Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Board_SHERIF on May 30, 2019, 08:20:18 AM
-
Stumbling Mumbling Old Fool Mueller could barley put two sentences together yesterday as he spoke shaking like a leaf. He had the body language of a liar and thus lied. He also broke ethical rules of what prosecutors keep to by his bizarre appearance and false statements.
If there was any evidence of crimes committed by Trump, they would of been detailed and then it would of been noted that the POTUS could not be charged while in office. But NADA.
Now even Libatards are making fun of the corrupted old fool
Cant inbed the youtube so see link below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3f1c6ojgGA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3f1c6ojgGA)
edit - video taken down, guess libatards up to their old trick again.
-
Legal-speak.
-
Stumbling Mumbling Old Fool Mueller could barley put two sentences together yesterday, and had the body language of a liar. He also broke ethical rules of what prosecutors keep to.
Now even Libatards are making fun of the corrupted old fool
Cant inbed the youtube so see link below
-
Legal-speak.
No....threatened speak. He knows he might end up dead if he didn't do this last favor for the Clintons
Remember, this dude was a vietnam vet and has been in high level gov't for years. There's no other reason for the way he was behaving, as he's been in front of people speaking and dealt with danger far worse than speaking in public. However, vietnam pales in comparison to committing suicide via two gunshots to the back of your head. ;)
-
No....threatened speak. He knows he might end up dead if he didn't do this last favor for the Clintons
Remember, this dude was a vietnam vet and has been in high level gov't for years. There's no other reason for the way he was behaving, as he's been in front of people speaking and dealt with danger far worse than speaking in public. However, vietnam pales in comparison to committing suicide via two gunshots to the back of your head. ;)
Just like Clinton, Muller was "set up" with a slam dunk but still failed. He lied yesterday to try and make up for his fail. He could of pulled it off if Jeff Dolt Sessions was still AG.
-
Same old Trumptards with their idiotic conspiracy theories.
Quick summary of what Mueller said
1. Russia interferred with our election to help one candidate (he didn't mention which one but we all know who) and he said
2. He directly contradicted our phony AG Barr and confirmed that he could not indict the POTUS due to a DOJ Policy
3. He said he could not exonerate Trump and if he could have he would have
4. He said “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” which is a pretty obvious cue to Congress to act.
Cry on Trumptards
-
meanwhile the latest shipment has arrived. just keeping the playing field level i guess. ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Same old Trumptards with their idiotic conspiracy theories.
Quick summary of what Mueller said
1. Russia interferred with our election to help one candidate (he didn't mention which one but we all know who) and he said
2. He directly contradicted our phony AG Barr and confirmed that he could not indict the POTUS due to a DOJ Policy
3. He said he could not exonerate Trump and if he could have he would have
4. He said “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” which is a pretty obvious cue to Congress to act.
Cry on Trumptards
1) FBI has already stated that "Russians" put out ads for Bernie, Killary and Trump, now it's only one candidate? ::)
2) Which DOJ policy is that?
3) If he had evidence that Trump committed a crime he would have charged him or presented it to congress, or is Mueller hiding that evidence?
4) Congress to act on what? With no evidence present, what would you like congress to accuse Trump of doing?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but... even his "I can't give specifics" is full of shit.
There were four investigations into the issue and one or two had folks from the intelligence committee on it. Meaning any classified information could've been presented to them, HAD there been any.
Why is this still being fucking discussed? This ASSHOLE put the POTUS on the pedestal on an obvious character assassination exercise the likes not seen since the McArthy era and... dassit? Press conference just to say that he's got evidence but that he can't nail the guy due to some DOJ loophole?
And we pay these MOTHERFUCKERS to do THIS?????
-
Stumbling Mumbling Old Fool Mueller could barley put two sentences together yesterday as he spoke shaking like a leaf. He had the body language of a liar and thus lied. He also broke ethical rules of what prosecutors keep to by his bizarre appearance and false statements.
If there was any evidence of crimes committed by Trump, they would of been detailed and then it would of been noted that the POTUS could not be charged while in office. But NADA.
Now even Libatards are making fun of the corrupted old fool
Cant inbed the youtube so see link below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3f1c6ojgGA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3f1c6ojgGA)
edit - video taken down, guess libatards up to their old trick again.
You live in a fantasy world.
-
Same old Trumptards with their idiotic conspiracy theories.
Quick summary of what Mueller said
1. Russia interferred with our election to help one candidate (he didn't mention which one but we all know who) and he said
2. He directly contradicted our phony AG Barr and confirmed that he could not indict the POTUS due to a DOJ Policy
3. He said he could not exonerate Trump and if he could have he would have
4. He said “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” which is a pretty obvious cue to Congress to act.
Cry on Trumptards
Yup! That's what he said alright. It apparently fell on deaf ears around here. There are so many folks with their heads up there asses that it is pitiful.
(https://i.imgur.com/97T1GHM.png)
-
He can't exonerate because that is not part of his job.
His statement is not necessarily in conflict with Barr. Unless I missed something, Mueller never stated that he would have charged if not for that policy. He was a coward so no one got to ask him that. Barr did. He was using word games to mess with your minds.
If I did miss that part and he was directly contradicting Barr then one guy was willing to say it under oath and the other ran for the hills. Hmmm....
-
You live in a fantasy world.
Or is it you ?
-
Or is it you ?
That privileged liberal, white homo sure does live in fantasy world.
-
That privileged liberal, white homo sure does live in fantasy world.
Stupid quasi-faggit can't be bothered with the fact that he told Barr in front of multiple witnesses that the OLC had nothing to do with his findings...........reite rated 3 mutha fucking times, but Prime can't be bothered with such details and lies of the Dems/Mueller.
-
Libidiots put all their impeachment eggs in the Little Bobby Mueller basket and they got ass-reamed again.
I can’t wait until they count on Jerrold Nadler next, then Joe Biden in 2020!
Even Downs Syndrome kids get tired of losing sometime, but not Liberals !
-
He can't exonerate because that is not part of his job.
His statement is not necessarily in conflict with Barr. Unless I missed something, Mueller never stated that he would have charged if not for that policy. He was a coward so no one got to ask him that. Barr did. He was using word games to mess with your minds.
If I did miss that part and he was directly contradicting Barr then one guy was willing to say it under oath and the other ran for the hills. Hmmm....
He also stated that he wouldn’t be speaking on this issue anymore, meaning that he didn’t want to be grilled by Republicans who might actually ask him some tough questions.
-
Stumbling Mumbling Old Fool Mueller could barley put two sentences together yesterday as he spoke shaking like a leaf. He had the body language of a liar and thus lied. He also broke ethical rules of what prosecutors keep to by his bizarre appearance and false statements.
