Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Barr made that decision before he was nominated for AG, he even wrote an op-ed about it. It's probably why he was nominated.

---

Link?

---

I actually conflated two things, but his writings do indicate his mind was made up on Obstruction before becoming AG (for the 2nd time).

Barr wrote this WaPo op-ed in 2017 where he backs the Comey firing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/former-attorney-general-trump-made-the-right-call-on-comey/2017/05/12/0e858436-372d-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?utm_term=.ad1e31d003bf

And in June 2018 he sent this unsolicited memo to the DoJ laying out why he believes Mueller is using an incorrect definition of Obstruction and Trump should not he compelled to answer questions.
https://www.scribd.com/document/396090342/June-2018-Barr-Memo-to-DOJ-Muellers-Obstruction-Theory-1

---

Trump not being compelled to answer questions does not mean Barr "prejudged" the obstruction case. The 1st page of the Barr memo says that a president can be guilty of obstruction if (and then Barr lays out the details).

I believe you are mistaken about Barr prejudging the case. The memo certainly does not support that conclusion, in my opinion.

Could you point out the part of the Barr op-ed that you interpret as "pre-judgement' of the obstruction allegation?

---

The thing is, Barr seems to have laid out a narrower path to Obstruction in his memo than what is typically thought of, saying in essence that you have to prove the underlying crime to prove obstruction. Barr says that the "corrupt intent" element cannot be satisfied if you can't prove the underlying crime being investigated. That would come as news to Bill Clinton, who was impeached in part for obstructing an investigation into non-criminal acts.

As for the Comey op-ed, the main obstructive act would have been firing Comey after he wouldn't "let go" of the Flynn matter. Since Barr wrote an op-ed backing that firing back in 2017, it stands to reason that he views that act as kosher and not obstructive...in other words he had judged that issue before he was nominated.

Barr is also remembered for supporting the Iran/Contra pardons by H W Bush during his first stint as AG, which effectively killed off a previous Special Counsel investigation right before one of the main participants was to go on trial for lying to Congress. That episode, and his two written signals that he wouldn't let Trump be confronted with Obstruction charges, were probably his strongest resume items for the job in Trump's terms. Why else would he go with a re-tread from the 90s as an AG nomination?

---

That's not what Barr is saying at all. Inherently bad acts, such as the ones Clinton committed, don't require proof of the underlying crime. Trump's case is different because firing Comey was not a bad act in itself. It would only be evidence of obstruction if Trump were in fact guilty.

---

That's evidently Barr's position, but I'm not sure it's true. I'll admit I haven't done a deep dive into obstruction statutes, but lets say I'm a corrupt small town mayor and I'm being investigated for embezzlement, I know I didnt do it but I also know the investigation will find a body I've buried, is it obstruction to fire the investigator so I can keep him from discovering that body? I think most people would say it is, but Barr apparently wouldn't.

HuMcK said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Barr made that decision before he was nominated for AG, he even wrote an op-ed about it. It's probably why he was nominated.

---

Link?

---

I actually conflated two things, but his writings do indicate his mind was made up on Obstruction before becoming AG (for the 2nd time).

Barr wrote this WaPo op-ed in 2017 where he backs the Comey firing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/former-attorney-general-trump-made-the-right-call-on-comey/2017/05/12/0e858436-372d-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?utm_term=.ad1e31d003bf

And in June 2018 he sent this unsolicited memo to the DoJ laying out why he believes Mueller is using an incorrect definition of Obstruction and Trump should not he compelled to answer questions.
https://www.scribd.com/document/396090342/June-2018-Barr-Memo-to-DOJ-Muellers-Obstruction-Theory-1

---

So basically, KuMcK lied but hoped no one would catch it.

---

Mistaken doesn't mean Huck lied.

---

Deliberate mis-statement is lying.

---

Direct HuMcK quote:

"Barr made that decision before he was nominated for AG, he even wrote an op-ed about it. It's probably why he was nominated."

Also HuMcK quote:

Go ahead and point out what I "deliberately mis-stated". I said that Barr had prejudged the Obstruction issue before he was nominated, and then I provided a memo Barr wrote before being nominated, in which he seems to have pre-judged the issue of Obstruction. He wrote an op-ed about the issue as well, so instead of lying I was kind of unintentionally double right...

---

These two posts are not just semantics. You took a clear position as if it were fact, got called out, then provided a justification that was purely opinion based. Just take your medicine and move on.

