|
Post by pierkiss on Mar 25, 2019 14:16:10 GMT
Is anyone sick of the republicans whining about how much of a waste this investigation was, and how unfair it was, and how much of a Shame it was for the country, all the while still calling for more investigation of Hillary Clinton? I agree that we need to see the report and have some explanation of the findings. Yes. Talk about snowflakes. 🙄
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 25, 2019 16:04:31 GMT
Is anyone sick of the republicans whining about how much of a waste this investigation was, and how unfair it was, and how much of a Shame it was for the country, all the while still calling for more investigation of Hillary Clinton? I agree that we need to see the report and have some explanation of the findings. Yes. Talk about snowflakes. 🙄 And Lindsey Graham has already pivoted back to talking about Clinton, Loretta Lynch and that tarmac meeting.
|
|
MsKnit
Pearl Clutcher
RefuPea #1406
Posts: 2,648
Jun 26, 2014 19:06:42 GMT
|
Post by MsKnit on Mar 25, 2019 16:39:05 GMT
He even ADMITS that Russia offered and HE KNEW ABOUT IT.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Mar 25, 2019 16:44:57 GMT
I listened to the new episode of The Daily podcast today. It was informative, and they also talked about the fact that Trump wasn't interviewed by the special counsel. I wonder if Mueller tried to subpoena him and was blocked, or if he chose not to ask for a subpoena?
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 25, 2019 16:46:02 GMT
Bart know why he was hired, it wasn’t a big secret. Barr’s son is on the White House legal team Barr’s daughter now works at the DOJ. Might this be the best CYA hire he’s ever made? I’m not even delving into my concern that Barr, who last year clearly and pre-emptively absolved the president of obstruction, absent solicitation, and has called the Mueller inquiry into obstruction “asinine,” did not recuse himself from deciding whether Trump obstructed justice or not. A private citizen (which he was at that time) is free to write and publish 20-page memos favoring Trump so I left it at that. BUT, now as AG, even if Barr is empowered to exercise his prosecutorial discretion in absolving Trump of obstruction, I want to know what in the Mueller report established the rationale behind this decision, ESPECIALLY since Barr wrote that “ the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question…” and yet, he did NOT even bother to articulate a single piece of evidence on either side produced by Mueller. I am firmly with the House baying for the release of the full report that details the evidence. Anything less than the disclosure of the full report is unsatisfactory.
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Mar 25, 2019 16:51:41 GMT
since the release of the Mueller report, i don't think i have trump refer to it as a Witch Hunt. i heard him call it an investigation. am i wrong? has he referred to it as a Witch Hunt since friday? or is it a legit investigation how that he feels he has been TOTALLY exonerated?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 18:08:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 19:52:40 GMT
When you have people in the FBI talking about "an insurance policy to stop him", you have people hoping for an economic collapse just to get rid of Trump... seriously hoping to destroy Americans to get rid of Trump. When it was all about the Mueller investigation finding the crimes he committed and when there weren't any the goalposts get moved, then it IS about finding something wrong, no matter what. It is, always has been and always will be. I mean, you get that Trump is still being investigated in about a dozen other cases, right? So to say “there weren’t any” regarding the crimes he committed is, at best, premature. That people were indicted, plead guilty, found guilty, and are still waiting for trial? Did you read the original letter appointing Mueller? It was not just about Trump. At this point, all we know is that they did not find evidence of collusion. That’s it. And you know what? I hope they’re right. I hope that in moving forward it can actually be proven to be true. That he is “just” an idiot who Putin helped get elected, who is too stupid to realize that he hired criminals for his campaign and appointed them to prominent positions. Truly. Because the alternative makes my blood run cold. 22 months of investigation, $30 million, 2500 subpoenas issued, over 500 search warrants executed. What more do you think they'll do that they haven't already done to change the outcome of the Mueller investigation? At this point, all we know is that they did not find evidence of collusion. That’s it. So keep trying? It reeks of the endless Hillary investigations hoping to pin something on her.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Mar 25, 2019 20:31:51 GMT
