• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation

RJKarl said:
Barr LIED multiple times in his House and Senate appearances. Why would you believe ANYTHING he says?

Barr testified under oath he didn't even LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE in the Mueller Report. This you saying this "Instead the evidence was very hazy" is without any basis in reality.

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION- Given that Barr testified he didn't look at the evidence in the Mueller report, how can he make any of these statements?
Click to expand...

Muellers job was to investigate and report. Barr’s job is read said report and either prosecute or not prosecute.

Are you suggesting that Barr subvert Muellers investigation? Tell mueller “I don’t trust your 18 month million dollar investigation or your team, I want to review that thousands of documents personally!”

You are showing a very keen lack of understanding with how the process works.
 
Wrangor said:
Muellers job was to investigate and report. Barr’s job is read said report and either prosecute or not prosecute.

Are you suggesting that Barr subvert Muellers investigation? Tell mueller “I don’t trust your 18 month million dollar investigation or your team, I want to review that thousands of documents personally!”

You are showing a very keen lack of understanding with how the process works.
Click to expand...

WRONG..Barr TESTIFIED, UNDER OATH that he didn't READ Mueller's report. Mueller's report show TEN obstruction events. Barr said there wasn't any. Barr got the job because he wrote that POTUS CANNOT commit obstruction.

How can ANYONE decide what happened if they don't read the evidence? Barr said he didn't.
 
RJKarl said:
Barr LIED multiple times in his House and Senate appearances. Why would you believe ANYTHING he says?

Barr testified under oath he didn't even LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE in the Mueller Report. This you saying this "Instead the evidence was very hazy" is without any basis in reality.

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION- Given that Barr testified he didn't look at the evidence in the Mueller report, how can he make any of these statements?
Click to expand...

Muellers job was to investigate and report. Barr’s job is read said report and either prosecute or not prosecute.

Are you suggesting that Barr subvert Muellers investigation? Tell mueller “I don’t trust your 18 month million dollar investigation or your team, I want to review that thousands of documents personally!”

You are showing a very keen lack of understanding with how the process works.
 
Wrangor said:
Muellers job was to investigate and report. Barr’s job is read said report and either prosecute or not prosecute.

Are you suggesting that Barr subvert Muellers investigation? Tell mueller “I don’t trust your 18 month million dollar investigation or your team, I want to review that thousands of documents personally!”

You are showing a very keen lack of understanding with how the process works.
Click to expand...


Barr admitted, under oath that he didn't read ANY of the evidence presented in the Mueller Report. What part of this don't you get?

Add to this, Mueller was so outraged by Barr's "summary" that he took the most serious response available to him and sent a letter to memorialize that Barr was lying about Mueller's reaction.

Add to that, Barr flat out lied to the House about not having the letter.

Add to that Barr's lies to the Senate that has some people saying he should impeached and charged with perjury and lying to Congress.

At the heart of your premise is that Barr "read said report". Since Barr stated he didn't, your entire position falls apart.
 
ConnorEl said:
It seems Trump has won the linguistic battle.


The Mueller team absolutely did not determine there was no “collusion” between Trump, his campaign, and Russia.

Only they did not find evidence of criminal conspiracy with respect to the known instances of illegal Russian interference/activity.
Click to expand...

WFFaithful said:
Not to mention that part of the reason he could not find evidence was the defending party obstructed justice by lying, being uncooperative, and DELETING EMAILS.
Click to expand...


Yep.



Also, it’s sadly fascinating how Trump (ever the victim) has successfully spun the narrative (now supported by no less than his sycophantic AG) that he has been “falsely accused” of something (presumably “collusion” or OOJ).


Ummmm....no.

Recognizing that Russia indeed interfered (to Trump’s advantage) and the need to investigate to what extent Trump or Trump’s campaign may have conspired with Russia is not the same as making an accusation that a crime was committed. Determining there was probable cause to investigate =/= claims (or accusations) of criminal activity.

If Trump had allowed the FBI to run its investigation, the concerns about obstruction wouldn’t have come up.
 
RJKarl said:
Barr admitted, under oath that he didn't read ANY of the evidence presented in the Mueller Report. What part of this don't you get?

Add to this, Mueller was so outraged by Barr's "summary" that he took the most serious response available to him and sent a letter to memorialize that Barr was lying about Mueller's reaction.

Add to that, Barr flat out lied to the House about not having the letter.

Add to that Barr's lies to the Senate that has some people saying he should impeached and charged with perjury and lying to Congress.

At the heart of your premise is that Barr "read said report". Since Barr stated he didn't, your entire position falls apart.
Click to expand...

