McConnell rails against Mueller report politics in blistering floor speech: ‘Case closed’

  
Via:  make-america-great-again  •  2 months ago  •  114 comments

McConnell rails against Mueller report politics in blistering floor speech: ‘Case closed’
McConnell chastised his Democratic colleagues for extending the political battle over the Russia case, while suggesting they wanted the Mueller report to reveal illegal collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. "They seemed to be hoping for a national crisis for the sake of their own politics," he said. McConnell said that the Obama administration let Russia "get away with almost anything," and that he's glad the Mueller investigation dug into Russian election interference. Yet,...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a scorching floor speech on Tuesday, accused Democrats of rooting for a "national crisis" for political gain as he appealed to lawmakers to move on from the Russia controversy now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report is complete.

"Case closed," McConnell, R-Ky., declared. "Case closed."

Coming as Democrats clash with Attorney General Bill Barr over his handling of the report while using the findings to fuel their own investigations, McConnell suggested the political debate has shifted from the real problem of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

"Many Americans were waiting to see how their elected officials would respond," McConnell said. "With an exhaustive investigation complete, would the country finally unify to confront the real challenges before us? Would we finally be able to move on from partisan paralysis and breathless conspiracy theorizing? Or would we remain consumed by unhinged partisanship, and keep dividing ourselves to the point that Putin and his agents need only stand on the sidelines and watch as their job is done for them?"

McConnell said, "Regrettably, I think the answer is obvious."

McConnell chastised his Democratic colleagues for extending the political battle over the Russia case, while suggesting they wanted the Mueller report to reveal illegal collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

"They seemed to be hoping for a national crisis for the sake of their own politics," he said.

McConnell said that the Obama administration let Russia "get away with almost anything," and that he's glad the Mueller investigation dug into Russian election interference.

Yet, McConnell said, Democrats are unwilling to accept the investigation's conclusion that there was no evidence of an illegal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Instead, he claimed, they are continuing to go through "the five stages of grief," including denial with regard to Mueller's findings and anger toward Barr for how he's handled the release of Mueller's report. House Democrats currently are weighing whether to formally accuse Barr of contempt of Congress for not cooperating with their subpoena for Mueller report files.

"They seem to be angrier at Bill Barr for doing his job than they are at Vladimir Putin," McConnell said. He accused Democrats of slandering Barr because they don't like how the Russia investigation turned out.

Democrats, though, maintain there's still more to learn from the Russia probe, especially surrounding the question of whether President Trump obstructed justice.

Moments after McConnell spoke, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., cited the obstruction issue -- as well as a fresh statement from hundreds of former prosecutors saying Trump's conduct would be chargeable if he weren't president -- in defending Democrats' efforts.

"Our leader saying let's move on is sort of like Richard Nixon saying let's move on at the height of the investigation into his wrongdoing," he said, calling McConnell's appeal an "astounding bit of whitewash" and "entirely unconvincing."

Democrats have alleged that Barr's initial four-page letter to Congress when Mueller's investigation ended selectively quoted Mueller's report, presenting a technically accurate but incomplete picture of the investigation's findings. In the hours prior to the report's release to the public, Barr held a press conference that also drew backlash, as he explained the reasoning behind the decision from himself and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that there was insufficient evidence to pursue an obstruction charge against Trump.

After the press conference, Barr was accused of acting as Trump's lawyer, not the country's attorney general.

McConnell did not appear to find this to be a valid reason for criticism.

"Russia sought out to sow discord," he pointed out. "But on that front, given the left's total fixation on delegitimizing the president ... I"m afraid the Russians hardly need to lift a finger.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
XXJefferson#51
1  seeder  XXJefferson#51    2 months ago

...."I think we ought to put it to rest," he said. "Mueller spent two years on this, he interviewed hundreds of people, he reached the conclusion there was certainly no collusion on. .. the president’s part.

"He brought no charges on obstruction.  They indicted a number of Russians.  It was clear what the Russians are trying to do.  He pointed it out to us.  What else do we need to know?  It’s time to move on."

Earlier Tuesday, McConnell said in a Senate-floor speech that the probe was a classic instance of "case closed."

Since Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation was released, Democrats and Republicans have sparred over how the document was provided, what Mueller did or didn't find, how Attorney General William Barr summarized the conclusions and more.

Democrats have called on Barr to resign and Mueller to testify, while Republicans have defended Barr as honorable.

For his part, President Trump has urged Mueller not to testify.

BRET BAIER REACTING TO MCCONNELL: CASE NOT CLOSED

McConnell, responding to a question about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's accusations that Barr lied to Congress, defended Barr and accused Democrats of suffering from so-called "Trump derangement syndrome."