---

Yours is a strange post tbh. I figured the nature of an opinion-editorial (op-ed) made it clear that Barr's position was subjective, his opinion as it were, and my post was a (consensus) interpretation of Barr's opinion. My bad for not spelling it out for y'all I guess, but I did use the word "probably".

---

I may be wrong, but I don't believe you laid out the consensus interpretation. I believe Barr's is a mainstream legal opinion. I may proven incorrect if the S. Ct. takes it up. You may be proven incorrect as well. You put forth a defensible interpretation that I believe is incorrect.

We disagree. I'm OK, you're OK

Huck: "it's not a huge stretch to say that those positions probably made him an attractive candidate to someone under investigation for Obstruction."

It's more reasonable to conclude that someone like you who hates Trump, is looking for anything to use to suggest the decision was biased rather than prudent.

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Barr made that decision before he was nominated for AG, he even wrote an op-ed about it. It's probably why he was nominated.

---

Link?

---

I actually conflated two things, but his writings do indicate his mind was made up on Obstruction before becoming AG (for the 2nd time).

Barr wrote this WaPo op-ed in 2017 where he backs the Comey firing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/former-attorney-general-trump-made-the-right-call-on-comey/2017/05/12/0e858436-372d-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?utm_term=.ad1e31d003bf

And in June 2018 he sent this unsolicited memo to the DoJ laying out why he believes Mueller is using an incorrect definition of Obstruction and Trump should not he compelled to answer questions.
https://www.scribd.com/document/396090342/June-2018-Barr-Memo-to-DOJ-Muellers-Obstruction-Theory-1

---

Trump not being compelled to answer questions does not mean Barr "prejudged" the obstruction case. The 1st page of the Barr memo says that a president can be guilty of obstruction if (and then Barr lays out the details).

I believe you are mistaken about Barr prejudging the case. The memo certainly does not support that conclusion, in my opinion.

Could you point out the part of the Barr op-ed that you interpret as "pre-judgement' of the obstruction allegation?

---

The thing is, Barr seems to have laid out a narrower path to Obstruction in his memo than what is typically thought of, saying in essence that you have to prove the underlying crime to prove obstruction. Barr says that the "corrupt intent" element cannot be satisfied if you can't prove the underlying crime being investigated. That would come as news to Bill Clinton, who was impeached in part for obstructing an investigation into non-criminal acts.

As for the Comey op-ed, the main obstructive act would have been firing Comey after he wouldn't "let go" of the Flynn matter. Since Barr wrote an op-ed backing that firing back in 2017, it stands to reason that he views that act as kosher and not obstructive...in other words he had judged that issue before he was nominated.

Barr is also remembered for supporting the Iran/Contra pardons by H W Bush during his first stint as AG, which effectively killed off a previous Special Counsel investigation right before one of the main participants was to go on trial for lying to Congress. That episode, and his two written signals that he wouldn't let Trump be confronted with Obstruction charges, were probably his strongest resume items for the job in Trump's terms. Why else would he go with a re-tread from the 90s as an AG nomination?

---

That's not what Barr is saying at all. Inherently bad acts, such as the ones Clinton committed, don't require proof of the underlying crime. Trump's case is different because firing Comey was not a bad act in itself. It would only be evidence of obstruction if Trump were in fact guilty.

---

That's evidently Barr's position, but I'm not sure it's true. I'll admit I haven't done a deep dive into obstruction statutes, but lets say I'm a corrupt small town mayor and I'm being investigated for embezzlement, I know I didnt do it but I also know the investigation will find a body I've buried, is it obstruction to fire the investigator so I can keep him from discovering that body? I think most people would say it is, but Barr apparently wouldn't.

---

That's still assuming Trump committed a crime.

Even if your interpretation is right, we're talking about two instances (Flynn and Comey) where the law is at least debatable. It's a big leap from there to claiming Barr had already made up his mind about every potential obstruction charge that Mueller might investigate.

HuMcK said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Barr made that decision before he was nominated for AG, he even wrote an op-ed about it. It's probably why he was nominated.

---

Link?

---

I actually conflated two things, but his writings do indicate his mind was made up on Obstruction before becoming AG (for the 2nd time).

Barr wrote this WaPo op-ed in 2017 where he backs the Comey firing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/former-attorney-general-trump-made-the-right-call-on-comey/2017/05/12/0e858436-372d-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?utm_term=.ad1e31d003bf

And in June 2018 he sent this unsolicited memo to the DoJ laying out why he believes Mueller is using an incorrect definition of Obstruction and Trump should not he compelled to answer questions.
https://www.scribd.com/document/396090342/June-2018-Barr-Memo-to-DOJ-Muellers-Obstruction-Theory-1

---

So basically, KuMcK lied but hoped no one would catch it.

