Mueller Report Next Week?

[rogue06]

There's also what's known as "the shoe on the other foot" test, that is, what would Democrats be saying if the subject of the investigation were one of their own?

We already know the answer to that question. That was the reason that the Democrat-controlled Congress restricted what could be released what could and could not be released after the Starr report.

[Mountain Man]

We already know the answer to that question. That was the reason that the Democrat-controlled Congress restricted what could be released what could and could not be released after the Starr report.

We also didn't hear them clamoring for the full details of the investigation into Hillary's illegal mail server despite the fact that Comey laid out a solid case against her.

[rogue06]

We also didn't hear them clamoring for the full details of the investigation into Hillary's illegal mail server despite the fact that Comey laid out a solid case against her.

And in that case Comey laid out an open and shut case against her only to dismiss it by bizarrely proclaiming that no prosecutor would pursue it. Here we have the investigator, Mueller, doing a much more exhaustive investigation, concluding that there was nothing there.

[Mountain Man]

And in that case Comey laid out an open and shut case against her only to dismiss it by bizarrely proclaiming that no prosecutor would pursue it. Here we have the investigator, Mueller, doing a much more exhaustive investigation, concluding that there was nothing there.

That's because Obama's FBI and DOJ conspired to let Hillary off the hook.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...llary-clinton/

[Cow Poke]

They don't want to know, this is the point.

I do. I want to know FACTS, not hysterical rumors, gossip and slander.

We ALL know about the lying corruption of the Trump government, and so do his supporters deep down but they don't care. So long as Trump keeps giving goodies to his Evangelical base it will continue to defend him come what may.

Your maniacal obsession with Evangelicals because of your anti-Christian bigotry is, once again, duly noted.

[JimL]

We already know the answer to that question. That was the reason that the Democrat-controlled Congress restricted what could be released what could and could not be released after the Starr report.

So, Congress got the full report in the phony Clinton case, correct? It was not left up to an unelected crony of the President to conclude that the investigation fully exonerated the President. The special council made it's own summary in each document turned over to the atty general. We all need to see it, and for sure, Congress needs to see it, and then Congress, not the appointed atty general, can determine what should or should not be made public and whether or not impeachment proceedings should ensue.

[Cow Poke]

So, Congress got the full report in the phony Clinton case, correct?

Not so fast, sir... That was then, this is now - different rules.

Barr is currently operating within the confines of the special-counsel regulations, which were written as a reaction to the independent-counsel rules. Those rules expired in 1998 at the end of the Whitewater investigation. Unlike Mueller, Ken Starr, the independent counsel at the time, was obligated to send his final report to Congress

Got that? Even Clinton's AG said " only if there is an indictment and prosecution".

[rogue06]

So, Congress got the full report in the phony Clinton case, correct? It was not left up to an unelected crony of the President to conclude that the investigation fully exonerated the President. The special council made it's own summary in each document turned over to the atty general. We all need to see it, and for sure, Congress needs to see it, and then Congress, not the appointed atty general, can determine what should or should not be made public and whether or not impeachment proceedings should ensue.

As has been pointed out repeatedly the Democrat controlled Congress changed the law regarding what could and could not be released after the Starr Report. Now some of the very same folks who spoke up the loudest about the need for such a change are the very same ones squeaking and squawking about wanting the full unredacted report released.

[JimL]

As has been pointed out repeatedly the Democrat controlled Congress changed the law regarding what could and could not be released after the Starr Report. Now some of the very same folks who spoke up the loudest about the need for such a change are the very same ones squeaking and squawking about wanting the full unredacted report released.

Yes, I know the law was altered. Congress is still going to get the report. What's interesting to me about you conservatives is that you don't want to see it. Very telling!

[Sparko]

Trump seems to think "all is fair in love and war" but he's wrong. Congress has Constitutional oversight over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. It is merely exercising its duty and the Executive Branch is resisting. And I think we all know why.

Your understanding of our government and laws is hilarious.

[rogue06]

Yes, I know the law was altered. Congress is still going to get the report. What's interesting to me about you conservatives is that you don't want to see it. Very telling!

To be honest I'm more interested in seeing the unredacted investigation of Hillary. You know, the one where it was concluded that a whole bunch of laws were actually violated, rather than one where it was determined that no laws were broken.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, I know the law was altered.

But, then again, you never care about the actual law - just punishing those who, in your opinion, violate any bastardized version of the law you almost never seem to be able to cite.

Congress is still going to get the report.

That remains to be seen. This morning I saw Nadler talking about the "leaks" about what's in it --- that's all the more reason NOT to give it to him --- he thrives on leaks.

What's interesting to me about you conservatives is that you don't want to see it. Very telling!

I want to see what is legally allowed to be released. What's telling is your ignorant total disregard for the rule of law.

[Tassman]

I do. I want to know FACTS, not hysterical rumors, gossip and slander.

You mean like the Starr Report with its gratuitous revelations of highly personal and sexually explicit information? This is why the Dems subsequently limited what should be released in subsequent Special Counsel Reports. But we already know about Trump's immoral sexual exploits. What we need to know are the Mueller findings re Trump's other activities surrounding the Russians, e.g. why he surrounded himself with Russian-connected criminals and other dubious activities related to the election and its financing.

Your maniacal obsession with Evangelicals because of your anti-Christian bigotry is, once again, duly noted.

Merely noting with contempt the hypocrisy of the Evangelicals in putting a moral reprobate into the presidency. It's easy to discern the fundamental Evangelical values..."by their fruits ye shall know them".

[tabibito]

You mean like the Starr Report with its gratuitous revelations of highly personal and sexually explicit information? This is why the Dems subsequently limited what should be released in subsequent Special Counsel Reports. But we already know about Trump's immoral sexual exploits. What we need to know are the Mueller findings re Trump's other activities surrounding the Russians, e.g. why he surrounded himself with Russian-connected criminals and other dubious activities related to the election and its financing.



Merely noting with contempt the hypocrisy of the Evangelicals in putting a moral reprobate into the presidency. It's easy to discern the fundamental Evangelical values..."by their fruits ye shall know them".

Accepting the designation of moral reprobate (for the sake of argument at least) - people would seem to have had to make a choice between two persons of the same stamp. Opportunity to choose the good being absent, the lesser of two evils becomes necessary ... and again, the electorate as a whole made that choice. So - the only way to avoid having the president that some argue should never have been elected would be to abrogate democracy. Oligarch wannabes might argue for that, but they always seem to assume that they will be the members of such an oligarchy.

As to Trump's divisiveness - examination of the available records indicates that his predecessor was more flagrantly divisive. And supporters of his predecessor's policies are more flagrantly divisive than Trump's supporters. Up to and including attacking people for wearing a hat expressing support of Trump's policies. Up to and including organising attacks on participants in a lawfully approved peaceful demonstration. The worst that can be said about Trump's supporters is that they are no better than their opposition.

[Cow Poke]

Merely noting with contempt...

At least you own it.