No Collusion!

[rogue06]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/victorl...d7I_ZtfhGLZjmk

Rosenstein was deeply involved in its drafting

[Mountain Man]

Rosenstein was deeply involved in its drafting

An anonymous source says that Barr and Rosenstein were surprised that Mueller punted on the obstruction charges because there was no evidence.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...ld-not-n987041

[JimL]

What pitiful little life do you lead, Jim, that causes you to spew such venom and hate? I'm fully prepared to allow things to develop as they do, and for the truth to come out, whatever it may be.

What venom and hate? I didn't insult you yet. Grow up.

And, again, I think you have no idea what impeachment actually is. The HOUSE may possibly impeach Trump, but unless there's overwhelming evidence of criminal activity, the SENATE is not likely to remove him from office.

There already is overwhelming evidence that the scoundrel should be impeached. Open your eyes and clean out your ears. The Senate will impeach when the people force them to.

[Tassman]

Rosenstein was deeply involved in its drafting

[NorrinRadd]

What venom and hate? I didn't insult you yet. Grow up.

There already is overwhelming evidence that the scoundrel should be impeached. Open your eyes and clean out your ears. The Senate will impeach when the people force them to.

The House impeaches. The Senate decides whether or not to convict.

Highly unlikely there will be enough evidence of anything to motivate "the people" to "force" the required 67 Senators to vote to convict.

[rogue06]

Do you think for a moment that if Barr misrepresented anything that Rosenstein (or Mueller for that matter) would have remained silent?

As has been repeatedly pointed out prosecutors cannot "exonerate" anyone and a number of legal scholars from both the left and the right have commented on this unusual phrasing. The consensus is that there simply was not sufficient evidence to charge anyone.

Deal with it.

[NorrinRadd]

At this point, he has not even *attempted* to block it -- including stuff he probably *should* keep privileged for the long-term good of the office.

[Tassman]

At this point, he has not even *attempted* to block it -- including stuff he probably *should* keep privileged for the long-term good of the office.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...mueller-report

[Tassman]

Do you think for a moment that if Barr misrepresented anything that Rosenstein (or Mueller for that matter) would have remained silent?

As has been repeatedly pointed out prosecutors cannot "exonerate" anyone and a number of legal scholars from both the left and the right have commented on this unusual phrasing. The consensus is that there simply was not sufficient evidence to charge anyone.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...e-barr-summary

So enough of speculation, Congress and the public needs the actual report to enable it to arrive at its own conclusions free from the bias of Trump and his lackeys.

[Tassman]

The House impeaches. The Senate decides whether or not to convict.

Highly unlikely there will be enough evidence of anything to motivate "the people" to "force" the required 67 Senators to vote to convict.

Well, we just don't know do we? We haven't seen the Report.

[tabibito]

Well, we just don't know do we? We haven't seen the Report.

I begin to wonder if the MSM is being played.

[Mountain Man]

At this point, he has not even *attempted* to block it -- including stuff he probably *should* keep privileged for the long-term good of the office.

Indeed. The President has left the matter entirely in the hands of the Attorney General.

[Mountain Man]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...e-barr-summary

So enough of speculation, Congress and the public needs the actual report to enable it to arrive at its own conclusions free from the bias of Trump and his lackeys.

We've been over this already. A prosecutor's report of an investigation can not, by law, be damaging to a person who was not indicted. If a prosecutor couldn't make his case to the satisfaction of a grand jury (and keep in mind, grand juries favor the prosecution), then that's the end of it. They don't get a "do over" by trying to publicly ruin an innocent man's reputation.

So if Dirty Cop Mueller and his goon squad really did skirt the law and try to load up the report with negative information about Trump, then legally, every word of it should be redacted prior to any public release.

(And I wonder if that was their plan all along, to create a report that is legally required to be heavily redacted, then float the narrative that it's damaging to Trump, and then accuse the Department of Justice of a cover-up when the redacted report is eventually released.)

[JimL]

The House impeaches. The Senate decides whether or not to convict.

Highly unlikely there will be enough evidence of anything to motivate "the people" to "force" the required 67 Senators to vote to convict.

Highly unlikely to motivate your ilk, true, but like the last election, your ilk won't be enough for Trump to hold the republican Senate in check. But it's okay, even if he is not impeached by Congress, he will ultimately be impeached by the good patriotic people of the U.S. in 2020.

[JimL]

At this point, he has not even *attempted* to block it -- including stuff he probably *should* keep privileged for the long-term good of the office.

Of course he has attemted to block it. Why do you think he appointed Barr? There is no reason that the full report, with minimal redactions, can't be turned over to Congress and there is only one reason that it hasn't been, and that is because Trump and his team are doing everything they can to keep it from them, and from you.