Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12001  
Old 07-26-2019, 07:59 PM
Fair Rarity's Avatar
Fair Rarity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Legal Q: Let's suppose that he's impeached for obstruction of justice, is acquitted by the Senate, and then loses the election in 2020. Could a 2021 Justice Department under a Democratic President's administration indict and try him for obstruction of justice without triggering double jeopardy?
I don't know about that, but I am fairly confident he has committed/will commit more acts of obstruction than that, plus all the other crimes. So while it would suck that he could potentially get away with that particular bit of obstruction, he can't be Neo in the Matrix dodging all the bullets forever, even if double jeopardy or statutes of limitation apply. Too many people are on to his grift and he's out in 2025 at the latest.

I wonder how much the statutes of limitations will be expiring, either in 2021 or 2025. Wouldn't you run it like a RICO case? That the original crime might have expired, but the conspiracy and obstruction that continues after the fact becomes a bigger crime and a way in?
  #12002  
Old 07-26-2019, 08:07 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
This is right. Mueller has made clear over and over that he simply did not make a final determination about whether the obstruction evidence was sufficient for indictment, and that the reason he did not make that determination is the OLC memo.

I think it's pretty clear, given the "not exonerated" language, that Mueller personally thinks the President probably committed obstruction of justice (there's really no other way to explain the contrast to the language about not establishing the crime of conspiracy). But that is not the determination that would be necessary to indict. He would also have to determine the likelihood that courts would agree with his reading of the obstruction statutes and the likelihood that a jury would find the requisite facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are the kinds of determinations he did not ultimately reach because they were moot given the OLC memo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
QFT. And I donít understand why Mueller is unable to explain this. Wimp.
My best guess is that Mueller has concluded that clearly explaining the role the OLC memo played, would inevitably impugn the reputation of Trump (via inference). And impugning the reputation of Trump is forbidden, since Trump has no opportunity to clear his name at trial.

But there were several responses Muellr gave on Wednesday that seemed to me to come just as close as an OLC-explanation would have done, to that danger zone. Those answers did indeed suggest doubts about the absolute integrity of Trump.

I'm thinking of responses such as those summarized by the NY Times as:

Quote:
... Mr. Mueller said the president had not been cleared of obstructing justice, nor had he been completely exonerated, as Mr. Trump has so often declared; he said that the president had been untruthful in some of his under-oath responses during the probe; and he called Mr. Trumpís encouragement of WikiLeaks ďproblematic,Ē to say the least.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/u...th=login-email

Mueller's relative willingness to suggest concerns about Trump's conduct was a far cry from what some had anticipated when we learned that the DoJ had instructed* Mueller to avoid even mentioning "third parties." Though "third parties" may not actually have included Trump (who, unindicted as he remains, is surely a principal), some did wonder whether Mueller would spend his time before the House committees pretending Trump didn't exist. Fortunately, that turned out not to be the case.



*https://thehill.com/policy/national-...-public-report
  #12003  
Old 07-26-2019, 08:09 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair Rarity View Post
I...he's out in 2025 at the latest.
...
By 2025, how many federal judges will he have appointed? How many judges of integrity will be left on the bench?
  #12004  
Old 07-26-2019, 09:00 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
My best guess is that Mueller has concluded that clearly explaining the role the OLC memo played, would inevitably impugn the reputation of Trump (via inference). And impugning the reputation of Trump is forbidden, since Trump has no opportunity to clear his name at trial.

But there were several responses Muellr gave on Wednesday that seemed to me to come just as close as an OLC-explanation would have done, to that danger zone. Those answers did indeed suggest doubts about the absolute integrity of Trump.

I'm thinking of responses such as those summarized by the NY Times as:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/u...th=login-email

Mueller's relative willingness to suggest concerns about Trump's conduct was a far cry from what some had anticipated when we learned that the DoJ had instructed* Mueller to avoid even mentioning "third parties." Though "third parties" may not actually have included Trump (who, unindicted as he remains, is surely a principal), some did wonder whether Mueller would spend his time before the House committees pretending Trump didn't exist. Fortunately, that turned out not to be the case.



