We have evidence of collusion but trump smashed it with a hammer.

No reasonable prosecuter would charge him

This. Trump is uniquely horrible in enough ways that his not being a foreign puppet doesn't change anything.

Ohhh.. the prior admin. A bunch of Republicans decided to protect Obama.

Trump won by firing Jeff Sessions (Trump only hires the best) the second the midterms were over. Barr is a known protector. His summary does just that. I'll reserve judgement until the actual report is released.

And surely the declass will happen any day now. Then Hillary, Obama, and all the other "deep state" will go to prison.

Will do, just as soon as it's released.

Trump said he was going to
Punt declas to the IG because it would have a negative impact on the investigation (aka do it and we will hit you with obstruction) and at the request of 2 foreign countries (aka the UK and probably aus is implicated and they were flipping their ****).

And mueller had crimes and indictments all teed up, but it was Barr who stepped in and blocked them all, while stating that the investigation wasn’t impeded at all. Sounds Bout right.

Get some help.

Everyone is forgetting Rosenstein also reviewed the report and agrees with Barr. Is Rosenstein now pro-Trump too?

the reason the media isn't talking about Rosenstein agreeing with Barr is because they want to run with the "Barr is biased and there to protect Trump" trope and they can't do that if people know Rosenstein also agreed with Barr.

It's literal and legal propaganda.

Plus he would have to be a fool to misrepresent the report one month before it is released in its entirety.

The leaders in the FBI, the media and dems thought they could get away with their lies since they were covering for each other and/or they had no reason to think they couldn’t (i.e. assumed Hillary would win the election).

Any day now right?

No one said Barr blocked anything, you did. The wording of the summary is what Trump is running with. That and the fact that they get to redact anything they want. Release the report as is to Congress.

You willing to do a ban bet if they redact?

If there was evidence for an indictment, mueller would have pursued it. There is no other explanation. The wording of Barr’s memo is irrelevant, muellers actions tell us all we need to know. No charges= no evidence to indict.

Being interested in the details of the full report does not logically require one to accept, reject, or even acknowledge the existence of the summary. They are not interdependent events.

Personally, I have not rejected Barr's summary, but it's not what I'm interested in.

The spastic fervor to immediately acknowledge Trump's exoneration is fukking retarded. Something will be released, people will deal with it however they do and move on at some point. Whatever.

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?

I’m all for an IG style report. Everything included must be footnoted to prove accuracy, and must be given to those named in the report first so that they can rebut any point with lawyers. Only info that is proven true and survives rebuttal goes out.

Otherwise, it’s a one sided fable where anyone can be named, exculpatory evidence withheld, a loose web of half truths pieced together.

The noose is tightening around the democrats. the walls are closing in. its only a matter of time before Trump exposes the dems for all their crimes. Hillary was right, once we find out everything they've done, they'll be hanging from a noose. Trump has been vindicated and fully exonerated. He has reached his final form. Democrats wont even be a party in 2020.


game. set. match.


12D interdimensional chess champion - CHECK.


Time Traveler - CONFIRMED.


God Emperor Status - ACHIEVED.

Indictments..

The wording is not irrelevant. It was carefully worded so Trump could claim TOTAL EXONERATION... even though Mueller literally said the opposite.

Then why do Libs care about HOW the emails were obtained and not the contents?




I find it funny that Liberals now love the Patriot act and unchecked governmental power, I thought Trump was the dictator?


The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.



Basically, if your neighbor finally gets sick of you and your online fantasy attorney comrades getting together to watch CNN on surround sound he can technically write up a fantasy dossier about how you and your buddies plan to attack a Trump Rally with homemade Starbucks Triple, Venti, Half Sweet, Non-Fat, Caramel Macchiato explosive bombs. Then he can go on craigslist under "gigs" and pay someone to deliver 50 Starbucks Triple, Venti, Half Sweet, Non-Fat, Caramel Macchiatos to your doorstep you get where i'm going with this? You're an inconsistent idiot is what i'm saying

It will be whatever it is. If you know it's one sided then that can be taken into consideration.

