Discussion of the Mueller Report

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Again quote the text of Mueller's report. I am not interested in your interpretation of why Mueller did not charge the President.

Quote the text in the Mueller's report that is an actual finding of fact that Mueller factually found that the President obstructed justice and that Mueller did not recommend charging the President for his crime of obstructing based solely on the OLC opinion.

I already did!

#413 dude...

SMTW: Show me.
ET: Shows you.
SMTW: You're deflecting.
ET: Explains what he showed you.
SMTW: Show me again.

Jokes...

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Tom

You are nothing more than a joke to many here.
You thing you are God's gifdt to us all, but His gift is actually humore - yo make such an ass of yourself over andover, like just now, claiming SMTW changed the subject when you were asked to proved your comments.

Not the first time, not the last.
You are our

And talk about whataboutit. YOu get called names so it's ok for you to do it......3rd grade at best. Mostly what we expect from you.

I get it...

Nobody likes to be made a fool...

Remember when you said the reporting about Mueller people being unhappy with Barr was fake news? Fun times.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I already did!

#413 dude...

SMTW: Show me.
ET: Shows you.
SMTW: You're deflecting.
ET: Explains what he showed you.
SMTW: Show me again.

Jokes...

Where is there a finding of fact that the President should be charged with obstruction, as he obstructed justice, and Mueller did not recommend charging the President solely on the OLC opinion.

The report contains only a discussion of the OLC opinion and Mueller found he could charge the President, notwithstanding the OLC opinion, with obstruction.

The actual finding in contained in the fourth finding "...this report does not conclude the President committed a crime...".

Your post contradicts your claim that the President was not charged with obstruction solely based on the OLC opinion. Without a conclusion that the President committed a crime, the OLC opinion has no relevance and no impact on Mueller's failure to charge the President with obstruction.

For someone who read the report you are having a difficult time proving your claims with the Report's text. Maybe you read it but you certainly don't understand the report.

Again, Mueller concluded he could not factually find that the President committed a crime.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Where is there a finding of fact that the President should be charged with obstruction, as he obstructed justice, and Mueller did not recommend charging the President solely on the OLC opinion.

The report only is a discussion of the OLC opinion and Mueller found he could charge the President, notwithstanding the OLC opinion, with obstruction.

The actual finding in contained in the fourth finding "...this report does not conclude the President committed a crime...".

Your post contradicts your claim that the President was not charged with obstruction solely based on the OLC opinion. Without a conclusion that the President committed a crime, the OLC opinion has no relevance and no impact.

Dude...

You are asked why Mueller did not provide a up-down yes or no indictment...

I explained to you why he chose to decline the decision 1,2,3, and 4. I answered your question. It also differs with how Barr presented the facts in his letter.

Point blank period.

Shorter version for the proles...

OLC determines President can't be indicted(1). Also, if ignored, OLC opinion is that the President can't be prosecuted(2). Therefore, a declination was issued because it would be unfair if you ignored (1) but can't prosecute because of (2) this is (3).

It finishes with saying if it could exonerate the President it would (4). Then goes on to discuss separation of powers.

No wonder you guys don't read these things... you can't comprehend them... its literally right there!

Jokes...

[Burls]

Originally Posted by Tom

Better than that, the guy who did read it the AG, and HE made the decision....don't how you do it uy there, out of our country, but down here, those reports are not issued for public vote.

No collusion with RUSSIANS.

That's right, kids.

Why wouldn't you take the word of a shameless sycophant:

1) who only got the AG job by submitting an unsolicited 19 page
"opinion" that a sitting US President CANNOT be indicted and

2) was called "Coverup-General Barr" by William Safire in 1992
for his Iran-Contra shenangins?

You DO NOT need to read anything for yourself!
Simply watch tonight's episode of 'Hannity' on FauxNews
for explicit instructions on what you believe about the Mueller Report.

I repeat.
Do NOT attempt to think for yourself or do your own research.
Simply watch 'Hannity' on Faux News, or, if you miss it,
memorize Doofus Drumph's latest tweets.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Dude...

You are asked why Mueller did not provide a up-down yes or no indictment...

I explained to you why he chose to decline the decision 1,2,3, and 4. I answered you question. It also differs with how Barr presented the facts in his letter.

Point blank period.

OLC determines President can't be indicted. Also, if ignored, OLC opinion is that the President can't be prosecuted. Therefore, a declination was issued because it would be unfair if you ignored (1) but can't prosecute because of (2).

It finishes with saying if it could exonerate the President it would. Then goes on to discuss separation of powers.

