Check out some similar questions!

jlisenbe · Apr 30, 2019, 08:00 PM

Should Barr and the dufus be held responsible for their LIES to the American people or does the religious types ignore the current status of affairs? The obviously COLLUDED and CONSPIRED to deceive the public.

I thought he colluded with the Russkies? Now they colluded and conspired to deceive the public? When did that become a crime? And if it is, then no one is more guilty that Mr. Obama. So should he be held responsible as well?

talaniman · Apr 30, 2019, 08:18 PM

That's your excuse for letting the dufus and his sycophants stink up the government? Of course he colluded with the Russians, and now he is colluding with Barr to cover his butt. Just because it's not a crime doesn't make it right. If HC and Obama done wrong does that relieve you of admitting wrong is being done NOW? We have known repubs are totally incompetent to bring wrong doing to an account, I hope the dems do better.

paraclete · Apr 30, 2019, 09:32 PM

Just a gripe that never ends. Trump is about the most naïve candidate to ever be elected or so you would think.

waltero · Apr 30, 2019, 09:37 PM

The obviously COLLUDED and CONSPIRED to deceive the public.

What Politician doesn't practice deception?

Deceiving others. That is what the world calls a Romance.

(Oscar Wilde)

Such is the world, Brother.

GET TRUMP!!!

Athos · May 1, 2019, 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Good question. The issue revolves around the guilt of sin. We need a Savior to absolve us of our sin guilt before God. Unborn children have no sin. Infants have no sin. Now when do children reach the age where their awareness of sin would make them accountable before God is a good question. So far as I know, the Bible never directly addresses it, but there are several scriptures that, at least indirectly, refer to it. Dt. 1:39 says, "And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." Here are many other texts should you care to look at them. But one way or the other, we are not changing the subject here. The question, for your benefit, is this. What is the moral difference between killing an unborn child and killing a child that has been born?

https://www.openbible.info/topics/age_of_accountability

Sorry I hijacked this thread. I didn't read the whole thing before posting.

To continue, I will start a new thread and call it - Abortion, Guilt, Sin and Hell, etc., etc., etc.

jlisenbe · May 1, 2019, 04:07 AM

Of course he colluded with the Russians,

Your dem friend Mueller concluded otherwise.

talaniman · May 1, 2019, 05:33 AM

Mueller found no evidence of CRIMINAL conspiracy or coordination as outlined in his summation of volume I. He stated because he found none it doesn't mean there was none He never addressed collusion, because as stated in said volume, there is no term in law that defines such a term. He concluded though that both the campaign and the Russians both expected to benefit from the Russian actions during the election campaign. He lays out the events and actors that occurred which is more that 100 cases of contacts between the campaign and the Russians, so in fact the NO COLLUSION meme by Barr and the dufus is patently false.

I have already quoted the reasons Mueller gave for not bringing charges against the dufus because DOJ policy expressly prohibits it. I am sure more facts will come to light as the congress does it's job despite obstructions, stalling, and challenges from the WH and his minions.

jlisenbe · May 1, 2019, 05:45 AM

Mueller found no evidence of CRIMINAL conspiracy or coordination

I have already quoted the reasons Mueller gave for not bringing charges against the dufus because DOJ policy expressly prohibits it.

So which way is it? Did he not bring charges because of no evidence of criminal activity, or because of DOJ policy?

talaniman · May 1, 2019, 07:52 AM

BOTH, they are not mutually exclusive and he sites and documents specific incidence that were inconclusive because of witness failure to recall, or facts deleted due to an app that doesn't retain specific communications. Lets be clear, there is NO exoneration of collusion, or obstruction. The first section outlines very clearly and specifically relates the actions of dufus campaign members and officials. You should read it yourself.

