That doesn’t support your prior claim. What conspiracy is it Mueller was supposedly investigating and what makes some fringe group of kooks even relevant to the discussion?
Anything happen today? I was out golfing.
Did you read the link?
The primary aspect of the theory is that Mueller is secretly working with the Trump administration to investigate the massive Clinton-Obama-FBI-Soros-Sex trafficking-drug dealing-uranium selling conspiracy.
1 Like
Jesus dude I’m not even arguing that isnt the case
I read that they are secretly supposedly trying to expose pedophiles and pretty well gave up.
Once again, how is such a fringe group of conspiracy nuts even relevant to the discussion?
1 Like
You aren’t a criminal unless and until you have been convicted of a crime.
Wrong. If i murder someone, and I only know it, and if i was never brought to trial or convicted, I still murdered someone and broke the law. Sorry, but thats just how reality works
It’s a fine line to argue between ‘convicted criminal’ and criminal but you’ve found your huckleberry.
On the flip side, it’s a relief to end debate on whether or not Hillary is criminal.
The once CNN merrymakers are huddled together desperatley pouring over papers looking sourpuss. Each one trying to be the first to discover a glimmer of hope that the President is a Russian opertavie. They will pick over the report, every ambiguity, every imagined ommision. They will continue to manufacture conclusions and conspiracies.
At least we now know who here are huge Trump dudes and dudettes.
They can pick what they want its not going to change a damm thing, I trust that Mueller did his job although I think everyone agrees the full report should be made public.
From what I can tell, it’s very similar to the MSM’s “anonymous sources” unnamed sources.
Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction.
Barr swept this under the rug…congrats…we have a corrupt administration in our mists…the very thing cons project
The New York Times and Washington Post each won a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting on Monday, capping off a newsroom battle last year for scoops on links between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia, the focus of an ongoing special counsel investigation into the 2016 election.
It’s always good to know who, after preaching about the national debt and family/Christian Values for decades, gets emotional about Donald Trump not being indicted.
It’s a breath of fresh air for people to come out of the closet.
mad maxine doesnt seem to be taking the news all too well.
Just reading the AG opinion, the basis of Barr’s opinion is that there was no ongoing investigation of the President at the time of Trump’s actions. Therefore, he was not obstructing an investigation involving himself.
IMO it is not for nothing that he explicitly asked Comey if he himself was under investigation before he fired Comey. If he had been under investigation…then obstruction.
Blanket statement?
Or just SOME fans?
Or enough “fans” (namely, 2) so that the use of “fans” (plural) becomes accurate?
I agree with you that if the President had destroyed evidence, altered evidence, suborn perjury or induced witnesses to commit perjury then the President would be guilty of obstruction of justice just like anyone else who did that.
Since there is no evidence that Trump did any of that, Barr and Rosenstein made the correct decisions.
Stay away from Fox news too
