The Desperation of U.S. Democrat Leaders

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.

As yall have stated Trump has tweeted 45,000 time since taking office. Can you find one that was obstructing anything? The guy is an open book and that's why he us so well liked!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.



First we need to get Hillary under oath.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: Deetermined

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

No. No he’s not.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Deetermined

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..


In fact By saying “the president cannot be charged with a crime, but if he was obviously innocent we would say so.. “


Well they did not say they thought he was innocent...

Here's a fact:
The report also did not find you, JustJohnny, innocent of child rape; and if it had, it would have certainly said so, but the report did not find you innocent of child rape.

That is a fact you can not deny, is it not?

The report did not find JustJohnny innocent of child rape. Does that make JustJohnny a child rapist?

I would think not... But evidently you think it does???

So I guess according to your philosophy we should not let you anywhere near schools or playgrounds?

See how that works?

Do you see yet how your philosophical standpoint on justice is absurd?

Only a moron would not see through that type of pure political word smithing and a country full of such morons won't last very long; so... maybe that's why socialist revolutionaries are propagating such a corrupted idea of fool hearty justice?

But if we are to continue that line of "justice", and since there's no report that states you didn't rape a child, according to your logic, must we then ask...

So have you stopped raping kids yet?

It's a yes or no question, JustJohnny.

Sorry to use such a vulgar example, but trying the office of the American President with that same logic is a vulgarity that I don't think you grasp with the necessary respect of the threat that it creates.

a reply to: Deetermined

This is the video that clearly spells out how Muller deviated from his SC directions and how he undermined Trump by applying a different and illegal standard to the investigation. He totally ignored the foundation of American law: the presumption of innocence. View this unfiltered video in it's entirety (~5 minutes). This is the part the "media" wants to avoid and the dummycRATs choose to ignore.

hooktube.com...

a reply to: AntiPC

Thanks so much for digging that video up for me! Now, if only I could remember who got Mueller to admit that Trump had the authority to fire Comey and the Special Counsel. The reason that clip is so important is because it contradicts half of Mueller's list of 10 "possible" cases of obstruction of justice.

originally posted by: Deetermined


Mueller (or Weissman) didn't even adhere to the rules of writing the report. While the report was ONLY supposed to include prosecutorial charges or declination reasons for charges, Mueller's team wrote half of his report around allegations that he REFUSED to make a determination on. If Mueller couldn't make a determination one way or the other, he wasn't supposed to include it in his report, as the rules claim that throwing accusations out there for speculative purposes, hinders the justice process of anyone being presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty.

So does that mean that, by so doing, our Inquisitor was, himself, committing the crime of obstruction of justice?

a reply to: mtnshredder

Well said.

Damn all this fuss about the OLC....


If Mueller had worded it like Comey, different ballgame:



Although Trump's teams interaction actions with Russians was extremely careless, no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.



But that wouldn't satisfy them either, although it was fine for one of their own.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
"What part of presumption of innocence is an alien concept here?"

That would be the part where Mueller can't charge a sitting president... Only thing he can do is either exonerate or not exonerate Trump.

Morons should not be allowed near a keyboard.

Repeat after me: a prosecutor does not exonerate anyone. That is not his job. His job is to make a determination as to whether or not evidence supports charging someone with a crime, or not. Either it does, or it doesn't.

Mueller chose not to exonerate Trump...

Repeat after me: a prosecutor does not exonerate anyone. That is not his job. His job is to make a determination as to whether or not evidence supports charging someone with a crime, or not. Either it does, or it doesn't.

which to anyone except the completely feebleminded is an obvious recommendation by Mueller to congress that a crime was in fact committed by Trump.

No, it is in fact, to anyone except the completely feeble minded, an obviously devious and underhanded way to give some radical leftist democrat TDS sufferers something to cling to in their insane efforts to unseat a duly elected President.

It's not rocket science...

No, it isn't, but to some, it is silly putty.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

So does that mean that, by so doing, our Inquisitor was, himself, committing the crime of obstruction of justice?

That's exactly what happened. Mueller knew he couldn't get his version of justice legally, so he broke the rules to appeal to the corrupt members of Congress and public.

originally posted by: underwerks
There's no objective reality outside of what they want to believe at this point.

That is hilarious - a radical, left-wing-nut TDS suffering whack job talking about objective reality.

originally posted by: vonclod
Um, why are you ignoring the "obstruction" aspect, I'm playing devils advocate as I'm not buying into this one way or another.

Obstruction, when there is no underlying crime, is extremely hard to prove.

just pointing out WHAT he was not unequivocally cleared of.