No wonder you guys don't read these things... you can't comprehend them... its literally right there!

Jokes...

Dude I asked you to quote the text and findings of the report to support your claim. I did not ask for your interpretation of why. Again, dude, the finding of fact I quoted from the report's text the Special Counsel, "....this report does not conclude the President committed a crime...".

I am still waiting for your finding of fact from the report that the President committed a crime. Once you prove your claim with such a finding from the report, then we can have a conversation about the impact of the OLC opinion, if any.

Why are you having such a difficult time providing the actual findings form the report's text, if it is literary right there? You sound like Schiff.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Burls

That's right, kids.

Why wouldn't you take the word of a shameless sycophant:

1) who only got the AG job by submitting an unsolicited 19 page
"opinion" that a sitting US President CANNOT be indicted and

2) was called "Coverup-General Barr" by William Safire in 1992
for his Iran-Contra shenangins?

You DO NOT need to read anything for yourself!
Simply watch tonight's episode of 'Hannity' on FauxNews
for explicit instructions on what you believe about the Mueller Report.

I repeat.
Do NOT attempt to think for yourself or do your own research.
Simply watch 'Hannity' on Faux News, or, if you miss it,
memorize Doofus Drumph's latest tweets.

I mean...

They literally don't think for themselves...

Read the Barr Letter then read the Mueller Letter to Barr... the SECOND letter to Barr... mind you...

Its basically a page of "dude... wtf?" written in office-speak.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Burls

That's right, kids.

Why wouldn't you take the word of a shameless sycophant:

1) who only got the AG job by submitting an unsolicited 19 page
"opinion" that a sitting US President CANNOT be indicted and

2) was called "Coverup-General Barr" by William Safire in 1992
for his Iran-Contra shenangins?

You DO NOT need to read anything for yourself!
Simply watch tonight's episode of 'Hannity' on FauxNews
for explicit instructions on what you believe about the Mueller Report.

I repeat.
Do NOT attempt to think for yourself or do your own research.
Simply watch 'Hannity' on Faux News, or, if you miss it,
memorize Doofus Drumph's latest tweets.

Every President needs a wingman.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Dude I asked you to quote the text and findings of the report to support your claim. I did not ask for your interpretation of why. Again, dude, the finding of fact I quoted from the report's text the Special Counsel, "....this report does not conclude the President committed a crime...".

I am still waiting for your finding of fact from the report that the President committed a crime. Once you prove your claim with such a finding from the report, then we can have a conversation about the impact of the OLC opinion, if any.

Why are you having such a difficult time providing the actual findings form the report's text, if it is literary right there? You sound like Schiff.

Oh for pete's sake... read the damn thing and think for a minute...

....this report does not conclude the President committed a crime...".

From part three that I've now repeated for the 4th damn time... because of (1) and (2) a finding in (3) would be unfair.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.

Then part four...

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.

Would you like a picture next because you keep quoting one tiny part of part 4 while either unknowingly or purposefully ignoring 1 thru 3. Hell you're ignoring the purpose of 4 for that matter...

Drop it man... this is a losing argument...

You asked for disagreements between Barr and Mueller. I provided those.

You asked why Mueller didn't indict (or exonerate) the President. I provided those.

I've outlined the disagreement with Mueller and Barr and by quoting back to you the letter Barr wrote have shown you how much of a gap there is between where both landed respectively.

[woodtoo]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Oh for pete's sake... read the damn thing and think for a minute...



From part three that I've now repeated for the 4th damn time... because of (1) and (2) a finding in (3) would be unfair.



Then part four...



Would you like a picture next because you keep quoting one tiny part of part 4 while either unknowingly or purposefully ignoring 1 thru 3. Hell you're ignoring the purpose of 4 for that matter...

Drop it man... this is a losing argument...

You asked for disagreements between Barr and Mueller. I provided those.

You asked why Mueller didn't indict (or exonerate) the President. I provided those.

I've outlined the disagreement with Mueller and Barr and by quoting back to you the letter Barr wrote have shown you how much of a gap there is between where both landed respectively.

You can blither and blather on and on about this and that but it changes nothing. You can suggest and incur all you want but it doesn't change anything. President Trump is innocent of all accusations thrown against him ask Herr Mueller.Joke.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Oh for pete's sake... read the damn thing and think for a minute...



From part three that I've now repeated for the 4th damn time... because of (1) and (2) a finding in (3) would be unfair.



Then part four...



Would you like a picture next because you keep quoting one tiny part of part 4 while either unknowingly or purposefully ignoring 1 thru 3. Hell you're ignoring the purpose of 4 for that matter...

