The Desperation of U.S. Democrat Leaders

I found Levin's remarks to be dead on the money about Nadler and the Dem Party

Mark Levin: ‘Coward,’ ‘Pompous Ass’ Jerry Nadler Has ‘Declared War on the American People

Friday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Mark Levin, author of “Unfreedom of the Press,” criticized House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) for efforts to force the issue of impeachment of President Donald Trump in the House of Representatives.

Levin called on his listeners to take on Nadler and his allies because he said Nadler and his Democratic colleagues had “declared war on the American people.”

“We need to take on these bastards,” he said. “We need to take them on politically. We need to engage them on a constitutional basis, on a factual basis, on every basis whatsoever. They have declared war today. Mr. Nadler has declared war on the American people. Mr. Nadler has declared war on the office of the presidency and the president of the United States. Mr. Nadler is hellbent on reversing the election results of 2016 and disenfranchising nearly 63 million of you. Mr. Nadler is a throwback. He’s a reprobate from one congressional district out of 435 congressional districts – a dark blue district filled with reds.”

“He doesn’t get to run this country,” Levin continued. “I’ve had enough of this guy. I’ve had enough of his efforts to cripple this president and his agenda. And make no mistake about it, that’s what this is about. They want their third term for Obama. They’ve never accepted this election. They don’t accept a peaceful transition of power.”

Levin called on the American people to confront Nadler and his fellow Democrats, who Levin called “drunk on power.” He went on to call Nadler a “coward,” a “pompous ass” and a “miscreant.”

www.breitbart.com...

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

He can't even do that because it's not the special prosecutors job to determine guilt of innocence, only to investigate a crime and recommend indictment/impeachment to the DoJ/Congress.

Mueller's investigation did not turn up the crime and did not turn up evidence sufficient for any of that. The DoJ did not recommend any action on any of it because there was nothing there to take action on.

a reply to: JustJohnny

It did find him innocent.

Innocent is the starting point. There was no evidence of guilt, therefore the default position is innocence. How do you not understand this?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Mueller specifically said that is not true. Trump being President did not effect the report at all.

a reply to: Deetermined

I don't know about desperation. I still just amazing the Democrats won back a majority in the House. I did not see that coming? Maybe the elections are rigged. Pre-election polls never match the results. When I was growing up in the 70s the pre-election polls and the results were identical.

As if Mueller's testimony wasn't embarrassing enough

to the president.... Right?

And to his supporters.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I still just amazing the Democrats won back a majority in the House. I did not see that coming? Maybe the elections are rigged.

the elections are rigged? Do you really believe that? lol/// hat might be the only way trump won huh?

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: JustJohnny

So how was the Miller testimony bad for the democrats when if nothing else, it established that trump and cronies were bald face lying by claiming the muller report found him innocent..

It wasn't. Right wingers believe that however they choose to interpret something makes it the truth. Because it's their interpretation.

There's no objective reality outside of what they want to believe at this point.

Even some of the more biased talking head of the MSM admit it was not good for Mueller or the Dems.

So now, we move on to watching the Dems throw Mueller under the bus.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I don't know about desperation. I still just amazing the Democrats won back a majority in the House.

It's not so amazing when you look at where the seats turned. The majority of them were in California, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. All it proved was that the mostly left leaning states are leaning further left. I'll be curious to see how that plays out in 2020 now that the far leaning left leaders have proven that they're more interested in providing health care to illegal immigrants than to fix our existing system for American citizens that they campaigned on in 2018.

a reply to: projectvxn

What part of presumption of innocence is an alien concept here?

The part of the Mueller report that outlines the things that Trump actually did, that are illegal, immoral, unpatriotic and impeachable offenses, which eliminates that presumption.

a reply to: vonclod

well, on the obstruction charge, we are still waiting for the IG report.

is it obstruction if the case against you is fraudulant?

the case against President Trump may be a fraud, if so, would you want to pursue obstruction and piss him off even more??

if this is a boomerang, as is claimed, I imho would not want the man angrier than he already is.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Mueller said that they chose not to make a "determination", because of the OLC rule, that a sitting president can't be indicted. But, he did say that President Trump could be indicted after he leaves office.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

So now, we move on to watching the Dems throw Mueller under the bus.