Wrangor is saying that it is not Barr’s job to read the supporting evidence that the report summarizes. What Barr said to Harris is that he didn’t read all the supporting documentation: the affidavits, the interview transcripts, the grand jury documents; he read the report that summarizes all that evidence.

Mueller’s report unfortunately left enough room for interpretation that gives Barr and, worse, senate republicans, the capacity to declare trump technically innocent. Sucks, but is true.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
Yeah he can do exactly that.
Click to expand...

So after an 18 month investigation he is singularly going to review all the evidence. Instead of accepting the non-Partisan 450 page mueller report that summarizes the evidence.

 
birdman said:
Wrangor is saying that it is not Barr’s job to read the supporting evidence that the report summarizes. What Barr said to Harris is that he didn’t read all the supporting documentation: the affidavits, the interview transcripts, the grand jury documents; he read the report that summarizes all that evidence.

Mueller’s report unfortunately left enough room for interpretation that gives Barr and, worse, senate republicans, the capacity to declare trump technically innocent. Sucks, but is true.
Click to expand...

Thank you. That is all I am saying. Asking Barr to review all the underlying evidence is asinine and it would literally take years for a single person to do. It literally took 18 months and 25 million to acquire with a massive team.

That is why Muellers team released a 450 page summary.
 
Wrangor said:
Thank you. That is all I am saying. Asking Barr to review all the underlying evidence is asinine and it would literally take years for a single person to do. It literally took 18 months and 25 million to acquire with a massive team.

That is why Muellers team released a 450 page summary.
Click to expand...

And Barr didn't review the 450 pages.

He lied to the House and Senate.

He told the world he didn't believe any POTUS could commit obstruction. So why would anyone take any "decisions" by him about obstruction seriously?
 
I’m also not claiming that trump is innocent. I am just saying they couldn’t prove anything that would hold up I court. If mueller could have proved it he would have charged trump. He has no reason not to.
 
RJKarl said:
And Barr didn't review the 450 pages.

He lied to the House and Senate.

He told the world he didn't believe any POTUS could commit obstruction. So why would anyone take any "decisions" by him about obstruction seriously?
Click to expand...

Perjury isn’t that difficult to prove. He was under oath. He was reporting on a document that he made public. If he perjured then house should charge him with it (ie: bring charges, not talk to the press). I am more than happy to support Barr going to jail if lied under oath.
 
Wrangor said:
I’m also not claiming that trump is innocent. I am just saying they couldn’t prove anything that would hold up I court. If mueller could have proved it he would have charged trump. He has no reason not to.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm misreading the report, but wasn't the statement that a sitting president couldn't be charged with what he found, but encouraged other agencies and congress to follow the threads included in the report? Also that what happened doesn't meet the high bar of criminality for a president, but way beyond actions becoming of the office or a candidate for the office?

Open to correction if I'm wrong on those conclusions.
 
Wrangor said:
I’m also not claiming that trump is innocent. I am just saying they couldn’t prove anything that would hold up I court. If mueller could have proved it he would have charged trump. He has no reason not to.
Click to expand...

The knowledge that nothing would happen is a big reason not to. Waiting until he’s out of the White House and then moving is just better strategy.

Also, Wrangor, you have made decent points and I get what you’re saying on some stuff, but the “it cost the taxpayers so much money” falls on deaf ears considering that Trump has cost 10x that (and probably more) from staying at his own hotels and golf courses, not to mention how much his tax cut cost taxpayers that weren’t rich.
 
And the investigation paid for itself in the assets Manafort forfeited. It’s amazing how Republicans keep forgetting that.
 
Wrangor said:
Thank you. That is all I am saying. Asking Barr to review all the underlying evidence is asinine and it would literally take years for a single person to do. It literally took 18 months and 25 million to acquire with a massive team.

That is why Muellers team released a 450 page summary.
Click to expand...

I forgot to add #wrangorisbroken
 
Wrangor said:
I’m also not claiming that trump is innocent. I am just saying they couldn’t prove anything that would hold up I court. If mueller could have proved it he would have charged trump. He has no reason not to.
Click to expand...

For the fifth time, this isn’t true.
 
Its hard to believe Wrangor is arguing in good faith when he keeps ignoring the facts.
 
Wrangor said:
I’m also not claiming that trump is innocent. I am just saying they couldn’t prove anything that would hold up I court. If mueller could have proved it he would have charged trump. He has no reason not to.
Click to expand...

That is NOT what Mueller's report said. They said they found TEN obstructions of justice. According to DOJ rules, Mueller could NOT indict Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top