The Desperation of U.S. Democrat Leaders

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: FyreByrd

And I don't pay attention to "arguments" from people who don't even show the common decency of calling an opponent their correct name. Either you are being deliberately ignorant or meerly presenting an ad hominem.

I guess I've always referred to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party because I don't ever hear people like Nadler, Pelosi, or Schumer referred to as Democratics, but Democrats.

You might try "members of the Democratic Party"

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: FyreByrd

And I don't pay attention to "arguments" from people who don't even show the common decency of calling an opponent their correct name. Either you are being deliberately ignorant or meerly presenting an ad hominem.

I guess I've always referred to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party because I don't ever hear people like Nadler, Pelosi, or Schumer referred to as Democratics, but Democrats.

You might try "members of the Democratic Party"

And, how is this politically correct redefining of words making the world better? Ir is it just bitter turds stuck in your teeth?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: FyreByrd

And I don't pay attention to "arguments" from people who don't even show the common decency of calling an opponent their correct name. Either you are being deliberately ignorant or meerly presenting an ad hominem.

I guess I've always referred to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party because I don't ever hear people like Nadler, Pelosi, or Schumer referred to as Democratics, but Democrats.

You might try "members of the Democratic Party"

When was the last time you referred to Jerry Nadler as a Democratic instead of a Democrat?

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.

Then he should have said that in the report, that he should be indicted once he leaves office. He did not do this so therefore there is no obstruction. Can't investigate someone for over 2 years then say, well....maybe they committed a crime...who knows for sure. No. It was his job to prove it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I heard an attorney on TV say there's a 5 year window (from the date of the alleged crimes) for private citizen Donald Trump to be indicted. If that's true, the 5 year window expires during President Trump's second term.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

He wrote it and he said it 😎

a reply to: Krakatoa

You made my point really by glossing over the top and trying to add a 3rd grade insult. My point is that nobody has changed their minds. Sheesh.l

Page seven Mud Pit - why do I bother?

Ted Lieu asked if OLC rule was ONLY reason Muller didn't indict, Muller said yes, walked it back later.
Key word here is ONLY. Muller walked back the word ONLY and neglected to mention that he had no crime to indict.

"Obstruction!" you say. Of what criminal investigation? Obstructing a criminal investigation requires that a crime has been committed. Nothing in Mueller's report rises to the level of a criminal investigation. Everything mentioned is "potential" "possible", all contingent upon whether or NOT there is an underlying crime. No crime=No Obstruction.

"Collusion!" you say. Technically, not a crime (civil law nomenclature) but the criminal charge would be "Conspiracy". Without an underlying actual crime, the question becomes "Conspiracy to do what unlawful act?" No crime=No Collusion.

"Conspiracy/Collusion to Obstruct Justice!" you say. No underlying criminal act, no obstruction. Not possible.

Every cooperative venture (company, corporation) discussed and acted on by individuals involves collusion and conspiracy by much of the rhetoric above. Cooperation is what we call non-criminal "collusion" or "conspiracy". Without an underlying criminal act, these terms ("collusion" "conspiracy") are non-sequitur.

SHOW ME A REAL CRIME! The perhaps there's a potential argument on the merits.

ganjoa

a reply to: ganjoa

While the leftists have all been told that you don't need an underlying crime to be charged or indicted for obstruction of justice, they refuse to acknowledge that the Special Counsel itself obstructed justice in this investigation.

Let's look at a list of ways that Special Counsel obstructed justice...

1) They refused to investigate the Steele Dossier that made the initial claim of Russian collusion/conspiracy on behalf of the Trump campaign to begin with. Plus, they refused to investigate Hillary's consultants that paid Steele to produce it.

2) They charged Flynn for lying even though the evidence already showed that when FBI agents originally interviewed him, they didn't believe him to be lying. Same story with Papadopolous and Carter Page. The Special counsel refused to acknowledge evidence that neither Papadopolous or Page were working with Russians. In fact, Carter Page had spent many years working with the FBI as an informant...before they turned on him.

3) They tried to charge Jerome Corsi because he WOULDN'T lie. Jerome's 78 page lawsuit against Mueller is very telling. There are multiple pages inside the lawsuit that show all of the times that the Special Counsel leaked grand jury information to the press to sway public opinion. The full filing with multiple charges against Mueller and his team for misconduct are linked below...

media1.s-nbcnews.com...

