Status
Not open for further replies.
Not quite.

Not enough evidence is not the same as no evidence. And, of course, you still have a criminal president. Be honest now, you know the Russia scandal was just a part of the criminal allegations against Trump.

Campaign finance crimes
Tax Fraud
Insurance fraud
Emoluments violations

Your president is a crook.

I'm not sorry the investigation did not hold up to your preconceived outcome. I don't feel that's my problem or concern. I would point out that since you have now been proven to be mistaken on many of your previous statements about Trump, you may yet be doing it again. I don't hold people accountable for mistakes of their past as long as they learn from them.

Chris B.
 
You're lagging, The Attorney General William Barr was given the decision to determine whether or not obstruction of justice had occurred. He found none.
(I realize you likely know this by now as we are talking about breaking news as it happens)

Chris B.

That a partisan toadie of Trump's said that Trump did not obstruct justice is not a surprise.
 
I'm not sorry the investigation did not hold up to your preconceived outcome. I don't feel that's my problem or concern. I would point out that since you have now been proven to be mistaken on many of your previous statements about Trump, you may yet be doing it again. I don't hold people accountable for mistakes of their past as long as they learn from them.

Chris B.

Wow. Distortion and deception.
 
Irrelevant, Trump has been cleared of all charges. No collusion with Russia, No obstruction of justice.

Chris B.

Where has he been cleared of all charges? They are not recommending indicting him, but that is not the same as saying that he is cleared of all charges. He seems to be cleared of collusion, the report draws no conclusion as to the obstruction of justice or other charges.

Limiting your arguments to collusion is just a semantic dodge. This goes far beyond that now. The perception of collusion got the ball rolling, but the campaign finance issues, obstruction of justice, the inauguration graft, all that is getting daylighted in a way that is very, very bad for Trump.
 
No he hasn't or wasn't. It's also a summary provided by a partisan and not the actual report.

Your response is to accuse the Attorney General of the United States of lying in his summary to Congress?

I'm not sure where to go with that.

Chris B.
 
You're lagging, The Attorney General William Barr was given the decision to determine whether or not obstruction of justice had occurred. He found none.
(I realize you likely know this by now as we are talking about breaking news as it happens)

Chris B.
This
Where has he been cleared of all charges? They are not recommending indicting him, but that is not the same as saying that he is cleared of all charges. He seems to be cleared of collusion, the report draws no conclusion as to the obstruction of justice or other charges.

Limiting your arguments to collusion is just a semantic dodge. This goes far beyond that now. The perception of collusion got the ball rolling, but the campaign finance issues, obstruction of justice, the inauguration graft, all that is getting daylighted in a way that is very, very bad for Trump.
 
You're lagging, The Attorney General William Barr was given the decision to determine whether or not obstruction of justice had occurred. He found none.
(I realize you likely know this by now as we are talking about breaking news as it happens)

Chris B.


No, he said there was insufficient evidence

"The Special Counsel states that, 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him'"
 
Individual-1 has been cleared, you say...

Somehow, I doubt you have much insight into the case.

According to the report no American citizen was charged or had anything to do with the Russian attempt to influence US elections...

Chris B.
 
From BBC's coverage:

The summary of the special counsel's report released on Sunday "did not draw a conclusion" as to whether there was any obstruction of justice, either.

It states: "While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him".

This from Barr's summary. Barr, noted Trump lackey and apologist who stated that the investigation was never needed in the first place. If that's the best thing a Trump loyalist can say about the report, then I wonder what Democrats in the House will have to say about it?
 
Your response is to accuse the Attorney General of the United States of lying in his summary to Congress?

I'm not sure where to go with that.

Chris B.

YEP! Why would this Trump official be any different than the countless other Trump officials that have lied to Congress? Just the other day Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was caught in a lie he told to Congress.

The one FACT about the Trump administration has been their penchant for lying and not caring about the truth.
 
No, he said there was insufficient evidence

"The Special Counsel states that, 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him'"

I realize Kleenex Co. stock just went up. I'm going to leave this thread for a couple of hours while everyone digests this currently breaking news.

Chris B.
 
two big takeways:
on Russia
The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities
on obstruction:
while the report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him
 
So basically, Mueller passed the buck to Barr to call Obstruction, and Barr refused to do so.
Congress might see things differently.
 
I realize Kleenex Co. stock just went up. I'm going to leave this thread for a couple of hours while everyone digests this currently breaking news.

Chris B.

RunAway.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom