bman posted:napacat posted:bman posted:napacat posted:
according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction.
My point was just about Trump's despicable attack on McCain, but since you raised the Mueller report, I'll get to that in a minute. Meanwhile, you made a factual error in saying that McCain "peddled" the dossier in question. Here is what actually happened, according to the Arizona AG (a Republican): "He got the information and he read it and it's pretty explosive. He immediately delivered it to the FBI and said this is for you all to deal with. That's what a statesman does. That's what a good American does. And that's what John McCain did. " No "peddling" involved. He received a document worthy of investigation by law enforcement on its merits and did the right thing with it.
As for the Mueller report, you made another factual error, Napa. You said there was no obstruction but that's not what the report said:
Bman, there are a lot of things wrong with your post. Peddling may have been the wrong word...but I don't think McCain had the document first. It was a bunch of unsubstantiated drivel and was purely fake. That document did not warrant investigation by law enforcement if they would have done any research and saw where it derived from, they would have disregarded it.
Correct that the Mueller report did not absolve of obstruction...however, if you read my post...I stated that the AG and Deputy AG concluded there was not enough information for a charge on obstruction.
Lastly, your statement that this investigation led to the conviction of several of Trump's top campaign people...none of the convictions had anything to do with Russian collusion. Don't mislead...a complete farce.
Napa, you can't even read your own words? You said; "according to the AG and deputy AG, no obstruction" and now you deny saying it? It's right there for God's sake! Have some intellectual integrity please!
As for the document, if it was fake the only way to know would be an investigation by law enforcement. The information was assembled by a credible source (a former intelligence official if I recall correctly) whatever Fox news says, and included allegations that any law enforcement agency would feel it necessary to investigate.
As for your last statement above, wrong again. Several were convicted for lying to Congress and/or law enforcement, and it seems pretty clear that those lies pertained to Russian collusion. Why would they have lied if they didn't?
In any case, the Mueller investigation is anything but a farce. Even if it had revealed nothing it was necessary given the events that led to its creation. Again, try watching other news sources to get a balanced view of things. I don't get Fox news here in Canada (I could, but won't pay for the, umm, "privilege") but I do check out their website and Breitbart's too, from time to time. I suggest you do the same with BBC or CBC or The Economist or some other objective source.
How can you be so dense? I acknowledged the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump on obstruction. Mueller also did not make a recommendation...so the AG and deputy AG write there was not enough information to bring charges on obstruction. Pretty clear.
I do watch Fox among other sources. Would you recommend that I get the majority of news from a lying media that reports 90 - 95% negative stories on Trump. How wrong were they on this. They actually were not wrong...they knew there was no collusion...they were just promoting a lie. BBC is fine the others are not journalists. Never seen Breitbart once.
You Democrats (not you specifically) are an odd bunch. Can't wait for the real facts to come out about this...and hopefully jail time for many. Just look at what they tried to do to Justice Kavanaugh. That will show they have zero morals. Look at Smollett and Avenatti. Great guys.