The Mueller Report/Trump's Confession: "My Presidency is over. I am ..."

"Oh, say, can you see", America, the redacted Mueller Report?

It lays bare the White House as a "Hotbed of conflict" and corruption. President Trump may not have been labelled with "collusion" ["not a relevant term"], but he is not innocent. He is as dirty as a chimney in a coal-fired plant. The soot of his behavior has darkened America and the "White House". Trump knows his soul is corrupted from within and for sometimes, in response to his learning that a special counselor was appointed.

As I stated before, this President was elected with the aid of the Russians. Therefore, Trump is illegitimate! The Muller report is proof. Mr. Trump is a disappointment and America's shame. The good news is the report is a "road map" for Congress to remove Trump. He has to go! If the sorry Republicans would only stand up, Trump could be gone sooner, rather than later. The Dems must make the case by further investigations and impeachment. CM

Comments

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,096

    As I stated before, this President was elected with the aid of the Russians.

    And I thought, US voters, in particular in "fly over USA" elected him ... since when does that make for an illegitimate president?

    I wonder how many foreign elections were "aided" by the USA over they years ??

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,230

    Let's stay focused. The Russian government interfered. Here is the proof, via, the Mueller Report:


    • The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.”

    This is an assessment that skeptics of the Russia scandal have long resisted, but by fair measure, the debate over this has run its course.

    • Noted that the investigation “established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.”
    • In related to possible cooperation between the Russian attackers and the campaign they were determined to help. “Expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

    This is just a sample of America's illegitimate President. She should be outraged. CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,096

    @C_M_ wrote

    The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.”

    and where is proof of that claim? what sweeping and systematic fashion changed the voting and/or outcome of the election?

    Noted that the investigation “established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.”

    Oh, really ... did you know that the German government "perceivedd it would like to have Hillary as USA president" ? Was their influence just not sweeping enough? Or was it no problem because they perceived "the correct" (in many folks' opinion) candidate?

    In related to possible cooperation between the Russian attackers and the campaign they were determined to help. “Expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

    Any proof for Russia stealing information? which information? Hillary e-mail stuff (which has been proven to have been publicized due to a leak (whistle blower !) within the DNC staff?

    By the way, ever heard of espionage? do you know that many countries maintain "intelligence agencies" to gather "intelligence" secretly from other countries and then also use such intelligence regularly to their advantage? do you realize that such activities have been conducted for a long time in history ? do you realize that this Democrats claim of having lost the election due to "Russian doings" actually is a devastating judgment on the previous (Obama) administration's security of USA information ???

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    Russian interference has nothing to do with whether a president is legitimate. Because there is also proof they did things FOR Hilary as well. Countries have interfered to some degree in every election in the last 40 years. Does that mean every president is illegitimate? This is lunacy.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,230

    It appears, Reformed, you are majoring in minors. You don't accept the Mueller Report? It's "lunacy" see how your President behaved. He 's going to be impeached or indicted after he leaves office. Trump is a bad man and a bad President. CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,773

    @Wolfgang said:

    And I thought, US voters, in particular in "fly over USA" elected him ... since when does that make for an illegitimate president?

    In my view, Mr Trump is indeed the duly-elected and legitimate president of the United States, having received the majority of votes in the electoral college (though fewer votes than Hillary Clinton from the Americans who cast ballots in the 2016 presidential election). That said, it is STILL possible for an election result to be tainted - but NOT de-legitimized! - by scandal or, in this case, foreign interference. The Mueller report makes clear beyond doubt that our 2016 presidential election result was in fact tainted by foreign (Russian) interference.


    I wonder how many foreign elections were "aided" by the USA over they years ??

    In the absence of supporting facts, questions such as this invite baseless speculation and conspiracy theories. You might "wonder" how many foreign elections the U.S. aided, but unless 1) you offer evidence (facts) to prove the existence of such elections, and 2) said evidence reveals efforts as widespread and consequential as were the Russian efforts in 2016, your wonder will not advance the debate.


    where is proof of that claim? what sweeping and systematic fashion changed the voting and/or outcome of the election?

