There Simply is no Middle Ground

[apdst]

And, you know, that is completely irrelevant to your contention. Indeed, it is, I believe, intended to be a distraction and diversion from the topic. Kind of proving the OP point, no?

The president has the authority to shut down a counter-intelligence investigation.

 

[Trump]

No worries friend )

Did you listen to the complete Bill Barr testimony to the Senate?

Barr mentions OLC recommendations and Mueller response I'll try and find the clip

found it....Grassley asks about it @ 1:05:00
YouTube

Again, it is obvious you don't understand or have not read the report. Why is it that so many people here stubbornly refuse to read it? I really don't understand, other than blatant partisanship, why so many lies are told about Mueller and the report.

Waiting for reply.

 

[Phys251]

You've never seen me call the scoundrel Trump an innocent man.

That said, it has been obvious from the beginning to this man who voted for neither Trump nor Clinton that the whole idea that Russia stole the election is beyond absurd. All the government men were misbehaving and deceiving, just as they do pretty much every day of their lives.

Wait a minute. You're not one of those people who actually believes that Barr is telling the truth, are you?

 

[NWRatCon]

Waiting for reply.

Oh, that's simple: Barr lied. That assertion directly contradicts the report. It's obvious what Mueller would have said: "I can't say that, because, as I did say, we were precluded from making a decision." ITS IN THE REPORT. I quoted it.

 

[The Mark]

Aww, I was hoping Middleground had showed up to put the lie to the thread title.

 

[TheRepublican]

First I'm not a Democrat, don't get that confused. Second if there is enough truth instead of wild conspiracy theories then Trump can have his DOJ open an investigation but he hasn't.

So you are assuming that trump has something to do with this! Because you are saying if the president hasn’t opened a investigation then he has to be guilty of obstruction

 

[DarkWizard12]

1. tRump may not have actively sought out help from the Russians, but he sure as hell didn't say "no" to that help when it arrived.

What else should he have done, precisely?

 

[TheRepublican]

Oh, that's simple: Barr lied. That assertion directly contradicts the report. It's obvious what Mueller would have said: "I can't say that, because, as I did say, we were precluded from making a decision." ITS IN THE REPORT. I quoted it.

Boy the human lie detectors are very very quick to judge. I bet that they never watched the testimony before

 

[nekrodev]

Who cares

at least you're an HONEST piece of ****

 

[NWRatCon]

Boy the human lie detectors are very very quick to judge. I bet that they never watched the testimony before

Actually, I've watched a LOT of testimony (and elicited a lot of it). But it doesn't take a rocket scientist, a psychologist, or any real expertise to recognize prevarication on this level. Barr is a careful, studied, expert liar, but a liar nonetheless. That was demonstrated when he released his "summary" that was directly contradicted by the actual report. But he was not appearing as AG at that hearing. He appeared as Trump's private counsel. That's a real problem.

 

[Bullseye]

After watching the incredible levels of denial from the Trumpkins tonight, I conclude that there is no compromising with these people.

Facts:

1. That Trump colluded with the Russians is all over the Mueller Report.


2. That Trump obstructed justice is even more evident in it.


So, until we see the wrong side begin to agree to a few basic facts (Hint: guys and gals on the Trumpian Right, you might want to actually read the damned report). I see no reason why those of us who are using actual reality as our measuring stick should ever pay any attention to what they have to say again.

So, enlighten us poor dumb Trumpkins; please provide quotes from the document that backs your "Facts". "It's all over" and "even more evident" means squat.

 

[calamity]

The Trumpkins worship a man who sides with dictators. That's not American.

The Trumpkins worship a demagogue who indulges in bigotry and conspiracy theories. That's not American.

The Trumpkins have little respect for the rule of law or the Constitution. That is definitely not American.


Yes, there is no reason to ever give a Trumpkin quarter.

 

[NWRatCon]

So, enlighten us poor dumb Trumpkins; please provide quotes from the document that backs your "Facts". "It's all over" and "even more evident" means squat.

Well, there is no enlightening some Trumpkins, at least the "dumb" ones (your description, not mine), but there are plenty of quotes from the report (you apparently STILL haven't read) to back up the assertion that obstruction is demonstrated and well-documented. Here's a sampling for the simples:

This report on our investigation consists of four parts. Section I provides an overview of
obstruction-of-justice principles and summarizes certain investigatory and evidentiary considerations. Section II sets forth the factual results of our obstruction investigation and analyzes the evidence. Section III addresses statutory and constitutional defenses. Section IV states our conclusion.
....
Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President 's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. In particular, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases , reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives. The first phase covered the period from the President 's first interactions with Corney through the President's firing of Corney. During that time , the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation. Soon after the firing of Corney and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point , the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President 's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.

For an easy reading, but pretty thorough analysis of the evidence of the various potential charges, I suggest: Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map by Quinta Jurecic on Lawfareblog.com. Of particular note are the dozen times Mueller cited "Substantial Evidence" to support a charge.

