Mueller: Letter to Barr says Summary, “Failed to Capture Context, Nature & Substance” of Report

Clinton isn't president, Trump is.

It's certainly ironic that we were going to stuck with a corrupt president either way..... but here we are and you are defending the GOP version of Hillary Clinton.....

You are the current hypocrite as I could care less about Clinton at this point. It's your boy Trump that is pulling a Hillary and you are fine with it. Savvy?

 

By extension ANY righty who ever screamed "Lock her up!" or advocated legal repercussions for Hillary Clinton that doesn't demand the same for Trump is a hypocrite. I'm sure you feel great outrage at all of them.

 

Oh there was plenty of Russian bait but Trump didn’t take that bait to the establishments dismay. As for the obstruction, In case you missed it earlier just pay attention to around the :30-:40 segment.

 

I mean his campaign manager shared information with the Russians and they tried to get the Clinton emails on Trump's order (per the Report)......Trump's campaign didn't need any bait....

As for obstruction... It begs the question, how'd Trump know he'd be completely innocent to allow himself to get members of his government to lie for him? That's some serious circular reasoning..... we almost need to take this over to the END GAME SPOILERS thread to plan out all the possible timelines where Trump could have known he'd be innocent on obstruction despite his actions....

 

ur merely parroting the script being spin by Trumpeteers.

Trump's acts of obstruction of justice are related, not limited, to these crimes

• asking Comey to drop the investigation on Flynn's crime of lying to the FBI
• instructing Cohen to
  • lie about the existence of hush payments to the p*rn star and the playmate; the crime is evading campaign finance disclosure
  • lie to Congress about Trump Co's on-goring discussion w Russia regarding Trump Tower Moscow, while Trump was campaigning for the office of President
• etc.

 

False. Most of the Democratic candidates support most of those platforms. The only real outlier is Sander's being for felons in jail voting.

Of course a Democrat would see it that way, because that's essentially the entire Democratic rhetoric, and has been for decades.

FWIW, I'm not a Republican. Have voted independent or libertarian for quite some time.

The only real problem with this statement is that most of it is false. Not that that tends to bother you.

 

Well, not just a hypocrite. But someone who is only regurgitating rhetoric, doesn't actually have a shred of credibility to stand on, and should therefore be discounted.

But, eagerly awaiting all the evidence of similar posts for the above. Not expecting any, but still eagerly awaiting!

We will consider absence of such as admittance that you actually have zero issue with obstruction.

 

For the reading impaired: "Nor am I going to do your research for you. If you've gotten this far without understanding what is happening in your party, nothing I say is likely to change that...nor would I even want it to change. So, zero incentive to perform a task that has no benefit. "

And what other cop outs are you referring to? Please do elaborate.

So, pray tell...what incentive do I have? If I do it...will you publicly admit you were totally wrong? You want me to spend a few hours compiling stuff on YOUR candidates...which you will discount even if I do it...so...why should I bother? Please do tell....

 

What about that last statement is false?

 

You are dealing with a president who is a criminal in plain site - what research are you seeking when the POTUS has already in the open committed offenses that should have him impeached if not criminal charges.

 

We are talking about Trump supporters?

You have zero issue with obstruction and having globalist connections when it’s your own.

The irony that Trump supporters with “lock her up” are taking this position...

 

Could you imagine if Hillary appointed an AG to declare that a president couldn’t obstruct justice...

 

Or if Hilary just didn't show up to the Benghazi hearings.

 

No, she was merely the Secretary of State and nominee for President.

Meanwhile:

1. Apparently you agree the Clinton should have faced trial for her alleged crimes?
2. You're right. Trump is President. And as Mueller stated it is against Justice Department policy to charge sitting President's with crimes which is why no charging decision was made.

I'm defending the precedent set by the investigation of Clinton. I didn't agree with it at the time, but since we as a country decided that alleged crimes made by the powerful (proven or not) are to be forgiven regardless, so be it.

No. The precedent was set by Clinton, Comey, Lynch and their supporters when they refused to prosecute. I'm consistent in the application of obstruction charges as set forth by the Clinton case.

 

So many conservatives soiling their pants.

 

I'm for the consistent application of the law. At the time Clinton was getting her free pass, I was absolutely for Obstruction charges. But since politics got in the way of that, it seems only fair that we follow consistent application of the new standards the Lynch and Comey Justice Dept put in place concerning application of obstruction.

 

Lol... that sounds like the long way of saying Clinton ain’t so bad when you call her Trump.

 

Free pass? The GOP controlled congress couldn’t find anything to nail her with?

Maybe your side is more hat than cattle.... what happened to the Uranium One thing.... any day now huh?

Lol

 

You realize all this is being investigated right now by the Justice Dept Inspector General and the Attorney General as well right?

 

It's my long way of saying your support of Clinton's obstruction has consequences that goes beyond her. Nice work.