    The evidence is in the charging documents against the Russian operatives filed during the Mueller probe, and in the Mueller report itself. That evidence is clear, profound, overwhelming, and dispositive. You may/will disagree, Wolfgang - your right - but your disagreement doesn't change the conclusion the evidence makes overwhelmingly obvious.


    Oh, really ... did you know that the German government "perceivedd it would like to have Hillary as USA president" ? Was their influence just not sweeping enough? Or was it no problem because they perceived "the correct" (in many folks' opinion) candidate?

    More speculation. Please direct us to the evidence - the facts - that demonstrate the German government's intrusion into our 2016 general election. Keep in mind that a nation's having a preference for one candidate over another in a different nation's elections is not illegal and it is not an intrusion into other nation's election. Please direct us to the evidence - the facts - that the German government took steps to influence the outcome of the 2016 election in ways that were in any way analogous to the Russian government's efforts.


    Any proof for Russia stealing information? which information? Hillary e-mail stuff (which has been proven to have been publicized due to a leak (whistle blower !) within the DNC staff?

    Again, the evidence is in the charging documents against the Russian operatives filed during the Mueller probe, and in the Mueller report itself. That evidence of Russian operatives' theft of emails is clear, profound, overwhelming, and dispositive. You may/will disagree, Wolfgang - your right - but your disagreement doesn't change the conclusion the evidence makes overwhelmingly obvious.

    As for your "DNC whistleblower," please provide proof (facts). And remember that the theft of the Clinton campaign's and the DNC's emails was a DIFFERENT event/process from the distribution and publication of those emails by Wikileaks.


    By the way, ever heard of espionage? do you know that many countries maintain "intelligence agencies" to gather "intelligence" secretly from other countries and then also use such intelligence regularly to their advantage? do you realize that such activities have been conducted for a long time in history ? do you realize that this Democrats claim of having lost the election due to "Russian doings" actually is a devastating judgment on the previous (Obama) administration's security of USA information ???

    Espionage is a fact of life among nations of the world. Direct intrusion into other nations' elections for the purpose of influencing the outcomes in favor of some candidates and against others is not.

    In the late summer or early fall of 2016, the Obama administration directly confronted the Russian government about its election interference. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), it was widely reported, expressed skepticism in private meetings that the evidence supported the claim of Russian involvement. Former Vice President Biden claims McConnell refused to sign a bipartisan letter condemning the Russians for the activity.

    The evidence - the facts - suggests that the Obama administration did FAR more to try to stop the Russians from interfering in our elections than the Trump administration has done to stop them from doing so again in the 2020 election.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,096

    Espionage is a fact of life among nations of the world. Direct intrusion into other nations' elections for the purpose of influencing the , but it outcomes in favor of some candidates and against others is not.

    direct intrusion ... as if espionage was something else ? you may not be aware of who carries out gathering of intelligence of whatever kind?

    Actually, why would it be "normal" or "a fact of life" if espionage information concerning other than election relevant information is used to influence activities in another country but it is a terrible crime or whatever to use information which may be showing some facts concerning a particular candidate to influence activities in another country?

    Of course, any country wishing to influence another country will use whatever information concerning whatever activity or person to achieve that goal ... or do you think differently. I suppose you will tell me that if the information had been concerning Trump rather than Clinton and Clinton had won the election it would have all been "just fine" ?

    In the late summer or early fall of 2016, the Obama administration directly confronted the Russian government about its election interference. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), it was widely reported, expressed skepticism in private meetings that the evidence supported the claim of Russian involvement. Former Vice President Biden claims McConnell refused to sign a bipartisan letter condemning the Russians for the activity.

    I venture to say that there would have been no word about any Russian attempt to influence the election if the outcome had been in favor of Hillary ... the whole "big deal" was an invention of the Democrats campaign to explain to whoever why their lady candidate had lost when all signs had been on "clear victory" ... and Hillary almost lost her mind once it became clear that the American people had somehow actually dated to vote contrary to what all her presstitute support propaganda in the UISA and the rest of the USA vassal countries had "predicted"

    The evidence - the facts - suggests that the Obama administration did FAR more to try to stop the Russians from interfering in our elections than the Trump administration has done to stop them from doing so again in the 2020 election.

