Rob Rogers for March 26, 2019

  1. Bbb
    NeoconMan  over 2 years ago

    The Mueller investigation was illegal and a disgrace, and we accept and respect all their findings.

     •  Reply
  2. Missing large
    brwydave Premium Member over 2 years ago

    Watch out Tiny, the fuze is still smoldering. Duds sometimes explode right in your face.

     •  Reply
  3. Zombie keith
    streetbeater  over 2 years ago

    So true! Cartoon of the day!

     •  Reply
  4. Missing large
    jvscanlan Premium Member over 2 years ago

    Steve Bannon: They’ll get Trump for money laundering

     •  Reply
  5. Jock
    Godfreydaniel  over 2 years ago

    Barr’s silly little letter purporting to summarize the extremely lengthy Mueller Report reminded me of the old Woody Allen joke: “I’ve learned to speed read, and I just finished ‘War and Peace.’ It involves Russia.” (An unintended bonus joke in this instance!)

     •  Reply
  6. Rick o shay
    wiatr Premium Member over 2 years ago

    Thank heavens it isn’t being done by the Illinois AG. tRump would still get off.

     •  Reply
  7. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 2 years ago

    Don’t need a bomb when lots of folks are out there with quite sufficient small arms.

     •  Reply
  8. Image
    SukieCrandall Premium Member over 2 years ago

    Barr’s summary is not the report itself. Okay, speaking as an INDEPENDENT:

    Given the bases of several convictions and confessions there were attempts at collusion (which is itself a crime) by multiple members of the campaign, and at least one (Manafort) was in a situation in which his laundered money and tax scam could be held over him by the Russians and Russian allies who helped him do it (which is why the trial about his finances was held first).

    Now some might say that despite multiple attempts at collusion that the campaign would not have done it if the opportunity arose. To that my response is “Huh? Then why so many people spending time trying?”.

    The current interesting questions are these:

    Is an employer responsible for the actions of his employees that were taken for his campaign, business, mob, drug cartel, whichever-type-of-entity when they were employees with whom he met?

    If an employer (or mob boss if someone then uses it as a precedent) is not responsible for the actions of those he employs then is it collusion if he attempts to obstruct them talking about their own crimes, or is it obstruction only if he himself is charged with the crimes that were related to the obstruction attempts no matter how public those attempts were?

    We might soon get courts creating some strange precedents which might be expanded in defenses by drug lords, CEOs of companies which endanger employees or pollute badly, and heads of mobs.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Rob Rogers