4) Mueller's list of "possible" obstruction of justice claims are mostly propaganda to fool the uneducated masses. Mueller and Comey both have stated publicly that Trump had the authority to fire Comey for ANY reason due to the fact that he was a presidential appointee to begin with. Mueller also admitted that Trump had the authority to fire Mueller himself, but both of those accusations made it to the list along with other related ones to his list of "possible" obstruction.

5) Mueller's multiple lapses of memory on the OLC opinion being his excuse for not providing a cohesive report is despicable. Like Comey, Mueller broke protocol and rules when he decided to create his list of "possible" obstruction" without deciding whether there was a law broken or crime committed. If he decided not to make a charge of guilt, he was supposed to explain why he didn't make the charge. Trying to hide unsuccessfully behind the OLC opinion in order to present his list of obstruction to the public, was an obstruction of justice in itself. To claim that the OLC opinion even kept him from making a determination at all was an outright lie and Barr confirmed this to the public.

The list goes on and I'll complete later.

Here's a great article regarding the Special Counsel's misuse of the OLC opinion rule...

Finally, there are three other manifest problems with Mueller’s construction of the OLC guidance. First, if Mueller really believed the OLC guidance prevented him from even considering whether President Trump could be charged, why did he render a decision on the collusion aspect of the probe? He can’t have it both ways. Second, if Mueller really believed the OLC guidance prevented him from performing the prosecutor’s task, why on earth did he accept the appointment to act as a prosecutor? Third, if Mueller really believed the OLC guidance prevented him from considering whether to indict, why did he tell AG Barr, two weeks before filing his report, that the OLC guidance was not the reason he would refrain from recommending obstruction charges?

Remember, Barr's testimony says that him and witnesses in the room show that Mueller told Barr that the OLC guidance was not the reason he would refrain from making a determination THREE times. Barr and his crew pressed Mueller on this to make sure he understood what he was saying. They obviously knew how confused Mueller was even at that time.

www.nationalreview.com...

a reply to: JustJohnny

This right here the state of american public education today. The idea that any american could write such a statement and consider it damning, is just pathetic.

Let me clarify a few things for you:

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..

The mueller report said no american conspired with russia and in fact points out that despite several attempts by "russia connected figures" to work with the trump campaign, those efforts bore no fruit. The report determines that

So that only leaves obstruction. The mueller report punted on obstruction (despite the legal requirement they not do so). According to the report, they made no determination on that evidence, which left it up to barr and rosenstein to make said determination, who came to the conclusion that there was no obstruction.

As much as you want to pretend that "not being exonerated by the mueller report" makes one guilty, it simply is not the case. Mueller did not have the power to exonerate anyone, no one has that power. Exonerated is the default state of an american citizen, including donald trump. To change that state, an american must be proved guilty in a court of law. Mueller's decision not to accuse trump of obstructing justice means he is innocent. Anyone who uses innuendo to pretend otherwise is simply hoodwinking you.

BTW, you have not been exonerated of being a nazi co-conspirator.

a reply to: Deetermined

Let's not gloss over the fact that trump has already accused mueller of lying under oath during this testimony. Mueller has claimed that he did not meet with trump to be considered for the FBI director position, but Trump has maintained that's exactly why he met with mueller. Also Trump claims there are multiple witnesses to this, including the vice president.

a reply to: Deetermined

Trump is going to be indicted when he leaves office for obstruction of justice.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Let's not gloss over the fact that trump has already accused mueller of lying under oath during this testimony. Mueller has claimed that he did not meet with trump to be considered for the FBI director position, but Trump has maintained that's exactly why he met with mueller. Also Trump claims there are multiple witnesses to this, including the vice president.

Well, we need to get Trump under oath, then.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: Deetermined

Trump is going to be indicted when he leaves office for obstruction of justice.

What did he obstruct?

I'll wait.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: Deetermined

Trump is going to be indicted when he leaves office for obstruction of justice.

No he is not. Lolz

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: Deetermined

Trump is going to be indicted when he leaves office for obstruction of justice.

What did he obstruct?

I'll wait.

You know what he obstructed -- Queen Hillary's Coronation as rightful Ruler of the US.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: Deetermined

Trump is going to be indicted when he leaves office for obstruction of justice.

What did he obstruct?

I'll wait.

The left will only see "justice" when Trump is ousted.

That's what he's obstructing. His ouster.

So by their twisted definition, he is obstructing their justice.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, he can testify as a witness at mueller's perjury trial. He will be under oath then. Wouldn't that be fitting? Mueller set up perjury traps galore and prosecuted them to try to get the president, then he goes down for perjury with the president as a witness. You couldn't write a better script for the corrupt mueller.