    The Obama administration also sent its chief - the president himself - to openly influence British voters in favor of who the USA wanted to win ... he even openly threatened the British in his campaign speech with consequences which would befall them if they dared to not vote "the right way".

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,773

    @Wolfgang said:

    direct intrusion ... as if espionage was something else ? you may not be aware of who carries out gathering of intelligence of whatever kind?

    Actually, why would it be "normal" or "a fact of life" if espionage information concerning other than election relevant information is used to influence activities in another country but it is a terrible crime or whatever to use information which may be showing some facts concerning a particular candidate to influence activities in another country?

    Espionage is the surreptitious GATHERING of information. The Russian government's intrusion into our 2016 election was the surreptitious DISSEMINATION of information. Two VERY different enterprises.


    Of course, any country wishing to influence another country will use whatever information concerning whatever activity or person to achieve that goal ... or do you think differently. I suppose you will tell me that if the information had been concerning Trump rather than Clinton and Clinton had won the election it would have all been "just fine" ?

    Countries seek to influence each other all the time, but they don't - or shouldn't - do so through covert interference in each other's elections. ANY foreign government's intrusion in our 2016 election, whether for or against ANY candidate (including Hillary Clinton) would have been wrong and worthy of condemnation. Do you agree? Or do you contend that Russia had both the moral and legal right to covertly interfere in our election?


    I venture to say that there would have been no word about any Russian attempt to influence the election if the outcome had been in favor of Hillary ... the whole "big deal" was an invention of the Democrats campaign to explain to whoever why their lady candidate had lost when all signs had been on "clear victory" ... and Hillary almost lost her mind once it became clear that the American people had somehow actually dated to vote contrary to what all her presstitute support propaganda in the UISA and the rest of the USA vassal countries had "predicted"

    Your suggestion that there would have been "no word" about Russian intrusion had they sought to help Clinton is baseless and speculative. But I must point out that there ALSO would have been "no word about any Russian attempt to influence the election" had the Russians not attempted to influence our election. THAT is not a matter of speculation.

    The "big deal" was the "invention" solely of the Russians who planned and executed the intrusion into our election. Whatever impact it had on the final result - and that's something that we'll never be able to quantify - the Russian intrusion was wrong.

    As for losing minds, many of us Americans "lose our minds" when we realize Donald Trump won the American presidency even though more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton. I guess we have some wild notion that the candidate who gets the most votes should win the election... which I admit is a thoroughly undemocratic idea.


    The Obama administration also sent its chief - the president himself - to openly influence British voters in favor of who the USA wanted to win ... he even openly threatened the British in his campaign speech with consequences which would befall them if they dared to not vote "the right way".

    President Obama's comments were about the Brexit vote, not about an election for a particular office, but the general rule applies there, too: American presidents should stay out of other countries' elections, period. Mr Obama should have stayed out. Similarly, Russians should stay out of other countries' elections, period. Do you agree? Or do you assert that Russia had both the moral and legal right to conduct its covert intrusion into our 2016 presidential election?


    BTW, I'm still waiting for you to post evidence (facts) related to the German government's intrusion in our 2016 election and your claim that a "DNC Whistleblower" was responsible for the leak of Clinton emails in 2016.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,096

    Countries seek to influence each other all the time, but they don't - or shouldn't - do so through covert interference in each other's elections. ANY foreign government's intrusion in our 2016 election, whether for or against ANY candidate (including Hillary Clinton) would have been wrong and worthy of condemnation. Do you agree? Or do you contend that Russia had both the moral and legal right to covertly interfere in our election?

    I wasn't born just yesterday ... and most likely look at things more objectively since I have no interest in a particular country or a particular political party or a particular political figure ... Nor do I split hairs about information gathering or dissemination (btw, I thought it had been claimed that Russia stole (gathered) mails ...

    As for losing minds, many of us Americans "lose our minds" when we realize Donald Trump won the American presidency even though more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton.

    That is a rather sad statement ... those many Americans seem to not like the laws regulating the election.

    Eh, as for Obama as president involving himself personally in other country's election, I don't recall that te Russian president did such in regards to the US elections, or did he? I have not seen any proof presented for a change of the USA elections achieved by Russian influence ...

