Mueller report cover up

[burrrton]

For example, anyone concerned with the use of personal emails by various White House staff for official government business at this point?

Yes.

With HRC, though, it wasn't just merely (stupidly, and possibly criminally) using the wrong email account for State biz (something that would have gotten my @ss fired, and maybe charged). Honest mistakes that aren't being done to hide things are not encouraged, but are mostly tolerated for high-ranking officials.

However, she intentionally created a non-secured, home-hosted SMTP server, through which she intentionally routed ALL State email, completely excluding the .gov email she was issued. She went to great lengths to avoid FOIA laws- about as illegal an act as you can undertake in that realm.

And I won't even get into her deleting half of it then scrubbing and destroying the hard drives (the surest sign a person is intending to comply with the law!).

You're not talking to someone who supports Trump's behavior, so stop trying to BS around what she did.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm sure that whatever HRC has on her (none has been proven yet through the investigations, unless you can produce it), can it even compete with the list that the current administration is racking up in terms of sheer quantity and depth? For example, anyone concerned with the use of personal emails by various White House staff for official government business at this point?

No. I don't much know what you're talking about. Sounds more like you're reaching for material as well. Trump's still a long way off from illegal wars, making deals with genocidal maniacs (maybe he'll get around to it with Kim), perjuring himself on the witness stand, and probably ahead on the overall womanizing.

You trying to make excuses for the scumbag Dems? I would say both parties are equal in their scumbag behavior. If you think other people aren't using personal emails, I have a bridge to sell you. Likely been happening for ages and just became an issue when it became a political weapon to use against your opponent.

Trump's nothing more than the Republican version of Bill Clinton. Just more rude and narcissistic, while not even bothering to disguise the horse crap in a pretty package like Clinton was so good at.

[I-5]

Actually not trying to defend her (she’s highlikeable I agree), but shouldn’t you defend her with the same gusto defending the current White House; likewise attack the WH the way you attack HRC.

[idhawkman]

In the meantime, back to the Mueller report.

Barr said he would have it out by the 15th and kind of hedged his bet on capital hill this week by saying he "hoped" to have it out by the 15th. Anyone think that this will drop around 5pm tonight? If it does, that is going to send the dems into orbit as they claim it is to bury the story. Buckets and buckets of popcorn are going to be needed.

[c_hawkbob]

In the meantime, back to the Mueller report.

Barr said he would have it out by the 15th and kind of hedged his bet on capital hill this week by saying he "hoped" to have it out by the 15th. Anyone think that this will drop around 5pm tonight? If it does, that is going to send the dems into orbit as they claim it is to bury the story. Buckets and buckets of popcorn are going to be needed.

Not so much, it'll be heavily redacted, Trump's own boy ain't gonna let him look bad ... it'll be just what his base needs to thump their chests and shout "I told you so!"

[idhawkman]

I actually hope your crystal ball is not so crystal there Bob. I hope there's very few redaction because then the Dems won't have crap to complain about and will have to find another Boogie man to go after.

[c_hawkbob]

Personally I don't think I or the public needs to see the underacted version, I'm sure there would be unnecessary collateral damage to people or agencies that don't deserve greater public scrutiny, but it should be wholly available to congress. Let them do with it what they will. Just as long as it isn't Trump or his appointees deciding who gets to see what I'm fine with it.

[I-5]

What Bob said exactly. I don't need to see it fully redacted or see it at all. Just someone other than Trump's guy to see it in it's entirety. Why would you trust a wolf to watch the sheep, on either side?

[Aseahawkfan]

Actually not trying to defend her (she’s highlikeable I agree), but shouldn’t you defend her with the same gusto defending the current White House; likewise attack the WH the way you attack HRC.

Tell me something, have I said much about pursuing an investigation against Hilary? Nope. Don't care.

