Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Breaking: AG Barr Delivers Mueller Summary Report to Congress
Attorney General William Barr sent his summary of the Mueller Investigation to Congress Sunday. You can read a PDF of the document here. The letter recounts the full Mueller report, dividing it into two parts: possible Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, and obstruction of justice. Regarding the first, Barr writes:
The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Concerning the second issue, obstruction, Barr writes:
After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction…. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Barr concludes by addressing the release of the full Mueller report: “[M]y goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.”
Published in Law, Politics
I remember McCarthy’s national advertising campaign for himself. Man he sounded like the toughest anti illegal immigration dude on the planet. And then he won…
A lot of Republicans live in fear of the liberal media, which would present such prosecutions as more evidence that Donald Trump is a new Hitler, or at least another Putin. (But, God, how I would love to see those people in the dock! )
Scott Adams said that the facts won’t matter. Nobody is going to change their opinion. It looks like he was mostly right.
We did watch a little Anderson Cooper last night and the panel actually admitted that, since DJT didn’t collude (conspire) with the Russians, he was within his rights to repeatedly deny it. It was… instructive. They almost sounded reasonable (though grasping at any thread to support their actions).
I think they’ve been shamed by their coverage a little. They may be awakening to the public’s (justified) near total mistrust of their reporting. Same with Democrat politicians. Maybe they’ll keep this up in the House. Maybe. But, there’s a slight chance public sentiment will change their behavior. The people need to be heard, loud and clear.
All I know is, if they continue the hysteria, I like our chances in 2020.
Your expenditure of strength in the cause is appreciated. I had to stop after Chris Matthews.
I think so, and that’s hopeful. We’ll have to see how well it sticks, but shame and its memory are the most powerful positive influences on human behavior. If shame doesn’t work then fear and loss are next on the scale.
Moderator Note:
Actually, we don't like sarcasm aimed at anyone. We have to defend Gary from it more than most because he gets more people who think sarcasm and ridicule are appropriate responses to his arguments than most. Argue with him or ignore him; sarcasm and trolling are not appropriate, no matter how annoying he may be.Not you, brother, it was aimed at me. Your comment was just collateral damage.
Guess the mods don’t like sarcasm directed at Gary.
I, on the other hand, am not reticent to issue a timely mea culpa.
Bit of trolling there by the mods? Is calling a member “annoying” really the right way to model civil debate?
I really appreciate that. And I really appreciate that Ricochet does not resemble the jungle of Facebook, and unmoderated websites.
I do my best to disagree without being disagreeable. Not only does that align with my better angels, I think that it is more effective. My church teaches us to always assume the best of others, and I try to live up to that. I have repeatedly fallen far short of that aspiration, and I have tried to clean that up afterwards. I also work to not post or comment when I am angry.
Moderator Note:
Aleister Crowley recommends an agenda beginning with "I invoke Thee, the Terrible and Invisible Mod: Who dwellest in the Void Place of the Spirit." It is unclear, however, how well this agenda actually works.Civil debate requires an acknowledgement of fact. We welcome Gary and his commentary which is frequently valuable, despite that he is annoying. It’s ok to openly acknowledge both facts.
[Speaking for myself here. The mods have their own occult agenda.]
I will be posting on the Mueller Report. In brief, my instinct as to collusion was in good faith, but now we know was wrong. It is good for America that President Trump was cleared of collusion.
I want to wait before opining on Obstruction of Justice, given that Barr acknowledged that Mueller did not clear Trump of that.
Hell has frozen over. See http://ricochet.com/608374/i-was-wrong/
.
I think there language said that it wasn’t even a constitutional issue in this case. They didn’t do it at all. I’m pretty sure I heard that on Howie Carr.
I want to thank @garyrobbins for his statement early on in his thread.
He reminds me of a liberal friend of mine, who said that this was the best result possible. That at least the 25 million dispelled the notion that the President was a traitor.
Now I would love to hear from Mr. @fredcole on how he feels about this.