    IF such were the case, that a foreign country can achieve a manipulation of a USA elections, the USA has a far bigger security problem than they think .... wan to tell us that the mighty USA is not able to keep their presidential elections secure against foreign country meddling???????

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,572

    No I just live in reality that Trump was a duly elected and therefore legitimate president.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,773

    @Wolfgang posted:

    I wasn't born just yesterday ... and most likely look at things more objectively since I have no interest in a particular country or a particular political party or a particular political figure ... Nor do I split hairs about information gathering or dissemination (btw, I thought it had been claimed that Russia stole (gathered) mails ...

    It's not "splitting hairs" to identify the difference in meaning between espionage and what the Russians did in the 2016 American presidential election. Espionage gathers information for a governing authority - that is, the purpose of the activity is to provide information to one's government.That's ALL espionage ("spying") does. What the Russians did in our election was to gather information (the hacked emails) which it disseminated, along with its social media campaigns, NOT to its own governing authorities, but to the American electorate. That WAS NOT espionage.

    I'm surprised by your raising issues with this, Wolfgang, given your passion for reading what you often call "the clear meaning" of Bible texts. Thirty seconds in a dictionary reveals the "clear meaning" of the word espionage; an additional 30 seconds of reflection reveals the clear difference between it and what the Russians did in our election.


    Eh, as for Obama as president involving himself personally in other country's election, I don't recall that te Russian president did such in regards to the US elections, or did he? I have not seen any proof presented for a change of the USA elections achieved by Russian influence ...

    In fact, Mr Putin waited until after the election - at the infamous Helsinki summit - to report that he had wanted Donald Trump to win the election. As you know from your reading of the Mueller report and the team's charging documents over the last two years, Mr Putin's involvement in our election was FAR more surreptitious than was Mr Obama's involvement in the Brexit election. For one, Obama wrote one op-ed and made one visit to Britain. Putin's electoral operation lasted for several months. For another, Mr Obama put his name to his op-ed and showed his face to the British people during his visit. Mr Putin covered up his involvement in the Russian interference, convincing many Americans that the information Russia provided actually came from their fellow citizens.

    Your reply didn't address the question I raised about the Russia actions: Do you contend that Russia had either the moral or the legal right to covertly interfere in our 2016 election?


    IF such were the case, that a foreign country can achieve a manipulation of a USA elections, the USA has a far bigger security problem than they think .... wan to tell us that the mighty USA is not able to keep their presidential elections secure against foreign country meddling???????

    Clearly we were NOT able to secure our elections against foreign interference in 2016. Shame on us. To my knowledge, the Trump administration has done little to improve our election security, perhaps in part because the leader of the government for months and months and months refused to acknowledge the Russian interference. Shame on the administration. Clearly Russia interfered in 2016 and wants to do so again in 2020. Shame on them.



    And I am STILL waiting for you to post evidence (facts) related to the German government's intrusion in our 2016 election and your claim that a DNC "whistleblower" was responsible for the leak of Clinton emails in 2016.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,096
    edited April 20

    In fact, Mr Putin waited until after the election - at the infamous Helsinki summit - to report that he had wanted Donald Trump to win the election.

    Ha ha ha ... other heads of state did the same and waited after the election to congratulate the elected president (now, some may have already congratulated secretly the one they thought would win and were VERY astonished how it could be that in the USA something could go so wrong as to lose an election for which supposedly the result had been clearly predicted

    Also, I am astonished why so many US Americans seem to be eager to no end to have war all over the world and call any attempt of a UIS president to slow down conflicts and have more friendly relation instead of having war? By now, of course, any ideas of Trump which he may initially have had in that direction have been swamped by the deep state swamp and he seems nothing more than the puppet those frogs thought they had in place from the start if they had succeeded in getting their candidate Hillary to a win the election

    Did I mention that the German government intruded in the USA election? I don't recall doing so ...m,y argument may have been more in the sense that obviously if the German government with its Hillary biased propaganda before the election is not claimed to have interfered. so the Russian government with their rather public silence should not be claimed to have interfered either ...