*https://thehill.com/policy/national-...-public-report
Mueller made a pretty clear statement that Trump's credibility in any form - written, spoken, or otherwise - was pretty well nil.

In general, he was pretty will to judge Trump. He just wasn't willing to judge him on crimes.
  #12005  
Old 07-27-2019, 07:32 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Mueller made a pretty clear statement that Trump's credibility in any form - written, spoken, or otherwise - was pretty well nil.

In general, he was pretty will to judge Trump. He just wasn't willing to judge him on crimes.
Fair enough.
  #12006  
Old 07-27-2019, 07:58 PM
Fair Rarity's Avatar
Fair Rarity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
By 2025, how many federal judges will he have appointed? How many judges of integrity will be left on the bench?
Too few, alas. Too few.

But not entirely gone. And state courts won't be affected.

Would a federal judge appointed by him have to recuse himself? I don't even put it as potentially herself because I don't believe he's racking up female representation.
  #12007  
Old 07-27-2019, 08:24 PM
jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
He seems to think his job ends at describing the criminal activity without actually labeling it criminal activity. But if he stops there, and the recipients of his message fail to act, then he has failed to communicate his intent. He needs to do more. Step up, Mueller.
I agree with your frustration, but Mueller has spelled out his reasoning very clearly in the Introduction to Volume II:

(1) The OLC memo means that he can't indict a sitting President.

(2) It is unfair to accuse someone with a crime without indicting them and thus starting the criminal justice process by which they can potentially clear their name; this would be true of anyone who is not indicted for some reason but is particularly true of the President since the accusation could affect his ability to govern. Ergo, he cannot even accuse the sitting President of a crime.

One can argue with (2), but this is clearly Mueller's position and I wouldn't expect him to deviate from it when, in his view, it is fundamental to the rights of the accused. Trump continues to get a break from people who, unlike him, have ethical standards that prevent them from doing things that might harm him.

Last edited by jshore; 07-27-2019 at 08:26 PM.
  #12008  
Old 07-27-2019, 08:31 PM
jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,969
P.S. - Of course, Mueller's high ethical standards didn't prevent one of the Republi-morons questioning him to launch into this tirade about how Mueller (by saying he could not exonerate Trump) had put Trump "below the law". Trump and his sycophants don't realize how lucky they are that they got someone like Mueller to investigate him (while Clinton got Starr, a partisan with much lower ethical standards, to investigate him).
  #12009  
Old 07-28-2019, 10:39 AM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 5,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair Rarity View Post
I don't believe he's racking up female representation.
[Beavis]Heh, heh. He said 'rack.'[/Beavis]
  #12010  
Old 07-29-2019, 07:47 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,821
I think this exchange between Chris Wallace and Stephen Colbert sums up the realities of the Mueller testimony. Nancy Pelosi and the Dems not suffering from TDS recognize on some level that the Mueller investigation didn't find what they want, they couldn't get Mueller to say what they want, and they are back to square one.

Regards,
Shodan
  #12011  
Old 07-29-2019, 07:57 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I think this exchange between Chris Wallace and Stephen Colbert sums up the realities of the Mueller testimony. Nancy Pelosi and the Dems not suffering from TDS recognize on some level that the Mueller investigation didn't find what they want, they couldn't get Mueller to say what they want, and they are back to square one.

Regards,
Shodan
Yes, I wanted Mueller to say "Trump should be impeached and prosecuted", but I had no realistic expectation that he would say this, nor did the Democrats and progressives I know. But Mueller's testimony went about as well as I hoped it would -- he confirmed, numerous times, with quotable TV sound bites (even if all it was was a Democratic Rep reading a damning portion of the report and Mueller saying "yes, that's accurate") that he found significant evidence of wrongdoing by Trump and his team, and that Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office, and that the reason he didn't make a determination on indictment for obstruction of justice was due to the OLC memo rather than a lack of evidence.
  #12012  
Old 07-29-2019, 09:08 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,823
Well since Disqus decided that I'm a spambot, I'll post a reply I had to one person who was trying to make the claim that Trump was exonerated by Mueller:

