(05-08-2019, 04:46 PM)TJBender Wrote:

(05-08-2019, 03:23 PM)jj82284 Wrote: I'd ask tj if the minimally redacted sections contain such "damming bombshells" why is it that Mueller himself came to the bottom line conclusion that he couldn't make a case for obstruction and that there is no evidence of collusion with access and oversight to the grand jury proceedings themselves all the underlying evidence etc?  The claim is preposterous on it's face!!!

I don't know what's in there. I just know that it's damn peculiar when a man has the chance to bury his political enemies once and for all by just releasing a report that he says proves his innocence, yet he refuses to do so and tries to keep people from talking about it.

(05-08-2019, 03:47 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: You could actually "hear" the frothing of the mouth in TJ's post earlier. I felt bad.

You misread me, then. My eyebrow is raised, but I'm not frothing by any stretch of the imagination. There's a pattern of odd behavior shaping up here, the sort of behavior that Nixon was engaging in shortly before the end. When any President starts engaging in that pattern of behavior, I think we'd all be wise to let the spidey sense tingle a bit. When he does so regarding something that he says completely exonerates him, and something that would no doubt destroy his opponents if it does turn out to be absolutely nothing beyond what we already knew, I'm highly suspicious.

He released the report.  What were talking about are redactions that a.) The special counsel assisted with b.) That are protected by federal law

If we're talking about gj testimony.  The subpoena from the judiciary committee was Nadler literally asking Barr to commit a crime.  

As for 1974.  If Richard Nixxon had a special counsel report exhonerating him or his satellites from any connection to the Watergate then he would have served out his term.  And it wouldn't even be a footnote in history.  

In his case there was a tale of holderman discussing knowledge of the burglary, and then directing the FBI to back off because they knew the money could be traced back to them.  That's why SCOTUS pierced ep and deemed that POTUS didn't have ep to conceal evidence that was plainly incriminating.  That's a far cry from forcing the ag the unredact gj information against the law or to compel members of the executive branch to discuss internal decision making with an oversight committee when there is no underlying legislative purpose and no predicate for further investigation.

---