---

Mistaken doesn't mean Huck lied.

---

Deliberate mis-statement is lying.

---

Direct HuMcK quote:

"Barr made that decision before he was nominated for AG, he even wrote an op-ed about it. It's probably why he was nominated."

Also HuMcK quote:

Go ahead and point out what I "deliberately mis-stated". I said that Barr had prejudged the Obstruction issue before he was nominated, and then I provided a memo Barr wrote before being nominated, in which he seems to have pre-judged the issue of Obstruction. He wrote an op-ed about the issue as well, so instead of lying I was kind of unintentionally double right...

---

These two posts are not just semantics. You took a clear position as if it were fact, got called out, then provided a justification that was purely opinion based. Just take your medicine and move on.

---

Barr wrote 2 documents laying out his (narrowed) position on Obstruction before he was ever AG, it's not a huge stretch to say that those positions probably made him an attractive candidate to someone under investigation for Obstruction.

---

I have no problem agreeing with this entire paragraph. If I was in that position, I'd do the same thing. I do think it's a stretch to put all your eggs in the obstruction basket when they concluded there was no collusion with Russian agents to influence the election. That's like me accusing you of robbing a bank for 2 straight years. You know for a fact you didn't rob the bank, so your tell anyone who will listen about your innocence loudly, boisterously, and via tweets and after I finally come to the conclusion that you didn't in fact rob the bank, I chide you for being pissed we looked into it so ridiculously thoroughly while everyone around you called you a bank robber for 2 years.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Huck: "it's not a huge stretch to say that those positions probably made him an attractive candidate to someone under investigation for Obstruction."

It's more reasonable to conclude that someone like you who hates Trump, is looking for anything to use to suggest the decision was biased rather than prudent.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/10/17/president-obama-to-republicans-i-won-deal-with-it/?utm_term=.635653fb0a24

Remember this:
President Obama to Republicans: I won. Deal with it.

A visibly frustrated President Obama delivered a blunt message to Republicans with whom he had feuded over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling over the past month on Tuesday: Elections matter. I won; you lost. Deal with it.

That's a paraphrase -- obviously. Here's what Obama actually said:

Quote:

---

"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about."

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Huck: "it's not a huge stretch to say that those positions probably made him an attractive candidate to someone under investigation for Obstruction."

It's more reasonable to conclude that someone like you who hates Trump, is looking for anything to use to suggest the decision was biased rather than prudent.

---

Do you ever actually contribute to discussions? I see you post a lot of snarky one-liners and tell people they're wrong in conclusory fashion a bunch, but I don't think I've ever seen you actually engage with a set of facts yet. You don't like to debate, you like to pretend you're right.

HuMcK said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Huck: "it's not a huge stretch to say that those positions probably made him an attractive candidate to someone under investigation for Obstruction."

It's more reasonable to conclude that someone like you who hates Trump, is looking for anything to use to suggest the decision was biased rather than prudent.

---

Do you ever actually contribute to discussions? I see you post a lot of snarky one-liners and tell people they're wrong in conclusory fashion a bunch, but I don't think I've ever seen you actually engage with a set of facts yet. You don't like to debate, you like to pretend you're right.

---

Nice projection. Holy hell.

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Huck: "it's not a huge stretch to say that those positions probably made him an attractive candidate to someone under investigation for Obstruction."

It's more reasonable to conclude that someone like you who hates Trump, is looking for anything to use to suggest the decision was biased rather than prudent.

---

Do you ever actually contribute to discussions? I see you post a lot of snarky one-liners and tell people they're wrong in conclusory fashion a bunch, but I don't think I've ever seen you actually engage with a set of facts yet. You don't like to debate, you like to pretend you're right.

---

Nice projection. Holy hell.

---

Do you even know what a conclusory statement is? Because you haven't seen me making any here. Jokes and one liners are appropriate in a lot of contexts, but I try not to post any conclusions or opinions without backing.

HuMcK said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Huck: "it's not a huge stretch to say that those positions probably made him an attractive candidate to someone under investigation for Obstruction."

It's more reasonable to conclude that someone like you who hates Trump, is looking for anything to use to suggest the decision was biased rather than prudent.

---

Do you ever actually contribute to discussions? I see you post a lot of snarky one-liners and tell people they're wrong in conclusory fashion a bunch, but I don't think I've ever seen you actually engage with a set of facts yet. You don't like to debate, you like to pretend you're right.