"That’s an outrageous assertion.  The man had a brief summary of the report, released all the report that was legally allowed to be released.  Put it on the Internet.  To call a public servant like the attorney general a liar is completely over the top," McConnell said.....https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-rails-against-mueller-report-politics-in-blistering-floor-speech-case-closed

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3  Raven Wing    2 months ago

Regardless of what McConnell thinks of his own Godliness, he does not speak for the entire American people, or the world. I am sure that Trump and his rump kissing minions like to thinks so, but, that is not the case.

The 'case' is far from closed, whether or not the Republicans would like it or not. They are simply blowing smoke as usual when it comes to Trump. However, Trumps base will believe anything they are told like the good little sheeple they are. And Trump and his equally conniving cohorts count on their being that easily brainwashed. 

 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Raven Wing @3    2 months ago

Case Closed! jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_36_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1    2 months ago

Only by those who are sacred to death to have the truth made public. jrSmiley_85_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_29_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_47_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Raven Wing @3.1.1    2 months ago

The truth has already been made public. There’s nothing more to see here. It’s time to move on. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1.2    2 months ago

Riiiigggghhhhhtttt!

tumblr_ozna6tmuPq1vg1enro1_500.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.1.4  Raven Wing  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1.2    2 months ago

Not so. Only a portion of it has been made public. But, believe what you wish. It makes no difference to anyone else.

Heh! The more I read of some of the comments of the right here on NT, the more I am convinced that PT Barnum was correct.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1    2 months ago
Case Closed!

Even Mueller, in his report, never made the case closed claim.  He passed the info on for Congress to make that decision.

 
 
 
lady in black
3.1.6  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1    2 months ago

Case FAR from closed

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.5    2 months ago

He passed the info on for Congress to make that decision.

Even if it were true that Muller didn't understand his job, McConnell represents half of Congress (the part necessary to remove a President) and he say's "case closed."

So keep beating the dead horse if you want, but the world's moved on.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.7    2 months ago
McConnell represents half of Congress

Where in the world do you come up with this crap?  McConnell is the Senate Majority leader, are you claiming that no other Senator has an opinion or can vote in any way other than the way McConnell tells them to vote?  Are you saying that McConnell is a dictator over the US Senate???

So keep beating the dead horse if you want, but the world's moved on.

The VAST majority of people have not moved on because they have yet to hear the results of Mueller's report.  McConnell wants to "move on" because he is terrified of the details in the report, and is wanting it to stop before people find out what is actually in it and not just Barr's highly partisan "summary".

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.8    2 months ago
?  McConnell is the Senate Majority leader, are you claiming that no other Senator has an opinion or can vote in any way other than the way McConnell tells them to vote?

Get that straw man son...

ority of people have not moved on because they have yet to hear the results of Mueller's report

Really? This might be the most desperate spin yet.. How does that make sense to you? You know it's 2019 and not 1685, right?  

rt, and is wanting it to stop before people find out what is actually in it and not just Barr's highly partisan "summary"

In your world, how long does it take people to have access to new from weeks ago? Do you imagine people in caves in New Mexico are huddled around the fire waiting for the Pony Express to deliver a copy of the Mueller report? 

 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.9    2 months ago
Get that straw man son...

ority of people have not moved on because they have yet to hear the results of Mueller's report

Really? This might be the most desperate spin yet.. How does that make sense to you? You know it's 2019 and not 1685, right?  

rt, and is wanting it to stop before people find out what is actually in it and not just Barr's highly partisan "summary"

In your world, how long does it take people to have access to new from weeks ago? Do you imagine people in caves in New Mexico are huddled around the fire waiting for the Pony Express to deliver a copy of the Mueller report? 

 

What the fuck are you blathering about???

 
 
 
bbl-1
4  bbl-1    2 months ago

Keep it up, Mitch.  The Russians depend on it.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  bbl-1 @4    2 months ago

[deleted

 
 
 
bbl-1
4.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1    2 months ago

Of course.  How silly of me.

Partisan?  Really?  "Lock her up."  There it is.  There you have it.

Gave me a minus -1, huh?  Holy crackers!

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.1    2 months ago

Now that we know that there was no Trump collusion with the Russians, all dialogue that continues on this topic will always involve accusing Democrats of doing the Russians bidding by keeping this going.  We know Trump didn’t collude with Russia and we know that Obama and Hillary did do so.  There will be no additional civility on this issue.  We will accuse the other side of acting in Russia’s interest every time they keep going on this matter.  Mc Connell is right; Case Closed! End of story. jrSmiley_36_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
evilgenius
4.1.3  evilgenius  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.2    2 months ago
Now that we know that there was no Trump collusion with the Russians...

Not for lack of trying.

We know Trump didn’t collude with Russia and we know that Obama and Hillary did do so.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaa! Ahhh a good laugh in the morning.

There will be no additional civility on this issue.

Lock him up! Lock him up! 

We will accuse the other side of acting in Russia’s interest every time they keep going on this matter.

