Don't make a Mistake...

[Lewdog]

So that would apply to Clinton then, since all those investigations produced nothing?

Clinton LIED under OATH to a SITTING JUDGE. That is a MOST definite CRIME. Further Clinton tried to tamper with a witness and was caught and charged with that as well.

I meant Hilary.

She was never REALLY investigated, Bill spent 45 minutes with the Attorney General and Comey claimed she had no intent to commit a crime that she DID in fact commit.

Ahhhhh that is rich. How many years of investigations has she endured under a Republican controlled legislature?

“No charges, no convictions means every single person is presumed innocent. You can try to play word games all night and it won't change the facts.”

Those are your words. I guess they only apply to Trump?

If you believe that then what are you argueing about, or do you admit you are a hypocrite? Again it is entirely different Comey ADMITTED she broke the law, BUT said it wasn't intentional. This AFTER Bill spent 45 minutes with the Attorney General.

So... make up your mind. If she wasn't indicted she's innocent right? You are using different standards based on political party.

 

[xband]

I'm heading to bed, night commies, night sane people.

.

sissy

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Clinton LIED under OATH to a SITTING JUDGE. That is a MOST definite CRIME. Further Clinton tried to tamper with a witness and was caught and charged with that as well.

I meant Hilary.

She was never REALLY investigated, Bill spent 45 minutes with the Attorney General and Comey claimed she had no intent to commit a crime that she DID in fact commit.

Ahhhhh that is rich. How many years of investigations has she endured under a Republican controlled legislature?

“No charges, no convictions means every single person is presumed innocent. You can try to play word games all night and it won't change the facts.”

Those are your words. I guess they only apply to Trump?

If you believe that then what are you argueing about, or do you admit you are a hypocrite? Again it is entirely different Comey ADMITTED she broke the law, BUT said it wasn't intentional. This AFTER Bill spent 45 minutes with the Attorney General.

It is not different at all. No charges. No convictions. You are applying a different standard to her.

No charges because Comey was ordered by Lynch to not charge her.

 

[Lewdog]

Mueller specifically said he could not exonerate Trump of obstruction. How does that translate into “no obstruction”

It wasn't his job to exonerate anyone and having no sealed indictment against Trump the presumption of innocence is assumed. No one is charged by our legal system with proving their innocence.

.

Again, Mueller NEVER said no obstruction.

BE VERY specific and tell us what Trump did to obstruct when obstruction requires an underlying crime to be obstruction for.

Wrong. Even Lindsey Graham said there doesn't have to be an underlying crime to obstruct...

Of course when he said that, he was talking about Bill Clinton. Graham is just a hypocrite piece of shit.

People in the Trump camp seem confused as to what obstruction of justice actually means.

.....the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process the defendant's ...​

Innocent people don't respond with "This is the end of my presidency, I'm fucked."

 

[Coyote]

I meant Hilary.

She was never REALLY investigated, Bill spent 45 minutes with the Attorney General and Comey claimed she had no intent to commit a crime that she DID in fact commit.

Ahhhhh that is rich. How many years of investigations has she endured under a Republican controlled legislature?

“No charges, no convictions means every single person is presumed innocent. You can try to play word games all night and it won't change the facts.”

Those are your words. I guess they only apply to Trump?

If you believe that then what are you argueing about, or do you admit you are a hypocrite? Again it is entirely different Comey ADMITTED she broke the law, BUT said it wasn't intentional. This AFTER Bill spent 45 minutes with the Attorney General.

It is not different at all. No charges. No convictions. You are applying a different standard to her.

No charges because Comey was ordered by Lynch to not charge her.

Like Barr told Mueller he could not indict a sitting president?

Actually, the IG investigation supported the decision not to charge Clinton.
Highlights of DOJ inspector general report on handling of Clinton email probe

 

[xband]

I'm heading to bed, night commies, night sane people.

.

nite sissy

 

[Ame®icano]

In another thread that was closed, uncertain on why, Nat4900

Posted this:

For the many of us who want justice, accountability and transparency, from what the Mueller team investigated, reported on and concluded, the Mueller testimony is a MUST.

The stakes are high for both sides of the aisle.

But, in my opinion, Mueller is such a "straight shooter" that to presume that he will side with democrats.....even after the Trump WH and the leadership in the DOJ have derided him........may be wrong.

The efficacy of Mueller's testimony will depend on the simple and direct questions posed to him without necessarily asking him to arrive at any new decisions.

Mueller should be asked:

1. Given the findings listed in your report......and placing aside the current DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted.........would a prosecutor like yourself indict ANYONE based on the reported obstruction findings?

