They could start by calling Mueller to testify as to why he told Barr that his decision not to charge Trump with Obstruction had nothing to do with the Office of Legal Counsel guidelines against indicting a sitting President…
I agree someone seems to be lying about that.
Lying to a federal agent is a criminal offense (as Martha Stewart could attest), so Mueller telling Barr that the Office of Legal Counsel guidelines had nothing to do with his decision not to file charges would be prosecutable if, as he seems to imply now, it did. One would think an experienced prosecutor like Mueller would know that.
Or, conversely, Barr is lying to us, which carries no penalty.
I trust you wholeheartedly support Barr’s investigation into all the matters surrounding the Mueller investigation so we can get to the bottom of it.
I’m not sure what has to be investigated about the Mueller report. It is what it is.
For starter’s we can investigate why Mueller contradicted himself, potentially lying to a federal agent. We could also look at the role the Obama administration had in advancing the original surveillance on the Trump campaign that lead to the investigation and what evidence they based the decision to start the surveillance and obtain the FISA warrants. There’s lots of stuff to investigate, but none of it has the potential to hurt Trump, and has plenty of potential to hurt his accusers, so I understand why you’d be hesitant. It certainly sheds some light on why Mueller may have decided speak out today. He’s in the cross hairs and knows it.
I think he wants to continue the economic boom that started with his presidency. I think he wants to build the wall.
No attempt to derail. Trump does not need “whitewashing” with me after appointing Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, reinstating the Mexico City Policy, letting the Little Sisters off the Obama HHS Mandate and allowing states to defund PP. Well, then there’s that defeat of ISIS, withdrawal from the Paris accord and the Iranian billion-dollar giveaway. Oh, then there’s taking the DOW from 18,000 to 26,000, and the lowest unemployment in decades. Well, then there’s incomes actually rising faster than inflation for the first time in decades. No, his deeds are “whitewash” enough.
“Unindicted co-conspirator” is a formal legal status given to a party in an indictment who is alleged in the indictment to have engaged in a conspiracy with the person indicted, but who is not, himself indicted for a variety of reasons. Trump was never declared an unindicted co-conspirator in any indictment.
I’d like to know why Mueller wanted to talk to Trump even though he admitted he had everything he needed.
Likely they thought they could squeeze on them enough to get them to invent some damning story on Trump. Neither did, it appears.
I assume a perjury trap was at play.
How did he contradict himself? He said in the report that he didn’t opine of whether the President could be charged because of the OLC rule. He just said the same thing today.
Muller’s objective from day one was to remove Trump from office, if not by charging him with a crime, then by giving a basis for impeachment. He accomplished neither and never even claimed to have accomplished them. The Dems want to impeach Trump so badly they can taste it, but some of their leaders fear it might make them look bad.
Of course that’s what it was.JonNC:
I assume a perjury trap was at play.
I’ve just read that Clinton technically didn’t commit Perjury, since the question wasn’t pertinent to the case at hand.
Well, the abbreviation also means that Trump is Deranged and shows its Symptoms… that is how I parse it.
Again, “Johnny did it, too!” That is all you could up with?When did Mexico fulfill Trump’s campaign promise that they will pay for the wall? I never saw the deposit slip or the canceled check.
Of course I did. But it was a bad action, which I also explained. I suggest to bone up on economics if you wish to make arguments of economical nature. First lesson: “always consider both the short term and the long term effects and also the local and global ramifications of a policy”.
You are not qualified to make such conclusions. I am not interested in carrying the topic of one thread into another. It is actually advised not to do cross-thread discussions. In that thread I explained the problems of tariffs.
I am aware of that. Did you also like the children in cages?
I wonder who that “Individual 1” was in your neck of the woods? (Could it be… Saaatan? Church Lady imitation
)No, he could not have done it. Actually, Mueller explicitly stated that he would have exonerated Trump, if he could have done it. But there was no evidence of Trump’s innocence, and the active DOJ policy expressly forbids the indictment of a sitting president, even if there is evidence for his crimes, there was no other option, but to leave it to Congress. These are the facts of the case.
The promise I heard was that he would focus on reducing illegal immigration, of which there were many components to the plan. I never expected M to pay for the wall, it was good rhetoric though. I still expect him to take the executive actions he has. If I fault him here, it’s for how he failed to get his first congress to fund the wall extension and retrofit.
Calling him “morally bankrupt” is just hyperbole on your part, you’ve earned the TDS badge, I guess you wear it proudly.Well, the abbreviation also means that Trump is Deranged and shows its Symptoms… that is how I parse it.
This is why I discuss the long term benefits of running the economy near full employment. It will be life changing for a generation of minority teens to find work as teens, for low skilled people to have less illegal competition for the jobs.
No, you misrepresented the problem with tariffs.
Come on, be serious.
How do you know this? Where you there when Mueller and Barr talked?