If there was any evidence of crimes committed by Trump, they would of been detailed and then it would of been noted that the POTUS could not be charged while in office. But NADA.
Now even Libatards are making fun of the corrupted old fool
Cant inbed the youtube so see link below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3f1c6ojgGA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3f1c6ojgGA)
edit - video taken down, guess libatards up to their old trick again.
That your fellow Republicans didn't call you out on this post is telling...
-
1) FBI has already stated that "Russians" put out ads for Bernie, Killary and Trump, now it's only one candidate? ::)
2) Which DOJ policy is that?
3) If he had evidence that Trump committed a crime he would have charged him or presented it to congress, or is Mueller hiding that evidence?
4) Congress to act on what? With no evidence present, what would you like congress to accuse Trump of doing?
Let me help you out.
1, Russia wanted to create turmoil and dissent among americans. Originally it was wide spread with many candidates. When it came down to Hillary and Trump it was clear Russia sided with Trump.
2. The policy blocking indicting a sitting president dates back to the presidency of Richard Nixon. In September 1973, just under a year before Nixon resigned, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel determined that a criminal case against the president “would interfere with the President’s unique official duties, most of which cannot be performed by anyone else.” Therefore, impeachment is the only manner by which a sitting president can be penalized for wrongdoing.
3. See # 2 and read the Mueller report where he goes into detail about it at the beginning of Volume 2
4. He outlined 10 instances, 4 with "substantial evidence of obstruction" that he felt was up to Congress to pursue, since {see #2)
Now I personally think Mueller was a coward for not being more decisive either way. There was nothing legally keeping him from saying "But for the fact we could not indict him, under other circumstances he would be indicted." Instead he went with a limp wristed "If we were confident he did not commit a crime we would have said so"
-
Or is it you ?
Possibly, but this fantasy life seems very real, satisfying and successful. I worked for it for over 55 years. My income today is better than it was when I first retired in 2009. My expenses are very limited, going mostly to food, utilities and and frivolous stuff. I spend less than half of my monthly income. If this is what a fantasy life feels like, bring it on!
-
Possibly, but this fantasy life seems very real, satisfying and successful. I worked for it for over 55 years. My income today is better than it was when I first retired in 2009. My expenses are very limited, going mostly to food, utilities and and frivolous stuff. I spend less than half of my monthly income. If this is what a fantasy life feels like, bring it on!
congrats on your happy life
-
Stupid quasi-faggit can't be bothered with the fact that he told Barr in front of multiple witnesses that the OLC had nothing to do with his findings...........reite rated 3 mutha fucking times, but Prime can't be bothered with such details and lies of the Dems/Mueller.
Mueller remarks put Barr back into harsh spotlight
Democrats and some Republicans saw a statement that 'contradicts' and even 'rebuke' Trump's attorney general.
By ELIANA JOHNSON 05/29/2019 05:48 PM EDT Updated 05/29/2019 08:41 PM EDT
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/29/robert-mueller-william-barr-1346881 (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/29/robert-mueller-william-barr-1346881)
What the heck is a quasi-faggit? (sexually fluid?)
-
Let me help you out.
1, Russia wanted to create turmoil and dissent among americans. Originally it was wide spread with many candidates. When it came down to Hillary and Trump it was clear Russia sided with Trump.
2. The policy blocking indicting a sitting president dates back to the presidency of Richard Nixon. In September 1973, just under a year before Nixon resigned, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel determined that a criminal case against the president “would interfere with the President’s unique official duties, most of which cannot be performed by anyone else.” Therefore, impeachment is the only manner by which a sitting president can be penalized for wrongdoing.
3. See # 2 and read the Mueller report where he goes into detail about it at the beginning of Volume 2
4. He outlined 10 instances, 4 with "substantial evidence of obstruction" that he felt was up to Congress to pursue, since {see #2)
Now I personally think Mueller was a coward for not being more decisive either way. There was nothing legally keeping him from saying "But for the fact we could not indict him, under other circumstances he would be indicted." Instead he went with a limp wristed "If we were confident he did not commit a crime we would have said so"
1) Had Trump lost the election, we would never have heard about Russia.
2)Mueller could have stated that he had the evidence to turn over for indictment and turned it over to Congress, but he didn't because the entire report is a he said/she said fluff piece with NO actual evidence.
3) See #2
4) That "substantial evidence" was all heresy, absolutely unprovable quotes from people with questionable relationships to Trump.
I absolutely agree with your statement about Mueller, although I think he tried to sway public opinion with his comment, which is a shitty thing to do if you aren't going to take questions or back up your statements.
-
Let me help you out.
4. He outlined 10 instances, 4 with "substantial evidence of obstruction" that he felt was up to Congress to pursue, since {see #2)
Now I personally think Mueller was a coward for not being more decisive either way. There was nothing legally keeping him from saying "But for the fact we could not indict him, under other circumstances he would be indicted." Instead he went with a limp wristed "If we were confident he did not commit a crime we would have said so"
The instances ? LOL - I guess a formerly sacked security guard like you would consider those as hard evidence ::)
Or was Mueller a Russian Agent and did not do what anyone with even average intelligence/skills would do and list in detail the crimes ?
-
The instances ? LOL - I guess a formerly sacked security guard like you would consider those as hard evidence ::)
Or was Mueller a Russian Agent and did not do what anyone with even average intelligence/skills would do and list in detail the crimes ?
You know desperation is sinking in when they’re hitching their wagon to obstruction of justice for a nonexistent crime.
-
The instances ? LOL - I guess a formerly sacked security guard like you would consider those as hard evidence ::)
Or was Mueller a Russian Agent and did not do what anyone with even average intelligence/skills would do and list in detail the crimes ?
You should read volume 2 sometime. I think you would find it interesting
-
You should read volume 2 sometime. I think you would find it interesting
Link?
-
You should read volume 2 sometime. I think you would find it interesting
Clearly you did not - so here is the summary of Mueller's work:
In an executive summary, Mueller’s team clearly stated that it did not believe “collusion”—which Trump has incessantly insisted he did not commit—to be a legal term. For that reason, prosecutors did not assess whether Trump’s campaign “colluded” with Russia.
“In evaluation whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of ‘collusion,’ ” prosecutors wrote. They noted that the Justice Department had at times used the word “collusion” prior to Mueller’s appointment. “But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law,” they said.
They said they instead examined whether anyone associated with the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russians, as defined by conspiracy law. “We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”
They noted that an agreement requires two parties taking actions “informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.”
Using that definition, they wrote, the investigation “did not establish” that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference.