Of course they will. No one expected you guys of acting like sane adults.

End of story.

Nope. I heard from my brother's barber's niece that Trump is a robot built by the Russians. I demand to see his birth certificate, his school records, his health records, his business record and anything else that has the Trump name on it. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  evilgenius @4.1.3    2 months ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gifCASE CLOSED!!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.1.5  Raven Wing  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.4    2 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif........jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

That's what they tried to say about Watergate. And look what actually happened.

Not one of my many Republican Friends are buying the lie being professed by their party about the Mueller report, and think they are being duped by the WH and Trumps a$$ kissers that are doing all they can to hide the truth from the public.

 
 
 
lady in black
4.1.6  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.4    2 months ago

Only in your mind, CASE FAR FROM CLOSED

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.1.7  r.t..b...  replied to  evilgenius @4.1.3    2 months ago
anything else that has the Trump name on it. 

As with all products advertised 'as seen on TV', he's just a cheap knock-off posing as the genuine article. And still some people buy it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Raven Wing @4.1.5    2 months ago
That's what they tried to say about Watergate. And look what actually happened.

I wish people would look at what actually happened. The two situations are entirely different.

The Watergate burglars were actually tied to the Nixon campaign and broke in because their wire taps weren't working. Afterward, Nixon was actively involved in covering up the crime - a real crime that actually happened.

We just received a special counsel's report that says neither Trump, nor his campaign, nor any US person cooperated with Russian interference in any way. They committed no crime. What's more, even though Trump bitched and moaned about the investigation, he actually cooperated with it and encouraged his people to cooperate and be honest with investigators.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1.9  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.1    2 months ago

I stand by and double down on what I wrote when I was speaking my mind above.  But conservatives it seems are not allowed to freely express our opinions around here.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1.10  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Raven Wing @4.1.5    2 months ago

You found the few remaining Never Trump Republicans gathered in a local phone booth?  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.1.11  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  lady in black @4.1.6    2 months ago
CASE FAR FROM CLOSED

that's true enough... everyone involved in that coup attempt is going to jail.

should be good fun for everyone :)

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.8    2 months ago
The Watergate burglars were actually tied to the Nixon campaign and broke in because their wire taps weren't working. Afterward, Nixon was actively involved in covering up the crime - a real crime that actually happened.

The Trump tower meeting was tied directly to senior Trump campaign staff.  Afterward, Trump was actively, and personally, involved in covering up the meeting.  Anyone remember the Russian adoption statement?

We just received a special counsel's report that says neither Trump, nor his campaign, nor any US person cooperated with Russian interference in any way.

Not true.  The report outlines over a dozen ways that campaign staff cooperated with Russians to the benefit of Trump's campaign.  The report just stated that Mueller didn't feel it met the requirements for "Criminal Conspiracy". 

Before you state that no one on Trump's team worked with Russia, you need to explain Manafort's providing poll data to them.

They committed no crime.

Then why are so many of them in jail????

What's more, even though Trump bitched and moaned about the investigation, he actually cooperated with it and encouraged his people to cooperate and be honest with investigators.

Really?  I must have missed the news about Trump sitting down to an interview with Mueller.  Report also points out that so many of Trump's people, lied so many times, that Mueller gave up trying to prosecute all of them for perjury.

You really should READ THE REPORT, before commenting on it!!

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.13  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.12    2 months ago
The Trump tower meeting was tied directly to senior Trump campaign staff. 

where no crime happened, so I don't care about the rest.

I must have missed the news about Trump sitting down to an interview with Mueller.

I don't see why that's necessary and neither did the Special Counsel. Trump answered questions in writing. My understanding is Mueller considered asking for more, but ultimately decided there wasn't more information there that he needed. So we're done!

You really should READ THE REPORT, before commenting on it!!

It frankly mystifies me that you and some others feel you need to behave this way. Whatever. Here is a quote from the actual report and I have bolded the important parts for you.

Although members of the IRA had contact with individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign, the indictment does not charge any Trump Campaign official or any other U.S. person with participating in the conspiracy. That is because the investigation did not identify evidencethat any U.S. person who coordinated or communicated with the IRA knew that he or she wasspeaking with Russian nationals engaged in the criminal conspiracy. The Office therefore determined that such persons did not have the knowledge or criminal purpose required to charge them in the conspiracy to defraud the United States (Count One) or in the separate count alleging a wire- and bank-fraud conspiracy involving the IRA and two individual Russian nationals (Count Two). (page 175)

and

The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law- including foreign-fnfluence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371 's offenses clause. (page 181)

The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under Section371's defraud clause. That clause criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the U.S. government or its agencies through deceitful or dishonest means. See Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 861 (1966); Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S.182, 188 (1924); see also United States v. Concord Mgmt. & Consulting LLC, 347 F. Supp. 3d 38,46 (D.D.C.2018). The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials­ or between such officials and Russia-linked individuals-to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of a government agency during the campaign or transition period. And, as discussed in Volume I, Section V.A, supra, the investigation did not identify evidence that any Campaign official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that thOffice charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supraAccordingly, the Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related contacts described in Section IV above. (Ibid)

It's time to move on with the business of running the country and defending against future attempts to interfere with our election. The people in the White House were put there legitimately through our legal election process and it's long past time for the rest of you to get over it.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.13    2 months ago
where no crime happened, so I don't care about the rest.