I'm actually looking forward to seeing your take on the full report. I don't have time to fact check a lot of your posts, and I don't agree with many of your conclusions, but it does seem you are well informed and it would be interesting to see how Mueller's findings fit in with what you've posted about and with a lot of the other theories/timelines that have been posted.

Exonerated or not
Guilty or not
At this point, it doesn’t matter

The investigation is over

Either there was evidence to indict, or not. A special counsel doesn’t exist to exonerate. Only to charge when crimes are found.

The reason mueller let barr issue a summary instead of doing it himself was so you liberals would have this justification to keep up with your hysterics.

Who said the special counsel exists to exonerate? Jesus..

Release the report. Let the American people have the report they paid for. We've waited almost two years, and Trump and his hand-picked lackeys gets to decide what we see? You good with that? You good with that if Obama did the same thing? Or Clinton?

It will say that trump jr met with a Russian lawyer to get dirt on Clinton. It will leave out that the Russian lawyer had to get special access from Obama’s DOJ to even enter the country, that she met with fusion gps the day before and after the meeting, that she states she got all of her talking points from Glenn Simpson of fusion (who also represented deripaska, hence the magnitsky convo between the lawyer and trump jr.), that Glenn Simpson lies about this in his testimony, that the other Russian personally knew Clinton, that the interpreter was part of Clinton’s state department.

This was one of many sting operations. Papadapolos was swept up in many as well. But mueller won’t give those details. He will say she was linked to the kremlin and that this was just short of collusion. It wasn’t, it was a set up.

Just like they will say mifsud was kremlin linked, when he ran in western intel circles, and his own lawyer said he was working on behalf of the fbi when he met with papa, not Russia.

The list goes own.

So if we agree that mueller only exists to find crimes and indict when appropriate, and he didn’t indict trump... what logical conclusion can we make here? A lack of indictment IS an exoneration.

Checkmate

"If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters."

A lack of indictment is a lack of indictment. It could be that there was no crime, or that the Special Counsel did not believe it was necessary and appropriate to prosecute a crime. The logic game fails because Mueller was authorized to prosecute but not required to.

Pointless discussion without details.

LOL

Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth?

The purpose of the SC was to investigate Trump and his cooperation with the Russian involvement in our election, as a result of Trump firing Comey because he wouldn't drop the Russia investigation. This was done by Republicans in a Republican controlled House and Senate.

Mueller completed his investigation, in short time compared to Starr, and released his report.. to Barr. Who was put in place by Trump. For this exact reason.

Release the report.



Oh the "White House". lol

I thought you wanted an actual ban bet.

So trump committed treason against his country, and team mueller was going balls deep into anyone that had one misstatement in trumps orbit, but mueller decided not to pursue a charge against trump.

How delusional are you?

What? You on that bipolar time?

I'm not making any arguments or insane speculations, just pointing out the basic flaw in your logic.

So many outright false statements.

Comey was fired for being a **** FBI director. He was called insubordinate by the IG. There was bipartisan support for his firing.

Comey told trump he wasn't under investigation. If we are to believe comey's memos, comey states that trump told him to investigate those in his orbit because it would be good to know if there were Russian spies trying to infiltrate. Trump can fire comey for any reason, at any time. Trump did nothing to impede the investigation. McCabe took over and said as much under oath just a few days later.

Rosenstein, aka I'll wear a wire against trump and recruit his cabinet to overthrow him, was the one who launched the SC because sessions was recused. Rosentein, aka mr. I failed to show up twice to testify in front of congress because I knew I was fcuked, ran it for almost the entire length of the investigation. He signed a FISA warrant against page, he penned the letter outlining why comey should be fired. He had so many conflicts of interest he should have been recused from day 1... but he was protected for a reason. This wasn't "a republican investigation a republican." You and I both know that is a farse.

Think about it, the guy that wrote the letter outling all of the reasons Comey should be fired as FBI director turns around after the firing and hires an SC to investigate if the firing was obstruction... u wot mate? This would make him a co-conspirator and fact witness in the case that HE was overseeing...

Since you don't even know the basic facts of the case, I'm out. I can't inform you, and debate you at the same time. Time for you to read up a little bit.