Here is what I see:

1. Birtherism against Obama. Complete horsecrap and waste of time.

2. Hilary's emails. Complete horsecrap and waste of time.

3. Bill Clinton's affairs with women. Complete horsecrap and waste of time.

4. Trump's "Russian" election interference and spy accusation. complete horsecrap and waste of time.

If Hilary were president and under attack like Trump, I would be defending her. Just like I was telling the birther and Obama is a Muslim folks they were a bunch of idiots. Only reason you didn't see it on this forum was because I wasn't posting here when Obama was in office.

What we have here is two parties who spend more time making the other side look bad than coming up with ways to improve the nation. Just so happens the Dems are currently the ones spending more time attacking at the moment because they are out of power and are trying to take power by digging and digging and digging until they find something actionable against the president. Or at least find something they can attack him with when campaigning. Basically, using taxpayer money for endless investigations that even if they don't impeach the president, they can use to attack him on the campaign trail. Same thing Republicans did with Clinton when the idiot Republicans had investigations about stains on a dress. Then a bunch of Republicans got called out for their mistresses and cheating and had to shut up. Not sure if you're old enough to remember the trash investigation during Bill Clinton, but I remember it being as big a waste of time and money as this one.

Sorry, I'm utterly tired of it. Now the Dems have nothing to offer, so they're going after Trump's tax returns hoping to find something there. As though a rich person like Trump isn't highly watched by the IRS for any fraud or what not because of course rich people have nothing to fear form the IRS even though the IRS has destroyed more rich people than anyone else in this nation. If you were Joe Blow getting a return of a few thousand dollars back, IRS won't waste time paying auditors to pursue perfection when it costs more to do the audit. A guy like Trump with returns in the tens of millions to billions is already watched heavily, which means this is a pure Democratic hit job using taxpayer money to fish for more material that will somehow "leak" from confidential sources to use against him in their campaign.

If you're ok with that scumbaggery, then have at it. I'm tired of both of these parties. I'd like to vote them both out of power. Each side's sycophants won't let that happen. They're ok being scumbags and hyporcrites as long as they can make excuses for their scumbag hypocrisy that satisfies their reasoning. But me, I truly want a better nation. I don't see either of these parties offering it. The path they offer is pettiness, bad policy, and a country on the decline from a general lack of focus on anything from ideals to economics to general governance. Their wasting our taxpayer money and offering weak solutions to serious problems.

I would not be surprised if Trump releases his well audited tax returns during the 2020 election. Let's the Dems get caught up in his tax returns while he riles up his supporters to fight the Dem witch hunt while wooing the swing voters with healthcare improvements. If he baits the Dems with his tax returns then end around them on healthcare, boy will they look dumb. Then they'll be even angrier and the government will get even dumber. I'm going to see how close my prediction is to the truth later this year and next.

[Aseahawkfan]

What Bob said exactly. I don't need to see it fully redacted or see it at all. Just someone other than Trump's guy to see it in it's entirety. Why would you trust a wolf to watch the sheep, on either side?

Do you really think someone with the Democrats hasn't seen it? They want to politicize it. This is just a BS story. The Dems have seen it. They want to make a public spectacle of it, so they can push to release it to the public. It's all a game.

Trump and his people should play the game right back, just like they're doing to manage the public spectacle.

This is all political gamesmanship leading likely to nowhere like the Mueller Report as a whole. Democrats just don't want to admit that as long as the Senate is controlled by the Republicans, they don't have the power to do anything other than the petty, money wasting trash they're doing right now. Makes them look dumb and impotent.

Here is what I see right now. Dems don't have the power to remove Trump as long as the Republicans hold the Senate. If the economy stays on track, Trump completes his trade deal with China, makes a good deal with North Korea, and continues to do real government versus the Democrats attempts like the "Green New Deal" and their total lack of help with immigration, they'll be crying about investigations as they lose the 2020 election. They better find some real campaign material than endless investigations against Trump or they're going to look like the corrupt criminals themselves come election time abusing government power to try to take out an elected president. Trump will hammer with them with.

