A fact — Most of the lawyers hired by Mueller for the investigation are registered democrats. — https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/21/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claims-about-Mueller/
That is not what you claimed. You said they were all Democrats (they’re not) and that they were” partisans” recruited from the DNC. That is hardly the same thing. Cannot one be a member of a party and still an objective, honorable public servant, or are the only unbiased public officials independents? Plus, you are blatantly ignoring the fact that Mueller himself, who led the probe — as well as Rosenstein, who supervised him — are lifelong registered Republicans. Kind of a big omission, wouldn’t you say?
In the other words, you cite a Politifact link, yet that very link fails to establish what you claim.
A fact — The Mueller reports claims of potential obstruction of justice do not meet constitutional muster — https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/book-excerpt-alan-dershowitzs-mueller-report-final-report/story?id=62781399
You’re going to have to do better than that. This is not a fact but sheer opinion…..and Alan Dershowitz, once respectable, has become a crank whose opinion is at odds with the vast majority of constitutional scholars. I’ll go tit for tat with these three dissenting opinions below. Additionally, Mueller does not say that Trump didn’t obstruct, only that a sitting POTUS can’t be charged under DOJ policy, explicitly leaving open the possibility that he could be indicted when he leaves office, which is why Emmett Flood is in a frothing fury (on behalf of his boss) right now.
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/04/26/mueller-prosecutors-trump-did-obstruct-justice/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/politics/trump-mueller-obstruction.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/ben-wittes-five-conclusions-mueller-report/588259/
A fact — No criminal collusion with the Russians — The Mueller report.
Did you read my post? Doesn’t seem like it, because I go on for pages and pages about that very claim. Please re-read, but in short: it does not say that. (Bill Barr said that.) It says that the SCO could not ESTABLISH a criminal conspiracy that would support an indictment, which is not the same thing as saying there was no conspiracy. More to the point, there is no such thing as “criminal collusion” because “collusion” is not a legal term….but your use of that fictional phrase is indicative of the right wing effort to muddy the waters and claim exoneration when it doesn’t exist. Moreover, as Lindsey Graham will tell you, a president need not even be guilty of a criminal offense to be deemed unfit and subject to impeachment, and the Mueller report is a scathing summary of Trump’s unfitness, which anyone can see who is not a card-carrying member of the MAGA cult.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N62t_vGwabU
A fact — if you are going to make claims of corruption with russian and trump connections you need to acknowledge similar corruption from the Obama administration and their actions to weaponize the intelligence community into their partisan politics.
That is not a fact by any stretch of the imagination. There is absolutely no evidence of any such thing on either count, and I welcome you sending me anything you think establishes such. That is classic right wing gainsaying that proves only one thing: its irrational hatred and demonization of Barack Obama.
I will admit, however, that he once wore a khaki colored suit.
https://www.esquire.com/style/a22862882/obama-tan-suit-anniversary/