— Rosalind S. Helderman
-
Link?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html
-
Clearly you did not - so here is the summary of Mueller's work:
In an executive summary, Mueller’s team clearly stated that it did not believe “collusion”—which Trump has incessantly insisted he did not commit—to be a legal term. For that reason, prosecutors did not assess whether Trump’s campaign “colluded” with Russia.
“In evaluation whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of ‘collusion,’ ” prosecutors wrote. They noted that the Justice Department had at times used the word “collusion” prior to Mueller’s appointment. “But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law,” they said.
They said they instead examined whether anyone associated with the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russians, as defined by conspiracy law. “We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”
They noted that an agreement requires two parties taking actions “informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.”
Using that definition, they wrote, the investigation “did not establish” that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference.
— Rosalind S. Helderman
I'm not arguing the collusion aspect. I don't think many people are. Volume 2 deals with the obstruction allegation which I think volumn 2 indicates happened. However because Mueller played the "If I can't indict him I can't allege that he is guilty" thingy, he left it so that if you try really hard, you can say "Well, he didn't outright say he committed obstruction so lets move on. " when he did everything but say "Holy crap! Read the damn report and hopefully Congress will do their job!" (paraphrasing from--)
"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220(2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.” Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, (because I've already said I can't even if there was video of it) it also does not exonerate him.
-
I'm not arguing the collusion aspect. I don't think many people are. Volume 2 deals with the obstruction allegation which I think volumn 2 indicates happened. However because Mueller played the "If I can't indict him I can't allege that he is guilty" thingy, he left it so that if you try really hard, you can say "Well, he didn't outright say he committed obstruction so lets move on. " when he did everything but say "Holy crap! Read the damn report and hopefully Congress will do their job!" (paraphrasing from--)
"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220(2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.” Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, (because I've already said I can't even if there was video of it) it also does not exonerate him.
Not anymore but for over two years we were led to believe that Trump was a Russian agent. Now, that the case has gone down the toilet your pinning your hopes on obstruction of a non-crime. As Dan Bongino pointed out, this is easier to do because it’s more of a judgment call, like disorderly conduct.
Here’s the reality. It’s not looking good for the Democrats in 2020 with an incumbent President and the economy strong. So, they believe their best bet is to attack trump via some bullshit like obstruction, taxes or some other nonsense that no one cares about.
-
I'm not arguing the collusion aspect. I don't think many people are. Volume 2 deals with the obstruction allegation which I think volumn 2 indicates happened. However because Mueller played the "If I can't indict him I can't allege that he is guilty" thingy, he left it so that if you try really hard, you can say "Well, he didn't outright say he committed obstruction so lets move on. " when he did everything but say "Holy crap! Read the damn report and hopefully Congress will do their job!" (paraphrasing from--)
"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220(2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.” Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, (because I've already said I can't even if there was video of it) it also does not exonerate him.
Once again you have proven that you do not understand the basics of the law - their is no underlying crime to obstruct my un-learned friend. ::)
Secondly the examples given by Mueler for his fake obstruction are laughable, but I am sure you did not even bother to read them ::)
-
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html
What part of that would you consider evidence of obstruction?
-
What part of that would you consider evidence of obstruction?
What a total embarrassment the Mueller report is, looks like it was written by children who based everything they saw on CNN fake news.
-
Once again you have proven that you do not understand the basics of the law - their is no underlying crime to obstruct my un-learned friend. ::)
Secondly the examples given by Mueler for his fake obstruction are laughable, but I am sure you did not even bother to read them ::)
Yeah, me and the 200 prosecutors that signed the letter saying there was enough to prosecute are wrong and you are right. I think it is you that is unclear on obstruction if you are buying that a crime has to be proven to have occurred before an investigation can be obstructed.
I KNOW based on your posts you haven't bothered to read any of volume 2. Otherwise you would never have said the examples given by Mueller were laughable.
I suspect you see my post and it looks like this to you.
pwej pwjo[[oiq dkddlsjs ;ljlkjgplkgl kwkejfjtj ohew 200 jalgkhaa lkjalkjgkgo nrhrogj lgjgjhroir
kajakjgkfje lkwshw lwkejrlwel dm;;wk krolri84 kjfhfjf
I really don't know why I bother...
-
What a total embarrassment the Mueller report is, looks like it was written by children who based everything they saw on CNN fake news.
the irony in this post is tremendous
-
What part of that would you consider evidence of obstruction?
If you have read the 10 examples given from the report, outlining Trumps attempt to stop the investigation, and you still don't see it, it is beyond my ability to outline it for you, seriously.
-
Yeah, me and the 200 prosecutors that signed the letter saying there was enough to prosecute are wrong and you are right. I think it is you that is unclear on obstruction if you are buying that a crime has to be proven to have occurred before an investigation can be obstructed.
I KNOW based on your posts you haven't bothered to read any of volume 2. Otherwise you would never have said the examples given by Mueller were laughable.
I suspect you see my post and it looks like this to you.
pwej pwjo[[oiq dkddlsjs ;ljlkjgplkgl kwkejfjtj ohew 200 jalgkhaa lkjalkjgkgo nrhrogj lgjgjhroir
kajakjgkfje lkwshw lwkejrlwel dm;;wk krolri84 kjfhfjf
I really don't know why I bother...
"the 200 prosecutors that signed the letter" - LOL do you have any idea how many are in the USA?
funny how we are all wrong except you ??
No wonder you got sacked as a security guard.
-
the irony in this post is tremendous
I know right?, that a $40 million report looked like it was written by children.
"he tweeted please stop that" - Report suggests he was saying not to save his life ::)
-
I know right?, that a $40 million report looked like it was written by children.
"he tweeted please stop that" - Report suggests he was saying not to save his life ::)
$40 million. Take a stab at how much the investigation recovered in asset forfeiture. I think you will find the American people ahead about $48 million since obviously money matters to you more than a corrupt President
-
"the 200 prosecutors that signed the letter" - LOL do you have any idea how many are in the USA?
funny how we are all wrong except you ??
No wonder you got sacked as a security guard.
If I understand you correctly, you are stating that obstruction of an investigation cannot exist without a proven crime. Is that your position?
Would you also say, given that criteria that it is impossible to obstruct an investigation if you are not the subject of the investigation?
-
I'm on page 45 Volume 2. It is written in a fairly easy to read format. It starts with an overall summary, then moves to list several incidents that may be obstruction. Then he breaks it down into an in-depth report on each incident citing memos, testimony, and written evidence such as office diaries, calendars organizers. He matches statements made by a person to co berating information. What jumps out beyond the obstruction, is the number of times he documents Trump flat out lies, against all evidence, his own administration etc etc. It's concerning, and should be concerning to the American citizen, the propensity for this man to lie. I think it moves beyond youtube jokes when peoples jobs, careers lively hood hangs in the balance and he is shown time and time again in the report to fabricate lies to cover his butt.