Let's say that you're a member of a jury in a trial. The prosecution describes an investigation into Geraldine for murdering her husband. While attempting to investigate her, Geraldine's best friend had a mystery envelope of $40,000 appear on her porch, the officers had found a letter in Geraldine's handwriting near the next door neighbor's front lawn threatening to murder their dog (the neighbors refused to talk to the investigators), and she had gone to the police commissioner and tried to take off her clothes and feel up his groin after asking for a private meeting. The envelope of money has Geraldine's fingerprints on it and the friend testifies that she did find the envelope and confirms the story. Video is shown from the police department of Geraldine, in the Commissioner's office, of her getting up from her chair - he's visible surprised - and going around his desk stripping. He pushes her away and then throws her out of the office.

This is not a trial for homicide, we'll note, it's for Obstruction of Justice. The police were never able to establish homicide due to there being insufficient evidence.

Just after the prosecution has been able to bring out all of the evidence for this, for some legalistic reason that really doesn't make sense a mistrial is called. A month later you hear that the police have abandoned their case, and refuse to explain why.

You meet Geraldine in a supermarket. She's a good looking woman. You're single. Do you ask her out?

Last edited by Sage Rat; 07-29-2019 at 09:08 AM.
  #12013  
Old 07-29-2019, 09:16 AM
xenophon41's Avatar
xenophon41 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere up country.
Posts: 5,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore View Post
P.S. - Of course, Mueller's high ethical standards didn't prevent one of the Republi-morons questioning him to launch into this tirade about how Mueller (by saying he could not exonerate Trump) had put Trump "below the law".
Rep. John Ratcliffe, the particular Republi-moron you mention, has been tapped by Trump to replace Dan Coats as DNI, partially on the strength of POTUS' delight regarding his excoriation of Mueller. Because of course.
  #12014  
Old 07-29-2019, 09:17 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,194
I mean... just how single am I? "Haven't had a date in 6-years single" or "happy for now to trawl the waters of Tinder single" or "I'm single because I don't want to tell her 'I love you' single"?


Last edited by JohnT; 07-29-2019 at 09:17 AM.
  #12015  
Old 07-29-2019, 09:22 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
I mean... just how single am I? "Haven't had a date in 6-years single" or "happy for now to trawl the waters of Tinder single" or "I'm single because I don't want to tell her 'I love you' single"?

We'll go with the "reasonable man" standard and say trawling.

Obviously, swap genders as necessary, readers.
  #12016  
Old 07-29-2019, 09:28 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
....You meet Geraldine in a supermarket. She's a good looking woman. You're single. Do you ask her out?
McConnell lays on his back, his belly baking in the hot sun, beating his legs trying to turn himself over, but he can't. Not without your help. But you're making popcorn. What brand of popcorn are you making?
  #12017  
Old 07-29-2019, 09:30 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,194
Jiffy pop.

I fuck it up again, burn the damn thing. Tell Mitch "Wait, I gotta restart".
  #12018  
Old 07-29-2019, 09:33 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,395
Pop Secret

Iím hungry now and the movieís good. Mitch can wait until the showís over.
  #12019  
Old 07-29-2019, 10:06 AM
dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenophon41 View Post
Rep. John Ratcliffe, the particular Republi-moron you mention, has been tapped by Trump to replace Dan Coats as DNI, partially on the strength of POTUS' delight regarding his excoriation of Mueller. Because of course.
I just posted this link in the clusterfuck thread. A recap of why Trump didn't like Coats and why Trump wants a yes man as DNI:

Trump says Daniel Coats, director of national intelligence, to step down

Daniel Coats said whatís happening in the world. In the Trump era, thatís an act of defiance.


Quote:
Now it looks like Trump picked someone who will tell him what he wants to hear, not whatís true. Thatís a huge problem, as the DNIís job is to give the president the information he needs to make informed policy decisions.