Then why did the Trumps lie about it?

I don't see why that's necessary and neither did the Special Counsel.

Really?  You don't see the necessity of interviewing a suspect in a criminal investigation?  Really?

Mueller didn't say anything about the necessity, in the report he stated that it would, most probably, have taken years before he would have gotten around all of Trump's lawyers to get that interview.  So he settled for written answers, most of which were "I don't remember".

It's time to move on with the business of running the country and defending against future attempts to interfere with our election. 

Seriously?  Trump hasn't moved past losing the popular vote to Hillary.  Trump has also taken no steps since he became POTUS to safeguard us against more Russian interference.  He refuses to address it with Putin, and in fact refuses to even admit that Russia did attempt to influence the election.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1.15  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.14    2 months ago

You have no idea of the sources and methods being used to counter future foreign influences in our elections.  No one successfully messed with the 2018 election.  Of course Obama wasn’t President any more then either, thank God.   

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.16  Ozzwald  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.15    2 months ago
You have no idea of the sources and methods being used to counter future foreign influences in our elections.

I have as much as you do.

No one successfully messed with the 2018 election.

You make the claim, you PROVE the claim.  Plus I could have sworn we were talking about the 2016 election.

Of course Obama wasn’t President any more then either, thank God.

Yup, how many people have lost insurance since 2016?  Bet they are happy too.  Soy farmers are happier now to since they get to live off of billions of dollars of welfare thanks to Trump.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.14    2 months ago
Then why did the Trumps lie about it?

Did they? Because lying to investigators is a crime and I don't see anybody named Trump being indicted for lying to investigators.

You don't see the necessity of interviewing a suspect in a criminal investigation?

You ask a general question when we are talking about a specific case. In this case, apparently Mueller didn't see the value in it or he would have pursued it. It's not as if it's unprecedented. Bill Clinton had to actually testify under oath (although that was a civil matter). We never got anywhere close to that with Trump.

In a prosecution where you actually have evidence against the suspect, you don't need to interview the suspect and the suspect is not obligated to talk with investigators. At trial, the defendant does not need to take the stand and testify. It is up to the prosecutor to prove his guilt, not up to the defendant to prove his innocence.

written answers, most of which were "I don't remember"

You - and anyone else - were free to present Mueller with evidence that contradicts the truth of that. No one did, so here we are.

and in fact refuses to even admit that Russia did attempt to influence the election.

That's not true. That's not a "fact" at all. He acknowledged it a long time ago. He just didn't do it in a way that pleased the Left.

Trump appears to acknowledge Russian election meddling – and blames Obama

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.17    2 months ago
Did they? Because lying to investigators is a crime and I don't see anybody named Trump being indicted for lying to investigators.

Mueller's report said they lied.  Have you forgotten about the Russian adoption claim by both Trumps?

That's not true. That's not a "fact" at all. He acknowledged it a long time ago. He just didn't do it in a way that pleased the Left.

Yes he did, once.  Then he walked it back multiple times.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @4    2 months ago

 The Russians depend on it.

You are doing their work better then they ever could. I hope you at least get paid for it.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.2.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2    2 months ago

Exactly. Well said and right on!

 
 
 
luther28
5  luther28    2 months ago

The only thing blistered by Mr. McConnell is his frontal lobe. He is the consummate hypocrite.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1  Tessylo  replied to  luther28 @5    2 months ago

Yeah, really, blistering speech my ass.  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Tessylo @5.1    2 months ago

I'd say by the mood he seemed to be in it was HIS a$$ that was blistered.

 
 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.1.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.2    2 months ago

I think that what McConnell is most worried about is the blow-back the results of the Mueller report will have on his own re-election due to his ardent and vigorous a$$ kissing of Trump should Trump be found guilty of crimes outed in the Mueller report. Most especially, if there is a much better candidate that he can't buy his way to beat.

Of course, there will be those who will vote for him no matter how dirty he may be, but, I truly think most Republicans are looking for a better representative for their money.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
5.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tessylo @5.1    2 months ago

His speech blistered your butt?  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
5.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.2    2 months ago

Congressional democrats are doing Putin’s bidding in dividing America.  

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
6  Colour Me Free    2 months ago
Moments after McConnell spoke, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., cited the obstruction issue -- as well as a fresh statement from hundreds of former prosecutors saying Trump's conduct would be chargeable if he weren't president -- in defending Democrats' efforts.