Drop it man... this is a losing argument...

You asked for disagreements between Barr and Mueller. I provided those.

You asked why Mueller didn't indict (or exonerate) the President. I provided those.

I've outlined the disagreement with Mueller and Barr and by quoting back to you the letter Barr wrote have shown you how much of a gap there is between where both landed respectively.

Again your opinions.

Why can't you quote the finding of fact that the President committed a crime? Because there isn't one. On the issue of obstruction Mueller factually found he could not conclude the President committed a crime.

You are trying to say that Mueller is precluded from finding the President committed a crime due to the OLC opinion, which is not what the report states.

The report states Mueller, notwithstanding the OLC opinion had the power to charge the President with a crime. The problem. Per the report, Mueller's investigation did not find a crime to charge the President with, so the OLC opinion has no impact.

All you are arguing is your opinion, which is not supported by the factual findings of the Mueller report.

You can keep on repeating your erroneous opinion, but it is not a fact on which you can prove your claim that the OLC opinion precluded Mueller from finding that a crime was committed.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

You can blither and blather on and on about this and that but it changes nothing. You can suggest and incur all you want but it doesn't change anything. President Trump is innocent of all accusations thrown against him ask Herr Mueller.Joke.

Especially, since the tiny part of four is the important finding that the President did not commit any crimes he could be charged with.

ELY erroneously believes that I don't understand that he is trying to conflate the ability to find as a finding of fact that the President committed a crime, with the ability to indict the President.

The two items are separate and distinct. While it is true the OLC opinion prevents the DoJ from indicting a sitting president, it does not preclude that a finding of a crime by a president, which the president can be indicted for after he leaves office.

After all CNN and MSNBC were actively pushing this scenario, a finding of a crime, removal by impeachment and prosecution.

[woodtoo]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Especially, since the tiny part of four is the important finding that the President did not commit any crimes he could be charged with.

Russia,Russia, Russia no damn collusion no crime!! Ely can scrape the bottom of the report till the cows come home. Joke.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Again your opinions.

Why can't you quote the finding of fact that the President committed a crime? Because there isn't one. On the issue of obstruction Mueller factually found he could not conclude the President committed a crime.

You are trying to say that Mueller is precluded from finding the President committed a crime due to the OLC opinion, which is not what the report states.

The report states Mueller, notwithstanding the OLC opinion had the power to charge the President with a crime. The problem. Per the report, Mueller's investigation did not find a crime to charge the President with, so the OLC opinion has no impact.

All you are arguing is your opinion, which is not supported by the factual findings of the Mueller report.

You can keep on repeating your erroneous opinion, but it is not a fact on which you can prove your claim that the OLC opinion precluded Mueller from finding that a crime was committed.

I'm explaining to you the rationale for why Mueller reached his conclusions in a short and concise quoting of a 400+ page report. He is punting it to Congress.

I'm quoting to you his refusal to say whether or not the President committed a crime and his rationale for doing so... while also quoting back to you that if he could exonerate he would.

Finally, I am quoting the Barr letter back to you in comparison to the actual report to show you there is Canyon's between their rationale.

Fine... though...

You want to be this obtuse we can just wait until Mueller testifies and we can come back to how far off you are... he's already agreed to do so... reported today.

I'll await the standard "Posts that didn't age well" mockery.

I do not understand why you, who appear to be intelligent, are picking such a stupid hill to fight on that will be washed out from under you shortly.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I'm explaining to you the rationale for why Mueller reached his conclusions in a short and concise quoting of a 400+ page report. He is punting it to Congress.

I'm quoting to you his refusal to say whether or not the President committed a crime and his rationale for doing so... while also quoting back to you that if he could exonerate he would.

Finally, I am quoting the Barr letter back to you in comparison to the actual report to show you there is Canyon's between their rationale.

Fine... though...

You want to be this obtuse we can just wait until Mueller testifies and we can come back to how far off you are... he's already agreed to do so... reported today.

I'll await the standard "Posts that didn't age well" mockery.

I do not understand why you, who appear to be intelligent, are picking such a stupid hill to fight on that will be washed out from under you shortly.

As I have been saying all along you are giving your opinion. Dude, I asked you to prove your claims (opinion) with the actual findings of the report.

Is Mueller going to testify that his 400 plus page report is incomplete? Is he going to add additional findings? If he does it will be very interesting if he tries to amend his written findings with testimony. Only more proof of his incompetence, if he does, and a certain end to any credibility he may have left.

I really doubt Mueller is going to testify that his report's finding of facts are erroneous.