-
If you have read the 10 examples given from the report, outlining Trumps attempt to stop the investigation, and you still don't see it, it is beyond my ability to outline it for you, seriously.
I'm not going to go over each one individually with you. As an ex law enforcement officer, which ones do you think would constitute obstruction charges and hold up in a court of law?
-
I'm not going to go over each one individually with you. As an ex law enforcement officer, which ones do you think would constitute obstruction charges and hold up in a court of law?
Most of them
-
I'm not going to go over each one individually with you. As an ex law enforcement officer, which ones do you think would constitute obstruction charges and hold up in a court of law?
And again, the report underscores time and time again when Trump lies about things. Lies that if this were an I. A. investigation would get him terminated from most departments. Why doesn't that concern you?
-
Most of them
Really? With no crime commited, no physical evidence, just a bunch of heresy, you think he should be indicted and charged with obstruction? I'm beginning to think you didn't retire willingly.
As for your other question, every single politician in history is a liar, the media chooses to manipulate weak minded people like you into focusing on the negative instead of the positive.
-
If I understand you correctly, you are stating that obstruction of an investigation cannot exist without a proven crime. Is that your position?
Would you also say, given that criteria that it is impossible to obstruct an investigation if you are not the subject of the investigation?
how do you obstruct an investigation if someone else would take it over ?
-
$40 million. Take a stab at how much the investigation recovered in asset forfeiture. I think you will find the American people ahead about $48 million since obviously money matters to you more than a corrupt President
Manfort's assets that are not related to Trump at all, Mueller got lucky on this - if not for this then it was a complete waste of millions on a fake investigation.
Do you think fake investigations to overthrow a duly elected President is good ??
-
Most of them
:-[
-
Really? With no crime commited, no physical evidence, just a bunch of heresy, you think he should be indicted and charged with obstruction? I'm beginning to think you didn't retire willingly.
As for your other question, every single politician in history is a liar, the media chooses to manipulate weak minded people like you into focusing on the negative instead of the positive.
how do you obstruct an investigation if someone else would take it over ?
Take note that people like Agnostic and others who have bought into this nonsense don't walk through each example and talk about them specifically. It's like the people who cited the number of indictments and convictions whenever someone called the Russian investigation a witch hunt, without going through each indictment and conviction, because to do so would show how they were completely irrelevant to Trump being a Manchurian Candidate.
Similarly, you don't really hear people talking about things like Trump firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation. Why? Aside from the fact it's friggin stupid, there is this:
(a) Trump received a memo from the Deputy AG that recommended Comey's firing.
(b) The IG said Comey was insubordinate.
(c) The POTUS had the Constitutional authority to fire Comey.
(d) Firing Comey did absolutely nothing to prevent Muller from obtaining all of the funding he requested, getting all of the subpoenas he wanted, all of the pen registers, convening a grand jury, and interviewing hundreds of witnesses.
(e) The investigation involved an alleged crime that never happened and was invented by paid opposition research.
Now if after all that you think Trump obstructed the Mueller investigation by firing Comey you have to be either not too bright, a partisan, or suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
We could go through this analysis with each one of those instances of "obstruction," but good luck finding people who will do that.
-
Take note that people like Agnostic and others who have bought into this nonsense don't walk through each example and talk about them specifically. It's like the people who cited the number of indictments and convictions whenever someone called the Russian investigation a witch hunt, without going through each indictment and conviction, because to do so would show how they were completely irrelevant to Trump being a Manchurian Candidate.
Similarly, you don't really hear people talking about things like Trump firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation. Why? Aside from the fact it's friggin stupid, there is this:
(a) Trump received a memo from the Deputy AG that recommended Comey's firing.
(b) The IG said Comey was insubordinate.
(c) The POTUS had the Constitutional authority to fire Comey.
(d) Firing Comey did absolutely nothing to prevent Muller from obtaining all of the funding he requested, getting all of the subpoenas he wanted, all of the pen registers, convening a grand jury, and interviewing hundreds of witnesses.
(e) The investigation involved an alleged crime that never happened and was invented by paid opposition research.
Now if after all that you think Trump obstructed the Mueller investigation by firing Comey you have to be either not too bright, a partisan, or suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
We could go through this analysis with each one of those instances of "obstruction," but good luck finding people who will do that.
Yes great points - Libatards never user actual facts and when they lose an argument call us racists etc..
This agnostic fella and the others cant even bother to read what they link...they are lazy and pathetic.
-
Yes great points - Libatards never user actual facts and when they lose an argument call us racists etc..
This agnostic fella and the others cant even bother to read what they link...they are lazy and pathetic.
Happens all the time.
-
Take note that people like Agnostic and others who have bought into this nonsense don't walk through each example and talk about them specifically. It's like the people who cited the number of indictments and convictions whenever someone called the Russian investigation a witch hunt, without going through each indictment and conviction, because to do so would show how they were completely irrelevant to Trump being a Manchurian Candidate.
Similarly, you don't really hear people talking about things like Trump firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation. Why? Aside from the fact it's friggin stupid, there is this:
(a) Trump received a memo from the Deputy AG that recommended Comey's firing.
(b) The IG said Comey was insubordinate.
(c) The POTUS had the Constitutional authority to fire Comey.
(d) Firing Comey did absolutely nothing to prevent Muller from obtaining all of the funding he requested, getting all of the subpoenas he wanted, all of the pen registers, convening a grand jury, and interviewing hundreds of witnesses.
(e) The investigation involved an alleged crime that never happened and was invented by paid opposition research.
Now if after all that you think Trump obstructed the Mueller investigation by firing Comey you have to be either not too bright, a partisan, or suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
We could go through this analysis with each one of those instances of "obstruction," but good luck finding people who will do that.
Take note that people like Chaos are speaking out like they've spent any time reading the report. I guarantee had Chaos done so, he would not be saying these things.
-
Mueller team OMITTED KEY CONTEXT FROM REPORT, DISTORTING & DECEPTIVELY EDITING JOHN DOWD'S VOICEMAIL.
-
Take note that people like Chaos are speaking out like they've spent any time reading the report. I guarantee had Chaos done so, he would not be saying these things.
Granted, you've probay read more than chaos has, I have read quite a bit of that opinion piece. Out of everything I've read, I have seen no evidence, only heresy, towards obstruction or collusion. To think you were LE makes me glad you no longer are since you obviously have no idea what "innocent until proven guilty" is and what it takes to prove someone guilty.
-
Take note that people like Chaos are speaking out like they've spent any time reading the report. I guarantee had Chaos done so, he would not be saying these things.
How did Trump firing Comey obstruct the Mueller investigation?