---

That tells me you really are using a filter of hostility. Without naming names, there are people on both ends of the spectrum who do nothing but launch poo flings in their posts, but I have been active in a lot of productive discussions. The problem here is GIGO - you start with an assumption of guilt and demand the other side prove Trump innocent, which is the opposite not only of our traditional approach to criminal conduct, but is also the opposite of how media and reasonable people treated the Obama Administration when charged with various bad behavior.

Part of the problem also, as others have mentioned, is that Obstruction of Justice can be used broadly and often as a smear attempt rather than a legitimate charge.

You want to claim the President is guilty of Obstruction of Justice? Make your case, present evidence and show a compelling argument, and you'll win support. But as long as you do things like ignore the Mueller Report summary - which, by the way, is very much in line with all of Robert Mueller's public statements, indictments and so on all along - you not only fail to make your case, you create no duty for anyone who disagrees to prove anything.

The burden of proof remains with the accuser. And as much as you have emotion, from where I sit that's all I see from you. I am not obliged to applaud or respect malice, whether it's someone who wants to 'lock up Hillary' or someone who is bitter because there is no evidence Trump committed any crime.

This is the kind of loose end I was talking about in my original post. I'm not sure how this squares with Mueller wrapping up and issuing a report if investigations are still ongoing. Best I can figure is it's an issue he handed off, but lawyers under his employ were seen leaving hearings on this matter...

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Huck: "it's not a huge stretch to say that those positions probably made him an attractive candidate to someone under investigation for Obstruction."

It's more reasonable to conclude that someone like you who hates Trump, is looking for anything to use to suggest the decision was biased rather than prudent.

---

Do you ever actually contribute to discussions? I see you post a lot of snarky one-liners and tell people they're wrong in conclusory fashion a bunch, but I don't think I've ever seen you actually engage with a set of facts yet. You don't like to debate, you like to pretend you're right.

---

The burden of proof remains with the accuser.

---

Most important statement in this entire thread.

HuMcK said:

---

This is the kind of loose end I was talking about in my original post. I'm not sure how this squares with Mueller wrapping up and issuing a report if investigations are still ongoing. Best I can figure is it's an issue he handed off, but lawyers under his employ were seen leaving hearings on this matter...

---

You might want to read the article and see what case they mean. The Mueller Report summary clearly outlined that the investigators went after a number of specific actors, including several Russian companies, for attempts to influence the 2016 election. Notably, however, Barr quoted Mueller's own report in saying that no American individual or group was determined to have cooperated, "explicitly or tacitly", with those groups.

Therefore, it makes complete sense that legal actions continue with regard to Russian companies, but have no weight in regard to American individuals or groups.

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This is the kind of loose end I was talking about in my original post. I'm not sure how this squares with Mueller wrapping up and issuing a report if investigations are still ongoing. Best I can figure is it's an issue he handed off, but lawyers under his employ were seen leaving hearings on this matter...

---

You might want to read the article and see what case they mean. The Mueller Report summary clearly outlined that the investigators went after a number of specific actors, including several Russian companies, for attempts to influence the 2016 election. Notably, however, Barr quoted Mueller's own report in saying that no American individual or group was determined to have cooperated, "explicitly or tacitly", with those groups.

Therefore, it makes complete sense that legal actions continue with regard to Russian companies, but have no weight in regard to American individuals or groups.

---

It's also worth noting that these foreign entities we're willing to go to court to fight against Mueller's charges and it was Mueller who refused to go to court...for his own charges against them.

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This is the kind of loose end I was talking about in my original post. I'm not sure how this squares with Mueller wrapping up and issuing a report if investigations are still ongoing. Best I can figure is it's an issue he handed off, but lawyers under his employ were seen leaving hearings on this matter...

---

You might want to read the article and see what case they mean. The Mueller Report summary clearly outlined that the investigators went after a number of specific actors, including several Russian companies, for attempts to influence the 2016 election. Notably, however, Barr quoted Mueller's own report in saying that no American individual or group was determined to have cooperated, "explicitly or tacitly", with those groups.

Therefore, it makes complete sense that legal actions continue with regard to Russian companies, but have no weight in regard to American individuals or groups.

---

You may be assuming facts not in evidence.You assume the entity is Russian, but as far as I can tell there aren't any indications one way or another of who owns it. I'm not sure a Russian company would even be concerned with concealing it's identity in this way, if there are even any still doing business in the US after several rounds of sanctions over the years.