Which means that while Trump may be happier with whoever his new intelligence director ends up being, America will be less safe for it.
  #12020  
Old 07-29-2019, 10:08 AM
SingleMalt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Front Range
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Yes, I wanted Mueller to say "Trump should be impeached and prosecuted", but I had no realistic expectation that he would say this, nor did the Democrats and progressives I know. But Mueller's testimony went about as well as I hoped it would -- he confirmed, numerous times, with quotable TV sound bites (even if all it was was a Democratic Rep reading a damning portion of the report and Mueller saying "yes, that's accurate") that he found significant evidence of wrongdoing by Trump and his team, and that Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office, and that the reason he didn't make a determination on indictment for obstruction of justice was due to the OLC memo rather than a lack of evidence.
Very much this. Mark Sumner had a succinct passage I thought responded to the Mueller "nothingburger" well (Be warned! Left-wing site! Oh, no!):

"Because all that Mueller did was confirm that Donald Trump made multiple serious efforts to obstruct justice, interfered with witnesses, lied on his written responses to the special counsel, and engaged in support for illegal activity. Along the way, Mueller reminded the nation that Trumpís campaign chair, campaign co-chair, personal attorney, national security advisor, and a pair of foreign policy specialists were all indicted and convicted. And he reminded everyone that Russian interference in the 2016 election was extensive and extreme, and that Russia was not just planning to do the same thing in 2020, but is doing the same thing right now.

So, gee, itís too bad Mueller didnít have anything big to say."
  #12021  
Old 07-29-2019, 10:16 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenophon41 View Post
Rep. John Ratcliffe, the particular Republi-moron you mention, has been tapped by Trump to replace Dan Coats as DNI, partially on the strength of POTUS' delight regarding his excoriation of Mueller. Because of course.
Partially? There's another reason?
  #12022  
Old 07-29-2019, 10:18 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,021
You had me right up to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I think this exchange between Chris Wallace and Stephen Colbert sums up the realities of the Mueller testimony. Nancy Pelosi and the Dems not suffering from TDS
...then you blew it.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #12023  
Old 07-29-2019, 10:37 AM
xenophon41's Avatar
xenophon41 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere up country.
Posts: 5,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Partially? There's another reason?
Well, he's also a robotically predictable Trump loyalist who has seemingly surrendered his agency wholly over to the regime. So, looks like a suite of qualifications to Der Furor, I'd guess.
  #12024  
Old 07-29-2019, 12:00 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I think this exchange between Chris Wallace and Stephen Colbert sums up the realities of the Mueller testimony. Nancy Pelosi and the Dems not suffering from TDS recognize on some level that the Mueller investigation didn't find what they want, they couldn't get Mueller to say what they want, and they are back to square one.

Regards,
Shodan
They found what they wanted. It's just that they just realize that for much of the country hasn't read or head all the facts; is trying to process competing narratives and interpretations of the facts (one of which is patently false); or just doesn't give a shit one way or the other.

Mueller, for his part, said what they wanted him to say. He just didn't say it the way he wanted them to, and he didn't say it in the manner that would convince the average person to look more carefully at the report, lean away from the false narrative, or otherwise give a shit about it in the first place.

Last edited by asahi; 07-29-2019 at 12:01 PM.
  #12025  
Old 07-29-2019, 01:24 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
McConnell lays on his back, his belly baking in the hot sun, beating his legs trying to turn himself over, but he can't. Not without your help. But you're making popcorn. What brand of popcorn are you making?
With salt and butter, and I help him to turn over.

That is to say, I would offer a sane response rather than refusing to think about the question. Can you think of any reason that I shouldn't give full credence and thought to the question and answer it honestly and reasonably? Can you think of any rational reason to do otherwise?

Last edited by Sage Rat; 07-29-2019 at 01:27 PM.
  #12026  
Old 07-29-2019, 01:52 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Mueller, for his part, said what they wanted him to say.
That was the point of my posting the exchange between Colbert and Wallace. No, he didn't.

Regards,
Shodan
  #12027  
Old 07-29-2019, 02:16 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,765
I don't recall the exact words used. Does someone have a clearer memory of what Mueller had to say about Trump's response to an invite for a sit down? Or about the truth and completeness of his written responses? Thanks.
  #12028  
Old 07-29-2019, 02:19 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
That was the point of my posting the exchange between Colbert and Wallace. No, he didn't.