2. Once AG Barr took charge of your investigation, was any pressure made upon your team to wrap up the inquiry? If such pressure was placed on you, is THAT the reason why you did not subpoena Me. Trump to openly testify before a grand jury?

3. Given the number of "I don't recall" responses to your written questions to the WH, why did you not further request follow-up questions?............What stopped you from making such requests?

4. In your through investigation, did you request and were given information from the Deutsche Bank regarding Trump's dealings with that Bank?

5. In your inquiry, did you request and were given copies of Trump's tax returns? If you were given such access, how many years were made available to your team?

6. Mr. Mueller, could you name any and ALL other witnesses who were requested but refused to appear before your team or grand juries?

7. Mr. MUeller, have you had any opposition placed upon your team in sharing your team's findings with other federal prosecutorial districts that are continuing their separate inquiries on topics beyond your scope of work as a special counsel?

With the exception of the first question, the rest should be direct to elicit clear-cut and not opinionated responses.

And I wanted to tell Nat4900 that it would be a great mistake to not cover part one of his investigation and not just part two....

Part two, the obstruction of an Official Investigation, means nothing to anyone that does not know the details of the Investigation that was obstructed!!!

It's important for uninformed people to be informed about the EXTENSIVE Russian Interference in our last election, the means they did it, and the Trump Campaign connection to it....

THIS CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT be skipped, and if there is not enough time to do both, it is more important to go over Part one vs 2..... honest to goodness it is.....

People need to know what a great job the Mueller team did in tracing down what they could, people need to know the darn facts of the investigation, the obstruction of justice can then follow.... without knowing the facts of what was found in the investigation, how are people going to get upset or understand the urgency of protecting ourselves or even understand it... when the admin, is playing like the whole interference by Russians and his team's readiness to work with them, is some every day thing that anybody would do, or some made up hoax as our dearest president claims.... securing our elections from future attack is the most important thing to do....

Informing people, is arming people...

All those questions you have above, can wait.... people need to be informed, on the Trump side as well....

President Trump obstructing can follow....

Plus, informing people with the actual Mueller FACTS, will help combat all the FAKE stories the Republicans are trying to deflect with...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

She was never REALLY investigated, Bill spent 45 minutes with the Attorney General and Comey claimed she had no intent to commit a crime that she DID in fact commit.

Ahhhhh that is rich. How many years of investigations has she endured under a Republican controlled legislature?

“No charges, no convictions means every single person is presumed innocent. You can try to play word games all night and it won't change the facts.”

Those are your words. I guess they only apply to Trump?

If you believe that then what are you argueing about, or do you admit you are a hypocrite? Again it is entirely different Comey ADMITTED she broke the law, BUT said it wasn't intentional. This AFTER Bill spent 45 minutes with the Attorney General.

It is not different at all. No charges. No convictions. You are applying a different standard to her.

No charges because Comey was ordered by Lynch to not charge her.

Like Barr told Mueller he could not indict a sitting president?

Barr had nothing to do with what Mueller recommended. Again in order to obstruct there must be some illegal activity to prevent coming out. There is none. Trump was COMPLETELY in his right Constutionally legally and morally to fire Comey and IN FACT Rosenstien ADVISED HIM TO DO IT.

 

[Coyote]

Ahhhhh that is rich. How many years of investigations has she endured under a Republican controlled legislature?

“No charges, no convictions means every single person is presumed innocent. You can try to play word games all night and it won't change the facts.”

Those are your words. I guess they only apply to Trump?

If you believe that then what are you argueing about, or do you admit you are a hypocrite? Again it is entirely different Comey ADMITTED she broke the law, BUT said it wasn't intentional. This AFTER Bill spent 45 minutes with the Attorney General.

It is not different at all. No charges. No convictions. You are applying a different standard to her.

No charges because Comey was ordered by Lynch to not charge her.

Like Barr told Mueller he could not indict a sitting president?

Barr had nothing to do with what Mueller recommended. Again in order to obstruct there must be some illegal activity to prevent coming out. There is none. Trump was COMPLETELY in his right Constutionally legally and morally to fire Comey and IN FACT Rosenstien ADVISED HIM TO DO IT.

No. There must be an investigation.

 

[Lewdog]

If you believe that then what are you argueing about, or do you admit you are a hypocrite? Again it is entirely different Comey ADMITTED she broke the law, BUT said it wasn't intentional. This AFTER Bill spent 45 minutes with the Attorney General.

It is not different at all. No charges. No convictions. You are applying a different standard to her.

No charges because Comey was ordered by Lynch to not charge her.