I mean, you get that Trump is still being investigated in about a dozen other cases, right? So to say “there weren’t any” regarding the crimes he committed is, at best, premature. That people were indicted, plead guilty, found guilty, and are still waiting for trial? Did you read the original letter appointing Mueller? It was not just about Trump. At this point, all we know is that they did not find evidence of collusion. That’s it. And you know what? I hope they’re right. I hope that in moving forward it can actually be proven to be true. That he is “just” an idiot who Putin helped get elected, who is too stupid to realize that he hired criminals for his campaign and appointed them to prominent positions. Truly. Because the alternative makes my blood run cold. 22 months of investigation, $30 million, 2500 subpoenas issued, over 500 search warrants executed. What more do you think they'll do that they haven't already done to change the outcome of the Mueller investigation? At this point, all we know is that they did not find evidence of collusion. That’s it. So keep trying? It reeks of the endless Hillary investigations hoping to pin something on her. They’ll finish the investigation. Mueller found a lot of things that he passed on to the appropriate entities, and his wasn’t the only investigation occurring. No one is asking for the special counsel to perform another investigation. No one is suggesting another group is assigned to see what the SC might have missed. We are just waiting for the results of the other investigations. We are still waiting to see the results of this investigation.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 25, 2019 20:41:10 GMT
So keep trying? It reeks of the endless Hillary investigations hoping to pin something on her. Just what they are doing again!! He we go................. Graham wants to probe Obama-era controversies Her EMAILS again!!Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday that he wants to probe a myriad of Obama-era scandals, including the handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, now that special counsel Robert Mueller's probe is complete.Graham also said the Senate Judiciary Committee should look into a controversial opposition research dossier on President Trump. "When it comes to the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] FISA warrant, the Clinton campaign, the counterintelligence investigation, it's pretty much been swept under the rug. … Those days are over," Graham told reporters during a press conference. He added that the FBI's handling of the probe into Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State was "bizarre at best [and] troubling to its core from my point of view." Graham's comments indicate that Senate Republicans are ready to move on from the years-long probe into the Trump campaign and Russia's election interference after Mueller handed over his report to the Justice Department on Friday. Graham, who is up for reelection next year, said he wants Attorney General William Barr to testify before the Judiciary Committee but indicated that his focus as chairman will be to dig into the handling of Clinton's emails, the Carter Page FISA warrant application and the origin of the controversial opposition research dossier compiled against then-candidate Trump by Christopher Steele, a former British agent. Graham also raised a controversial meeting between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Clinton in 2016 that sparked outrage and accusations of coordination amid the Justice Department's probe into Hillary Clinton's email server. "I believe there was more there and I intend to get to there," Graham said. In addition to using the Judiciary Committee to probe the issues, Graham said he intends to ask Barr to appoint a special counsel to look into the same areas. "What I want to do is see if he'll appoint a special counsel," Graham said. "I'd like to find somebody like a Mr. Mueller." ** thehill.com/homenews/senate/435623-graham-wants-to-probe-obama-era-controversies
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 18:08:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 20:55:16 GMT
I can't get my head round how he could stand there and state that he had been completely exonerated or that SHS said the same thing. Don't they know how to read or have the ability to comprehend what they do read? " There was no collusion" Yes, of course there was, by someone. The letter only confirms that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign or anyone involved with it had colluded. To deny any collusion is wrong. He's making it all about him as he always does. It is so much more than just about him. The report did find evidence that there was 2 main Russian efforts to influence the election. Doesn't that bother him? No, obviously not, if all he cares about is that there was no evidence that he or his campaign people were involved.It should bother him, very much, that they did in fact interfere in the way they did. It's interesting that the report specifically says Trump's campaign and those associated with it and not that no one colluded..........it's all in the wording folks! He wasn't exonerated of other crimes either. Any further actions that might need to be taken were " unresolved because of difficult issues of Law" That isn't an exoneration that is " we aren't sure which law he can be prosecuted under or even if there is a law that covers what he's done" He's obviously done something that, on a legal basis, is ambiguous. I can't get my head round how he could stand there and state that he had been completely exonerated or that SHS said the same thing. The letter only confirms that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign or anyone involved with it had colluded. there was no evidence that he or his campaign people were involved. That isn't an exoneration that is " we aren't sure which law he can be prosecuted under or even if there is a law that covers what he's done" He's obviously done something that, on a legal basis, is ambiguous. So you're mad because there is no existing law that he's broken... that we haven't yet made it illegal to be Trump.