So tell me I-5, what do the Dems have to sell as far as governing the nation because endless investigations against a disliked president isn't going to do it?

[idhawkman]

Personally I don't think I or the public needs to see the underacted version, I'm sure there would be unnecessary collateral damage to people or agencies that don't deserve greater public scrutiny, but it should be wholly available to congress. Let them do with it what they will. Just as long as it isn't Trump or his appointees deciding who gets to see what I'm fine with it.

So you feel it is okay for the dems in congress to leak whatever they want to the public with no repercussions but you won't give the president the same privileged? That's rich.

[idhawkman]

Sorry, I'm utterly tired of it. Now the Dems have nothing to offer, so they're going after Trump's tax returns hoping to find something there. As though a rich person like Trump isn't highly watched by the IRS for any fraud or what not because of course rich people have nothing to fear form the IRS even though the IRS has destroyed more rich people than anyone else in this nation. If you were Joe Blow getting a return of a few thousand dollars back, IRS won't waste time paying auditors to pursue perfection when it costs more to do the audit. A guy like Trump with returns in the tens of millions to billions is already watched heavily, which means this is a pure Democratic hit job using taxpayer money to fish for more material that will somehow "leak" from confidential sources to use against him in their campaign.

You know as well as I do that the only reason they want his returns is to find things to blow up into a "scandal" even though it may be perfectly legal. Congress makes the laws and then want to punish select people for using the laws.

[c_hawkbob]

Personally I don't think I or the public needs to see the underacted version, I'm sure there would be unnecessary collateral damage to people or agencies that don't deserve greater public scrutiny, but it should be wholly available to congress. Let them do with it what they will. Just as long as it isn't Trump or his appointees deciding who gets to see what I'm fine with it.

So you feel it is okay for the dems in congress to leak whatever they want to the public with no repercussions but you won't give the president the same privileged? That's rich.

There you go again, "interpreting" what I said as nothing even close what I actually did say. It's just not possible to carry on a reasonable conversation that way.

[idhawkman]

Here is what I see right now. Dems don't have the power to remove Trump as long as the Republicans hold the Senate. If the economy stays on track, Trump completes his trade deal with China, makes a good deal with North Korea, and continues to do real government versus the Democrats attempts like the "Green New Deal" and their total lack of help with immigration, they'll be crying about investigations as they lose the 2020 election. They better find some real campaign material than endless investigations against Trump or they're going to look like the corrupt criminals themselves come election time abusing government power to try to take out an elected president. Trump will hammer with them with.

So tell me I-5, what do the Dems have to sell as far as governing the nation because endless investigations against a disliked president isn't going to do it?

The dems haven't had a real policy in decades. The only thing they can do is take a bunch of think tank mumbo jumbo and throw it together into a hodge podge policy like Obamacare where they have to "pass all the crap before they can find out what's in it" or the Green new deal where there are no real policy whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, they have a lot of talking points like "middle class tax cuts" that never happen, "comprehensive immigration" which never happen, "jobs for middle class" which never came and in fact we were told to get used to the "new norm", "drug reform" which never reforms anything, and I could keep going on but you get the gist. They only want the issue to keep harping on every election cycle and then going back to doing nothing.

What's so great about Trump is that he works these guys into the dirt. They are used to working a few months before each election and then going to washington d.c. to cut back alley deals to line their own pockets off the fake contracts that are suppose to fix the problems they said they would fix.

[idhawkman]

There you go again, "interpreting" what I said as nothing even close what I actually did say. It's just not possible to carry on a reasonable conversation that way.

I didn't interpret anything other than you want to give congress the unredacted report and as we've already experienced, the dems leak that as fast as it comes in. We know the report is one sided only and you don't want the president to have any input on his side of things. Its just what you said Bob.

[c_hawkbob]

There you go again, "interpreting" what I said as nothing even close what I actually did say. It's just not possible to carry on a reasonable conversation that way.