Why is it ignored that Mueller addressed filing charges against Trump once he leaves office in his report …

Hundreds of former prosecutors might say that the presidents conduct is chargeable, but that does not mean a grand jury will indict or a jury convict... 

Why did Mueller not determine that Trump committed obstruction if obstruction was committed .. makes no sense

Mueller could have easily said something to the effect of 'albeit I cannot file charges against a seated president I find his behavior [on said occasions] to be obstruction of justice in an attempt to block the counterintelligence investigation into Russia' …. but Mueller did nothing of the sort, he could not prove intent to obstruct, thus choosing not say Trump was guilty of obstruction?   .. the report does not exonerate, but fails to declare obstruction occurred … just as Jussie Smollet was not exonerated, yet all the charges were dropped....

I am also curious how individuals believe Mueller intended for Congress to interpret whether Trump obstructed justice (?) .. when the report is written to the Attorney General, the AG then decides what, if any information is released from said report... 

 
 
 
It Is ME
7  It Is ME    2 months ago

"They seemed to be hoping for a national crisis for the sake of their own politics,"

Always the fall back with liberals:

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Rahm Emanuel

 
 
 
Tacos!
8  Tacos!    2 months ago

It's all bull. The Democrats have already been convinced for a long time that Trump obstructed justice and they reached that conclusion - along with the "certainty" that Trump helped Russia interfere with the election - before any evidence had come in. So, they don't need any other evidence. If they believed there was real wrongdoing in the White House, they would proceed with impeachment. But they know it's bull, so they don't. They know deep inside that there is no other, more compelling evidence of obstruction or Mueller would have said so. That's not the kind of thing that gets redacted.

This is just a political game for public consumption. They'll spend the next year and a half pretending that there is some unrevealed proof of a crime out there somewhere and use this phony claim to try to win the election. With a strong economy, they think that the only path to success is trying to convince voters that Trump is the second coming of Nixon.

 
 
 
epistte
9  epistte    2 months ago

Trump and McConnel both know that Trump is up to his eyeballs in guilt because if he was innocent he would have no problem releasing the results of an investigation that cleared him. Trump and the GOP would want everyone to know. The fact that he is doing the opposite is proof that he knows that he is guilty and he wants to stop people investigating him because the proof of his guilt and that of McConnell who protected him will invariably come out if the investigation continues. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
9.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @9    2 months ago
was innocent he would have no problem releasing the results of an investigation that cleared him

He did. The Mueller report is a best seller.

The fact that he is doing the opposite is proof that he knows that he is guilty

So he released a report of an investigation that he was under no obligation to release and that makes him guilty? 

That's nuts.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
9.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1    2 months ago

Only if it did not match the left's expected specific narrative smoking gun they demanded to see.....jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.2  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1    2 months ago
So he released a report of an investigation that he was under no obligation to release and that makes him guilty?  That's nuts.

The Barr statement was not accurate or truthful according to Robert Mueller.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
9.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @9.1.2    2 months ago

Actually it was both.  

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.4  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @9.1.3    2 months ago
Actually it was both.  

You are compelled to tell the truth by the 10 Commandments. 

Pay very close attention to the 3rd paragraph of the Mueller letter where he said that Bob Barr was not truthful.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/796-mueller-letter-to-barr/02499959cbfa313c36d4/optimized/full.pdf

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @9.1.4    2 months ago
Pay very close attention to the 3rd paragraph of the Mueller letter where he said that Bob Barr was not truthful.

Okay, let's look at the third paragraph.

As westated in our meeting of March 5 andreiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office’s work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congressandreleased to the public late in the afternoon ofMarch 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance ofthis Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects ofthe results of our investigation. This threatens to underminea central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcomeofthe investigations. See DepartmentofJustice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

Nope, not a thing you claim is in that paragraph.

This is your claim:

Mueller letter where he said that Bob Barr was not truthful.

Pretty easy to see who is untruthful here.

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.6  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.5    2 months ago
The summary letter the Department sent to Congressand released to the public late in the afternoon ofMarch 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance ofthis Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects ofthe results of our investigation. This threatens to underminea central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcomeofthe investigations.

This is the crucial passage that I was referring to.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @9.1.6    2 months ago

Yes---which I quoted for you above. Not one damn thing in there about Barr being untruthful, as you claimed. Do highlight the sentence supporting your rather bizarre claim. 

 
 
 
lib50
9.1.8  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.7    2 months ago

The letter itself is proof Mueller thought Barr misled the public with his pro-Trump protective summaries and limited information.  There is also the fact that at a minimum some congressional committees should get an unredacted report, its their job as a full co-equal branch of government, part of the checks and balances IN THE CONSTITUTION. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @9.1.8    2 months ago
The letter itself is proof Mueller thought Barr misled the public with his pro-Trump protective summaries and limited information. There is also the fact that at a minimum some congressional committees should get an unredacted report, its their job as a full co-equal branch of government, part of the checks and balances IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Feel free to post the sentence in the above paragraph where Mueller says Barr was untruthful. That is what we were discussing.