|
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,658
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Mar 25, 2019 21:10:15 GMT
Is anyone surprised by this "Barr Report"? You shouldn't be. Barr told DT before he even got the job what he thought of the investigation. That's why he got the job. Did anyone think Barr would come to the conclusion that DT had broken the law? Barr made these decisions. I don't need the Barr report to tell me that DT is a grifter, con, and criminal. Just look at the people he surrounds himself with. He has always been a criminal and will always be.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 18:08:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 21:18:47 GMT
I can't get my head round how he could stand there and state that he had been completely exonerated or that SHS said the same thing. Don't they know how to read or have the ability to comprehend what they do read? " There was no collusion" Yes, of course there was, by someone. The letter only confirms that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign or anyone involved with it had colluded. To deny any collusion is wrong. He's making it all about him as he always does. It is so much more than just about him. The report did find evidence that there was 2 main Russian efforts to influence the election. Doesn't that bother him? No, obviously not, if all he cares about is that there was no evidence that he or his campaign people were involved.It should bother him, very much, that they did in fact interfere in the way they did. It's interesting that the report specifically says Trump's campaign and those associated with it and not that no one colluded..........it's all in the wording folks! He wasn't exonerated of other crimes either. Any further actions that might need to be taken were " unresolved because of difficult issues of Law" That isn't an exoneration that is " we aren't sure which law he can be prosecuted under or even if there is a law that covers what he's done" He's obviously done something that, on a legal basis, is ambiguous. I can't get my head round how he could stand there and state that he had been completely exonerated or that SHS said the same thing. The letter only confirms that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign or anyone involved with it had colluded. there was no evidence that he or his campaign people were involved. That isn't an exoneration that is " we aren't sure which law he can be prosecuted under or even if there is a law that covers what he's done" He's obviously done something that, on a legal basis, is ambiguous. So you're mad because there is no existing law that he's broken... that we haven't yet made it illegal to be Trump. Oh dear, you seem to have a problem in reading post in context not to mention a problem with the quote button. Wonder why that strikes a familiar bell in my head!
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Mar 25, 2019 21:40:16 GMT
Bart know why he was hired, it wasn’t a big secret. Barr’s son is on the White House legal team Barr’s daughter now works at the DOJ. Might this be the best CYA hire he’s ever made? I’m not even delving into my concern that Barr, who last year clearly and pre-emptively absolved the president of obstruction, absent solicitation, and has called the Mueller inquiry into obstruction “asinine,” did not recuse himself from deciding whether Trump obstructed justice or not. A private citizen (which he was at that time) is free to write and publish 20-page memos favoring Trump so I left it at that. BUT, now as AG, even if Barr is empowered to exercise his prosecutorial discretion in absolving Trump of obstruction, I want to know what in the Mueller report established the rationale behind this decision, ESPECIALLY since Barr wrote that “ the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question…” and yet, he did NOT even bother to articulate a single piece of evidence on either side produced by Mueller. I am firmly with the House baying for the release of the full report that details the evidence. Anything less than the disclosure of the full report is unsatisfactory. Amen!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 18:08:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 22:07:18 GMT
The standard to be worthy of serving as President of the United States also isn't "she was extremely negligent, but she didn't mean to be." But that didn't stop them from supporting that.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Mar 25, 2019 22:10:10 GMT