I didn't interpret anything other than you want to give congress the unredacted report and as we've already experienced, the dems leak that as fast as it comes in. We know the report is one sided only and you don't want the president to have any input on his side of things. Its just what you said Bob.

Just stop. I said what's in bold, the rest is pure you and your personal paranoia.

[idhawkman]

Just stop. I said what's in bold, the rest is pure you and your personal paranoia.

Actually, no. We've already witnessed the leaking from dems during the Trump Jr. closed door and other interviews so it is not paranoia or speculation. It is a fact that the dems won't keep the secrets secret.

[Hawktawk]

Of course it will leak as it should. An overwhelming % of Americans want to see it.

As for the walrus Barr on capital hill lets review. Declined to comment on whether he had in fact shared the report with the white house before both the senate and house. Said Mueller did not ask him to rule on obstruction and "wasn't sure" whether Mueller agreed with his conclusion. So much for all this supposed cooperation between he and Mueller.

Said he would not release an un redacted copy to the House but that they could possibly get it from Mueller which would be "unfortunate". (sounds like it really exonerates IDs BFFEAE )

Perhaps a more telling sign of how in the bag the Walrus is for Trump was when he was questioned on the Justice Dept plan to go to court to eliminate Obamacare entirely tossing millions off insurance at which point he gave no legal response but instead morphed into Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kellyane Conway and Trump all in one and gave a completely false political answer. "the president has made it clear he will be replacing Obamacare with a better plan" In fact there is no plan whatsoever and McConnell and others have made it clear they have no appetite to tackle the issue until the next election is over.

Barr is in the tank completely. The chief law enforcement official in the nation is running interference for Trump . Then his "spying" on the Trump campaign comments for an audience of one plus the 40% Trumptard zombies even when saying he has "no proof" but suspects it happened....

really its a chilling time in american history as he protects the most corrupt unstable dishonest man ever to infest the oval office. Thankfully recent polls show that while Americans give Trump mid 50% approval on the economy only low 40% approve of him as president and 55%!!!! disprove.

Maybe there is hope america can become great again after all.Right now its a banana republic.

[idhawkman]

Two days until the release of the Mueller report. I'm hearing that 90% will be available and open. Only 10% being redacted is a whole lot less than I thought it would be. Seems like Thursday will be the day that the Dems hope for Mueller finally dies its proper agonizing death.

[Aseahawkfan]

Two days until the release of the Mueller report. I'm hearing that 90% will be available and open. Only 10% being redacted is a whole lot less than I thought it would be. Seems like Thursday will be the day that the Dems hope for Mueller finally dies its proper agonizing death.

What does Trump care? If the Marine who indicted Manafort, Flynn, Gates, and several Russians couldn't find reason to get the president with the information in the report, it will be nothing but talking points for the public. Now the Dems pulling his financial records from well-established banks. Talk about a fishing expedition. Like these banks are going to engage in illegal activities for Trump. Trump doesn't even involve himself enough with daily accounting in a business his size to do much illegal tax work. Not sure why they want to try to get him for that considering he pays a lot of very smart accountants to handle all of that and probably barely sees them. Dems are being kind of dumb.

[idhawkman]

Two days until the release of the Mueller report. I'm hearing that 90% will be available and open. Only 10% being redacted is a whole lot less than I thought it would be. Seems like Thursday will be the day that the Dems hope for Mueller finally dies its proper agonizing death.

What does Trump care? If the Marine who indicted Manafort, Flynn, Gates, and several Russians couldn't find reason to get the president with the information in the report, it will be nothing but talking points for the public. Now the Dems pulling his financial records from well-established banks. Talk about a fishing expedition. Like these banks are going to engage in illegal activities for Trump. Trump doesn't even involve himself enough with daily accounting in a business his size to do much illegal tax work. Not sure why they want to try to get him for that considering he pays a lot of very smart accountants to handle all of that and probably barely sees them. Dems are being kind of dumb.