    As for DNC leak and whistle blower ... according to quite a few sources (usually referred to by Clinton support media as "conspiracy theorists) the poor fellow was eliminated in the meantime in another "accidental" and "not really solved" death ... as there has been a trail of blood in the wake of the Clintons for decades all the way from Arkansas to Washington

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,773

    @Wolfgang posted:

    Ha ha ha ... other heads of state did the same and waited after the election to congratulate the elected president (now, some may have already congratulated secretly the one they thought would win and were VERY astonished how it could be that in the USA something could go so wrong as to lose an election for which supposedly the result had been clearly predicted

    When you revisit my previous post, I'm sure you'll note that my point was NOT the timing of Mr Putin's public witness to his support for Mr Trump's election, BUT RATHER that Mr Putin's involvement in our 2016 election process was surreptitious and long-lasting, quite unlike Mr Obama's brief and very public involvement in Britain's BREXIT vote.


    Did I mention that the German government intruded in the USA election? I don't recall doing so ...m,y argument may have been more in the sense that obviously if the German government with its Hillary biased propaganda before the election is not claimed to have interfered. so the Russian government with their rather public silence should not be claimed to have interfered either ...

    Upon further review of THIS POST OF YOURS, it's clear that I overstated your claim. My apologies. You did not claim that Germany had interfered in our election. Instead you compared what you claimed was Germany's electoral preference for Hillary Clinton presidency in 2016 to what CM's post asserted was Russia's preference for AND WORK ON BEHALF OF the election of Donald Trump. I see no comparison between what Germany wanted and Russia acted to achieve.


    As for DNC leak and whistle blower ... according to quite a few sources (usually referred to by Clinton support media as "conspiracy theorists) the poor fellow was eliminated in the meantime in another "accidental" and "not really solved" death ... as there has been a trail of blood in the wake of the Clintons for decades all the way from Arkansas to Washington

    In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever for your claim. That is indeed a symptom common to "conspiracy theories."

    The DNC "whistleblower" to whom you refer was Seth Rich. You might not know that in March 2018 one prominent American newspaper, the conservative-leaning Washington Times, published an op-ed advancing the theory of Rich's involvement in the Clinton email theft, then in late September issued a full-throated apology to Rich's family which in part declared that the paper did not "have any basis to believe any part of that statement to be true, and The Washington Times retracts it in its entirety."

    Conspiracy theories are often silly flights of fancy to us who value facts over speculation. But in the case of Seth Rich, the completely baseless and false conspiracy theory which you raised in your post, Wolfgang, inflicted great pain on Seth Rich's family. At some point, we who value facts over speculation hope, conspiracy theory aficionados will acknowledge the damage baseless assertions can do and in response, impose a higher - i.e, at least some - standard of proof before they distribute their assertions.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,096

    You might not know that in March 2018 one prominent American newspaper, the conservative-leaning Washington Times, published an op-ed advancing the theory of Rich's involvement in the Clinton email theft, then in late September issued a full-throated apology to Rich's family which in part declared that the paper did not "have any basis to believe any part of that statement to be true, and The Washington Times retracts it in its entirety."

    Typical of current media ... either fake news from the start, or if they dared to relate something true, try and withdraw in order to comply with the powers behind the scenes and in the swamp

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,773

    @Wolfgang posted:

    Typical of current media ... either fake news from the start, or if they dared to relate something true, try and withdraw in order to comply with the powers behind the scenes and in the swamp

    AND it's typical of current conspiracy theory aficianados... to make claims based solely on conjecture and speculation, theories for which there is no supporting factual evidence.

    Your concerns about the derivation of the Seth Rich story notwithstanding, Wolfgang, you DID advance it in your previous post, so it's appropriate for me to ask: Do you personally acknowledge that there is no factual evidence supporting the claim that Seth Rich was the leaker of the Clinton emails within the DNC?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,096

    Do you personally acknowledge that there is no factual evidence supporting the claim that Seth Rich was the leaker of the Clinton emails within the DNC?

    The voice of his blood is crying to heaven ...

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,773

    @Wolfgang posted:

    The voice of his blood is crying to heaven ...