 

[Trump]

Oh, that's simple: Barr lied. That assertion directly contradicts the report. It's obvious what Mueller would have said: "I can't say that, because, as I did say, we were precluded from making a decision." ITS IN THE REPORT. I quoted it.

Wrong...

When and if Mueller testifies in congress you can bet this will be ask 23 different ways...."Did AG Bill Barr lie about your conversation concerning OLC recommendation?"....exciting times )

 

[Trump]

Well, there is no enlightening some Trumpkins, at least the "dumb" ones (your description, not mine), but there are plenty of quotes from the report (you apparently STILL haven't read) to back up the assertion that obstruction is demonstrated and well-documented. Here's a sampling for the simples: For an easy reading, but pretty thorough analysis of the evidence of the various potential charges, I suggest: Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map by Quinta Jurecic on Lawfareblog.com. Of particular note are the dozen times Mueller cited "Substantial Evidence" to support a charge.

you're arguing evidence after Barr rendered the verdict..Mueller had a bite at the apple and passed...game over

 

[TheRepublican]

Actually, I've watched a LOT of testimony (and elicited a lot of it). But it doesn't take a rocket scientist, a psychologist, or any real expertise to recognize prevarication on this level. Barr is a careful, studied, expert liar, but a liar nonetheless. That was demonstrated when he released his "summary" that was directly contradicted by the actual report. But he was not appearing as AG at that hearing. He appeared as Trump's private counsel. That's a real problem.

Did you put your emotions aside

 

[Idiometer]

Eh when its just trumpkins and apologists for white nationalists against everyone else it gets boring after a while. When you are only faced with dishonest actors. I mean these people will just drag themselves through the mud if it means some dirt will get on their enemies. They make **** up in order to whataboutism their way out of any accusation. Maybe its best to just block than drag yourself down.

If one were to block every Trump apologist on this forum, why bother coming here? Some of us enjoy a target rich environment. Just sayin'.

:mrgreen:

 

[Idiometer]

Who cares

Apparently no one on the right, that's clear.

 

[Idiometer]

You sound like the perfect person to decide where the middle ground is.

The point is that there no longer seems to be any middle ground.

 

[Idiometer]

Why didn't Mueller charge Trump?

Because according to the DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel, a sitting president cannot be indicted. Since he could not indict Trump, his only option was to detail his findings and leave charges up to congress as part of their oversight duties. He didn't come straight out and accuse Trump because if he had done so without filing charges in a court of law, the accused would have no legal standing to formally refute the charges, and to Mueller, that would be unfair.

 

[ludin]

Do you ever not lie in your opening post?

nope he hasn't

 

[Idiometer]

It's only obstruction if there was an underlying crime. "Collusion" isn't a crime.

Mueller does not use the word "collusion" in his report. He uses the correct word for it, conspiracy. And even if no criminal conspiracy charges were filed, trying to cover it up is, in fact, obstruction.

How old are you? I'm old enough to remember Watergate, and it wasn't the break-in that lost Nixon his presidency, it was the coverup.

 

[Idiometer]

I didn't see all of it, I admit. I found Barr's testimony both incredible and stomach-churning. (I had to stop watching.) It appalls me that this man is Attorney General. If his testimony was consistent with his previous pronouncements, he is skating on thin ice regarding perjury. In my opinion, he lied about Mueller's findings, but even if it was just deemed "spin" - it was unbecoming of the chief law enforcement official of the United States. In my book, "lies by omission" are just as damning as lies of commission. I use as an example, the Trump statement about the "Trump Tower" meeting. Yes, orphans were discussed, but that wasn't the purpose or content of the meeting. Similarly, Mueller's report found numerous examples of obstruction, but knew he couldn't charge them. He didn't "leave it to Barr" to make the call. That distorts the content beyond meaning.

:2brickwal

You'll never get through with Trump supporters. Reality, facts, logic, reason ... those are just not their things, not when discussing Trump or his toadies.

 

[Trump]

Because according to the DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel, a sitting president cannot be indicted. Since he could not indict Trump, his only option was to detail his findings and leave charges up to congress as part of their oversight duties. He didn't come straight out and accuse Trump because if he had done so without filing charges in a court of law, the accused would have no legal standing to formally refute the charges, and to Mueller, that would be unfair.

Barr testimony refutes OLC recommendation in Mueller report...Barr tells committee Mueller would have charged Trump in spite of OLC recommendation had he had the goods.

1:05:00 Grassley asks about OLC

YouTube

 

[Trump]

Mueller does not use the word "collusion" in his report. He uses the correct word for it, conspiracy. And even if no criminal conspiracy charges were filed, trying to cover it up is, in fact, obstruction.

How old are you? I'm old enough to remember Watergate, and it wasn't the break-in that lost Nixon his presidency, it was the coverup.

Yep...and he was guilty as sin.

side note for those too young....Hillary worked for Watergate Inquiry team as lawyer

Was Hillary Clinton Fired from the Nixon Impeachment Inquiry? | Cato @ Liberty