Yeah but it is all they got left. We all know he is no saint, but that is the standard the dems are trying to create for him. This too, just like the frame up job on collusion, will come back to bite the dems much harder than it will Trump. Like water off a duck's back.

The dems don't know it yet, but tomorrow it all comes cascading down on them. They point to this sentence, or that word, or this redaction in the report but in the end, it is all OVER! They only risk their own majority in the house if they continue to pursue this guy instead of actually doing what they said they would in the 2018 mid term.

[I-5]

In regards to ASF's question of do I really think someone other than Barr has seen the report in its entirety...I definitely think the answer is 'no'. I would ask who you think has seen it in full besides Barr?

If IDHawkman is right that only 10% of the report will be redacted, I think that would be great. We'll see.

[idhawkman]

In regards to ASF's question of do I really think someone other than Barr has seen the report in its entirety...I definitely think the answer is 'no'. I would ask who you think has seen it in full besides Barr?

If IDHawkman is right that only 10% of the report will be redacted, I think that would be great. We'll see.

I know for a fact that Mueller has seen it and reports say that Rosenstein has seen it in full. Not only that, but to Cbob's request, the gang of 8 can go to the DOJ after the release and look at the unredacted report in the scif. The gang of 8 consists of:

House leader and minority leader.
Senate leader and minority leader
The house intel committee chair and ranking member
The senate committee chair and ranking member

Per wikipedia

The Gang of Eight is a colloquial term for a set of eight leaders within the United States Congress who are briefed on classified intelligence matters by the executive branch. Specifically, the Gang of Eight includes the leaders of each of the two parties from both the Senate and House of Representatives, and the chairs and ranking minority members of both the Senate Committee and House Committee for intelligence as set forth by 50 U.S.C. § 3093(c)(2).

So that would be:

United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

Adam Schiff (D-CA-28), Chair
Devin Nunes (R-CA-22), Ranking Member

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
Richard Burr (R-NC), Chair
Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chair

Leadership in the United States House of Representatives:
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-12), Speaker of the House
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA-23), Minority Leader

Leadership in the United States Senate:
Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Majority Leader
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Minority Leader

So if Shiff, Shumer, Warner or Pelosi see something that is redacted that they don't feel should be, they can take it to a judge and have them rule on it. They won't do it though as they want to complain about the redactions instead of actually looking for something worthy of being opened up. Also, there will only be so many people who have the full info and easily traced to who leaked it. So I doubt they even go to the sciff to see it.

[idhawkman]

I think the best thing for the country to put this to bed the fastest is if Barr and Mueller held a joint press conference when they release the report and answer the reporters questions. Maybe both give a narrative like Comey did for Hilliary first. That way, we won't have to wait for congressional hearings and subpoenas to take place just to hear the same stuff we'd hear if they held a news conference tomorrow. But hey, I'm just wishing out loud and it probably won't happen because it would actually be what's best for the country.

[c_hawkbob]

in the scif

What does this mean?

[idhawkman]

in the scif

What does this mean?

In intelligence, a scif is a metal box that electronic signals can not get through and outside electronics are not allowed to enter. Think of it as the "cone of silence" from the Get Smart days. The scif is where the congress gang of 8 were allowed to go and see the FISA warrant requests and things like this. Its only in paper hard copy and everyone is logged in and out. On rare occasions you have serious breaches of security and protocol regarding a scif (e.g. Scooter Libby shoving the Clinton documents into his pants and trying to walk out and Omarosa taking her cell phone inside one at the white house).

[idhawkman]

It actually stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility.

The compartmented is the key word here. With security clearances, you have a few levels.

FOUO - For Official Use Only - Not real damaging if leaked out.
Confidential - If leaked out it would be embarassing to the US
Secret - Could be damaging to the US
Top Secret - Lives can be endangered

Top Secret clearances then have another level of Compartmented access. You have to be read in on and have a need to know in order to see this information. Usually carries a codeword for the operation or topic covered.

So the SCIF is where you go to see the codeword stuff that is a NEED-TO-KNOW basis only.

When I was in the govt., we took this last part very serious. If you have a TS-SCI (Top Secret, Special Compartmented Information) clearance with codeword access you probably are being put on the polygraph machine every 2-5 years. Two agencies (CIA and NSA) include lifestyle polygraphs when they issue these clearances. Other agencies and the White house only do the Background Polygraph.

Probably more than you wanted to know but it is important to maybe understand how sensitive this information is being treated. (I would imagine that there's portions of that report that are from one of those 3 letter agencies and thus, the SCIF and the level of protection securing it. If I had to venture a guess, it is because of the human assets they ran at Carter Paige, Popodopolous and that other guy I can't remember the name of. This part of the report may be very sensitive in sources and methods and then everything that came out of that whole debacle.)

[Aseahawkfan]

In regards to ASF's question of do I really think someone other than Barr has seen the report in its entirety...I definitely think the answer is 'no'. I would ask who you think has seen it in full besides Barr?

If IDHawkman is right that only 10% of the report will be redacted, I think that would be great. We'll see.

Idhawkman's list is enough.

I would also say quite a bit has leaked to well informed power brokers in the government. Who they are I could not say, usually they're powerful quiet guys like Dick Cheney before he became vice president or Bush contacts. People you don't even know who fill various positions in government and have lots of access and connections that keep people informed. Same reason all these folks get away with so much regular people can't get away with. They know people that keep them informed, work deals behind the scenes, and basically help manage power in Washington D.C. working there way up ladders. People like the Clintons' and Bush's employ them within their political machine. I'm sure they've seen the report and given over plenty of information.

I don't pretend to be naive about Washington D.C. It's like any place where powerful people are. Lots of information moving around and lots of people willing to give it to make connections to move up the ladder.

[idhawkman]

Idhawkman's list is enough.

I would also say quite a bit has leaked to well informed power brokers in the government. Who they are I could not say, usually they're powerful quiet guys like Dick Cheney before he became vice president or Bush contacts. People you don't even know who fill various positions in government and have lots of access and connections that keep people informed. Same reason all these folks get away with so much regular people can't get away with. They know people that keep them informed, work deals behind the scenes, and basically help manage power in Washington D.C. working there way up ladders. People like the Clintons' and Bush's employ them within their political machine. I'm sure they've seen the report and given over plenty of information.

I don't pretend to be naive about Washington D.C. It's like any place where powerful people are. Lots of information moving around and lots of people willing to give it to make connections to move up the ladder.

It always amazes me how the same people (your example of Cheney and I'll throw in an Elaine Chow) just move in and out of secretary slots with different administrations and yet we really think something is going to change. HA! The only thing that changed is who the American people THINK is calling the shots in the white house but in fact, it is the beaurocrats in the different departments that control the money. Congress doesn't even really control the money anymore.

[Aseahawkfan]

It always amazes me how the same people (your example of Cheney and I'll throw in an Elaine Chow) just move in and out of secretary slots with different administrations and yet we really think something is going to change. HA! The only thing that changed is who the American people THINK is calling the shots in the white house but in fact, it is the beaurocrats in the different departments that control the money. Congress doesn't even really control the money anymore.

Yep. I honestly believe Reagan didn't know about the Iran-Contra dealings until it was too late. I'd bet a lot of money if I had a means to see the facts absolutely that Bush Sr. and his machine pulled a lot of the strings on Iran-Contra. I still recall reading an article in the paper where C.I.A. agents were caught running drugs into the country. Heard nothing of it later. Tiny little article that disappeared quickly. We all know about black budgets and our financing of scumbag dictators like Saddam and The Saudis.