Appreciate it!

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.10  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.9    2 months ago
Feel free to post the sentence in the above paragraph where Mueller says Barr was untruthful. That is what we were discussing. Appreciate it!

What do you think that this sentence by Robert Mueller means? Mueller is politely saying that AG Barr pubically lied about the findings of the investigation.

The summary letter the Department sent to Congressand released to the public late in the afternoon ofMarch 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance ofthis Office’s work and conclusions.
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  epistte @9.1.10    2 months ago

I've been told I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but I see it (the part about Barr being misleading about the Mueller report)

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.12  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.11    2 months ago

I have many days when I feel like I am the knife that someone took a file to the edge of but even I manage not to embarass myself, usually. 

MORE COFFEE...................!!!

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @9.1.10    2 months ago

Your version of English isn't something I have seen before.

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.14  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.13    2 months ago
Your version of English isn't something I have seen before.

You do like to move the goalposts.

Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.
 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @9.1.14    2 months ago

Just because you made a false claim and got called out on it--well, too bad.

Don't do it and you won't get called on it.

Be honest in your posts and I won't call you out.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.1.16  Raven Wing  replied to  epistte @9.1.14    2 months ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
9.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @9.1.2    2 months ago

Was the mueller report acccurate and truthful?

the obsession with the Barr letter instead of the actual mueller report is very telling. It proves McConnells point nicely.

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.1.18  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @9.1.10    2 months ago
What do you think that this sentence by Robert Mueller means? Mueller is politely saying that AG Barr pubically lied about the findings of the investigation.
The summary letter the Department sent to Congressand released to the public late in the afternoon ofMarch 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance ofthis Office’s work and conclusions.

It doesn't say that he lied. The words "lie" and "liar" simply are not there. If he thought Barr was lying, he could have easily said, "you lied when you said X." All I see in Mueller's letter is that he is aware of people in the media and politics reach a lot of wrong conclusions because all they have is a 4-page summary, which, being only 4 pages, is inherently going to be incomplete. Then Mueller suggests that prior to the redaction process being completed, some other documents could be released and that would give people a more complete picture. I don't know if you know this, but Mueller's people were working with the AG and his staff to complete the redaction process.

It's all pretty benign. There's nothing scandalous there and Mueller isn't calling Barr a liar. If he is, he sure is going at in a vague way.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
9.1.19  KDMichigan  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.16    2 months ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.18    2 months ago

They keep missing that word "FULLY" in his letter.

Someone could write a sentence about string theory and not "FULLY" capture what it is, but that WOULD NOT mean they were lying, as is the claim here.

Utterly ridiculous.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.16    2 months ago
Moving goal posts and deflection are what Trump supporters are good at, just like their 'God sent' new 'Messiah'.
I can't believe that so called Christians would accept the belief that God sent such an immoral, lying, self-serving human to be the Savior of the US

This has nothing to do with religion or a God.

But hey, nice of you to take your shot at Christians.

Feel better now?

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.22  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.15    2 months ago
Just because you made a false claim and got called out on it--well, too bad.

Don't do it and you won't get called on it.

Be honest in your posts and I won't call you out.

You are continually trying to deny what Robert Mueller said in his letter to AG Barr.   He said that Barr did not portray the results of the investigation accurately, which is a PC way of calling Barr a liar. 

 
 
 
Ender
9.1.23  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.18    2 months ago

Sounds to me like he was saying his report was misrepresented. What else would you call a misrepresentation...

There's nothing scandalous there and Mueller isn't calling Barr a liar. If he is, he sure is going at in a vague way.

Sounds like that is exactly what he did.

 
 
 
devangelical
9.1.24  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.21    2 months ago

plenty of fish... in a barrel.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.1.25  Raven Wing  replied to  KDMichigan @9.1.19    2 months ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.1.26  Raven Wing  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.21    2 months ago
But hey, nice of you to take your shot at Christians

Not true Christians, just the co called Christians. There is a difference and it is easily discerned which is which. I have a lot of Friends who are Christians, and they are nothing like many of those who call themselves, but, they are Christians in name only. 

So, yeah....I do feel better. Thank you.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
9.1.27  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.21    2 months ago

Taking shots at Christianity and Christians is what they do no matter the actual topic.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.1.28  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @9.1.22    2 months ago
He said that Barr did not portray the results of the investigation accurately

He didn't say that either. He said the letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of Mueller's "work and conclusions." Nowhere does he say anything Barr said was inaccurate.

