This OP is ironic to the point of being humorous seeing that we now can see the report and know that is exactly what Barr attempted to do
Not the point of the thread.
The point of the thread is the “sides” trying to get their version of what they believe the report says-not whether what they say is the truth.
But you knew that and needed to deflect to defend the side you approve of. We get it, Doug.
1 Like
And? Vvvvvvvvv
I am impartial.
I stated from the beginning nothing would come of this from a legal standpoint. Right from the beginning.
However “not technically illegal” has never been a standard I’ve chosen to limit myself to.
As for being “an integral part of the process”, no it is not.
There is nothing that states he has to give a press conference and then advocate as Trump’s attorney (which he is not, but even FoxNews stated he was acting like he was. Oh I forgot…that’s the “liberal plant” Chris Wallace that said that).
Are you seriously taking umbrage at that tactic?
The Mueller report itself would have nothing about the redactions. That happened after it was given to the DOJ and Mueller had nothing to do with it. Covered in the press conference.
There was clarification about not using the “don’t indict a sitting President” in the press conference.
Yes, the Mueller report is provided to the DOJ where Barr and his people decide how to process it. That is indeed part of the process.
Impartial.
Funny…
Ah nope it means that there IS evidence, just not enough.
Please give me the written part of the process that states the AG must give a press conference and offer anything more than a technical description of the process of what went into the report, how what was redacted was decided, and anything other than the legal basis for what was or wasn’t charged.
Don’t hurry…I’ll wait.
Which means what genius? It’s not enough to convict. What do we call that in this country? Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Wait all you want. He had vital information to add, not spin. It should have been appreciated and no doubt was by those who are truly impartial and want to know the truth.
It means that there IS evidence, not that there is NO evidence. There is a difference.
So what? The difference is moot. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. There isn’t enough evidence PROVING he’s guilty. Keep beating that dead horse though. 
Then you believe Hillary is innocent right?
Sure. When have I said otherwise? I mean it’s not like Comey said he wouldn’t recommend charges against her for obstruction despite the evidence he had that she’d actually committed obstruction because she just didn’t know any better or anything. Oh wait.
With all due respect, Stay on topic. Amateur psychology is not your strong point.
simma down
Hillary has never been indicted for any crimes, but my radio keeps telling me that she is guilty.
Comey said she was guilty. He still recommended no charges be brought against her though.
Nice! The big R has a sarcastic streak. I love it!
BTW. Have you considered changing your profile pic? Just sayin.
1 Like
If Hillary is really guilty, then she should of been indicted under the Republican run DOJ. The Republicans have been running the DOJ for over 26 months.
