- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 2,780
- Reaction score
- 4,490
- Location
- Cincinnati, OH
- VCDS Serial number
- C?ID=25607
Two and a half pages of TABLE OF CONTENTS for "Section IV: Russian Government Links to and Contacts With the Trump Campaign" alone
I think at least one his initial choices for team members was rather flawed; specifically Peter Strzok. Of course, he was removed.I have no question of the character and integrity of those on Robert Mueller's team.
Well, given Mueller's reputation, if he couldn't find evidence of collusion, then there isn't any.I will accept their findings as fact. Will you?
Well I'm kind of proud of the fact that the" no collusion " factor was indeed not found by "ANY" American to be purported!
I see that line as very important & it's time to move on and get stuff done, versus fight over unsubstantiated accusations on all sides.
Indeed all sides as do all here have positive and negative attributes.
No one person is perfect or fails to make mistakes.
The Democratic Party-financed dossier, once celebrated by liberal Washington politicians and journalists, is officially debunked, according to a review of special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page investigative report.
Dossier creator Christopher Steele, who was paid with money from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, leveled at least a dozen Russian election conspiracy charges against President Trump and associates.
Virtually all his information came from Kremlin intelligence, according to the dossier. Mrs. Clinton’s operatives spread the document to the Justice Department, the FBI and news outlets.
A Washington Times review shows that not one of his conspiracy charges — 0-for-12 — was proved true and most were outright rejected by Mr. Mueller. The Mueller report also puts to rest four other non-dossier conspiracy charges tied to Mr. Trump.
Hey, while you're here, quick question!
Have I ever told you how much I admire your ability to avoid taking a position for which you're willing to be held accountable?I think it's a Rorschach test.
What I don't understand is that if the Special Counsel felt that POTUS replies to questions was "inadequate" he decided not to seek further clarification, possibly requiring a sub poena?Hey, while you're here, quick question!
The special counsel's report: legitimate, or total bullshit?
There will be a test.
It's a fine line that a Special Counsel walks; he reports to the Attorney General, who in turn, reports to the POTUS. It would have been entirely within the President's power to fire the Special Counsel and shut down the entire investigation, and the only recourse available if he had chosen to do that would have been for House to impeach, and the Senate to convict.What I don't understand is that if the Special Counsel felt that POTUS replies to questions was "inadequate" he decided not to seek further clarification, possibly requiring a sub poena?
When the report needs such aggressive pre-game and pre-spin before release, I expect I'll find a lot of Barr's carefully couched lawyer-language to be "technically true".
The author of the Iran-Contra pardons doing the job he proactively reached out to audition for, after Sessions wouldn't play ball.
Well I'm kind of proud of the fact that the" no collusion " factor was indeed not found by "ANY" American to be purported!
I see that line as very important & it's time to move on and get stuff done, versus fight over unsubstantiated accusations on all sides.
Indeed all sides as do all here have positive and negative attributes.
No one person is perfect or fails to make mistakes.
4. March 25th - Mueller re-submits his team's summaries to Barr. (Seemingly in an effort to get Barr to release them to the public.)
5. March 27th - THIS letter in which Mueller again asks Barr to make public those summaries and further shows that any questions about redactions for those summaries is settled and they are ready for the public. Barr does not release them.
6. April 9th - Barr is asked about Mueller's response to Barr's summary. Barr claims not to know and/or that Mueller did not voice any objections to Barr's summary.
7. April 30 - News of this second letter from Mueller to Barr is publicized. DOJ confirms the letter and a follow-up phone call between Barr and Mueller. This shows Barr's statements on April 9th and 10th to be false.
Let's all applaud Barr for a job well done, the job he was hired to do.
Yes, it could. But if his strategy is successful, it will be good for the US economy in the long run. And the risks are higher for China than for us; their economy is far more dependent on trade with the US than our economy is dependent on trade with them.https://www.aol.com/article/finance...na-could-cause-a-stock-market-crash/23726009/
Trump's trade war with China could cause a stock market crash