@eighteen24 after rereading some of your posts it occurs to me that you might be confused about what is going on and not just being purposefully obtuse like I assumed. I don’t remember you prior to the past week so lumping you in with others with similar posts might have been jumping the gun on my part, so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Most, if not all of the investigations that are ongoing are either different than or a continuation of something dug up by the SC. The SC uncovered evidence of possible wrong doing and passed it on to the appropriate entities. They did not research it themselves, find nothing to note, and another entity is now taking it upon themselves to say the SC was wrong and are now trying to start over. Does that make sense? Eta: That'll teach me. This didn’t tag the poster so I went to look up the correct name. It’s shhfzas. So please disregard this post and carry on with being willfully ignorant. Question: when a troll changes their name does it change my settings for blocking them?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 18:08:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 22:29:17 GMT
@eighteen24 after rereading some of your posts it occurs to me that you might be confused about what is going on and not just being purposefully obtuse like I assumed. I don’t remember you prior to the past week so lumping you in with others with similar posts might have been jumping the gun on my part, so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Most, if not all of the investigations that are ongoing are either different than or a continuation of something dug up by the SC. The SC uncovered evidence of possible wrong doing and passed it on to the appropriate entities. They did not research it themselves, find nothing to note, and another entity is now taking it upon themselves to say the SC was wrong and are now trying to start over. Does that make sense? Eta: That'll teach me. This didn’t tag the poster so I went to look up the correct name. It’s shhfzas. So please disregard this post and carry on with being willfully ignorant. Question: when a troll changes their name does it change my settings for blocking them? I'm not confused and I'm not a troll. Nice try though.
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on Mar 25, 2019 22:31:59 GMT
@eighteen24 after rereading some of your posts it occurs to me that you might be confused about what is going on and not just being purposefully obtuse like I assumed. I don’t remember you prior to the past week so lumping you in with others with similar posts might have been jumping the gun on my part, so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Most, if not all of the investigations that are ongoing are either different than or a continuation of something dug up by the SC. The SC uncovered evidence of possible wrong doing and passed it on to the appropriate entities. They did not research it themselves, find nothing to note, and another entity is now taking it upon themselves to say the SC was wrong and are now trying to start over. Does that make sense? Eta: That'll teach me. This didn’t tag the poster so I went to look up the correct name. It’s shhfzas. So please disregard this post and carry on with being willfully ignorant. Question: when a troll changes their name does it change my settings for blocking them? I'm not confused and I'm not a troll. Nice try though. If not an actual troll, your behavior has been quite trollish. You've really ramped the a-hole factor up lately. I do not remember you being as much of a troll under your old name.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 18:08:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 22:33:54 GMT
I'm not confused and I'm not a troll. Nice try though. If not an actual troll, your behavior has been quite trollish. You've really ramped the a-hole factor up lately. I do not remember you being as much of a troll under your old name. Try the name before the old one!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 24, 2024 18:08:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 22:38:47 GMT
I'm not confused and I'm not a troll. Nice try though. If not an actual troll, your behavior has been quite trollish. You've really ramped the a-hole factor up lately. I do not remember you being as much of a troll under your old name. Take a look at the behavior coming from the other way. Funny how the a-hole factor doesn't register with you when you agree with their opinion.
|
|
|
Post by teach4u on Mar 25, 2019 22:44:07 GMT
Sorry you can’t deal with the results. You’re sad folks.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Mar 25, 2019 22:47:08 GMT
Sorry you can’t deal with the results. You’re sad folks. I didn’t realize the report had been released to Congress and shared with the public. Where can I find that? Right now, as far as I know, we are dealing with a summary from someone who has proven himself very partial and one of his employees. Not results.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 25, 2019 22:49:57 GMT
We haven't seen the results yet. We've seen four sentence fragments. And Mitch and Lindsey are going to make sure it stays that way.
