The Desperation of U.S. Democrat Leaders

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.

Care to point those particular things out? What exactly did Trump do that was illegal and which impeachable offenses do you speak of? Enlighten us please because after three years no one else seems capable of doing so.

The fact that the Dem Party fabricated all of this to begin with in order to frame and oust a duly elected president and still can’t get him impeached must be utterly humiliating and embarrassing for some of ya’ll. Serves ya right. LOL

a reply to: Sookiechacha

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.

LOL! You fell for that lie? Based on the rules that Mueller was supposed to write his report, he shouldn't have included the 10 "possible" incidents of obstruction of justice for that exact same reason. He wasn't supposed to throw out speculation of guilt on ANYTHING he wasn't going to indict him for!

You lefties must have missed the part in Mueller's testimony when he admitted that Trump had the authority to fire James Comey for any reason and had the authority to fire Mueller as the Special Counsel too. Trump asking people to fire Mueller for conflicts of interest was a legitimate consideration for firing him.

You don't even recognize all of the times that Mueller contradicted himself with his own lies, yet you hang on his every word anyway. Now go compare them against the law and the facts.

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

OLC policy HAD NO BEARING ON THE REPORT!!!!

Exactly. The rule had no bearing on the REPORT and what it documented. The OLC policy had everything to do with the reason his team refused to make a determination on the president's behavior.

The outcome of this whole debacle has been: less support for the dEms, more support for Trump

As expected

The mueller interview HURT the dEms last week and now they’re throwing toys.

No collusion no obstruction no impeachment no indictment coming, ever.

The one thing the ‘left’ DO have right is: Trump is going to win in 2020 just like they all predict.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

OLC policy HAD NO BEARING ON THE REPORT!!!!

Exactly. The rule had no bearing on the REPORT and what it documented. The OLC policy had everything to do with the reason his team refused to make a determination on the president's behavior.

Except that Mueller lied and told Bill Barr three times that the OLC rule WAS NOT the reason they had not made a determination and then he said it again in his correction statement.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

OLC policy HAD NO BEARING ON THE REPORT!!!!

Exactly. The rule had no bearing on the REPORT and what it documented. The OLC policy had everything to do with the reason his team refused to make a determination on the president's behavior.

ugh

Mueller refuted that at the hearing. why are you ignoring this??

a reply to: Deetermined

You fell for that lie? Based on the rules that Mueller was supposed to write his report, he shouldn't have included the 10 "possible" incidents of obstruction of justice for that exact same reason. He wasn't supposed to throw out speculation of guilt on ANYTHING he wasn't going to indict him for!

There is no lie. Mueller wrote his report, without bias and without consideration of the OLC rule. He did, however, consider the rule when writing his conclusions. In conclusion, because of the OLC rule, they made no conclusions as to whether or not the president committed crimes. If they could have cleared the president of crimes, they would have. But they were unable to do that, based on the evidence.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Deetermined

You fell for that lie? Based on the rules that Mueller was supposed to write his report, he shouldn't have included the 10 "possible" incidents of obstruction of justice for that exact same reason. He wasn't supposed to throw out speculation of guilt on ANYTHING he wasn't going to indict him for!

There is no lie. Mueller wrote his report, without bias and without consideration of the OLC rule. He did, however, consider the rule when writing his conclusions. In conclusion, because of the OLC rule, they made no conclusions as to whether or not the president committed crimes. If they could have cleared the president of crimes, they would have. But they were unable to do that, based on the evidence.

Mueller clarified this at the hearing. He did not say that the reason they did not make a determination was the OLC rule. Listen to him carefully.

go to around 4:40 or so

It’s not even the twisting and nit-picking that matters.
It’s the general public’s Perception.

And the general public’s perception is: the dEms lied, the whole thing was a hoax, Trump is INNOCENT and EXONERATED but yet the dead horse needs to be kicked because they have literally NOTHING to offer their voters.

And the general public, is right.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Deetermined

You fell for that lie? Based on the rules that Mueller was supposed to write his report, he shouldn't have included the 10 "possible" incidents of obstruction of justice for that exact same reason. He wasn't supposed to throw out speculation of guilt on ANYTHING he wasn't going to indict him for!

If they could have cleared the president of crimes, they would have. But they were unable to do that, based on the evidence.

I’m so tired of hearing that lame ass excuse of a statement. It works both ways you know, enough nonsense already
and......If they could have CHARGED the president of crimes, they would have. But they were unable to do that, based on the evidence.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Deetermined

They will continue to abuse the Constitutional process until they either win or there is an all-out war.

Im for all out war burn all the cities. Sherman marched across Georgia and the patriots will march across the USA and clean it of this cancer of the left.

actual threats to overthrow our government...you must be proud to be a traitor...

Did I say over throw the government? No I said burn the bridges and roads that would let this vermin out of the large blue cities.

a reply to: mtnshredder

That's the bottom line. Mueller's report shows that they couldn't make a determination due to "difficulties of laws and facts", yet the left only fall for his lying soundbites. The sad truth is, regardless of how incompetent Mueller came across during his testimony, he proved that a certain percentage of the public is more incompetent than he is.

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

UGH! Why are you doing this?

In his opening statement to the House intelligence committee, Special Counsel Robert Mueller clarified an answer he gave to Rep. Ted Lieu.

His original answer was seen as Mueller saying the only reason the President was not indicted was because, as president, he cannot be indicted.

However, Mueller clarified the correct view is that they made no assessment as to whether there was a crime or not because of the OLC guidance.

"Now before we go to questions, I want to add on correction to my testimony this morning. I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, you didn't charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to answer questions."

www.cnn.com...

Later, in a back and forth, Mueller again said that it would be unconstitutional and unfair to indict, or secretly indict, the president because he would not be able to defend the charges.

I’m so tired of hearing that lame ass excuse of a statement. It works both ways you know, enough nonsense already
and......If they could have CHARGED the president of crimes, they would have. But they were unable to do that, based on the evidence.
a reply to: mtnshredder

I think that is the presumption of innocence that our law is based on. The left paints you as guilty then challenges you to prove your innocence. Which is ass backwards but that is the MO of the left.

a reply to: mtnshredder

If they could have CHARGED the president of crimes, they would have.

Nope. Mueller couldn't have been clearer. A sitting president can't be indicted. They were never going to indict, because of the rule. Because of the rule, they didn't even make a determination. They lobbed it to Congress, as it says in the report, only Congress can determine the "corrupt intent" of a president.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's a lie. Mueller flat out said if there was wrongdoing they would have said so, President or not.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

"Now before we go to questions, I want to add on correction to my testimony this morning. I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, you didn't charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to answer questions."

Now where in that statement did Mueller say that he did not reach a determination BECAUSE of the OLC opinion?

He DIDN'T!

You don't even recognize when you've been had!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Stop lying.

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

They found no determination of wrongdoing. They could not indict because no wrongdoing occurred, that is what Mueller said.

a reply to: Deetermined

That's the bottom line. Mueller's report shows that they couldn't make a determination due to "difficulties of laws and facts"

That's just a big fat lie. Why do you have to lie? I guess you believe Trump's lies too, when he says the Mueller report exonerated him, and proves there was no collusion and no obstruction.

The Mueller report is pacted with facts and laws. There is no ambiguity to the facts documented and case laws cited in the report.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Sookiechacha

"Now before we go to questions, I want to add on correction to my testimony this morning. I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, you didn't charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to answer questions."

Now where in that statement did Mueller say that he did not reach a determination BECAUSE of the OLC opinion?

He DIDN'T!

You don't even recognize when you've been had!

lol

exactly

you need to parse his words carefully.....someone didnt do that