“There’s nothing wrong with taking information from Russians,” Rudy Giuliani

We need a bunch of people’s great grandfathers to come back from their graves and explain to current republicans what Putin (and people like him) were like back in the day. What the Soviet Union was like. What tactics they used and why we should never trust them even with this Russia v2.7.

Barr clearly mislead the public about the contents of the document. That’s why you keep referring to Barr’s statement instead of what is actually in the report. They outlined numerous times when Trump tried to obstruct justice and other bad behavior.

From the Mueller report we know that:

  1. Tons of Trump’s staff had contacts with the Russians and that they reached out to the Russians for information that they believe would help them win.
  2. Trump and several of his associates lied about what happened and attempted to cover it up. Some of them are in jail due to their lies.
  3. Trump repeatedly tried to remove investigators and wanted to install loyalists who would only look into future elections and not issues with his election.
  4. Many of Trump’s subordinates did not follow his orders as they viewed them as being illegal.

If those facts to you mean “nothing happened” then I’m really curious what would be “something” in your eyes.

4 Likes

Doug you’ve already admitted to say Mueller concluded no obstruction is false.

Please don’t do that thing where you get debunked in one thread and then repeat the same thing in another thread.

Don’t be that kind of debater, OK?

1 Like

I was talking about the DoJ position. Barr represents the DoJ. As far as what the DoJ position is, it really doesn’t matter what Mueller thinks.

And we have no instance, in any case, of Mueller saying Trump committed a crime.
Any other gratuitous statements by Mueller are as indicative of his bias as anything else.

You trusted them with the dossier.

Good gosh. Will you admit that he did not say that Trump obstructed justice? Ok?>

Ah so now you’re arguing Mueller is biased but Barr was completely objective and above board.

THAT’S how you’re getting around repeating debunked arguments.

You’re going to be one of THOSE debaters.

1 Like

So you completely ignore how the Mueller report showed bad activity and keep referring back to Barr even though it’s pretty clear that he whitewashed the contents of the report. Typical.

He outlined many instances of obstruction and unequivocally stated that he left the decision to congress.

I said in one post that Mueller found there was no obstruction when you pointed out and I agreed that I should have said that Mueller said that he could not say that Trump committed obstruction.
A good point, but don’;t make a career out of it.
And here I was saying that the DoJ, not Mueller, found there was no obstruction. You do understand that Barr, not Mueller, speaks for the DoJ, right?

That’s not what you said.

You said it was concluded there was no obstruction.

That is NOT what was concluded…now you’re trying to make a false equivalence.

Words mean things.

One of my favorites is fat donald asking McGhan to fire Mueller and McGhan refusing to do so while yelling profanities.

1 Like

Another one of my favorites is fat donald asking Sessions to un-recuse himself so he could fire Mueller and take over the investigation…un-recuse himself. :rofl:

I liked that part too.

Words do mean something. I just posted that I had made one error in saying that Mueller concluded that there was no obstruction. That is exactly what I said in one post and corrected it. Can you ever forgive me?
I don’t really understand at what you are onto now. You seem to believe I said I didn’t say that. That is not what I said. Words do have meaning with some people.

So your entire argument hangs on to the fact that the person Trump specifically hired knowing that he believed the president could not be convicted of a crime, says Trump didn’t commit collusion, even though the actual investigators did not come to such a conclusion at all?

I know, right?

Absolutely. Passion in government. I want duels on the lawn.

What, you don’t trust the people in the DOJ who defend our country? You trust Democrat politicians instead? I support our law enforcement.
That’s what I had to listen to for a year and ahalf until Comey, McCabe and Strzok were finally removed.

Yes, it matters if the DOJ made a decision of no obstruction. That is the current official governmental position.

Will you admit that Mueller did not say that Trump obstructed justice? If you won’t admit that, then don’t tell me again about words meaning something.