A betting man might put his money on the side that isn’t trying to hide the results.
The trouble will come, I expect, when it becomes clear that the Dems are calling the report a lie because it doesn’t tell them what they want to hear.
You don’t have to.
If you believe this -
then you already have whatever evidence you need to do whatever you think you can do and you don’t need the report.
The Dems in Congress can do whatever they like right now - yell and scream, impeach Trump, hold their breath until they turn blue. Apparently they would like to think that not conspiring or coordinating with the Russians is a high crime or misdemeanor. Saying “we need a report that doesn’t tell us what we already know” just makes them look, if possible, even pettier and more silly.
Regards,
Shodan
Why are you so confident this will be the case?
The Trump campaign met with Russians to discuss dirt on Secretary Clinton, denied the meeting took place, then denied that Trump knew about it, then denied that Trump had anything to do with it, then it turns out Trump was dictating his dumb’s son’s response to the media. Do Trump supporters pretend this didn’t happen or do they argue that holding such meetings is fine so long as the people doing it give Trump supporters a nice tax break or promise to make the scary brown people go away? If I felt the patriotic fervor Republicans claim to feel I’d be very upset with the Trump administration’s behaviour concerning Russia, during the campaign as well as today.
Yes. Not buying it. Next?
There is no “next”. That’s the reason it has not already been released. You are, of course, free to continue “not buying it”, but that doesn’t mean the people who have explained the reason to you are obligated to keep trying, or provide additional reasons.
Probably not as silly as that sentence which makes no sense whatsoever.
Regurgitations,
CaptMurdock
Yes, they are obligated. They work for me, and the rest of the American people.
Kind of hard to verify this if the report isn’t released. If it really is what your side is claiming via Trump’s hand picked cover up artist Barr, then why are you so scared to release it? The actions of your side are very clearly conflicting with the words they are saying.
You can’t have it both ways. If it totally clears Trump then release it. If it isn’t released, then any claims that it clears anything can be discarded. You would never ever accept this if it was Loretta Lynch and the investigation was into Obama. Your side is trying to force a false narrative onto the public through sheer force of will and obstruction via the AG. It isn’t going to work, the wheels are already falling off. Nobody except the hardcore Trumpists are buying this.
If he was that confident, he would be screaming for the release of the unredacted report. As he is not… :dubious:
You think AG Barr owes you another explanation or something? What exactly do you think he’s “obligated” to do?
Not obstruct justice or carry out a cover-up to protect Trump.
If Loretta Lynch was doing this for an investigation into Obama your side would be apoplectic.
If Loretta Lynch said she’d release it in mid-April, I’d wait until then before getting apoplectic.
I don’t believe this at all. Fox news and the right wing-o-sphere would be going insane and your side would be buying right into it.
Kind of like you guys did over the tan suit, the selfie stick, arugala and dijon mustard.
I thought there was no lying in Great Debates?
Oh… wrong forum. Never mind!
I wasn’t talking about my side. I was talking about me. I’m sure you could find a range of reactions on the right, just as right now you can see a range of reactions on the left.
Barr owes no explanation whatsoever. In fact, he should step far away from the explanation business.
He is obligated to turn over an unredacted report to Congress for them to determine if impeachable offenses occurred and to take whatever action is required to ameliorate any damage done to our national security, as has been done in every other special prosecutor/counsel investigation ever performed. It is for Congress to determine what portions of the report must be redacted for the public, not Barr’s. This is a serious overreach on his part.
If one believes in the rule of law, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t on the one hand say that a sitting president cannot be indicted due to a standing DOJ policy, and then on the other hand say you are the sole arbiter to determine if criminal/impeachable behavior (not the same things) occurred such to check the power of the executive.
That’s what Barr is doing. He is obstructing. You can continue to kiss the lipstick on this pig, but these are the plain facts of the matter.
And I don’t believe you. You may genuinely think that is how you would react. I’m not saying that you are lying, but I don’t believe it. Self delusion is a powerful thing. I try to remain vigilant with myself to avoid it.
If this is correct, your side should have no problem winning some lawsuits to enforce it. AG Barr seems to think some redactions are necessary before releasing it to the public.
If Loretta Lynch unilaterally decided to redact the results of an investigation into Obama you would be fine with that? No issue whatsoever?
What’s to stop him from just redacting everything that reflects badly on Trump or the GOP?