It's like if I said Avengers: Endgame was about a bunch of heroes who save the world. You get the bottom line, but my little summary does not - and can not - fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the movie.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @9.1.22    2 months ago
You are continually trying to deny what Robert Mueller said in his letter to AG Barr. He said that Barr did not portray the results of the investigation accurately, which is a PC way of calling Barr a liar.

Well, then, you'll have no trouble quoting where I ever denied what Mueller stated in his letter, right? Right??

No, I read the letter. The whole letter. And unlike some, I read the word "fully". 

Spin it how you want.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.28    2 months ago
He didn't say that either. He said the letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of Mueller's "work and conclusions." Nowhere does he say anything Barr said was inaccurate.

I guess the English you and I are accustomed to isn't what they use.

Either that, or they are STILL just trying to twist words to make them say what they want them to say instead of what they actually say.

Sad, isn't it?

It's like if I said Avengers: Endgame was about a bunch of heroes who save the world. You get the bottom line, but my little summary does not - and can not - fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the movie.

Tried that tactic already, and it went way over their heads.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.26    2 months ago
[delete]

 
 
 
Ender
9.1.32  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.28    2 months ago
the letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of Mueller's "work and conclusions."

Sounds exactly like misrepresentation to me.

As far as your analogy, I can get the whole substance, context and nature of a movie just by watching a sixty second promo.

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.33  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @9.1.27    2 months ago
Taking shots at Christianity and Christians is what they do no matter the actual topic.  

Who has taken shots at Christians and their faith?

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.34  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @9.1.33    2 months ago
Who has taken shots at Christians and their faith?

Are you freaking kidding me?

Really?

LMFAO!

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.26    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.36  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.35    2 months ago
Always amusing and amazing how non-Christians become internet experts on Christianity. And why does it make you feel better to degrade Christians?

Did you ever consider the possibility that the fact of learning about Christianity is what made us atheists? Many American atheists were born Christians, but the more we learned about it the more we realized that is was illogical and plagiarized mythology.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @9.1.36    2 months ago

No one is born any religion.

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.38  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.37    2 months ago
No one is born any religion.

I don't remember being asked before I was baptized Catholic at 90 days of age.  I didn't have a choice about religion until I turned 18.   I didn't believe a word of the nonsense but I also knew that if I didn't go along with my parents demands that the punishment would be severe. 

I asked questions in CCD and suffered for it. That old nun sent so many letters home to my mom I could have been convinced that they were penpals.  I didn't realize that when she asked if we had any questions that I wasn't supposed to speak up and point out the logical flaws in her claims. 

 A friend of mine went George Carlin on the priest one day and I thought that I was going to be killed because I was giggling uncontrollably behind a bible as he did it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @9.1.38    2 months ago
I don't remember being asked before I was baptized Catholic at 90 days of age. I didn't have a choice about religion until I turned 18. I didn't believe a word of the nonsense but I also knew that if I didn't go along with my parents demands that the punishment would be severe.

That's swell and all but doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I posted--that no one is born any religion.

But, hey, nice try!

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.40  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.39    2 months ago
That's swell and all but doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I posted--that no one is born any religion. But, hey, nice try!

Do you consider your passive-aggressive personal attacks to be polite replies worthy of someone continuing to reply to you in an adult manner toward a positive conclusion? 

You managed to be reasonable in my recent atheist thread so I know that you are capable of being polite when you choose to do so. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @9.1.40    2 months ago

If you have a point to my post please present it.

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.42  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.41    2 months ago
If you have a point to my post please present it.

Do you respond in this same dismissive and rude manner to people in person? [deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.43  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @9.1.42    2 months ago

Unresponsive answer.

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.44  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.43    2 months ago
Unresponsive answer.

Exhibit A.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
9.1.45  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @9.1.44    2 months ago

Stay on the topic of the seeded article.  Attacking another member is never on topic.  

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.46  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @9.1.45    2 months ago
Stay on the topic of the seeded article.  Attacking another member is never on topic.  

How was my response off-topic or a personal attack? Are my questions and the fact that I notice his intellectually evasive and dismissive replies personal attacks?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.47  Trout Giggles  replied to  epistte @9.1.46    2 months ago

Notice how you're the only one he called out

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.48  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @9.1.46    2 months ago
  Q. How was my response off-topic or a personal attack?   A.  Do you consider your passive-aggressive personal attacks to be polite replies worthy of someone continuing to reply to you in an adult manner toward a positive conclusion?
You managed to be reasonable in my recent atheist thread so I know that you are capable of being polite when you choose to do so.
 
 
 
epistte
9.1.49  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.47    2 months ago
Notice how you're the only one he called out

Was I wrong to say what I did in my previous reply(s)? I am trying to be polite as possible and to even meet certain people more than halfway as a way to have a meaningful discussion of ideas.  The fact that I commonly post multiple paragraphs with supporting links is proof that I am not trolling or engaging in personal attacks.