-
Granted, you've probay read more than chaos has, I have read quite a bit of that opinion piece. Out of everything I've read, I have seen no evidence, only heresy, towards obstruction or collusion. To think you were LE makes me glad you no longer are since you obviously have no idea what "innocent until proven guilty" is and what it takes to prove someone guilty.
I didn't base my positions on opinion pieces is one thing. I looked at the evidence. Again, if you took the time to read the first 50 pages of volume 2 you would be singing a different story. But you wont, and you will continue to wonder how anyone could think he was guilty when Carlson and Hannity have both said there is nothing in there.
-
How did Trump firing Comey obstruct the Mueller investigation?
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director
Corney
Overview
Corney was scheduled to testify before Congress on May 3, 2017. Leading up to that
testimony, the President continued to tell advisors that he wanted Corney to make public that the
President was not under investigation. At the hearing, Corney declined to answer questions about
the scope or subjects of the Russia investigation and did not state publicly that the President was
not under investigation. Two days later, on May 5, 2017, the President told close aides he was
going to fire Corney, and on May 9, he did so, using his official termination letter to make public
that Corney had on three occasions informed the President that he was not under investigation.
The President decided to fire Corney before receiving advice or a recommendation from the
Department of Justice,. but he approved an initial public account of the termination that attributed
it to a recommendation from the Department of Justice based on Corney's handling of the Clinton
email investigation. After Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein resisted attributing the firing
to his recommendation, the President acknowledged that he intended to fire Corney regardless of
the DOJ recommendation and was thinking of the Russia investigation when he made the decision.
The President also told the Russian Foreign Minister, "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was
crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off ..... I'm not
under investigation."
Just one part of it. And remember, it doesn't have to be successful to be obstructing. Trump was just too ignorant to realize this would not end the investigation
-
There is about 10 pages of the report outlining all the information so you can decide for yourself.
-
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director
Corney
Overview
Corney was scheduled to testify before Congress on May 3, 2017. Leading up to that
testimony, the President continued to tell advisors that he wanted Corney to make public that the
President was not under investigation. At the hearing, Corney declined to answer questions about
the scope or subjects of the Russia investigation and did not state publicly that the President was
not under investigation. Two days later, on May 5, 2017, the President told close aides he was
going to fire Corney, and on May 9, he did so, using his official termination letter to make public
that Corney had on three occasions informed the President that he was not under investigation.
The President decided to fire Corney before receiving advice or a recommendation from the
Department of Justice,. but he approved an initial public account of the termination that attributed
it to a recommendation from the Department of Justice based on Corney's handling of the Clinton
email investigation. After Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein resisted attributing the firing
to his recommendation, the President acknowledged that he intended to fire Corney regardless of
the DOJ recommendation and was thinking of the Russia investigation when he made the decision.
The President also told the Russian Foreign Minister, "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was
crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off ..... I'm not
under investigation."
Just one part of it. And remember, it doesn't have to be successful to be obstructing. Trump was just too ignorant to realize this would not end the investigation
Thank you for the cut and paste that does not in any way, shape, or form show that Trump firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation.
Now, in your own words, tell me how firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation. I gave you my analysis of why it did not.
-
Thank you for the cut and paste that does not in any way, shape, or form show that Trump firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation.
Now, in your own words, tell me how firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation. I gave you my analysis of why it did not.
That will not happen as he does not understand the whole thing, well other than what is on CNN ::)
-
How did Trump firing Comey obstruct the Mueller investigation?
The issue is Trump's intent to obstruct justice. This is, of course, very hard to prove one way or the other.
-
That will not happen as he does not understand the whole thing, well other than what is on CNN ::)
CNN and other places he finds on Google. Don't hold your breath for independent thought.
-
The issue is Trump's intent to obstruct justice. This is, of course, very hard to prove one way or the other.
Now how dumb is that?? (No, not calling you dumb.) So Trump intended to obstruct the Mueller investigation by firing Comey, despite the fact there was zero actual obstruction of the investigation? And despite the fact Trump had the Constitutional authority to fire Comey for any reason? And despite the fact an independent IG investigation concluded Comey was insubordinate? And despite the fact the Deputy AG wrote a memo recommending Comey's firing? And despite the fact the entire investigation was a sham?
You're ok with your tax dollars being spent on this foolishness?
-
That will not happen as he does not understand the whole thing, well other than what is on CNN ::)
Apparently, he’s one of the few remaining viewers:
CNN’s ratings drop again after three-year low last month
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cnns-ratings-drop-again-after-three-year-low-last-month
-
I didn't base my positions on opinion pieces is one thing. I looked at the evidence. Again, if you took the time to read the first 50 pages of volume 2 you would be singing a different story. But you wont, and you will continue to wonder how anyone could think he was guilty when Carlson and Hannity have both said there is nothing in there.
So you won't point out any evidence, just heresy? "Person X said XYZ and person Q corroborated" is that enough to convict someone on? No idea who Carlson or Hannity is, are you high?
-
CNN and other places he finds on Google. Don't hold your breath for independent thought.
Dude.. you realize, between the two of us,... I'm the only one actually reading the report? ::)
-
That will not happen as he does not understand the whole thing, well other than what is on CNN ::)
said the guy who hasn't bothered to read the report ;D
-
So you won't point out any evidence, just heresy? "Person X said XYZ and person Q corroborated" is that enough to convict someone on? No idea who Carlson or Hannity is, are you high?
OMG... read the damn report! Its testimony from his OWN PEOPLE!! Damn you guys are dense!
-
Dude.. you realize, between the two of us,... I'm the only one actually reading the report? ::)
Between the two of us, I'm the only one who explained, in my words, precisely why firing Comey did not obstruct the Mueller investigation.
Tell me in your own words precisely how Trump firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation.
-
Between the two of us, I'm the only one who explained, in my words, precisely why firing Comey did not obstruct the Mueller investigation.
Tell me in your own words precisely how Trump firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation.
I believe there are 10 incidents where Mueller laid out potential obstruction allegations. Firing Comey is one. You really didn't say why firing Comey wasn't an obstruction because we both know while that position servied at the pleasure of the president, he couldn't fire for just any reason. Being black would be one, being under investigation and thinking firing him would end or change the outcome would be another. So please, take the time to READ THE REPORT for yourself....
-
I challenge any Trump supporter on this board, to read 75 pages into volume 2 of the Mueller report and still support the President. It can't be done.
-
I believe there are 10 incidents where Mueller laid out potential obstruction allegations. Firing Comey is one. You really didn't say why firing Comey wasn't an obstruction because we both know while that position servied at the pleasure of the president, he couldn't fire for just any reason. Being black would be one, being under investigation and thinking firing him would end or change the outcome would be another. So please, take the time to READ THE REPORT for yourself....
