US Politics Thread | Page 334 | Vital Football

US Politics Thread

Barr just made a statement. 10 counts of obstruction from Mueller, but he disagreed on the legal opinion regarding them.

How can you do that? The Law is the law.
 
What the first 60 pages make very clear is that Trump was elected because of Russian efforts. The level of detail on their methods and action sis impressive.
 
"The President‘s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests. "
 
There is quite a bit in there about how he has evidence of intent to commit obstruction. He then spends about 20 pages arguing about separation of powers and indicting a sitting President, after which he concludes it's down to Congress.

That means Barr lied.
 
Yup, plenty said the same and I couldn't fault their logic when it came to Barr basically giving his boss a bye and sympathy, whilst heavily seeming to lean on no collusion means no obstruction, which is patently not how things work.

Mueller sidestepped the issue, wrongly for me, but he did pass the buck to Congress (and I do naturally wonder if he felt that was the only way to get the info out there and not be replaced himself if Trump received any reports about him coming to conclusions that might not be favourable).

I will read the full thing eventually but a failure to obstruct through incompetence doesn't remove the crime, in the way a failure to collude through incompetence does actually remove collusion.
 
A few things I think are worth noting from the Mueller report.

Lots of Trump's team deleted communications, so Mueller couldn't actually make a proper determination on collusion.

It shows that the "fake news" Trump claimed was in fact correct.

Trump won't have immunity after he leaves office (why would Mueller cover that?)

On 7 of the 10 Obstruction charges Mueller has "Substantial evidence" That trump's intent was to stop or control the investigation.

The President that claims he has a great memory could not recall over 30 times in answering the written questions.
 
Ah . The outrage of a democratically elected leader visiting the country rears it’s head again led by the Daily Fail no doubt.

Meanwhile, Mugabe, Putin, King Abdullah and the Chinese president are perhaps forgotten about?. Certainly not as much fuss as Trump if I recall correctly .

Meanwhile the Queen shakes hands with Martin Mcguiness and Prince Charles meets Gerry Adams.

I find this much more distasteful than the complete numpty Trump being afforded a state visit
 
Melon Donkey said:
a democratically elected leader
Click to expand...

Hmmm, that's debatable, what with Russian interference and all.

Anyway, he's a big, orange, small-handed, pussy-grabbing fuck face and it makes me puke that we will be spending countless millions of taxpayers money just so he can gladhand with the Royal family and put a few more of these nauseating pictures in his hotels and golf clubs.

Apart from that, I'm not that bothered whether he comes or not :lol:
 
JuanPabloAngel said:
Hmmm, that's debatable, what with Russian interference and all.

Anyway, he's a big, orange, small-handed, pussy-grabbing fuck face and it makes me puke that we will be spending countless millions of taxpayers money just so he can gladhand with the Royal family and put a few more of these nauseating pictures in his hotels and golf clubs.

Apart from that, I'm not that bothered whether he comes or not :lol:
Click to expand...

Yep, don’t get me wrong I can’t stand the bloke nor the fact that he will be afforded such an honour.

But it just makes me smile that the general outrage is not reported or shown in respect of other equally if not more despicable people given state visits. I know there were protests in respect of others previous but they will not be the same scale as this .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.