From my perspective, it would seem that there are some people who are not interested in a polite, reasoned and rational debate but only for others to agree with them.  If they desire to ban me from their thread or to vote me off the site let them do so, but I want to see their names on a public poll and the reason why I am not welcome to respond to them.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.50  Trout Giggles  replied to  epistte @9.1.49    2 months ago
Was I wrong to say what I did in my previous reply(s)?

No, you weren't. You haven't been name-calling or just out and out rude.

There are some here who are not interested in debate. They are here merely to poke and prod. I seeded an article in Metafied about it

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.51  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.50    2 months ago
No, you weren't. You haven't been name-calling or just out and out rude. There are some here who are not interested in debate. They are here merely to poke and prod. I seeded an article in Metafied about it

It would seem that when I notice their impolite behavior it is considered to be a personal attack. I was not aware that the knowledge gained in a 100 level psych course was threatening to reasonable people. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
9.1.52  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1    2 months ago

Indeed it is.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
9.1.53  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.50    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.54  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @9.1.53    2 months ago

I find your unintentional irony quite amusing.  

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
9.1.55  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  epistte @9.1.54    2 months ago

We should pray, would you lead us?

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.56  epistte  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @9.1.55    2 months ago
We should pray, would you lead us?

This is the best that I can do on short notice, so FSM forgive me. 

https://images.app.goo.gl/cVjjEAycaaLk8jwY6

I was able to locate a prayer for progressive Christians, if you want to split the difference between godless secular progressives and Christians.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
9.1.57  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @9.1.56    2 months ago

“But sometimes you have to draw the line and say, ‘This is how far we can go,’” Young said during the webinar, in which he and Hunzicker detailed the characteristics of progressive Christianity, sometimes called theological liberalism, and argued that many of its tenets are in conflict with Scripture. Churches and faith groups that adopt this ideology risk not only departing from the truth of the Gospel, but also declining membership, the ministers said.

Moderating the discussion was Bobby Harrington, an author, a minister for Harpeth Christian Church in Franklin, Tenn., and executive director of Renew Network, a multinational, multi-ethnic group of faith leaders, many from churches associated with the Restoration Movement, focused on renewing the teaching of Jesus for disciple-making.

Young, a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University and Harding School of Theology, earned a doctorate in New Testament from Vanderbilt University. He has served the North Boulevard church for 21 years and is the author of “NEW DAY: Restoring the Revolutionary Mission of Christ’s Church.”

Hunzicker, a graduate of Harding University, is a church planter in training, working alongside west campus minister Glenn Robb.

This Dialogue is adapted from a transcript of the webinar with additional input from Young, Hunzicker and Harrington. Find links to this and other webinars, plus podcasts and additional resources, at renew.org. Renew hosts a launch gathering for the network, with the theme, “The Elements of Renewal,” Oct. 24 in Franklin.


[Deleted]

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.58  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @9.1.57    2 months ago

You seem to be unaware that my comment about progressive Christians was satirical.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
9.1.59  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @9.1.58    2 months ago

Actually I wasn’t and do not in any way believe that it was satire and do not accept that explanation.  

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.60  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @9.1.59    2 months ago

reply #8.1.56  was obviously satirical. Badfish asked me for a secular progressive prayer as a joke but us nasty secular progressives obviously don't pray, except to our cats and coffee makers.

 Google directed me to a progressive Christian prayer when I tried to search for a "secular progressive prayer", so I went with that as a joke.

 You really should try to loosen up and laugh occasionally.  You'd probably feel better. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
9.1.61  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.50    2 months ago

I stand by and double down on all that I said in reply to your sweeping 🧹 generalization.  While you are at it do a good look in the mirror...

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
9.1.62  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @9.1.60    2 months ago

what I posted in reply about so called religious progressives was right on and can be seen in full in my open Christian issues and news group with the 2nd coming avatar.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.63  Trout Giggles  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @9.1.61    2 months ago

My sweeping generalization?

Who got the ticket?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
9.1.64  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.63    2 months ago

Well we know what happens when liberals and conservatives trade sweeping generalizations in the process of attempting to speak our minds around here.... 

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.65  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @9.1.62    2 months ago

Sean Hannity is part of the 2nd coming?

 Nobody is persecuting you or even threatening to take your secular rights away. Do you have any proof that the constitutionally[protected religious rights of anyone else in the US are being threatened?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.66  Trout Giggles  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @9.1.64    2 months ago

You are such an arrogant son of a bitch

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.67  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @9.1.64    2 months ago
Well we know what happens when liberals and conservatives trade sweeping generalizations in the process of attempting to speak our minds around here.... 

Do you believe that someone is persecuting you for your political or religious stances?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online






devangelical
ArkansasHermit-too


57 visitors