• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER
  • April 2024 Weather Video of the Month
    Post your nominations now!
Logo 468x120

Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Matt

Member
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
123
Location
Alabaster
gangstonc said:
You need to analyze the words more closely. Nothing in there says anything that would imply Mueller did anything crooked.

Mueller said he couldn’t even consider charging the president because of the OLC memo. He was supposed to make a report and Congress is supposed to decide if trump committed a crime. Mueller specifically said charging Trump was "not an option we could consider."
Click to expand...


 
M

Matt

Member
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
123
Location
Alabaster
gangstonc said:
???????

I would think making such an accusation would require a lot of evidence - if you wanted to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


What he did yesterday was unethical and not his job. His job was to find evidence of a crime. He did not so he should shut the hell up.
 
G

gangstonc

Member
Messages
2,810
Reaction score
303
Location
Meridianville
Matt said:
What he did yesterday was unethical and not his job. His job was to find evidence of a crime. He did not so he should shut the hell up.
Click to expand...
He found lots of evidence of crimes that he detailed in his report! Your facts are wrong.

You need to read the report or you will continue to look foolish.
 
JayF

JayF

Technical Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Sustaining Member
Technical Admin
Messages
1,626
Reaction score
883
Location
Hartselle, al
HAM Callsign
KB4JCS
How I feel watching @gangstonc and @Matt discuss Mueller, Trump, the Investigation and anything to do with Northbound and Southbound politics.

 
KoD

KoD

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Sustaining Member
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
697
Location
Huntsville, AL
Matt said:
What he did yesterday was unethical and not his job. His job was to find evidence of a crime. He did not so he should shut the hell up.
Click to expand...
He did the job he was assigned better than anyone else could IMO. He kept a lid on things and didn't utter a public word for two years. You think he's a dirty rat because he was tasked with investigating your hero. Do you consider yourself a far right person or do you think you're more of a moderate? Just curious.
 
Kory

Kory

Member
Messages
4,928
Reaction score
2,119
Location
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Louisiana’s Democrat governor John Bel Edwards has signed an abortion bill nearly identical to Alabama’s. He’s still a louse that has driven Louisiana’s economy into the ground and let it slip further back in 50th place but at least he has somewhat of a moral compass.
 
E

Evan

Member
Messages
2,292
Reaction score
1,470
Location
McCalla, AL
Matt said:
Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the DOJ and Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsels office reled the following joint statement;


The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.

Mueller is a dirty rotten rat!
Click to expand...

Your claim is completely nonsensical. Mueller's report and recent statement made it clear the reasons he did not attempt to charge Trump with obstruction, and one of the main ones (if not the primary reason) was the OLC memo.

From Mueller's statement yesterday:

"We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.



The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President."

Here is what Bill Barr was asked and what he said at his mid-April press conference...

Reporter:

"Mr. Attorney General, we don't have the report in hand. So could you explain for us the special counsel's articulated reason for not reaching a decision on obstruction of justice and if it had anything to do with the department's long-standing guidance on not indicting a sitting president?"

Barr's response:

"I would leave it to his description in the report, the special counsel's own articulation of why he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction offense (Barr says this with a straight face RIGHT AFTER the reporter says WE DO NOT HAVE THE REPORT).

But I will say that when we met with him, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I met with him, along with Ed o'Callaghan, who is the principal associate deputy, on March 5th. We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. (Barr is clearly dissembling here. The reporter was very clear in asking if the OLC memo had ANYTHING to do with Mueller's decision not to make a decision on obstruction. The only appropriate answer was that it did. Instead, Barr gives an answer to a question the reporter didn't ask and does so by spinning what Mueller actually said in his report to be as favorable towards Trump as possible by parsing what Mueller said in a way that is extremely misleading.)

And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime." (Barr is outright lying here. Mueller never ever said anything of the sort. Mueller was UNABLE to come to a determination in either direction because of all the reasons mentioned above. That is significantly different than saying "Mueller made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime." That is papably misleading because Mueller made it clear he wasn't making a determination one way OR the other because he COULDN'T. Barr's duplicitousness is on full display in this statement. No one can read this and think that Barr was giving a good-faith overview of what Mueller's report said. There's zero chance Barr would have tried to lie like that if reporters already had access to the report. There's absolutely no reason to claim Mueller didn't determine that Trump commited a crime without also adding that Mueller also didn't determine if he DID commit a CRIME because he wasn't allowed to by DOJ policy.)

Look, you cannot look at Barr's two press conferences, testimony before Congress, and his two letters and claim our well-educated Attorney General just somehow managed to repeatedly misrepresent and misinterpret one of the most important events of his career and adult life. If it was one, or two, or even three discrepancies I could see giving Barr the benefit of the doubt. Hell, if it were even a half-dozen discrepancies. But when you actually look at Barr's numerous interpretive statements, summaries, and recollections of conversations and events it is clear he has lied, dissembled, misrepresented, obfuscated, mislead, and contradictorily parsed well over a dozen different key items and points about the Mueller investigation and report.

Bill Clinton has nothing on William Barr. Even Slick Willy wasn't nearly as brazen (or as talented) at lying and misleading the American people as William Barr is. It's disgusting...
 
skelly

skelly

Member
Messages
521
Reaction score
114
Location
Birmingham
Arcadia said:
On the other side of the coin, I also know plenty of Christians who are Democrats, full-fledged, and support abortion, full stop. Christians who go along with every Democrat agenda on the table, supported Bill Clinton with no regard to the women he abused, and thinks his wife walks on water, that Trump stole the election, and Republicans hate women. There are bad Christians ready to support bad people for all sorts of bad reasons. Do you know how many Catholics call themselves Democrats, a party who supports abortion in all stages? These people, mind you, are what we call cafeteria Catholics. They pick from what the Catholic Church teaches they want to believe and keep that on their plate and skip over the rest, like it's a salad bar. But the number of people who identify as Democrat/Catholic is mind-boggling. Nancy Pelosi calls herself a Catholic, a firm supporter of abortion. And you know her policies on other things. There are many just like her. So, while Evangelicals are getting behind Trump and making excuses for his behavior, there are other Christians who do the exact same only on the opposite side. And it's been going on for a long, long time. Maybe it's all coming to a head. But I just find it a little disingenuous that it all gets heaped on Trump's shoulders as if he's the root cause. He isn't. However, I will say that my anger from Trump winning the Republican nomination, and maybe you'll remember this, I said that he will destroy any moral high ground Republicans ever had. I guess by default he's destroying Evangelical morality too. I tried to tell anyone who would listen not to burn the house down because you didn't like the wallpaper. But anger won out. There are consequences to elections. But isn't it funny how no one questions the morality of the Christians who support the Democrat side of this fence? Where is the outrage? I've been outraged for years. I strain to listen but all I hear is silence. No, these Christians get a pass. The ones who support Trump are the ones dragging everything down. And I'm over here just rolling my eyes. It's all excrement.
Click to expand...

Trump is no champion or example for Christian morality but is seen by many as an ally in the struggle against the extreme left while Democrats are now a champion of extreme left causes.
 
G

gangstonc

Member
Messages
2,810
Reaction score
303
Location
Meridianville
G

ghost

Member
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
353
Location
NW AL
Trump's good friend, the dictator of NK, has executed a member of his inner circle because the last summit with the Don didn't go as well as he hoped for. Such a great guy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top