Mueller Report Coming Today

The report, showing no collusion, will be coming out today. Eat Crow Democrats.

Comments

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,411

    Attorney General Barr's press conference this morning - first announced by the president on a radio show last night - was the highlight of the day for Mr Trump. Once the report itself become public, the ice cover on the raging waters beneath the president's feet will begin to melt. (Did you hear the AG say there are TEN proposed areas of obstructive presidential behavior that the Mueller report will detail?! And did you hear the AG foreshadow some really bad press when he said he and DAG Rosenstein disagreed with some of Mueller's legal theories on some of those ten areas?)

    The Game of Thrones-inspired artwork of the tweet the president posted within the last hour was obviously prepared in advance, giving strong credence to the notion that the president and the AG coordinated their efforts today. The press conference was the work of a presidential defense attorney, not the work of the attorney general of the United States. When even Chris Wallace at Fox News notices the shill aspect of your presentation, as Wallace did this morning when talking about Barr's presentation, you KNOW you crossed some lines!

    And we must ask what most objective observers of today's process are asking: Why hold that press conference today WITHOUT first releasing the report? The most common sense explanation is that Barr wanted to contaminate the "jury pool" before the report drops today. If the report so boldly says what Barr and other Trumpsters say, there was no reason not to release the report first, let journalists have some time to review it, THEN take questions grounded in those reviews. My sense is that by the end of the day, the strong consensus among report reviewers will be that the Mueller report is FAR more damaging to the president than "crow"-offering Trumpsters currently believe it will be.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,267

    Because you have a great history of being objective and non-partisan..... 😂

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,411

    @reformed said:

    Because you have a great history of being objective and non-partisan..... 😂

    The authority of your perceptive and insightful commentary about me notwithstanding, nothing in your response engages ANY substantive component of my response to your OP.

    • TEN proposed instances of criminal obstruction of justice
    • Did the president and the attorney general coordinate their efforts today?
    • The significance of a Fox News analyst's identifying the shill character of Barr's press conference presentation
    • Why did Barr choose to hold his press conference BEFORE the report's release?


    Having had some additional time to consume the Mueller report, I believe it shows what many of us have been saying for a long time, often over the objections of the president and his political lemmings:

    • Russia DID interfere in the 2016 presidential election. The intelligence community was right FROM THE BEGINNING. The president was wrong when he said it could have been China or some 400 pound person, and he was wrong EVER to doubt the IC and instead to believe Vladimir Putin.
    • The Trump campaign DID have MULTIPLE contacts with Russians and Russian government officials and representatives.
    • The Trump campaign DID find value in what the Russians offered, and hoped the evidence of which the Russians spoke bore fruit.
    • Members of the Trump campaign DID lie repeatedly about their contacts with Russians
    • The special counsel did not find sufficient evidence to charge in the Trump campaign with criminal conspiracy, but that DOES NOT mean the special counsel found NO evidence! Read the section on Don Jr's role in the Trump Tower meeting, and the section about the "thing of value" analysis related to the campaign's offer of polling data to the Russians.
    • Contrary to what the AG said at his press briefing today, the special counsel DID consider the long-standing DOJ practice of not indicting a sitting president when he decided on the obstruction of justice question. In fact, it seems clear from the report that the special counsel's report that they believed they HAD a criminal obstruction case against the president, which rendered unnecessary their getting obstruction-related testimony from the him. But the fact that they couldn't indict a sitting president led them to the "no crime, but no exoneration" conclusion. Basically, let Congress take it from here.
    • Whether there were chargeable crimes or not, the conduct revealed in the report was routinely inappropriate and disgraceful for a candidate for or the occupant of the office of president of the United States.


  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,267
    edited April 18

    Wow, liberals just can't accept a loss can they? They couldn't accept a Hilary loss and now they can't accept a loss by way of a failed coup.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,411

    @reformed said:

    Have you examined any serious attempts to summarize the key findings of the Mueller report? If you have, then you probably know that of the charge of conspiracy and coordination with Russians (NOT "collusion" as you and the president misleadingly continue to assert) the report says,

    Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

    In other words: The Russians offered it. The campaign wanted it. But Mueller couldn't prove that the Russians and the campaign worked together to get it.... Okay, no crime of conspiracy. But lots of wrong this side of a crime.


    And if you've examined summaries of the report, you know that on the subject of obstruction of justice, the report says,

    "Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President’s direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only—a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation."

    and...

    "Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’ s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

    In other words: Under other circumstances, they could have pursued an obstruction of justice case against the president. But because DOJ policy is it doesn't indict sitting presidents, they didn't.


    Who's coup-ing whom, reformed?


    p.s. Please quote from the report proof of the president's claim that the report offers him "complete and total exoneration."

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,267

    Bill Democrats were the ones that started the collusion nonsense.

Sign In or Register to comment.