#somethingtohide
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 25, 2019 22:52:25 GMT
Sorry you can’t deal with the results. You’re sad folks. If you want to talk about people who can't deal with the results, go talk to your boy Lindsey who is back on "but her emails." The results of the many investigations into Hillary Clinton were made public, I believe. Why shouldn't Trump's be as well?
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 25, 2019 22:58:02 GMT
Trump sure does have the Republican persecution complex down pat, doesn't he? All his talk about how no other president should have to go through this. Boo hoo. Don't take meetings with Russian operatives during your campaign and you won't have to go through it, you malignant narcissist.
The American people should never have had to go through this travesty of a presidency; that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Mar 25, 2019 22:58:08 GMT
So keep trying? It reeks of the endless Hillary investigations hoping to pin something on her. Just what they are doing again!! He we go................. Graham wants to probe Obama-era controversies Her EMAILS again!!Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday that he wants to probe a myriad of Obama-era scandals, including the handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, now that special counsel Robert Mueller's probe is complete.Graham also said the Senate Judiciary Committee should look into a controversial opposition research dossier on President Trump. "When it comes to the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] FISA warrant, the Clinton campaign, the counterintelligence investigation, it's pretty much been swept under the rug. … Those days are over," Graham told reporters during a press conference. He added that the FBI's handling of the probe into Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State was "bizarre at best [and] troubling to its core from my point of view." Graham's comments indicate that Senate Republicans are ready to move on from the years-long probe into the Trump campaign and Russia's election interference after Mueller handed over his report to the Justice Department on Friday. Graham, who is up for reelection next year, said he wants Attorney General William Barr to testify before the Judiciary Committee but indicated that his focus as chairman will be to dig into the handling of Clinton's emails, the Carter Page FISA warrant application and the origin of the controversial opposition research dossier compiled against then-candidate Trump by Christopher Steele, a former British agent. Graham also raised a controversial meeting between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Clinton in 2016 that sparked outrage and accusations of coordination amid the Justice Department's probe into Hillary Clinton's email server. "I believe there was more there and I intend to get to there," Graham said. In addition to using the Judiciary Committee to probe the issues, Graham said he intends to ask Barr to appoint a special counsel to look into the same areas. "What I want to do is see if he'll appoint a special counsel," Graham said. "I'd like to find somebody like a Mr. Mueller." ** thehill.com/homenews/senate/435623-graham-wants-to-probe-obama-era-controversiesIt's unbelievable that they would continue to to bring up Hillary's emails when the Trump's have been shown to be doing similar, or worse, things with emails, phones and apps--AFTER yelling about it for the last three years! I don't know how they don't feel some sense of guilty or shame over their hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 25, 2019 22:59:38 GMT
I didn’t realize the report had been released to Congress and shared with the public. Where can I find that? Right now, as far as I know, we are dealing with a summary from someone who has proven himself very partial and one of his employees. Not results. We haven't seen the results yet. We've seen four sentence fragments. And Mitch and Lindsey are going to make sure it stays that way. They need to grow up, it passed the House 420-0 for a full release!
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on Mar 25, 2019 23:03:39 GMT
Sorry you can’t deal with the results. You’re sad folks. I would say the left is dealing with the (not yet actually released) "results" about as well as the right dealt with the DOJ's Benghazi investigation. And, tell me, if Hillary's email situation was so awful that it is still a talking point all these YEARS later...what do you think of the fact that Trump and many of his cronies are CURRENTLY DOING THE EXACT SAME THING?
|
|
|
Post by teach4u on Mar 25, 2019 23:11:59 GMT
Dems never found Hillary to be a problem. Despite her felonies.
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on Mar 25, 2019 23:19:09 GMT
Dems never found Hillary to be a problem. Despite her felonies. Felonies? Please, tell me which felonies she was charged with, and convicted of? I must have missed that. Also, it's kind of scary that someone who promotes ignorance and bigotry is a teacher. Yikes.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 25, 2019 23:38:39 GMT
|
|