and if in fact it was Mueller's call it was a curious one. Maybe his republican was showing. The ending of the investigation months before Flynn was to be sentenced and with Stone only recently been arrested was curious, depriving Mueller of any real leverage to comply truthful answers from Stone. I always felt Barr picked up the phone and said wrap it up.

Even so Mueller's testimony to the congress made clear Trump had obstructed justice at a minimum, that his actions were "unamerican" that his answers in writing were "untruthful, generally speaking". That the campaign had knowingly and willingly welcomed russian assistance. He stated "collusion is not a legal term " but clearly proved it had occurred. His statement that "if we felt the president was innocent we would have said so" and made clear that in his legal judgement he felt he could not indict the president. My guess is had he felt he had the authority he would have recommended impeachment much as ken Starr did.

IMOP Trump should have been impeached and removed over russia starting the day of Mueller's testimony. As it was Trump phoned Zelinski the next day and set in motion his actual impeachment. This is a treasonous president. Gotta love all these flag waving socialism bad patriots following after a sleazebag traitor to america.