Like Barr told Mueller he could not indict a sitting president?

Barr had nothing to do with what Mueller recommended. Again in order to obstruct there must be some illegal activity to prevent coming out. There is none. Trump was COMPLETELY in his right Constutionally legally and morally to fire Comey and IN FACT Rosenstien ADVISED HIM TO DO IT.

No. There must be an investigation.

Don't worry, he'll catch on that he is wrong in 2 years.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you believe that then what are you argueing about, or do you admit you are a hypocrite? Again it is entirely different Comey ADMITTED she broke the law, BUT said it wasn't intentional. This AFTER Bill spent 45 minutes with the Attorney General.

It is not different at all. No charges. No convictions. You are applying a different standard to her.

No charges because Comey was ordered by Lynch to not charge her.

Like Barr told Mueller he could not indict a sitting president?

Barr had nothing to do with what Mueller recommended. Again in order to obstruct there must be some illegal activity to prevent coming out. There is none. Trump was COMPLETELY in his right Constutionally legally and morally to fire Comey and IN FACT Rosenstien ADVISED HIM TO DO IT.

No. There must be an investigation.

NOT for a President to fire an appointee do you even understand the powers of the President? Comey was not accused of anything, Trump can fire any appointee for ANY reason or no reason at all.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Obstruction has nothing to do with collusion. But to the POINT Mueller SPECIFICALLY SAID NO COLLUSION. God you morons are dumb as rocks. Now be specific and show us where Trump Obstructed Mueller in any way......

Actually, that's not what they said.

They said they could not find definitive evidence to prove members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian GOVERNMENT. This is on top of the several cases that have been sent on by Mueller's team, but not made public.

So in other words, his 40+million dollar investigation turned up nothing. So it’s not ever going past the investigation stage, which means no charges. No charges mean no trial. No trial means eat [emoji90] dims.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

In another thread that was closed, uncertain on why, Nat4900

Posted this:

For the many of us who want justice, accountability and transparency, from what the Mueller team investigated, reported on and concluded, the Mueller testimony is a MUST.

The stakes are high for both sides of the aisle.

But, in my opinion, Mueller is such a "straight shooter" that to presume that he will side with democrats.....even after the Trump WH and the leadership in the DOJ have derided him........may be wrong.

The efficacy of Mueller's testimony will depend on the simple and direct questions posed to him without necessarily asking him to arrive at any new decisions.

Mueller should be asked:

1. Given the findings listed in your report......and placing aside the current DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted.........would a prosecutor like yourself indict ANYONE based on the reported obstruction findings?

2. Once AG Barr took charge of your investigation, was any pressure made upon your team to wrap up the inquiry? If such pressure was placed on you, is THAT the reason why you did not subpoena Me. Trump to openly testify before a grand jury?

3. Given the number of "I don't recall" responses to your written questions to the WH, why did you not further request follow-up questions?............What stopped you from making such requests?

4. In your through investigation, did you request and were given information from the Deutsche Bank regarding Trump's dealings with that Bank?

5. In your inquiry, did you request and were given copies of Trump's tax returns? If you were given such access, how many years were made available to your team?

6. Mr. Mueller, could you name any and ALL other witnesses who were requested but refused to appear before your team or grand juries?

7. Mr. MUeller, have you had any opposition placed upon your team in sharing your team's findings with other federal prosecutorial districts that are continuing their separate inquiries on topics beyond your scope of work as a special counsel?

With the exception of the first question, the rest should be direct to elicit clear-cut and not opinionated responses.

And I wanted to tell Nat4900 that it would be a great mistake to not cover part one of his investigation and not just part two....

Part two, the obstruction of an Official Investigation, means nothing to anyone that does not know the details of the Investigation that was obstructed!!!

It's important for uninformed people to be informed about the EXTENSIVE Russian Interference in our last election, the means they did it, and the Trump Campaign connection to it....

THIS CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT be skipped, and if there is not enough time to do both, it is more important to go over Part one vs 2..... honest to goodness it is.....

People need to know what a great job the Mueller team did in tracing down what they could, people need to know the darn facts of the investigation, the obstruction of justice can then follow.... without knowing the facts of what was found in the investigation, how are people going to get upset or understand the urgency of protecting ourselves or even understand it... when the admin, is playing like the whole interference by Russians and his team's readiness to work with them, is some every day thing that anybody would do, or some made up hoax as our dearest president claims.... securing our elections from future attack is the most important thing to do....

Informing people, is arming people...

All those questions you have above, can wait.... people need to be informed, on the Trump side as well....

