Discussing politics and religion

Flooring Forum

Help Support Flooring Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The truth came out just like when he got elected and some folks freaked out.................. the media virtually promised then and after the Muller report what they wanted to happen. Both times the media hopeful BS didn't come true. ....and the libs think the that FOX is biased. :rolleyes:
Libs fall hook line and sinker time after time. Time for a Trump slam dunk to show that the main stream media's bias doesn't work during elections.
 
If Bar's redactions or FBI redactions , hide FBI methods, locations or FBI employee names......... or other stuff that we obviously don't want released.................... the dems want to release it anyway???
They really don't want those FBI names and places told. I do believe the Dems care about national security to some extent .............. It's just a frantic attempt to make noise asking/demanding the entire Mueller report be released.
Was Bill Clinton's entire report released? I really don't know, traditionally those things aren't.
Buncha noise about nothing from the Dems who have done nor attempted anything constructive since 2016 except add to their humongous whine collection.
 
Mueller spent 2+ years investigating collusion, ...didn't find any, and the Democrats don't believe him? They need to go get a job............ maybe building roads or a wall of something. Just sore losers.
 
Obstruction of Justice. The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President most of which have been the subject of public reporting that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.

The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
WTF does that mean? It's hogwash. It is exclusively Barr's opinion. Most likely not the truth from the little fat guy.
 
Last edited:
Mueller wasn't specifically investigating "collusion" with Russia. The first part of his investigation was to determine whether or not the Russians interfered in the election: They did. Hence the indictments. Again, if you read Barr's letter he said there was no coordination between Trump & his campaign people with the Russian GOVERNMENT. It didn't say there was no coordination with Russian mob, Wikileaks, or others. Also, it specifically said it was BEFORE the election- nothing about any coordination AFTER the election. Remember that they opened another investigation to see if Trump was coordinating with Putin/Russia NOW. Barr's letter completely skipped over that part. It didn't mention that the Russians hacked the RNC. It has vast omissions.

Meanwhile the grand jury is still going. Mueller's part as SCO might possibly be over, but the investigations, indictments, & prosecutions are not. Barr may have said there were no sealed indictments from the SCO, but that doesn't mean there aren't more from other agencies. Furthermore, it would be illegal for Barr to even comment/confirm that there are sealed indictments because that is private/classified.
 
0.jpg
 
Well, don't call Avenatti bc he's in jail. Accused of trying to blackmail Nike over something. He had aspirations to run for president but wasn't getting enough attention.

I see there is now some guy named Pete Buttigieg (sp?) who is running for president. Sadly, I think he may lose on his surname alone bc there are people shallow enough to refuse to vote if they can't pronounce or don't like the name. I've had defense attorneys tell me that they questioned juries about their decisions on court cases & some honestly told them they voted "not guilty" because they didn't like the prosecutor's tie. I almost regret that I wasn't interested in/invested in politics at all when I was younger. It just seemed like something that didn't affect me & that I didn't need to care/worry about. I know people in their 20s who feel the same way. I understand why they think/feel that way, but it's still a bit disheartening.

Did anyone see the footage of the congressman (I think from Utah?) who was blathering on about the solution to all of our problems "is babies". Not only did he come off as a total kook, but he completely missed the irony that with the way things are going, people can't afford to have babies. Delivering a baby in the hospital can cast $20k+. Then there's the childcare, food, diapers, medical care, etc.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top