You are lying again. See my post below.
Take note that people like Agnostic and others who have bought into this nonsense don't walk through each example and talk about them specifically. It's like the people who cited the number of indictments and convictions whenever someone called the Russian investigation a witch hunt, without going through each indictment and conviction, because to do so would show how they were completely irrelevant to Trump being a Manchurian Candidate.
Similarly, you don't really hear people talking about things like Trump firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation. Why? Aside from the fact it's friggin stupid, there is this:
(a) Trump received a memo from the Deputy AG that recommended Comey's firing.
(b) The IG said Comey was insubordinate.
(c) The POTUS had the Constitutional authority to fire Comey.
(d) Firing Comey did absolutely nothing to prevent Muller from obtaining all of the funding he requested, getting all of the subpoenas he wanted, all of the pen registers, convening a grand jury, and interviewing hundreds of witnesses.
(e) The investigation involved an alleged crime that never happened and was invented by paid opposition research.
Now if after all that you think Trump obstructed the Mueller investigation by firing Comey you have to be either not too bright, a partisan, or suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
We could go through this analysis with each one of those instances of "obstruction," but good luck finding people who will do that.
Now tell me in your own words how Trump firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation.
-
You are lying again. See my post below.
Now tell me in your own words how Trump firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation.
I guess since you didn't read the report, you didn't know that Trump decided to fire Comey before he got the memo from the AG. Again, you should really read the report, I can't stress that enough. Its not more than 15 pages... you probably can find the time
-
I guess since you didn't read the report, you didn't know that Trump decided to fire Comey before he got the memo from the AG. Again, you should really read the report, I can't stress that enough. Its not more than 15 pages... you probably can find the time
What the heck difference does it make when he made up his mind if the firing was supported by both the Deputy AG and the IG? ::)
Again, tell me in your own words how Trump firing Comey obstructed the Muller investigation.
-
What the heck difference does it make when he made up his mind if the firing was supported by both the Deputy AG and the IG? ::)
Again, tell me in your own words how Trump firing Comey obstructed the Muller investigation.
Again.. its's there to read. Pages 62-77 of Vol 2 the report. It is a concern and MAY have been obstruction but there are roughtly 6 better examples than again...are available for anyone who cares to educate themselves. I personally would not pick this one as there are better. but reading the unethical crap that went on, as layed out by his own staff, should be concerning
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
-
Again.. its's there to read. Pages 62-77 of Vol 2 the report. It is a concern and MAY have been obstruction but there are roughtly 6 better examples than again...are available for anyone who cares to educate themselves. I personally would not pick this one as there are better. but reading the unethical crap that went on, as layed out by his own staff, should be concerning
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
I see. So you got nothing on that one. I think any reasonable person reading this thread can see you are unable to answer a simple question.
I tell you what, pick one of the "better examples" and explain to me in your words how that example obstructed the Mueller investigation.
-
I see. So you got nothing on that one. I think any reasonable person reading this thread can see you are unable to answer a simple question.
I tell you what, pick one of the "better examples" and explain to me in your words how that example obstructed the Mueller investigation.
I think reasonable people would see I am desperately sending the same message Bob Mueller sent. READ THE DAMN REPORT FOR YOURSELF! Turn off the American Idol and Bachelor and take a few hours to READ THE DAMN REPORT
-
I think reasonable people would see I am desperately sending the same message Bob Mueller sent. READ THE DAMN REPORT FOR YOURSELF! Turn off the American Idol and Bachelor and take a few hours to READ THE DAMN REPORT
So not only are you unable to tell me in your own words how Trump firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation, you are unable to give any of the "better examples" of your choosing and explain in your own words how that instance obstructed the Mueller investigation.
Pretty funny. :)
-
So not only are you unable to tell me in your own words how Trump firing Comey obstructed the Mueller investigation, you are unable to give any of the "better examples" of your choosing and explain in your own words how that instance obstructed the Mueller investigation.
Pretty funny. :)
I'm reading through it as we speak. I am aware of the Getbig Tit for tat mentality so I get your post. The thing is, I could spend days explaining to you the unethical behaviors of Donald Trump to which I have no doubt you would explain away or discard. So I am imploring you and others to READ THE DAMN REPORT. You can ignore this and remain safe in your cocoon or you could actually READ THE DAMN REPORT
Seriously, all kidding aside. I know it is fashionable to fight back and forth, but if you really are interested in what went on the report is full of info. If not.. then its politics as usual. Remember the Meuller report is fashioned from FBI interviews of almost everyone involved. The most damning information comes from people who are pro trump and were in his close circle of friends. The statements are in quotes and dated. I will say, had Trump not had some folks in his administration who flat out refused or ignored his directives, it would be even worse than it was.
-
I'm reading through it as we speak. I am aware of the Getbig Tit for tat mentality so I get your post. The thing is, I could spend days explaining to you the unethical behaviors of Donald Trump to which I have no doubt you would explain away or discard. So I am imploring you and others to READ THE DAMN REPORT. You can ignore this and remain safe in your cocoon or you could actually READ THE DAMN REPORT
Seriously, all kidding aside. I know it is fashionable to fight back and forth, but if you really are interested in what went on the report is full of info. If not.. then its politics as usual. Remember the Meuller report is fashioned from FBI interviews of almost everyone involved. The most damning information comes from people who are pro trump and were in his close circle of friends. The statements are in quotes and dated. I will say, had Trump not had some folks in his administration who flat out refused or ignored his directives, it would be even worse than it was.
::)
-
::)
Good answer
-
Good answer
Don't push it. That's my way of not saying anything rude or disrespectful. lol
-
Don't push it. That's my way of not saying anything rude or disrespectful. lol
That is fine with me. And again... I encourage you to take some time and read the volume 2 on obstruction. You may read it differently than me.
-
Hasn't it now been discovered that Mueller edited the conversation by Dowd?
-
Hasn't it now been discovered that Mueller edited the conversation by Dowd?
Yes
-
Again.. its's there to read. Pages 62-77 of Vol 2 the report. It is a concern and MAY have been obstruction but there are roughtly 6 better examples than again...are available for anyone who cares to educate themselves. I personally would not pick this one as there are better. but reading the unethical crap that went on, as layed out by his own staff, should be concerning
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
V. RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT LINKS To AND CONTACTS WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN The Office identified multiple contacts-"links," in the words of the Appointment Orderbetween Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts constituted a third avenue of attempted Russian interference with or influence on the 2016 presidential election. In particular, the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination.
