The Right Side of the News

Guess what. I googled "Barr's Response to Mueller's letter" etc and got nothing but the reports on what Mueller had said, basically quoting what you said he said. SO sorry but the reality is not to be reduced to those few words of Mueller's, but of course Google wants us all to think so. There was a conversation between Barr and Mueller that isn't showing up. Maybe it's on page ten thousand but I'll have to look later. It's the Left that lies and lies and lies and lies and lies and the Left believes the lies. There was nothing wrong with Barr's summary of the main conclusions. He did not misrepresent them.AbE a while later I googled "Barr asked Mueller if his four page summary misrepresented him and Mueller said no" and guess what? I got the SAME REFERENCES TO WHAT MUELLER SAID THAT YOU QUOTED. Nothing about what Barr said, nothing about the conversation between him and Mueller. Gosh, do you suppose Google has become a propaganda machine for the Left? NaaaAbE: Wondering: If it did appear to be so, that Google misrepresents anything that counters the Liberal line, would any of you care? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He turned the information over to Congress as he was charged.He gathered the information and made no determination regarding the President. That determination can only be made through the process of Impeachment.It really is that simple.

You should be a little more cautious about calling me a liar based on NPR or any other leftwing source, including Google. Since Google is the liar, I decided to look this up directly on a nonliberal source, Fox News, and this is what I got: Why couldn't I turn this up on a Google search? I'm sure you'll want to throw it out because it's Fox News, or even just because it's what Barr said, since the Left has been doing an effective job of smearing him, an honest man, but isn't it kind of interesting that I could find what I remembered there and Google had nothing on it?So apparently Mueller only complained about the media's coverage to Barr in the phone call and not in his letter so I misremembered that part. Does that make me a liar?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It you type "barr mueller phone call" into Google it will find the information you're looking for.--Percy

I see, thanks. But all my efforts to get Google to turn up anything on Barr's view failed and it would only give me Mueller's statement. Nice to know if you keep working at it you may find a formula that will work in Google, but I wasn't looking for a phone call specifically so I wouldnj't have thought of it. Google used to be a lot easier to navigate. Not since Trump.I've seen references to other search engines that are supposedly not so biased so I'll have to go to one of those. Bing wasn't mentioned.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

you know we're using collusion and conspiracy interchangeably here ICANT don't play coy. no I'm saying they didn't turn up enough evidence to substantiate collusion. Thankfully I'm allowed to form my own opinion on the matter, just because the jury found OJ not guilty doesn't mean I have to stop thinking he's a murderer.

If after three years of harassment and relentless media propaganda and promises that Trump was going to prison and all that, they "didn't turn up enough evidence" throw the damn thing out, it's worthless.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Dr. Do we send people to jail for committing adultery?As I understand our system we do not send people to jail for not breaking the law. We do send people to jail if we have enough evidence they committed an offense of breaking the law.But if you can not present enough evidence to convict someone of breaking the law beyond a reasonable doubt they are not guilty.Had Muller had enough evidence he would have not said he had insufficient evidence to find the President culpability?Insufficient evidence means he could not get a conviction in a court of law.God Bless,

Hi Dr. You did not hear me say "LOCK HER UP".But if I had deleted 0ver 30,000 emails from my computer after they had been Subpoenaed I would still be in jail. The last time I checked Hitler was a German and not covered by American laws and our Constitution. The President is a citizen of the US and therefore covered under our Constitution and laws.Therefore he is innocent until convicted in a court of law.God Bless

Better check again. The Nazis who were tried for war crimes were tried under international law, which is recognized by American law. Dr. Adequate's point was that Hitler was guilty - we all know he was guilty - even though he was never indicted, tried or convicted.

Hi jar, Please reference where Muller was charged to turn over anything to Congress.Here is what Muller says:

quote:

---

quote:

---

[Muller]INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I This report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 600.8(c), which states that, [a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he . . . shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel] reached.

---

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

---

That says Muller shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions. It does not say anything about Muller shall provide Congress a report.He had two choices he fulfilled #1 but did not do #2.God Bless

Hi Dr. Legal definition of Collusion: An agreement between two or more people to defraud a person of his or her rights or to obtain something that is prohibited by law.Legal definition of Conspiracy: Conspiracy, in common law, an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means.Those two statements are not interchangeable. That means they did not have enough evidence to convict the President of a crime under the judicial system in America. Since you were not on the jury your opinion does not count except in your mind.I'll not give my opinion on something unrelated to the subject at hand.God Bless

Hi ringo I never read where Hitler was tried for anything.If he had been tried he would not have had the privilege of being tried under the United States Constitution and laws.Under our laws you have to have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a person of an offense.If you can not do that the person is not guilty.According to Muller he had insufficient evidence to convict.That is our system whether you like it or not.God Bless

Conviction and acquittal are separate from guilt and innocence.

quote:

---

Proverbs 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.

---

I agree as I've been saying all along "not enough evidence to convict" is not the same thing as "no evidence". "Unable to charge someone for a crime" is not the same thing as "no crime occurred". and since you weren't part of the Mueller investigation your opinion does not count except in your mind. It's pretty easy to win debates when you just handwave away peoples positions isn't it.