I'm watching Barr's senate hearing now and must point out that Chairman's Grahams opening statement was not about the report, but about HC, while co chair Feinstein ran down the list of the report summary. I also should point out the outstanding investigations farmed out to several jurisdictions for further criminal and civil actions.

jlisenbe · May 1, 2019, 08:51 AM

they are not mutually exclusive

They are not mutually exclusive? OK. Explain to me how there can be no evidence of criminial activity, and yet you say there are no charges brought because of DOJ policies. How can you bring charges when there is no evidence of criminal activity?

talaniman · May 1, 2019, 09:31 AM

That's the DOJ policy, he didn't say there was no evidence, just not enough that rises to the level of criminal conspiracy definitively with the Russians. Disregard Barr's assertion that there was no collusion, no obstruction and read the report. Inconclusive was the word I used to describe Mueller's conspiracy "evidence". I think Mueller is bending over backwards to be fair to the president.

Please forgive me my friend, I have been distracted by the events in Venezuela, as it's being reported that 25, 000 Cuban troops have been sent there and Russia and China are raising heck over our interference in a foreign country, and thanks for being gracefully enough to stick with the original subject.

Much appreciated.

jlisenbe · May 1, 2019, 10:14 AM

just not enough that rises to the level of criminal conspiracy definitively with the Russians.

So are you saying that charges can be brought when the evidence of criminal, in this case conspiracy, is not sufficient?

talaniman · May 1, 2019, 10:43 AM

NO, they cannot be brought against a sitting president according to DOJ policy.

jlisenbe · May 1, 2019, 12:14 PM

NO, they cannot be brought against a sitting president according to DOJ policy.

In this case, charges were not filed, according to your analysis, because of a lack of evidence. If that is the case, then DOJ policies are irrelevant in this instance.

talaniman · May 1, 2019, 12:18 PM

How so, I don't follow you.

jlisenbe · May 1, 2019, 12:37 PM

No charges were filed because, you said, there was not sufficient evidence. That is the reason. It doesn't matter what DOJ policies are if there is not enough evidence, and that, you said, was the case, so the issue is closed from a criminal point of view BECAUSE OF LACK OF EVIDENCE.

talaniman · May 1, 2019, 01:58 PM

No criminal charges as far as conspiracy, but the obstruction remains an open question. You can still have abuse of power and other high crimes and misdemeanors as lesser charges besides conspiracy. You never know where an investigation leads. Collusion may yet still be on the table. The Barr testimony today before the senate was shocking in that he testified he never even read the underlying findings before he exonerated the dufus of collusion and obstruction so I'm trying figure out HOW that is even possible. Even with no charges he went so far as to say the prez was wrongly accused in the first place with so much documented probable cause laid out, and signed off by Rosenstein, and documented by Mueller's report.

Baffling, but just focus on the actual congressional testimony is my suggestion as Barr appears before the House tomorrow. .

.

Athos · May 1, 2019, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No charges were filed because, you said, there was not sufficient evidence. That is the reason. It doesn't matter what DOJ policies are if there is not enough evidence, and that, you said, was the case, so the issue is closed from a criminal point of view BECAUSE OF LACK OF EVIDENCE.

THERE WAS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE. In fact, Mueller cited ten instances of obstruction of justice. He did not file charges because Trump would not be able to defend himself. However, Trump is not protected from impeachment. So Mueller has given the House enough ammunition to impeach Trump.

Pelosi is against impeachment because the Senate is unlikely to convict. Many other Democrats, however, support impeachment because it is their duty and because the American public will then know what a sleaze Trump is and because a Senate trial will force Republicans to explain to their constituents why they voted against convicting such a crook.

jlisenbe · May 1, 2019, 03:02 PM

the obstruction remains an open question.

I would agree with that, as the whole issue behind the FISA warrant remains an open question.

THERE WAS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE.

I was going on what Tal had said. You would have to read the whole discussion.

The real criminal activity is very likely to be what the FBI and the Obama admin did with the FISA warrant. Stay tuned.

talaniman · May 1, 2019, 05:02 PM

Barr us refusing to appear before the House tomorrow and face questioning by the house counsel. Can't blame him since he wouldn't be able to run out the 5 minute clock with nonsense legalese and would be open to follow up questions. Will the senate interview Mueller?

I'd be careful about wanting those FISA warrants, you may get a lot more than you bargained for. Carter Page was cleared AGAIN because they found him an unwitting fool AGAIN.