My point is, a Grand Jury empaneled by Mueller is still active and deliberating indictments, or else the contempt order would have expired and on Monday SCOTUS would not even have had to deny cert. The US Attorney's in DC have taken over the case, but the subpoena appears to have come from Mueller. It's odd that he was still firing off subpoenas if he was done investigating. Since it's been handed off (Mueller did apparently generate the subpoena all the way back in July though...), it's possible that it may not be Russia related, but it is a criminal proceeding that is still ongoing. It may all make sense in hindsight, but right now noone seems to be able to make heads or tails about it.

These people are insane.

Huck: "You may be assuming facts not in evidence.You assume the entity is Russian, but as far as I can tell there aren't any indications one way or another of who owns it".

Yes there are, at least to people who have been following the case. As Doc observed, one case in particular was strange because Mueller's team indicted a Russian company which turned around and told the judge they were ready to go to trial the very next day, forcing Mueller to seek a continuance, which is consistent with the information presented in the WaPo piece.

Also, my point remains that Mueller's own report was quoted in the summary by Barr, stating that no American person or entity was involved with Russian interference in the election.

At the very least, you ought to be able to acknowledge that fact in the name of intellectual honesty.

Huck: "right now noone seems to be able to make heads or tails about it."

Barr's summary does a pretty good job of that.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Huck: "You may be assuming facts not in evidence.You assume the entity is Russian, but as far as I can tell there aren't any indications one way or another of who owns it".

Yes there are, at least to people who have been following the case. As Doc observed, one case in particular was strange because Mueller's team indicted a Russian company which turned around and told the judge they were ready to go to trial the very next day, forcing Mueller to seek a continuance, which is consistent with the information presented in the WaPo piece.

Also, my point remains that Mueller's own report was quoted in the summary by Barr, stating that no American person or entity was involved with Russian interference in the election.

At the very least, you ought to be able to acknowledge that fact in the name of intellectual honesty.

---

You don't get a trial the day after your answer just because you asked for it. With all intellectual honesty Mueller was not forced to get a continuance by such a request.

And I'll be glad to admit my mistake if you've got a link to your asserted position.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Huck: "You may be assuming facts not in evidence.You assume the entity is Russian, but as far as I can tell there aren't any indications one way or another of who owns it".

Yes there are, at least to people who have been following the case. As Doc observed, one case in particular was strange because Mueller's team indicted a Russian company which turned around and told the judge they were ready to go to trial the very next day, forcing Mueller to seek a continuance, which is consistent with the information presented in the WaPo piece.

Also, my point remains that Mueller's own report was quoted in the summary by Barr, stating that no American person or entity was involved with Russian interference in the election.

At the very least, you ought to be able to acknowledge that fact in the name of intellectual honesty.

---

You don't get a trial the day after your answer just because you asked for it. With all intellectual honesty Mueller was not forced to get a continuance by such a request.

And I'll be glad to admit my mistake if you've got a link to your asserted position.

---

If you look it up, the judge asked Mueller if he would be ready to go to trial "immediately", which would mean within a month, and Mueller, IIRC this was in April of last year, said he needed at least three months.

https://www.westernjournal.com/mueller-seeks-to-indefinitely-delay-russian-collusion-trial/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lawyer-for-russian-firm-hits-back-at-muellers-probe-1526509821

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

This is the kind of loose end I was talking about in my original post. I'm not sure how this squares with Mueller wrapping up and issuing a report if investigations are still ongoing. Best I can figure is it's an issue he handed off, but lawyers under his employ were seen leaving hearings on this matter...

---

You might want to read the article and see what case they mean. The Mueller Report summary clearly outlined that the investigators went after a number of specific actors, including several Russian companies, for attempts to influence the 2016 election. Notably, however, Barr quoted Mueller's own report in saying that no American individual or group was determined to have cooperated, "explicitly or tacitly", with those groups.

Therefore, it makes complete sense that legal actions continue with regard to Russian companies, but have no weight in regard to American individuals or groups.

---

It's also worth noting that these foreign entities we're willing to go to court to fight against Mueller's charges and it was Mueller who refused to go to court...for his own charges against them.

---

Not just foreign entities....look at Jerome Corsi's case (yeah I know he's batshlt crazy) which is dam near the same as Roger Stone's. Corsi didn't give in to the duress, threats, intimidation from weeks of interviews with the DOJ. Waiting them out paid off.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Huck: "You may be assuming facts not in evidence.You assume the entity is Russian, but as far as I can tell there aren't any indications one way or another of who owns it".

