• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mueller Report Released. Thoughts?

esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
LuisDantas said:
At this point, I figure that you have developed impressive perception filtering skills, so I don't think that what you hear or fail to means much either way.

That is a very serious challenge for you right wingers at this moment in history.

That said, I honestly don't know who you are talking about. Surely not Mueller, so who?
.
Click to expand...

Try FBI Director Comey saying that Hillary didn't violate any laws.
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
LuisDantas said:
What of that?
Click to expand...
Should have Comey turned the investigation over to the DOJ for that decision and not made the decision himself.
This is what Muller did, so what is the problem of him doing so?
Am not finding fault with your post concerning this just making a point that Muller did it correctly and Comey did not.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
esmith said:
Should have Comey turned the investigation over to the DOJ for that decision and not made the decision himself.
This is what Muller did, so what is the problem of him doing so?
Am not finding fault with your post concerning this just making a point that Muller did it correctly and Comey did not.
Click to expand...
1. Clinton was not President when Comey made that announcement

2. Actually it is very similar to what Mueller did in respect to conspiracy charges.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Ponder This said:
Long read indeed!
But I'll go with Alan Dershowitz's opinion because he seems to be the most qualified and the best predictor with regards to the entire mess. And he predicted, "this report would be very critical of the president but would not find evidence of illegal collusion or obstruction of justice." And.. he's right, the report is very critical of Trump but it can't find any Obstruction of Justice or Evidence of Illegal Collusion. And he's also commented on the media coverage of the report:
"I think a flunk. Even with the grade inflation, I just think the media comes off awful, terrible, for the most part. I think we're seeing an elimination of the distinction between the editorial page and the news pages in some of the leading media in the country, and that is a shame. Walter Cronkite could not get a job in the media today."​

His words, not mine. I'm curious, for anyone who disagrees with Alan Dershowitz... who are you relying on to give you the fair shake on what's happening? Please don't say you are relying on RF!
Click to expand...
Am I going to be so arrogant as to disagree with Dershowitz?

Yep I am.

Mueller did find lots of evidence of obstruction and he lays it out clearly. The only reason Trump has not been charged with this is because Mueller is going with the idea you can’t indict a sitting President.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
esmith said:
Should have Comey turned the investigation over to the DOJ for that decision and not made the decision himself.
This is what Muller did, so what is the problem of him doing so?
Am not finding fault with your post concerning this just making a point that Muller did it correctly and Comey did not.
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples with oranges - and frankly, you better know that.

Besides, Comey and Mueller had no particular reason to make the same call regarding the matters, to the extent that they are even comparable in the first place.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
LuisDantas said:
You are comparing apples with oranges - and frankly, you better know that.

Besides, Comey and Mueller had no particular reason to make the same call regarding the matters, to the extent that they are even comparable in the first place.
Click to expand...

It is procedure not a question of position. More so the lack of the position makes the procedure easier as it removes a conflict involving the position itself. Clinton was only a citizen at the time.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Shad said:
It is procedure not a question of position. More so the lack of the position makes the procedure easier as it removes a conflict involving the position itself. Clinton was only a citizen at the time.
Click to expand...
Besides, as should have been made clear in the video that I linked to above, there are very significant contrasts.

But that seems to have gone well over @esmith 's head.
 
P

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
fantome profane said:
Am I going to be so arrogant as to disagree with Dershowitz?

Yep I am.

Mueller did find lots of evidence of obstruction and he lays it out clearly. The only reason Trump has not been charged with this is because Mueller is going with the idea you can’t indict a sitting President.
Click to expand...

I would be interested to know who you regard as qualified in this matter that advocates the claim that Mueller did find "lots of evidence of obstruction". Because if there were lots of evidence of obstruction, I find it very difficult to believe that Alan Dershowitz would fail to call it out. If it's your own personal conclusion, then why should I regard you as more qualified (and credible) to make this assessment, then Alan Dershowitz? Can you point me to any qualified individuals? "I post on RF" is not sufficient qualification for me to lend credibility to your claim.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Ponder This said:
I would be interested to know who you regard as qualified in this matter that advocates the claim that Mueller did find "lots of evidence of obstruction". Because if there were lots of evidence of obstruction, I find it very difficult to believe that Alan Dershowitz would fail to call it out. If it's your own personal conclusion, then why should I regard you as more qualified (and credible) to make this assessment, then Alan Dershowitz? Can you point me to any qualified individuals? "I post on RF" is not sufficient qualification for me to lend credibility to your claim.
Click to expand...
Have you read the report? Because if you have read the report I would call you qualified.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
Only the relevant portions.
Or do you claim that only the entirety of the report
supports your claims, not selected portions?
Click to expand...
It is difficult to quote without quoting incredibly large sections. If you would just read it you would understand. And you have a history of demanding other do work for you and then just ignoring it.

But fine. Here is some.

On June 14, 2017, the press reported that the President was being personally investigated for obstruction of justice and the President responded with a series of tweets criticizing the Special Counsel’s investigation. That weekend, the President called McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed because of asserted conflicts of interest. McGahn did not carry out the instruction for fear of being seen as triggering another Saturday Night Massacre and instead prepared to resign. McGahn ultimately did not quit and the President did not follow up with McGahn on his request to have the Special Counsel removed.

...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top