It's the nature of the power game. Unless you live in some small, homey nation like maybe a New Zealand, power players in every nation are part of the game. They don't give a damn when they have to.

[idhawkman]

Yep. I honestly believe Reagan didn't know about the Iran-Contra dealings until it was too late. I'd bet a lot of money if I had a means to see the facts absolutely that Bush Sr. and his machine pulled a lot of the strings on Iran-Contra. I still recall reading an article in the paper where C.I.A. agents were caught running drugs into the country. Heard nothing of it later. Tiny little article that disappeared quickly. We all know about black budgets and our financing of scumbag dictators like Saddam and The Saudis.

It's the nature of the power game. Unless you live in some small, homey nation like maybe a New Zealand, power players in every nation are part of the game. They don't give a damn when they have to.

That brought back memories of when I was in Honduras in '85 training contras. I have no further comments though.

[idhawkman]

Aaaaaaand.... Let the teeth gnashing begin on capital hill. This story is now over.

[burrrton]

Anyone got an eye on HawkTawk?

[idhawkman]

Anyone got an eye on HawkTawk?

I sure hope so. I think there should be someone with him for the next 48 hours.

[Aseahawkfan]

The guilty until proven innocent talk starts, exactly why I said releasing the report was pointless. Some folks already have Trump guilty, trussed up and in prison. They don't care about the American standard of justice or much else of our values. They just care about getting a rich, narcissistic prick out of office no matter what scumbag, hypocritical behavior they have to support to do it. That's where we're at right now.

As far as I'm concerned Trump is as clean as any other politician in Washington D.C. Mueller didn't find enough to press charges. No exoneration required. No crime committed. Just lots of asking for help, but not forcing it or any other type of mafia type politics. Just a politician using a political means to get help, just like they all do.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

My facebook feed is rife with these types of posts:

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." from the Mueller report

"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," the Mueller report says.

"The Mueller Report is a disturbing if not completely surprising collection of evidence that shows a president putting his own interests ahead of the country's. Today again demonstrates why we need to change the channel in 2020." - Pete Buttigieg

I mean, can't you change up the first one a bit and say the same thing?

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

The second statement is confusing, too. "We can't prove he did anything illegal after a lengthy, thorough, and expensive investigation, but we still think he probably did something wrong." You got to give me more than that to string a guy up.

The third one is just pandering. Tapping into a voter base that already decided the outcome of the investigation before it was finished.

[idhawkman]

"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," the Mueller report says.

Hmmm.. I guess this person doesn't know that the DOJ is not in the business of exonerating people. They investigate and then charge if they have enough evidence. Otherwise, they close the case and move on without doing what Mueller did, a complete political hit job.

"The Mueller Report is a disturbing if not completely surprising collection of evidence that shows a president putting his own interests ahead of the country's. Today again demonstrates why we need to change the channel in 2020." - Pete Buttigieg

Interesting take on someone who is screaming at the top of their lungs that they are innocent. We've already seen [even on this board] what people are capable of doing when they are falsely accused of something they didn't nor never would do. I guess they (e.g. Buttigieg in this case) hold the president to different standards than they hold themselves.

[burrrton]

Hmmm.. I guess this person doesn't know that the DOJ is not in the business of exonerating people.

Precisely. And for good reason. Ugh. It's like this entire fcking country needs to take a deep breath, then freshman philosophy.

[idhawkman]

Hmmm.. I guess this person doesn't know that the DOJ is not in the business of exonerating people.

Precisely. And for good reason. Ugh. It's like this entire fcking country needs to take a deep breath, then freshman philosophy.

Ha! I'd also throw in a side of basic civics. What the heck are the universities teaching anyways?

[Hawktawk]

Anyone got an eye on HawkTawk?

Hawktawk is just fine smartass. Anyone who can read this report and say it exonerates Chump in any way shape or form is delusional, corrupt or illiterate or ass clown Bob Barr. Nixon is rolling over in his grave.