Yes there are, at least to people who have been following the case. As Doc observed, one case in particular was strange because Mueller's team indicted a Russian company which turned around and told the judge they were ready to go to trial the very next day, forcing Mueller to seek a continuance, which is consistent with the information presented in the WaPo piece.

Also, my point remains that Mueller's own report was quoted in the summary by Barr, stating that no American person or entity was involved with Russian interference in the election.

At the very least, you ought to be able to acknowledge that fact in the name of intellectual honesty.

---

You don't get a trial the day after your answer just because you asked for it. With all intellectual honesty Mueller was not forced to get a continuance by such a request.

And I'll be glad to admit my mistake if you've got a link to your asserted position.

---

If you look it up, the judge asked Mueller if he would be ready to go to trial "immediately", which would mean within a month, and Mueller, IIRC this was in April of last year, said he needed at least three months.

https://www.westernjournal.com/mueller-seeks-to-indefinitely-delay-russian-collusion-trial/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lawyer-for-russian-firm-hits-back-at-muellers-probe-1526509821

---

Yes, a month is more like it. Avoids trial by ambush, which I've pulled off exactly once.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Huck: "You may be assuming facts not in evidence.You assume the entity is Russian, but as far as I can tell there aren't any indications one way or another of who owns it".

Yes there are, at least to people who have been following the case. As Doc observed, one case in particular was strange because Mueller's team indicted a Russian company which turned around and told the judge they were ready to go to trial the very next day, forcing Mueller to seek a continuance, which is consistent with the information presented in the WaPo piece.

Also, my point remains that Mueller's own report was quoted in the summary by Barr, stating that no American person or entity was involved with Russian interference in the election.

At the very least, you ought to be able to acknowledge that fact in the name of intellectual honesty.

---

You don't get a trial the day after your answer just because you asked for it. With all intellectual honesty Mueller was not forced to get a continuance by such a request.

And I'll be glad to admit my mistake if you've got a link to your asserted position.

---

If you look it up, the judge asked Mueller if he would be ready to go to trial "immediately", which would mean within a month, and Mueller, IIRC this was in April of last year, said he needed at least three months.

https://www.westernjournal.com/mueller-seeks-to-indefinitely-delay-russian-collusion-trial/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lawyer-for-russian-firm-hits-back-at-muellers-probe-1526509821

---

Yes, a month is more like it. Avoids trial by ambush, which I've pulled off exactly once.

---

Point is, the article in WaPo sure looks like that case come back around, not a new case or new direction.

riflebear


"These people are insane."

Not so fast my friend!

You're worthless azz contributes lies lies and more lies!

Florda_mike said:

---

You're worthless azz contributes lies lies and more lies!

---

High words of praise Hck. He really gets to you.

Waco1947 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

You're worthless azz contributes lies lies and more lies!

---

High words of praise Hck. He really gets to you.

---

Well at least your dumazz sounds sober today .... so far!

Florda_mike said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

You're worthless azz contributes lies lies and more lies!

---

High words of praise Hck. He really gets to you.

---

Well at least your dumazz sounds sober today .... so far!

---

Thank You Jesus. I always await your daily bread and blessing.

Florda_mike said:

---

You're worthless azz contributes lies lies and more lies!

---

Florida man rides on hood of car going 70 mph.

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

You're worthless azz contributes lies lies and more lies!

---

Florida man rides on hood of car going 70 mph.

---

That's quash, always bragging on his kinfolk!

HuMcK said:

---

Not so fast my friend!

---

So the Post and Times have been pushing out conspiracies and lies for 2 years (as truth) about Russia Collusion and now you are going to believe them?

Good luck with that.

"Pushing out lies" It's called reporting stories and checking stories and looking for truth. If it reflects badly on your president so be it. But it ain't lies.

Waco1947 said:

---

"Pushing out lies" It's called reporting stories and checking stories and looking for truth. If it reflects badly on your president so be it. But it ain't lies.

---

No it's lies. You buy into them because you desire to be a victim.

Waco1947 said:

---

"Pushing out lies" It's called reporting stories and checking stories and looking for truth. If it reflects badly on your president so be it. But it ain't lies.

---

Third-hand innuendo is not "looking for truth", Waco.

And this scummy version of 'journalism' really is not going to hurt the President. I'd suggest it "reflects badly" on the people still jumping to conclusions in desperate hysteria to sell the lie that Trump did something "wrong".