    I didn't ask whether you believe Seth Rich's blood is crying to heaven, Wolfgang. I asked whether you acknowledge that there is no factual evidence supporting the claim that Seth Rich was the leaker of the Clinton emails within the DNC. So, I ask you again.

    If for some reason you believe there IS factual supporting evidence for the claim about Rich's role, please provide links to at least some of that evidence.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,096


    The Three Purposes of Russiagate

    April 22, 2019 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: |  Print This Article

    The Three Purposes of Russiagate

    Paul Craig Roberts

    Russiagate has three purposes.

    One is to prevent President Trump from endangering the vast budget and power of the military/security complex by normalizing relations with Russia.

    Another, in the words of James Howard Kunstler, is “to conceal the criminal conduct of US government officials meddling in the 2016 election in collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign,” by focusing all public and political attention on a hoax distraction.

    The third is to obstruct Trump’s campaign and distract him from his agenda when he won the election.

    Despite the inability of Mueller to find any evidence that Trump or Trump officials colluded with Russia to steal the US presidential election, and the inability of Mueller to find evidence with which to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice, Russiagate has achieved all of its purposes.

    Trump has been locked into a hostile relationship with Russia. Neoconservatives have succeeded in worsening this hostile relationship by manipulating Trump into a blatant criminal attempt to overthrow in broad daylight the Venezuelan government.

    Hillary’s criminal conduct and the criminal conduct of the CIA, FBI, and Obama Justice (sic) Department that resulted in a variety of felonies, including the FBI obtaining spy warrants for partisan political purposes on false pretexts from the FISA court, were swept out of sight by the Russiagate hoax.

    The Mueller report was written in such a way that despite the absence of any evidence supporting any indictment of Trump, the report refused to clear Trump of obstruction and passed the buck to the Attorney General. In other words, Mueller in the absence of any evidence kept the controversy going by setting up Attorney General Barr for cover-up charges.

    It is evidence of Mueller’s corruption that he does not explain just how it is possible for Trump to possibly have obstructed justice when Mueller states in his report that the crime he was empowered to investigate could not be found. How does one obstruct the investigation of a crime that did not occur?

    ...... continue reading

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,096
    edited April 25
  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,773

    @Wolfgang posted:

    It looks like some folks (Democrats) just can't let go ??

    Not surprisingly, the article to which you link, Wolfgang, teems with factual inaccuracies. A few examples:

    • The author claims "(President Trump) thought that the interrogation and prosecution of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn were unnecessarily harsh and aggressive, and he told Comey as much." The Mueller report contains no report of such a discussion between the president and Comey. The report confirms what Comey had testified to in public, that the president said to him, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Nothing about a "harsh and aggressive" prosecution.
    • The article's author claims "the very fact that Mueller declined to make a prosecutorial decision on that issue proves that he did not find the evidence to back up the charge." That's not true. For at least five of the ten incidents of possible obstruction of justice cited in his report, Mueller describes the evidence of the president's obstructive intent as "substantial." Why didn't he charge the president with obstruction? It's on page 1 of Volume II of the report: "...this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion [that sitting presidents can't be indicted] for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct." And then from p.2 of Volume II: "...we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes."
    • And finally, while the author accurately reports that "(Attorney General) Barr made it clear that the president was entirely cooperative with the investigation behind the scenes, declining to assert executive privilege and encouraging witnesses to be honest and forthcoming," the author does NOT then also report that the AG's assertion was false: The president refused to sit for a face-to-face interview; he refused to answer questions on the subject of obstruction of justice; and about 1/3 of his answers to questions about the Russians' activities were deemed to be "insufficient" or "inadequate" by special counsel's office (more than 30 times, the president said he couldn't recall or remember, or that he didn't have any independent recollection of the matters asked about - and THAT was in response to what he publicly claimed were "not very difficult questions" that he had answered "easily" and "routinely"). That's NOT his acting "entirely cooperative" or a witness' being "honest and forthcoming."

    In my view, the "opinions" of a writer who either can't, doesn't want to, or doesn't care enough to get objective facts correct are not worth much consideration. As I seem often to say in response to the writers you present in lieu of your own views, Wolfgang, facts matter.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,096
    edited April 26
Sign In or Register to comment.