How so?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Mueller said that they chose not to make a "determination", because of the OLC rule, that a sitting president can't be indicted. But, he did say that President Trump could be indicted after he leaves office.

Yes Mueller said this, then had to correct himslef shortly after

you DO know that correct? the OLC had no bearing on this report, at all

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The part of the Mueller report that outlines the things that Trump actually did, that are illegal,...

The problem with most of the people on the left is that they don't even know what constitutes as "illegal" under the law. This is precisely why Mueller's list of offenses against Trump were labeled as "possible" or "potential" incidents of obstruction of justice.

Here's another tidbit of knowledge for the lefties...the only time meeting with Russians or foreigners truly rises to the level of a crime of "conspiracy" is if the conspiracy is an effort to defraud the United States and/or it's citizens. Sharing information is not a crime, unless it's fraudulent, like the Steele Dossier. Hint. Hint.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Mueller said that they chose not to make a "determination", because of the OLC rule, that a sitting president can't be indicted. But, he did say that President Trump could be indicted after he leaves office.

No, Mueller said they did not INDICT the president because of the OLC rule, that had no impact whatsoever on making a determination on whether or not a law had been broken. Mueller loves playing word games with the idiots.

When Mueller says that a president can be indicted after he leaves office, he's talking about any president in general. He did not say that Trump committed a crime and will be indicted after he leaves office.

I'll just point out how many of you have chosen to overlook the correction statement that Mueller made to his own testimony and sound like you're repeating soundbites from Nadler's press conference. It's almost like none of you watched the hearing yourselves to know everything that was said.

originally posted by: thedigirati

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Mueller said that they chose not to make a "determination", because of the OLC rule, that a sitting president can't be indicted. But, he did say that President Trump could be indicted after he leaves office.

Yes Mueller said this, then had to correct himslef shortly after

you DO know that correct? the OLC had no bearing on this report, at all

Wrong.

Mueller said that he didn't indict Trump because of the rule. Then, later, he corrected that statement to say that they "made no determination, because of the rule. He clarified that they didn't make a determination, for example to indict, but then didn't indict because of the rule. He explained that because of the rule, they made NO determination at all.

Mueller went on to explain that if they made a determination, but didn't indict, or had a secret indictment, it would be unfair and unconstitutional, because the president wouldn't be able to answer the charges in court, either way.

But, it is clear that Trump did do what is outlined in the report.

a reply to: Deetermined

Asking Cory Lewandowsky tp send a message to Sessions, to fire Robert Mueller is illegal. Asking Don McGahn to alter official records and to lie, is illegal.

There's more, but I'll just leave those two, for now.

a reply to: Deetermined

No, Mueller said they did not INDICT the president because of the OLC rule, that had no impact whatsoever on making a determination on whether or not a law had been broken.

False. Mueller said that because of the rule, they made no determination on whether or not the president committed a crime. They listed "just the facts, Maam".

It's up to Congress now to determine whether or not Trump's action amount to high crimes and misdemeanors.

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Mueller said that they chose not to make a "determination", because of the OLC rule, that a sitting president can't be indicted. But, he did say that President Trump could be indicted after he leaves office.

No, Mueller said they did not INDICT the president because of the OLC rule, that had no impact whatsoever on making a determination on whether or not a law had been broken. Mueller loves playing word games with the idiots.

When Mueller says that a president can be indicted after he leaves office, he's talking about any president in general. He did not say that Trump committed a crime and will be indicted after he leaves office.

I'll just point out how many of you have chosen to overlook the correction statement that Mueller made to his own testimony and sound like you're repeating soundbites from Nadler's press conference. It's almost like none of you watched the hearing yourselves to know everything that was said.

This is unreal isnt it? I am so sick of this LIE. Mueller said after the break that he misspoke and his answer to Liu was not accurate. He walked it back and said the OLC policy HAD NO BEARING ON THE REPORT!!!!

Why, oh why are the leftists on this site lying about this constantly??????