-
I'm reading through it as we speak. I am aware of the Getbig Tit for tat mentality so I get your post. The thing is, I could spend days explaining to you the unethical behaviors of Donald Trump to which I have no doubt you would explain away or discard. So I am imploring you and others to READ THE DAMN REPORT. You can ignore this and remain safe in your cocoon or you could actually READ THE DAMN REPORT
Seriously, all kidding aside. I know it is fashionable to fight back and forth, but if you really are interested in what went on the report is full of info. If not.. then its politics as usual. Remember the Meuller report is fashioned from FBI interviews of almost everyone involved. The most damning information comes from people who are pro trump and were in his close circle of friends. The statements are in quotes and dated. I will say, had Trump not had some folks in his administration who flat out refused or ignored his directives, it would be even worse than it was.
unethical behaviors of Donald Trump according to you ? no offence you are a no-body.
Many of us have read the report and conclude it is a poor attempt at a stitch up job.
So again tell us in your own words - 2 examples of obstruction that would incarcerate a regular person if it was not Trump. Should be easy right ??
-
Yes
So essentially he tried to put everything in as bad a light as possible and still came up with nothing but was able to still keep those who don't care enough to factcheck or know what the legal standard is in his back pocket.
-
unethical behaviors of Donald Trump according to you ? no offence you are a no-body.
Many of us have read the report and conclude it is a poor attempt at a stitch up job.
So again tell us in your own words - 2 examples of obstruction that would incarcerate a regular person if it was not Trump. Should be easy right ??
He won't answer, he'll come back with "read the report". The report that is loaded with speculation, rumors and heresy. ::)
-
Yes
Absolutely outrageous.
-
unethical behaviors of Donald Trump according to you ? no offence you are a no-body.
Many of us have read the report and conclude it is a poor attempt at a stitch up job.
So again tell us in your own words - 2 examples of obstruction that would incarcerate a regular person if it was not Trump. Should be easy right ??
He won't answer, he'll come back with "read the report". The report that is loaded with speculation, rumors and heresy. ::)
Of course not. I asked him at least 5 or 6 times.
-
So essentially he tried to put everything in as bad a light as possible and still came up with nothing but was able to still keep those who don't care enough to factcheck or know what the legal standard is in his back pocket.
Which is exactly what happens when it is spearheaded by a guy who was rejected as FBI Director by Trump (Mueller), likely written by a guy who was at Clinton's election night party (Weisman), with the assistance of prosecutors who donated to Clinton's campaign.
-
Absolutely outrageous.
Wow this is really crazy.
-
Now how dumb is that?? (No, not calling you dumb.) So Trump intended to obstruct the Mueller investigation by firing Comey, despite the fact there was zero actual obstruction of the investigation? And despite the fact Trump had the Constitutional authority to fire Comey for any reason? And despite the fact an independent IG investigation concluded Comey was insubordinate? And despite the fact the Deputy AG wrote a memo recommending Comey's firing? And despite the fact the entire investigation was a sham?
You're ok with your tax dollars being spent on this foolishness?
Most of us understand that Trump is prone to ridiculousness. He ignored all advice to not fire Comey. Tell me this, if Trump wasn't trying to obstruct justice or at least derail the FBI investigation and Comey, why did he bother firing him?
Like you, I have little control over how our tax dollars are spent.
-
Most of us understand that Trump is prone to ridiculousness. He ignored all advice to not fire Comey. Tell me this, if Trump wasn't trying to obstruct justice or at least derail the FBI investigation and Comey, why did he bother firing him?
Like you, I have little control over how our tax dollars are spent.
For the same reasons Clinton and the DemoCraps wanted to, the bloke was incompetent. Are you saying the DemoCraps and the GOP were both wrong on this ??
-
Most of us understand that Trump is prone to ridiculousness. He ignored all advice to not fire Comey. Tell me this, if Trump wasn't trying to obstruct justice or at least derail the FBI investigation and Comey, why did he bother firing him?
Like you, I have little control over how our tax dollars are spent.
No he didn't. The Deputy AG wrote a memo recommending that Comey be fired.
-
No he didn't. The Deputy AG wrote a memo recommending that Comey be fired.
At whose direction?
-
At whose direction?
What difference does that make? The Deputy AG signed it, so it was his recommendation. Plus the IG wrote a report saying Comey was insubordinate. In any event, it is factually incorrect to say Trump "ignored all advice to not fire Comey."
-
Has Jerrold Nadler put AG Barr in jail yet?
For chrissakes those Democrat idiots can’t accomplish anything they promise
-
At whose direction?
who tell us ? The AG department is independent of the POTUS.
-
Stumbling Mumbling Old Fool Mueller made such a muck up when he was trembling and lying - the DOJ and Special Counsel office had to release the below joint statement:
“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and special counsel spokesman Peter Carr in a statement issued Wednesday evening.
“The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements,” they said.
-
When you see this sort of unceremonious exit it all but confirms service to some outside power. Same with Comey, Brennan, Clapper, etc...these people are owned in perpetuity for who knows what...because a normal person would just go away in shame in the face of all this mounting evidence of disservice.
-
He won't answer, he'll come back with "read the report". The report that is loaded with speculation, rumors and heresy. ::)
Said the guy who hasn't read it :)
-
Said the guy who hasn't read it :)
Have you?
Vol. II P. 76
"The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia"
-
Has Jerrold Nadler put AG Barr in jail yet?
For chrissakes those Democrat idiots can’t accomplish anything they promise
Ha, ha!
-
Said the guy who hasn't read it :)
I've read enough. Are you claiming to have it memorized and deciphered?
-
Have you?
Vol. II P. 76
"The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia"
Im on page 87, what page are you on
-
I've read enough. Are you claiming to have it memorized and deciphered?
You have read enough... I understand why you are a Trump supporter. Facts don't matter. You haven't read 1/20th
-
You have read enough... I understand why you are a Trump supporter. Facts don't matter. You haven't read 1/20th
You clearly do not pay attention to details, was that the reason you were sacked from the security job ?
-
You have read enough... I understand why you are a Trump supporter. Facts don't matter. You haven't read 1/20th
How many pages is 1/20th?
-
Stumbling Mumbling Old Fool Mueller part 2:
Same old Stumbling Mumbling fool :)
-
Demofags look so dumb w all this
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAQIShqXYAIa1vN.jpg)
-
Demofags look so dumb w all this
Didn't appear to be a good look for them overall.
-
Somebody check up on Strawman! Suicide watch is on.
-
This crap was as enlightening and as groundbreaking as
(https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/screen-shot-2017-03-15-at-9-59-34-am.png?w=970)
-
I can’t lie and hate to say it but I truly felt bad for Mueller, he looked out of place, obviously didn’t want to be there and just looked scared. From beginning to end this hearing was a disaster for the Dems. Mueller couldn’t even remember who first appointed him....Reagan
-
Obstruction. LOL.