Yes, he was. You are forgetting that, by failing to fulfill his duty to make prosecution/declination decisions with regards to all aspects of his investigation - in this case, Obstruction - Mueller delegated that job to his boss, the new AG Bill Barr, when he submitted his report to him.

Barr, and Deputy AG Rosenstein, quickly and correctly made the determination that there was no obstruction, merely a man saying and doing things while pissed off at being falsely accused of despicable and heinous crimes (treason was referenced multiple times, by one John Brennan, at the least).

a reply to: RickinVa

If Mueller had worded it like Comey, different ballgame:


Although Trump's teams interaction actions with Russians was extremely careless, no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.

Mueller couldn't meet the 3 requirements of the law to prove criminality in the obstruction of justice charges.

On the other hand, it's already been proven that Hillary Clinton's team knew they were removing classified markers in their emails in order to pass them on to other people illegally. Their emails discuss doing it. That's why all of this is being re-investigated.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
But we are talking about a sitting president here and the DOJ has a standing policy that a sitting president can't be indicted or charged with a crime... The report was never going to indict Trump, no matter what they found.

Indictment was not their only option. They could have easily done what Starr did wrt Clinton.

State unequivocally that were it not for the DOJ policy that you can't indict a sitting President we would have indicted and prosecuted him, then lay out the crimes... again, which is precisely what Ken Starr did.

All the report was ever going to do is make a recommendation to congress on whether a crime was committed... which they did, by 'not' exonerating him.

Big, huge steaming pile of BS you spouted there...

As has been pointed out countless times, prosecutors do not and can not exonerate anyone. They can choose to prosecute, or not.

In the very special case of a sitting President, if the would have prosecuted but for the DOJ policy, they can very simply and unequivocally state as much, in plain english.

The fact that they didn't means they couldn't, so they resorted to using this dirty trick with words with no legal bearing (exonerate) to muddy the waters and give the radical left-wing-nut TDS suffering whack jobs some crumbs they can play with to try to further their insane treasonous plot to unseat a duly elected sitting President.

I feel like you guys are deliberately ignoring the facts here, due to wilful ignorance

Careful, talking to yourself like that will make you go blind.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
He didn't make an official determination because for the thousandth time... THEY CAN'T INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT.

You are being deliberately obtuse.

That DOJ policy doesn't stop them from making the determination, only from initiating a formal prosecution.

It certainly doesn't stop them from saying:

"We have substantial or overwhelming evidence he is guilty of the following crimes: list-of-crimes. Here is the evidence we relied on in making this determination: list-of-evidence.

Now, it is our formal recommendation that Congress immediately initiate impeachment proceedings based on this evidence and our findings."

What's so hard to understand about that?

He did however make a recommendation to congress by not exonerating Trump.

Let me spell it out for you...

A 'recommendation to congress' would be worded like this:

"We have substantial or overwhelming evidence he is guilty of the following crimes: list-of-crimes. Here is the evidence we relied on in making this determination: list-of-evidence.

Now, it is our formal recommendation that Congress immediately initiate impeachment proceedings based on this evidence and our findings."

The mealy mouthed legally impotent reference to 'not being able to exonerate Trump' is nothing but fodder for feeble minded TDS sufferers to continue clinging to their insane dream of impeaching Trump.

originally posted by: Deetermined
First of all, you're proving your ignorance on what Mueller's Special Counsel's job was. It wasn't his job to recommend ANYTHING to Congress.

I partially disagree. His job was to investigate Russian interference in our elections, and anything he found during the course of his investigation, and prosecute crimes found with respect to said investigation.

In the case of a finding of criminal actions by the President, due to the official DOJ policy that he cannot indict a sitting President, his other option would be to make the recommendation of impeachment - but that recommendation would have been to his boss, the AG, but there is nothing preventing him from recommending that these findings be passed on to the House for initiation of impeachment proceedings.

originally posted by: jimmyx
yup....the trumpers are trying to convince themselves. the evidence, along with the total lack of concern in the white house about foreign interference,

I think you mean, the total lack of evidence of foreign interference (in our elections)... becausae there is basically none.

is so obvious of trump's treason. those here supporting him has reached the point of becoming laughable.

Heinlein’s 'Crazy Years' Future History: Coming True Before Our Eyes

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Deetermined

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

It was a typical (but below average) event for a mid-term. What wasn't normal is that they [lost seats in the Senate.

originally posted by: tinner07
the elections are rigged? Do you really believe that?

I know they aren't - except in isolated cases, like in Florida, and California, and NYC, and other places where they routinely allow illegal aliens and dead people to vote.

But, at least one US Representative believes that Russia can change our vote tallies: Eric Swalwell.