President Trump obstructing can follow....

Plus, informing people with the actual Mueller FACTS, will help combat all the FAKE stories the Republicans are trying to deflect with...

With silly memes? Do you know how ridiculous and childish you guys sound on the left?


.

Where’s the bullshit dossier come from. That should be a little easier to find out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jantje_Smit]

...Plus, informing people with the actual Mueller FACTS, will help combat all the FAKE stories the Republicans are trying to deflect with...

Indeed, CJ Hopkins explains it perfectly

Obstructiongate!

....Or whatever. The point is, now they’ve got him! His justice obstructing days are numbered! Break out the pussyhats and vuvuzelas, because next stop is Impeachment City! So what if he’s not a Russian agent and didn’t conspire or collude with anyone? He got elected without permission, and insulted a lot of powerful people, and … well, who cares what they impeach him for, as long as they impeach him for something!

 

[IM2]

Obstruction has nothing to do with collusion. But to the POINT Mueller SPECIFICALLY SAID NO COLLUSION. God you morons are dumb as rocks. Now be specific and show us where Trump Obstructed Mueller in any way......

Post the statement by Mueller where he specifically said there was no collusion.

 

[bripat9643]

In another thread that was closed, uncertain on why, Nat4900

Posted this:

For the many of us who want justice, accountability and transparency, from what the Mueller team investigated, reported on and concluded, the Mueller testimony is a MUST.

The stakes are high for both sides of the aisle.

But, in my opinion, Mueller is such a "straight shooter" that to presume that he will side with democrats.....even after the Trump WH and the leadership in the DOJ have derided him........may be wrong.

The efficacy of Mueller's testimony will depend on the simple and direct questions posed to him without necessarily asking him to arrive at any new decisions.

Mueller should be asked:

1. Given the findings listed in your report......and placing aside the current DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted.........would a prosecutor like yourself indict ANYONE based on the reported obstruction findings?

2. Once AG Barr took charge of your investigation, was any pressure made upon your team to wrap up the inquiry? If such pressure was placed on you, is THAT the reason why you did not subpoena Me. Trump to openly testify before a grand jury?

3. Given the number of "I don't recall" responses to your written questions to the WH, why did you not further request follow-up questions?............What stopped you from making such requests?

4. In your through investigation, did you request and were given information from the Deutsche Bank regarding Trump's dealings with that Bank?

5. In your inquiry, did you request and were given copies of Trump's tax returns? If you were given such access, how many years were made available to your team?

6. Mr. Mueller, could you name any and ALL other witnesses who were requested but refused to appear before your team or grand juries?

7. Mr. MUeller, have you had any opposition placed upon your team in sharing your team's findings with other federal prosecutorial districts that are continuing their separate inquiries on topics beyond your scope of work as a special counsel?

With the exception of the first question, the rest should be direct to elicit clear-cut and not opinionated responses.

And I wanted to tell Nat4900 that it would be a great mistake to not cover part one of his investigation and not just part two....

Part two, the obstruction of an Official Investigation, means nothing to anyone that does not know the details of the Investigation that was obstructed!!!

It's important for uninformed people to be informed about the EXTENSIVE Russian Interference in our last election, the means they did it, and the Trump Campaign connection to it....

THIS CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT be skipped, and if there is not enough time to do both, it is more important to go over Part one vs 2..... honest to goodness it is.....

People need to know what a great job the Mueller team did in tracing down what they could, people need to know the darn facts of the investigation, the obstruction of justice can then follow.... without knowing the facts of what was found in the investigation, how are people going to get upset or understand the urgency of protecting ourselves or even understand it... when the admin, is playing like the whole interference by Russians and his team's readiness to work with them, is some every day thing that anybody would do, or some made up hoax as our dearest president claims.... securing our elections from future attack is the most important thing to do....

Informing people, is arming people...

All those questions you have above, can wait.... people need to be informed, on the Trump side as well....

President Trump obstructing can follow....

Plus, informing people with the actual Mueller FACTS, will help combat all the FAKE stories the Republicans are trying to deflect with...

Here are the facts, dingbat: No collusion. No obstruction.

 

[bripat9643]

Obstruction has nothing to do with collusion. But to the POINT Mueller SPECIFICALLY SAID NO COLLUSION. God you morons are dumb as rocks. Now be specific and show us where Trump Obstructed Mueller in any way......

Actually, that's not what they said.

They said they could not find definitive evidence to prove members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian GOVERNMENT. This is on top of the several cases that have been sent on by Mueller's team, but not made public.

They could not find definitive meaning there was not enough or not any evidence at all...

