• 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

Not correct^. Barr testifies under oath that Mueller stated directly to him multiple times that the OLC precedent could be challenged if the evidence warranted the challenge.

This is an easily verifiable statement by Barr. Just ask mueller under oath. If Mueller stated this that is a huge ‘win’ for trump and pretty much puts this to rest. If mueller didn’t say this, and Barr is lying, then Barr can be charged with perjury.

Not sure what is so difficult about this process. Seems pretty transparent. If both mueller and Barr agree that the evidence doesn’t warrant prosecution it’s dead. That can be determined by just asking mueller. If if mueller states it does warrant prosecution then the question is why didn’t he recommend it in the first place? He certainly had that authority.
 
There’s nothing ambiguous about several of Mueller’s findings about obstruction. He lists the elements, addresses them, then addresses the legal burden (substantial evidence).

And I don’t know how many other ways to say it: mueller did not make a determination because of the DOJ regulations. He left it to congress to determine impeachment and left it to the AG to determine prosecution.
 
May 15 tentative date for Mueller to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.
 
Wrangor said:
Not correct^. Barr testifies under oath that Mueller stated directly to him multiple times that the OLC precedent could be challenged if the evidence warranted the challenge.

This is an easily verifiable statement by Barr. Just ask mueller under oath. If Mueller stated this that is a huge ‘win’ for trump and pretty much puts this to rest. If mueller didn’t say this, and Barr is lying, then Barr can be charged with perjury.

Not sure what is so difficult about this process. Seems pretty transparent. If both mueller and Barr agree that the evidence doesn’t warrant prosecution it’s dead. That can be determined by just asking mueller. If if mueller states it does warrant prosecution then the question is why didn’t he recommend it in the first place? He certainly had that authority.
Click to expand...

How many times does Barr have to lie, under oath to Congress for you to stop believing him?

Mueller wrote a letter to Barr stating Barr misrepresented what was in the report. It clearly pissed Barr off, because he said so on national TV. Barr asked why couldn't Mueller just call him. The reason is very simple. By doing a call, there is no evidence.

Mueller didn't believe he had the authority to indict Trump due to the DOJ rule.
 
Seems strange that Mueller would say something mulitple times to Barr that doesn't seem consistent with his report.
 
Wrangor said:
Not correct^. Barr testifies under oath that Mueller stated directly to him multiple times that the OLC precedent could be challenged if the evidence warranted the challenge.

This is an easily verifiable statement by Barr. Just ask mueller under oath. If Mueller stated this that is a huge ‘win’ for trump and pretty much puts this to rest. If mueller didn’t say this, and Barr is lying, then Barr can be charged with perjury.

Not sure what is so difficult about this process. Seems pretty transparent. If both mueller and Barr agree that the evidence doesn’t warrant prosecution it’s dead. That can be determined by just asking mueller. If if mueller states it does warrant prosecution then the question is why didn’t he recommend it in the first place? He certainly had that authority.
Click to expand...

Proven guilty or not, it's weird that people choose to support him for no reason.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with Mueller testifying...I mean we know what he is going to do in that testimony. He is going to pull a reverse James Comey. He is going to spout a lot of things that says Trump is an awful human being (like Comey did with Hillary), and then he is still not going to recommend charges (because doing so would nullfy his report, and he would have to answer for that...). Democrats know this, and it is good political fodder, but Trump should just shut his mouth. Let Mueller testify and then if strays from his report, you can rip him on it for lying/being inconsistent and say he is not to be trusted. If he simply repeats the report, good for him, that is what he should do...

Nothing in that report is really all that damaging to Trump. Everyone knows the guy is an unstable egomaniac. Only thing Mueller could do to hurt trump would be to actually recommend an obstruction charge, and if he does that then Mueller opens himself up to being untrustworthy because he didn't make that recommendation in the first place.
 
WakeandBake said:
Still just making shit up. Recommending charges now makes him untrustworthy? Lol
Click to expand...

If he recommends charges now then that is inconsistent with him not recommending charges in his report released a few weeks ago. That inconsistency will make his testimony unreliable. Doesn't mean that charges shouldn't be filed, but as an investigator you can't finalize your results with a recommendation and then change that recommendation a few weeks later. At that point you are just disagreeing with yourself, so people can choose which Mueller they want to believe (and both sides will pick the one favorable to their already held opinion). Not sure why that is a difficult concept.
 
It’s not difficult, it’s just your made up conclusion that doesn’t hold water. Congressional testimony is not the same as an investigative report. They have different purposes and different formats. As for the American public, this has devolved for any reasonable observer not into whether or not he obstructed, but whether or not he can get away with it. A recommendation of charges by Mueller will only bolster the case against trump, which is why your party’s leader is crying like a bitch
 
Wrangor said:
If he recommends charges now then that is inconsistent with him not recommending charges in his report released a few weeks ago. That inconsistency will make his testimony unreliable. Doesn't mean that charges shouldn't be filed, but as an investigator you can't finalize your results with a recommendation and then change that recommendation a few weeks later. At that point you are just disagreeing with yourself, so people can choose which Mueller they want to believe (and both sides will pick the one favorable to their already held opinion). Not sure why that is a difficult concept.
Click to expand...

You don't get at all. The DOJ has an inane policy that a POTUS cannot be indicted or charged while in office. He wouldn't be being inconsistent.

You've basically been wrong about all your posts on this thread and everyone is agreed that you are wrong.
 
Wrangor said:
If he recommends charges now then that is inconsistent with him not recommending charges in his report released a few weeks ago. That inconsistency will make his testimony unreliable. Doesn't mean that charges shouldn't be filed, but as an investigator you can't finalize your results with a recommendation and then change that recommendation a few weeks later. At that point you are just disagreeing with yourself, so people can choose which Mueller they want to believe (and both sides will pick the one favorable to their already held opinion). Not sure why that is a difficult concept.
Click to expand...

I don't know that there was a specific recommendation in the report though. I don't think Mueller ever said "Nope, no charges warranted." He wrote the report and turned it over the guy that would be making the decision. It is totally possible that Mueller might disagree with the decision that Barr made, and we already know that Mueller, in writing, disagrees with, at least, some of Barr's characterization of the report and the way it's release has been handled.
 
birdman said:
I don't know that there was a specific recommendation in the report though. I don't think Mueller ever said "Nope, no charges warranted." He wrote the report and turned it over the guy that would be making the decision. It is totally possible that Mueller might disagree with the decision that Barr made, and we already know that Mueller, in writing, disagrees with, at least, some of Barr's characterization of the report and the way it's release has been handled.
Click to expand...

Mueller NEVER said anything like "no charges warranted". No matter how many times Wrangor insists this is so won't make it so.
 
Mueller directly says if they could’ve cleared Trump of obstruction, they would have.
 
JManslow said:
Mueller directly says if they could’ve cleared Trump of obstruction, they would have.
Click to expand...

This. What will happen is Mueller’s testimony will line up with his report and contradict Barr’s spin and Wrangor will claim Mueller is lying.
 
"This is the end of my presidency. Im fucked...because Im so innocent."
 
Last edited:
Wrangor seems to be going out of his way to misinterpret the Mueller report. Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top