Regards,
Shodan
My point was, Mueller said more than enough to have Trump impeached. They wanted him to raise his voice, pound the table, and gave his own state of the disunion address to congress. Predictably, it didn't happen. I don't know what progressives are waiting for or expecting but a majority of the country has made up its mind about the investigation and wants to talk about something else.
  #12029  
Old 07-29-2019, 06:10 PM
Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,299
I strongly feel that even if Bob Mueller shouted and pounded the table and shouted, "What is WRONG with you stupid, elected fucks? He should've been impeached on day one! I gave you all the fucking evidence!", it wouldn't have been nearly enough to flip more than another 2 or 3 republicans voting for impeachment.

Since his destruction of AC in the early '90s, we've been shouting "follow the money". No one has, this investigation didn't, and until we can prove he's in major debt and NOT as wealthy as many think, he'll be a hero to millions. Money is all that talks these days.

Last edited by Locrian; 07-29-2019 at 06:11 PM.
  #12030  
Old 07-29-2019, 11:34 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
I strongly feel that even if Bob Mueller shouted and pounded the table and shouted, "What is WRONG with you stupid, elected fucks? He should've been impeached on day one! I gave you all the fucking evidence!", it wouldn't have been nearly enough to flip more than another 2 or 3 republicans voting for impeachment.

Since his destruction of AC in the early '90s, we've been shouting "follow the money". No one has, this investigation didn't, and until we can prove he's in major debt and NOT as wealthy as many think, he'll be a hero to millions. Money is all that talks these days.
That's a different investigation (and still underway).

And, in the case of Trump, I suspect that there's just as much wisdom if you opted instead for "follow the girls".

Last edited by Sage Rat; 07-29-2019 at 11:35 PM.
  #12031  
Old 07-30-2019, 02:41 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,303
This is an example of why I think the Mueller testimony was a success for the Democrats:

https://theweek.com/speedreads/85575...own-32-seconds

It would be better if Mueller were stating these things rather than just agreeing to them, but this is about as good as could be expected. Not exactly a slam dunk, but these kinds of sound bites are still useful in chipping away at the perceptions of anyone who is persuadable who isn't aware of any wrongdoing by Trump and co.
  #12032  
Old 08-13-2019, 12:34 AM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,863
Misleading headline of the day: Mueller ties on display at jury selection for Greg Craig trial

I was hoping to see this one. And this one. And this one.
  #12033  
Old 08-20-2019, 11:55 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,194
Anybody else take Trump's tweet regarding Google as an admission by the administration that social media manipulation does, in fact, change votes?

Last edited by JohnT; 08-20-2019 at 11:55 AM.
  #12034  
Old 08-20-2019, 02:56 PM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,520
I take Trump's tweet regarding Google is an admission that he thinks Google has something to do with actually changing votes. I give him no further credit than that.
  #12035  
Old Yesterday, 12:17 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,406
Did Ukraine come up anywhere in the Mueller papers/testimony?
__________________
* "Former President Trump" -- saying it until it becomes true.
  #12036  
Old Yesterday, 12:34 PM
The Devil's Grandmother is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: California's SF bay area
Posts: 4,834
Yes, mostly about the Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. A quick search says there are 44 mentions of Ukraine, but Biden or Hunter got no hits.
Of course, we can only search the redacted reports (https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...html#document/) so who knows?
__________________
"An apostrophe does NOT mean "Here comes an 's'!" -Ė Podkayne, 2000

Last edited by The Devil's Grandmother; Yesterday at 12:34 PM.
  #12037  
Old Yesterday, 01:15 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,960
If Biden's name did actually appear in the report I somehow don't think that that would have ended up being redacted by Barr.

Last edited by Buck Godot; Yesterday at 01:15 PM.
  #12038  
Old Yesterday, 01:17 PM
dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
If Biden's name did actually appear in the report I somehow don't think that that would have ended up being redacted by Barr.
Maybe Trump can tell Barr to add Biden's name to the report using a Sharpie.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017