So in the end the Collusion argument is dead and should be dropped but alas the left need it Benghazi...

No, it means what it says, and in order to pursue charges it takes a mountain of evidence, which is hard to find when dealing with governments who can use people that is extremely hard to tie back to them.

For example, Erik Prince may not be considered part of Trump's campaign team, but he was busted for meeting with Russians... and is Trump's Sec. of Education Betsy Devos' brother.

So Mueller's team could not find enough definitive evidence to prove conspiracy, but also said they could not exonerate Trump's team either.

Yeah, and Trump's sister's husband has a 2nd cousin who knew a guy who worked as a janitor in the Kremlin.

You Trump hating turds are so desperate and pathetic it's difficult to comprehend.

 

[Lewdog]

Obstruction has nothing to do with collusion. But to the POINT Mueller SPECIFICALLY SAID NO COLLUSION. God you morons are dumb as rocks. Now be specific and show us where Trump Obstructed Mueller in any way......

Actually, that's not what they said.

They said they could not find definitive evidence to prove members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian GOVERNMENT. This is on top of the several cases that have been sent on by Mueller's team, but not made public.

They could not find definitive meaning there was not enough or not any evidence at all...

So in the end the Collusion argument is dead and should be dropped but alas the left need it Benghazi...

No, it means what it says, and in order to pursue charges it takes a mountain of evidence, which is hard to find when dealing with governments who can use people that is extremely hard to tie back to them.

For example, Erik Prince may not be considered part of Trump's campaign team, but he was busted for meeting with Russians... and is Trump's Sec. of Education Betsy Devos' brother.

So Mueller's team could not find enough definitive evidence to prove conspiracy, but also said they could not exonerate Trump's team either.

Yeah, and Trump's sister's husband has a 2nd cousin who knew a guy who worked as a janitor in the Kremlin.

You Trump hating turds are so desperate and pathetic it's difficult to comprehend.

You don't even know who Prince is. I guarantee you had to look it up.

 

[bripat9643]

Obstruction has nothing to do with collusion. But to the POINT Mueller SPECIFICALLY SAID NO COLLUSION. God you morons are dumb as rocks. Now be specific and show us where Trump Obstructed Mueller in any way......

Actually, that's not what they said.

They said they could not find definitive evidence to prove members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian GOVERNMENT. This is on top of the several cases that have been sent on by Mueller's team, but not made public.

They could not find definitive meaning there was not enough or not any evidence at all...

So in the end the Collusion argument is dead and should be dropped but alas the left need it Benghazi...

No, it means what it says, and in order to pursue charges it takes a mountain of evidence, which is hard to find when dealing with governments who can use people that is extremely hard to tie back to them.

For example, Erik Prince may not be considered part of Trump's campaign team, but he was busted for meeting with Russians... and is Trump's Sec. of Education Betsy Devos' brother.

So Mueller's team could not find enough definitive evidence to prove conspiracy, but also said they could not exonerate Trump's team either.

Yeah, and Trump's sister's husband has a 2nd cousin who knew a guy who worked as a janitor in the Kremlin.

You Trump hating turds are so desperate and pathetic it's difficult to comprehend.

You don't even know who Prince is. I guarantee you had to look it up.

No collusion. No obstruction. That's all you need to know. That's the phrase that will go down in the shameful history of the Dim party.

 

[Lewdog]

Actually, that's not what they said.

They said they could not find definitive evidence to prove members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian GOVERNMENT. This is on top of the several cases that have been sent on by Mueller's team, but not made public.

They could not find definitive meaning there was not enough or not any evidence at all...

So in the end the Collusion argument is dead and should be dropped but alas the left need it Benghazi...

No, it means what it says, and in order to pursue charges it takes a mountain of evidence, which is hard to find when dealing with governments who can use people that is extremely hard to tie back to them.

For example, Erik Prince may not be considered part of Trump's campaign team, but he was busted for meeting with Russians... and is Trump's Sec. of Education Betsy Devos' brother.

So Mueller's team could not find enough definitive evidence to prove conspiracy, but also said they could not exonerate Trump's team either.

Yeah, and Trump's sister's husband has a 2nd cousin who knew a guy who worked as a janitor in the Kremlin.

You Trump hating turds are so desperate and pathetic it's difficult to comprehend.

You don't even know who Prince is. I guarantee you had to look it up.

No collusion. No obstruction. That's all you need to know. That's the phrase that will go down in the shameful history of the Dim party.

Too bad that isn't what the report says. I can't wait until Mueller gets in front of Congress, especially the House where Republicans could keep him from answering legit questions.