Hal 9000 Posted May 31, 2019 Report Share Posted May 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, BubberMiley said: Are you saying Bill Barr is lying? Do you even know who Bill Barr is? There is no evidence of obstruction, just 10 different incidences that they investigated. Simple speculation and Mueller's own hypothesis, that's all. I'm saying that Mueller could've said that there is no evidence and left it at that - which is what a neutral investigator should do, but he chose to stoke the Democrats fire with statements like "we can't prove he's innocent" and "we don't have authority to lay charges". Both comments are technically factual, but none of it matters because there is no evidence. If there was evidence, Mueller would say "there is evidence for a criminal charge but..." The Dems wanted Mueller to testify, and instead he went around that and had a defacto testimony without questions - very shady. I would've been content will Mueller writing his report and riding off into the sunset, but after his performance the other day, he has changed from "neutral investigator" to witness. Now I think he needs to be questioned by congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted May 31, 2019 Report Share Posted May 31, 2019 There's little doubt that Mueller's presentation was intentionally staged to muddy the waters. He must have been well paid. At this point he is saying he never wants to talk about the report again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted May 31, 2019 Report Share Posted May 31, 2019 Mueller said that “if they didn’t have any evidence of a crime he would have said that in his report”. The only correct interpretation of that is that they do have evidence, and if there’s actual evidence then there was a crime. It has to be re: the Trump administration or Mueller has just thrown a whole lot of shade on Trump with no good reason. It’s really just a matter of what crime, if they have enough evidence that they think they could get a conviction, against whom, and for what? It’s hard to believe that there wouldn’t be at least a campaign finance violation. Iirc there actually was. Is it something bigger? By Trump? Is it more serious than just felony mishandling of classified information? If there wasn’t a crime committed that was worth a whole new round of this crap then Mueller is just a political hack, and a piece of crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 31, 2019 Report Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said: There is no evidence of obstruction, just... Mueller also indicated he believes that because he is not allowed to press charges, he's also not allowed to say whether he thinks there is sufficient evidence to press charges. The most he believes he is allowed to say is that "if I were convinced the president committed no crimes, I would say so." Edited May 31, 2019 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 31, 2019 Report Share Posted May 31, 2019 57 minutes ago, BubberMiley said: Mueller also indicated he believes that because he is not allowed to press charges, he's also not allowed to say whether he thinks there is sufficient evidence to press charges. The most he believes he is allowed to say is that "if I were convinced the president committed no crimes, I would say so." Too bad....Mueller presented the evidence that he found and it is not compelling Pelosi to act now, but it is compelling Trump's critics to whine even louder. Another day without any articles of impeachment.....tick...tock...towards 2020. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted May 31, 2019 Report Share Posted May 31, 2019 4 hours ago, BubberMiley said: Mueller also indicated he believes that because he is not allowed to press charges, he's also not allowed to say whether he thinks there is sufficient evidence to press charges. The most he believes he is allowed to say is that "if I were convinced the president committed no crimes, I would say so." That's complete bull! An ounce of common sense would tell you that if there was evidence, he'd say there was evidence. Instead he plays the whole "I can't say for sure that he's not guilty". Are all lefties really this gullible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted May 31, 2019 Report Share Posted May 31, 2019 When Nancy Pelosi looks like the only sane Democrat, you really have to wonder just how far down the rabbit hole everyone else has traveled. Yikes! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 31, 2019 Report Share Posted May 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said: That's complete bull! An ounce of common sense would tell you that if there was evidence, he'd say there was evidence. Instead he plays the whole "I can't say for sure that he's not guilty". Are all lefties really this gullible? You're saying he and Barr are liars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted May 31, 2019 Report Share Posted May 31, 2019 4 minutes ago, BubberMiley said: You're saying he and Barr are liars? I've answered that already, so lets go at from another angle; What is the evidence that Mueller found? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 31, 2019 Report Share Posted May 31, 2019 21 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said: I've answered that already, so lets go at from another angle; What is the evidence that Mueller found? I wasn't able to discern an answer. But the evidence is in the report. The good stuff is redacted though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 1 hour ago, BubberMiley said: I wasn't able to discern an answer. But the evidence is in the report. The good stuff is redacted though. Oh, the redacted stuff eh? Well, why then have the Democrats NOT read the redacted parts, even though they given permission to do so? Ever heard of Schrodinger's cat? You simply have no idea of the game being played here do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said: Oh, the redacted stuff eh? Well, why then have the Democrats NOT read the redacted parts, even though they given permission to do so? Ever heard of Schrodinger's cat? You simply have no idea of the game being played here do you? Exactly. The Dems have access to the unredacted report, but most of them haven’t read it. Regardless, Mueller didn’t charge Trump with anything because there wasn’t sufficient evidence to do so. Bubber is just continuing his authoritarian guilty until proven innocent principle. His “show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” justice system. As first described by Stalin’s head of the secret police. It’s sad that we have people that live in a free society, echoing and championing anti-freedom and anti-justice principles just because they hate Trump. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 You chickened out when I asked that question about Trudeau. Is it because you know you have a million posts that assume Trudeau is guilty until proven innocent and your failed last ditch attempt at an argument falls apart completely? And the Dems don't have the redacted report. Try to keep up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, BubberMiley said: You chickened out when I asked that question about Trudeau. Is it because you know you have a million posts that assume Trudeau is guilty until proven innocent and your failed last ditch attempt at an argument falls apart completely? And the Dems don't have the redacted report. Try to keep up. I knew you'd hide behind the good stuff is redacted when Mueller didn't find the smoking gun. Totally called that in advance. You are just going to pretend it's in there until the entire thing is redacted, and then once that happens, you'll just say, they were in the bag for Trump and didn't look hard enough. Obvious partisan hackery is obvious. You'll keep moving the goalposts no matter what, that's how delusional you are. Edited June 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 36 minutes ago, BubberMiley said: You chickened out when I asked that question about Trudeau. Is it because you know you have a million posts that assume Trudeau is guilty until proven innocent and your failed last ditch attempt at an argument falls apart completely? And the Dems don't have the redacted report. Try to keep up. The top democrats were offered viewing of the full unredacted Mueller report. None of them bothered, why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said: No, they were offered a slightly less redacted version. The worst partisan hackery is defending a Trump stooge like Barr redacting everything he feels like, attacking people for questioning that, and lying about the Democrats' access to an unredacted report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said: The top democrats were offered viewing of the full unredacted Mueller report. If you were given that opportunity it might explain how you can say for sure that Trump is as innocent as a newborn baby. How would you know more than most anyone else otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, eyeball said: If you were given that opportunity it might explain how you can say for sure that Trump is as innocent as a newborn baby. How would you know more than most anyone else otherwise? Innocent until proven guilty is the standard, not guilty until proven innocent. Edited June 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, eyeball said: If you were given that opportunity it might explain how you can say for sure that Trump is as innocent as a newborn baby. How would you know more than most anyone else otherwise? Trump doesn't have to be innocent as a newborn baby. That is not a legal or political standard for articles of impeachment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 (edited) They found more evidence of crimes when they investigated Clinton than they did when they investigated Trump, and Bill Clinton being impeached simply aided his popularity. Democrats have even less than the Republicans did, so they'd be wise to drop the matter, instead of helping the very person they want to destroy. The Democrats would rather hang themselves than learn from Republicans mistakes though, because they are so blinded by hatred of Trump they can't see the trap they are falling into. Edited June 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 Just now, bush_cheney2004 said: Trump doesn't have to be innocent as a newborn baby. That is not a legal or political standard for articles of impeachment. Its the standard Hal is applying that I'm more interested in. 3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: Innocent until proven guilty is the standard, not guilty until proven innocent. So can Hal be charged with unfounded certainty or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: They found more evidence of crimes when they investigated Clinton Then why wasn't Clinton arrested and subsequently charged with having committed criminal offences? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: Then why wasn't Clinton arrested and subsequently charged with having committed criminal offences? Because the Republicans had nothing relevant on Clinton, same as the Democrats have nothing relevant on Trump. Impeaching over nothing burgers backfires, Republicans know. The more you tell the Democrats they are hanging themselves, the more they seem to want to do it, trying to talk them out of it works great as reverse psychology. Edited June 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: Then why wasn't Clinton arrested and subsequently charged with having committed criminal offences? Because he struck a deal with prosecutors that required payment of a $25,000 fine and loss of his license to practice law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Because he struck a deal with prosecutors that required payment of a $25,000 fine and loss of his license to practice law. Which is a helluva a lot more punishment than Trump will ever receive, and still nothing but a very light slap on the wrist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.