Mueller to make statement on Russia probe

TreeFrogTrader said:
Okay well, Barr will be releasing lots of stuff from the other intel agencies. So for example, if there is an email or text or signed document by Brennan or Clapper and it is presented unredacted, then you can be the one to argue why that is Barr lying. If it is revealed that Samantha Powers signed off on X number of unmaskings and the documents are released, then again, you can be the one to explain that those documents are bogus because Barr is a liar. Be interesting to see how that works in your jonestown mind.

Come up with a good rap because there is going to be plenty of it coming.


believe-in-something-even-if-t-means-sacrificing-everything-jon-ustdoii-36073314.png
More...

How sure are you Barr will be releasing anything, never mind “lots of stuff.”

I’d like to remind you this isn’t the first time Trump has started a fishing expedition, do you remember his voter fraud commission?

This is Trump’s MO, he, like you, watches way too much Fox News and actually believes what he is seeing. So he gets into these messes where appoints some tool bag who will do what Trump wants but ends up in disgrace.

This is the path Barr is on. It’s obvious.
 
UsualName said:
How sure are you Barr will be releasing anything, never mind “lots of stuff.”
More...

Well, I did add in the caveat earlier, and in regard to Horowitz's report too that there could be major redactions or withholdings because there are major investigations as an out come. And that's more than fine.

Any Barr may be releasing "lots of stuff" to his own internal investigators for them to take action on rather than to the public, especially in the beginning. So, "releasing" does not necessarily mean directly to the public but the results of it over time will be seen.

Congress and others have taunted Barr for using the word "spying" and for saying that he shared the view that trump was or probably could have been a political targer. So, do I think that over time, Barr will use his expansive powers to declassify and release documents and other forms of information to make that point loud and clear and to slap the face of his critics. Yep. Damn right I do.
 
@FF

wjk said:
Then Mueller should have stated that Trump committed a crime(s) but can't be indicted because of constitutional restraints...

See Ken Starr's investigation of Clinton.

WeToddDid2 said:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing. And beyond department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially -- it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge...

Legal principles should still apply. Guilt wasn't proven. If it had been, Mueller could have stated so. In my opinion, it's unfair to imply that when guilt can't be proven, it can't be disproven either. That concept makes everyone potentially guilty of whatever anyone wants to accuse them of.

The constitution calls for a different approach regarding the sitting president, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about an investigator stating if there's guilt or not. To use the unfairness argument is b.s. It was unfair to state it the way he did, IMO. I agree with Alan Dershowitz' opinion, paragraph 4 in particular:


"Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax TV: Mueller Crossed Line"

Robert Mueller was out of line to imply President Donald Trump might have obstructed justice during the two-year Russia investigation, attorney Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV.

Minutes after Mueller addressed the media and the American public Wednesday morning to wrap up his Russia probe, Dershowitz joined Newsmax TV host John Bachman for his immediate thoughts.

"I think it was improper for Mueller to say that if there had been evidence that the president hadn't committed a crime, we would have said so. That sounds to me very much like what [former FBI director James] Comey said about Hillary Clinton and was so criticized," Dershowitz said.

"I don't think that was in his place to say that. He could just as easily have said, if there were evidence that [Trump] had committed a crime, we would have said so. But the implication was that maybe he committed a crime, but there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove it.

"I think he went beyond the authority of a prosecutor and committed the same error that we all condemned Comey for committing in relation to Hillary Clinton."

Dershowitz argued Mueller, who announced in his Wednesday morning remarks he is resigning as special counsel and returning to private life because his investigation into Russian election interference is over, gave a "different twist" on his report than Attorney General William Barr.













 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Well, I did add in the caveat earlier, and in regard to Horowitz's report too that there could be major redactions or withholdings because there are major investigations as an out come. And that's more than fine.

Any Barr may be releasing "lots of stuff" to his own internal investigators for them to take action on rather than to the public, especially in the beginning. So, "releasing" does not necessarily mean directly to the public but the results of it over time will be seen.

Congress and others have taunted Barr for using the word "spying" and for saying that he shared the view that trump was or probably could have been a political targer. So, do I think that over time, Barr will use his expansive powers to declassify and release documents and other forms of information to make that point loud and clear and to slap the face of his critics. Yep. Damn right I do.
More...

Barr will be ousted in disgraceful fashion, nothing will come out from his misdirection, you'll blame it on the "deep state", and will move on to the next shiny thing that a Trump lackey dangles in front of you.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Well, I did add in the caveat earlier, and in regard to Horowitz's report too that there could be major redactions or withholdings because there are major investigations as an out come. And that's more than fine.

Any Barr may be releasing "lots of stuff" to his own internal investigators for them to take action on rather than to the public, especially in the beginning. So, "releasing" does not necessarily mean directly to the public but the results of it over time will be seen.

Congress and others have taunted Barr for using the word "spying" and for saying that he shared the view that trump was or probably could have been a political targer. So, do I think that over time, Barr will use his expansive powers to declassify and release documents and other forms of information to make that point loud and clear and to slap the face of his critics. Yep. Damn right I do.
More...

Barr is a political operative, not an attorney general. He is there for one reason and one reason only: to protect Donald trump from the crimes Donald trump has committed.

All of this threats of releasing confidential information and practice reviews is a distraction from the very real issues around trump and criminal behavior.

I will give anything Barr releases an appropriate review but I do not trust him at all. He is a proven liar and he is installed at DOJ to undermine the DOJ’s mission.
 
Here4money said:
Barr will be ousted in disgraceful fashion, nothing will come out from his misdirection, you'll blame it on the "deep state", and will move on to the next shiny thing that a Trump lackey dangles in front of you.
More...
AH-- HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA--- OH --HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOH-- EH-- HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE
 
UsualName said:
Barr is a political operative, not an attorney general. He is there for one reason and one reason only: to protect Donald trump from the crimes Donald trump has committed.

All of this threats of releasing confidential information and practice reviews is a distraction from the very real issues around trump and criminal behavior.

I will give anything Barr releases an appropriate review but I do not trust him at all. He is a proven liar and he is installed at DOJ to undermine the DOJ’s mission.
More...



I see that you are worried.

You should be.
 
Here4money said:
Barr will be ousted in disgraceful fashion, nothing will come out from his misdirection, you'll blame it on the "deep state", and will move on to the next shiny thing that a Trump lackey dangles in front of you.
More...

Heh, you are not worried but what you think does not matter.

People such as Brennan and Comey have already confirmed that they are worried about being targetted and that many of their swamp buddies are too.

Watching them sweat is a beautiful thing.

Maybe you should send them a little text message telling them that nothing will come of it. I am sure they will value that coming from someone like you who is "in the know."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top