Well, what do you know? No Collusion, No Obstruction!
Do you think we government can move on to more pressing business now?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
PrivateHell · M
Hello? What about the current political climate makes you think that would be even a remote possibility? Of course they aren't going to let it go!
anythingoes477 · M
@PrivateHell None of us should want to let it go. We paid for a FULL report with our tax dollars....not the conclusions of a shill. My tax dollars---YOUR tax dollars paid for a FULL REPORT. If nothing to hide--show it. Republicans act like it
s traitorous to want investigations...and a full showing of what was found. Yet when Obama was in if there wasn't a new investigation each week you were just dying to find out why not.
It's not wrong to ask if you did nothing wrong--why the hell are you trying so hard to make sure no one knows it??
s traitorous to want investigations...and a full showing of what was found. Yet when Obama was in if there wasn't a new investigation each week you were just dying to find out why not.
It's not wrong to ask if you did nothing wrong--why the hell are you trying so hard to make sure no one knows it??
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@anythingoes477 We paid for a full report to be prepared in secret by a Special Counsel and to be delivered to the Attorney General. That's exactly what we got.
If you wanted to pay for something else (i.e. a public report), then you should advocate for the Special Counsel laws to be changed. Understand, however, you won't find a single Republican or Democrat lawmaker to go along with you on that.
If you wanted to pay for something else (i.e. a public report), then you should advocate for the Special Counsel laws to be changed. Understand, however, you won't find a single Republican or Democrat lawmaker to go along with you on that.
anythingoes477 · M
@sarabee1995 "however, you won't find a single Republican or Democrat lawmaker to go along with you on that."
You might want to change your alternative facts on that. I know......hannity never told you this so it must be a lie---but actual news says.....
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/capitol-hill-democrats-republicans-demand-mueller-report-made/story?id=61878373
You might want to change your alternative facts on that. I know......hannity never told you this so it must be a lie---but actual news says.....
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/capitol-hill-democrats-republicans-demand-mueller-report-made/story?id=61878373
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@anythingoes477 Yes, many lawmakers from both parties demand that [b]THIS[/b] report be made public. But they are the very people who wrote the law that says it is a private document. Say it with me: HYPOCRISY
They are now demanding that the report be made public because the public wants the report public. You do realize that Congress can make the report public if they really want to, right? It is within their power to do so. Instead, they give lip service to demanding that someone else (the AG) make it public so they don't need to be subject to any future public investigation. 🙄
They are now demanding that the report be made public because the public wants the report public. You do realize that Congress can make the report public if they really want to, right? It is within their power to do so. Instead, they give lip service to demanding that someone else (the AG) make it public so they don't need to be subject to any future public investigation. 🙄
anythingoes477 · M
@sarabee1995 The "privacy" portion of this information is in reference to national security or secret court testimony of sensitive identity witnesses. By putting into the wording that this is a private document that stops the legal opening of the entire document(s). It DOES NOT mean the public or anyone else can ever know what the facts are.
[i]"You do realize that Congress can make the report public if they really want to, right? It is within their power to do so. Instead, they give lip service to demanding that someone else (the AG) make it public so they don't need to be subject to any future public investigation."[/i]
FOX facts. lol lol
1. No....congress cannot make the report public. They can only request that the AG do that---to the limits of national security, etc.--as listed above. What congress CAN do is get everything Mueller has by subpoenaing it for use as the basis for their parallel investigation into the same people, events and facts.
2.No..... it is not within their power to do so. Congress is bound by both national security interest and ethics in what why can make public.
3. It's not "lip service"--in asking the AG to make it public. The document in under AG control. He is in possession of it. Congress isn't asking "someone else" to release it....."so they don't need to be the subject of any future investigations". Congress is NOT under investigation now--and they won't be if the report is made public. The Trump administration is under investigation--not congress--17 separate ones.
[i]"You do realize that Congress can make the report public if they really want to, right? It is within their power to do so. Instead, they give lip service to demanding that someone else (the AG) make it public so they don't need to be subject to any future public investigation."[/i]
FOX facts. lol lol
1. No....congress cannot make the report public. They can only request that the AG do that---to the limits of national security, etc.--as listed above. What congress CAN do is get everything Mueller has by subpoenaing it for use as the basis for their parallel investigation into the same people, events and facts.
2.No..... it is not within their power to do so. Congress is bound by both national security interest and ethics in what why can make public.
3. It's not "lip service"--in asking the AG to make it public. The document in under AG control. He is in possession of it. Congress isn't asking "someone else" to release it....."so they don't need to be the subject of any future investigations". Congress is NOT under investigation now--and they won't be if the report is made public. The Trump administration is under investigation--not congress--17 separate ones.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@anythingoes477 Fox facts? Really? Interesting since I haven't tuned into Fox News in years. Anyway...
I said Congress wrote the Special Counsel law which is what dictated that this document be handed over to the AG as a sealed document. That was Congresses decision. If they did not want this, they could have written the law differently. And, they absolutely could enact legislation (if they can garner enough votes to override the inevitable veto) making this document public.
So when I hear members of Congress calling for the release of a document that they made private in the first place, it just screams of hypocrisy. It is sealed because they sealed it when they wrote the law.
Btw, I personally think it should be released as well. I think we are all too focused on this side question of whether there was or was not collusion. That was even the top item in the AG's "summary." But the original charge given to the Special Counsel had nothing to do with collusion. He was charged with investigating Russian meddling in our elections and I bet that is the bulk of the report. I want to see that. Meddling was proven and indictments were handed down, but I want the details of that.