Collins asked him flat out whether the case was hindered, stopped, or curtailed and Mueller flat out answered, “No.”
-
Straw queen must be devastated.
-
Old guy was sandbagging. He didn't want to be there and didn't want to play their political game.
-
Straw queen must be devastated.
He will disappear for a few days and then come back when he is told what to think again.
-
He will disappear for a few days and then come back when he is told what to think again.
CNN is already pushing their "10 key take a ways" we're sure to hear Straw repeat ad hominin.
-
I can’t lie and hate to say it but I truly felt bad for Mueller, he looked out of place, obviously didn’t want to be there and just looked scared. From beginning to end this hearing was a disaster for the Dems. Mueller couldn’t even remember who first appointed him....Reagan
This shows us that he was not running shit. The other guys were. They just used him for his good name. This made him look like a demented fool.
-
I am 100% certain that Bobby Mueller did not write that report.
The anti-Trump minions wrote it and Mueller put his name on it.
If you’re a Democrat you have to feel especially stupid after that farce today. Only Hollywood has-beens, Howard, Maxine Waters, and Primeidiot are dumb enough to still think Trump should be impeached.
-
I am 100% certain that Bobby Mueller did not write that report.
The anti-Trump minions wrote it and Mueller put his name on it.
If you’re a Democrat you have to feel especially stupid after that farce today. Only Hollywood has-beens, Howard, Maxine Waters, and Primeidiot are dumb enough to still think Trump should be impeached.
He even admitted during testimony that he didn't even write that 91/2 min presser speech last month.
-
-
Gohmert Destroys Mueller:
-
Jordan Destroys Mueller:
-
Gohmert Destroys Mueller:
Louis Gohmert - First congressional district of Texas and first in our hearts.
He never disappoints in these types of atmospheres. Just a pit bull.
-
He even admitted during testimony that he didn't even write that 91/2 min presser speech last month.
I’m sorry Coach, “it’s not in my purview.”
LOL !!
Bob Mueller just destroyed more snowflakes than warm spring sunshine !
-
Old guy was sandbagging. He didn't want to be there and didn't want to play their political game.
-Best post so far in this thread.
-
I am 100% certain that Bobby Mueller did not write that report.
The anti-Trump minions wrote it and Mueller put his name on it.
If you’re a Democrat you have to feel especially stupid after that farce today. Only Hollywood has-beens, Howard, Maxine Waters, and Primeidiot are dumb enough to still think Trump should be impeached.
California dreamin'.
JusPlainJane asswipe...show me where I ever posted that Trump should be impeached. ::)
-
I am 100% certain that Bobby Mueller did not write that report.
The anti-Trump minions wrote it and Mueller put his name on it.
If you’re a Democrat you have to feel especially stupid after that farce today. Only Hollywood has-beens, Howard, Maxine Waters, and Primeidiot are dumb enough to still think Trump should be impeached.
Yup, just like the "George Foreman" grill. I would not have believed it until his testimony. Guy hardly knows anything about his own report and about his own investigation. Why? Because they're not really his.
-
Yup, just like the "George Foreman" grill. I would not have believed it until his testimony. Guy hardly knows anything about his own report and about his own investigation. Why? Because they're not really his.
You had a former prosecutor on Fox saying that these reports are typically team efforts, but if it has your name on it you should at least know the contents.
-
You had a former prosecutor on Fox saying that these reports are typically team efforts, but if it has your name on it you should at least know the contents.
Yup. He didn't read "his own" report.
-
You had a former prosecutor on Fox saying that these reports are typically team efforts, but if it has your name on it you should at least know the contents.
Yep, I feel no sympathy for him in this regard. IMO, he knew what he was doing by keeping a hands off approach.
-
California dreamin'.
JusPlainJane asswipe...show me where I ever posted that Trump should be impeached. ::)
You were giddy when you thought Trump’s downfall would be:
His taxes
Michael Flynn
Michael Cohen
Stormy Daniels
Russian collusion
Jeff Manafort
Adam Schiff
Obstruction
Carter Page
Michael Avenatti
Jeff Sessions
Fusion GPS
Brent Kavanaugh
AOC
His taxes
Crying Chuckie Schumer
The border
The government shutdown
North Korea
Iran
Beto O’Rourke
Mueller investigation
And while you hold out hope in your feeble senile mind...Donald Trump has become the greatest President in history.
In a better world, retirees would have their right to vote taken away at age 65.
-
-
California dreamin'.
JusPlainJane asswipe...show me where I ever posted that Trump should be impeached. ::)
Enough is enough. Let us to stand together and demand Congress impeach Trump.
https://www.needtoimpeach.com
-
In a better world, retirees would have their right to vote taken away at age 65.
Trump didn't become Prez until he was 70.
???
-
Sure looks like that is what I posted almost 2 years ago. I feel differently today. Impeaching Trump at this point would likely be counterproductive. It is interesting that this website is still active. https://www.needtoimpeach.com/movement-timeline/ (https://www.needtoimpeach.com/movement-timeline/) Join 8,224,866 Americans who support impeaching Trump
-
Even the fake news media called the stooge Mueller a complete disaster.
I think he was an old fool that was being used by the deep state, but it flopped.
-
LOL...Trump's the greatest troll ever:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1154909622580449286
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/UQjwLUbkbMN28Lc52xU5H8D6jEQ=/0x0:3992x2661/920x613/filters:focal(1751x509:2389x1147):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/64836156/GettyImages_1131699669.0.jpg)
-
LOL...Trump's the greatest troll ever:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1154909622580449286
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/UQjwLUbkbMN28Lc52xU5H8D6jEQ=/0x0:3992x2661/920x613/filters:focal(1751x509:2389x1147):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/64836156/GettyImages_1131699669.0.jpg)
lol that picture says it all.
-
Even the fake news media called the stooge Mueller a complete disaster.
I think he was an old fool that was being used by the deep state, but it flopped.
"Democrats, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing today" - Donald J Trump
Hahahaha...Brutal
-
DOJ probing potentially serious allegations against Mueller:
Mueller was not accurate when he told Congress that he was not interviewing for the position of FBI director when he met President Trump in the Oval Office in May 2017;
Its Mueller Time as the Libatard Losers say :)
-
DOJ probing potentially serious allegations against Mueller:
Mueller was not accurate when he told Congress that he was not interviewing for the position of FBI director when he met President Trump in the Oval Office in May 2017;
Its Mueller Time as the Libatard Losers say :)
So Mueller might have lied under oath? Let's see if this will be thoroughly investigated and, if appropriate, he will face consequences.
-
You guys need to get some pussy. ASAP.