I said Congress wrote the Special Counsel law which is what dictated that this document be handed over to the AG as a sealed document. That was Congresses decision. If they did not want this, they could have written the law differently. And, they absolutely could enact legislation (if they can garner enough votes to override the inevitable veto) making this document public.
So when I hear members of Congress calling for the release of a document that they made private in the first place, it just screams of hypocrisy. It is sealed because they sealed it when they wrote the law.
Btw, I personally think it should be released as well. I think we are all too focused on this side question of whether there was or was not collusion. That was even the top item in the AG's "summary." But the original charge given to the Special Counsel had nothing to do with collusion. He was charged with investigating Russian meddling in our elections and I bet that is the bulk of the report. I want to see that. Meddling was proven and indictments were handed down, but I want the details of that.
anythingoes477 · M
[i] "I think we are all too focused on this side question of whether there was or was not collusion. That was even the top item in the AG's "summary." But the original charge given to the Special Counsel had nothing to do with collusion. He was charged with investigating Russian meddling in our elections"[/i]
You are correct in that there is definite confusion--"collusion" vs "conspiracy". Saying too close sounding words was NOT accidental. It was Trump's byword--that the media picked up on--"collusion". All along Trump said collusion is not a crime and he's right......but CONSPIRACY [b]is[/b] a crime. It was collusion this...collusion that........by design. Trump KNEW he could not be found guilty of a charge that wasn't even a legal term...so he knew one day he could stand up and say, "see told ya so..not guilty of collusion". The reason--as you say--that the Special Council was investigating Trump for election meddling is because election meddling with a foreign country is what CONSPIRACY is. CONSPIRING with a foreign country too.........
Whether you realize it or not you just made my point. You say, "the original charge given to the Special Counsel had nothing to do with collusion. He was charged with investigating Russian meddling in our elections" That is what I just said.......the crime was CONSPIRACY. That is why Mueller investigated trump for CONSPIRACY.
Collusion is a word game..that is working. To the gullible Kool Aiders all that matters is that now Trump can announce no evidence was found of [b]collusion[/b]........but they will never be able to grasp the concept that no evidence can exist to a non-crime. Trump put it in the cult's mind the crime.......was one that didn't exist.
And even at that he was NOT exonerated. In fact the document goes out of it's way to say that. Why? Because Mueller cannot declare there was a crime. The FBI simply collects information supporting crimes.It's the AG's job to charge......something a Trump stooge who got his job by declaring openly in hearings last August that he would never charge a sitting president--no matter what evidence was that he was handed. So it's not "exonerated" or "innocent"---it's a case of the AG refusing to CHARGE.
You are correct in that there is definite confusion--"collusion" vs "conspiracy". Saying too close sounding words was NOT accidental. It was Trump's byword--that the media picked up on--"collusion". All along Trump said collusion is not a crime and he's right......but CONSPIRACY [b]is[/b] a crime. It was collusion this...collusion that........by design. Trump KNEW he could not be found guilty of a charge that wasn't even a legal term...so he knew one day he could stand up and say, "see told ya so..not guilty of collusion". The reason--as you say--that the Special Council was investigating Trump for election meddling is because election meddling with a foreign country is what CONSPIRACY is. CONSPIRING with a foreign country too.........
Whether you realize it or not you just made my point. You say, "the original charge given to the Special Counsel had nothing to do with collusion. He was charged with investigating Russian meddling in our elections" That is what I just said.......the crime was CONSPIRACY. That is why Mueller investigated trump for CONSPIRACY.
Collusion is a word game..that is working. To the gullible Kool Aiders all that matters is that now Trump can announce no evidence was found of [b]collusion[/b]........but they will never be able to grasp the concept that no evidence can exist to a non-crime. Trump put it in the cult's mind the crime.......was one that didn't exist.
And even at that he was NOT exonerated. In fact the document goes out of it's way to say that. Why? Because Mueller cannot declare there was a crime. The FBI simply collects information supporting crimes.It's the AG's job to charge......something a Trump stooge who got his job by declaring openly in hearings last August that he would never charge a sitting president--no matter what evidence was that he was handed. So it's not "exonerated" or "innocent"---it's a case of the AG refusing to CHARGE.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@anythingoes477 Actually the Special Counsel can and did bring many charges. Look at the indictments that were issued.
And the AG's summary stated that regarding the obstruction of justice charge, that there was neither proof that it happened nor exoneration. Regarding the conspiracy/collusion with the Russians, the AG summary did state clearly that there was none found. In fact it stated that despite multiple Russian attempts to conspire with the campaign, the campaign did not engage with them, as we would expect from an "America First" themed campaign.
But the much bigger issue for me, and that everyone seems to be forgetting, is that the Special Counsel did, emphatically [b]DID[/b], find multiple active Russian efforts to meddle in our politics and to sow discord. That is what we should be talking about because if we don't it will simply continue.
And the AG's summary stated that regarding the obstruction of justice charge, that there was neither proof that it happened nor exoneration. Regarding the conspiracy/collusion with the Russians, the AG summary did state clearly that there was none found. In fact it stated that despite multiple Russian attempts to conspire with the campaign, the campaign did not engage with them, as we would expect from an "America First" themed campaign.
But the much bigger issue for me, and that everyone seems to be forgetting, is that the Special Counsel did, emphatically [b]DID[/b], find multiple active Russian efforts to meddle in our politics and to sow discord. That is what we should be talking about because if we don't it will simply continue.
annie616pop · 26-30, F
@sarabee1995 Well done! 👍️ 👍️ 👍️
annie616pop · 26-30, F
@anythingoes477 Excellent differentiation between collusion and conspiracy. Thank you!!