In Trying to Fire Mueller, Trump Digs His Own Legal Grave

[Uncensored2008]

So, how did that work out for Nixon?

It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.

Guilty of what?

I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.

If you don't know, then what is Mewler investigating? Prosecutors are supposed to investigate crimes. Investigating people who haven't been accused of crimes is what a police state does.

The American communist FIN chooses a random person that has fallen afoul of Democrat dogma and investigate their entire lives looking for something that could be said wrong.

Exactly, Grand Inquisitor Mewler-Torquemada has declared Trump guilty.

The task now is to determine what Trump is guilty of. If no crime can be found, one will be created. Perhaps a perjury charge?

 

[Uncensored2008]

you'll find out soon enough bri but 5 will get you 10 anything that comes out you and your fellow tards ,un included, will call it false

 

[bripat9643]

It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.

Guilty of what?

I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.

If you don't know, then what is Mewler investigating? Prosecutors are supposed to investigate crimes. Investigating people who haven't been accused of crimes is what a police state does.

The American communist FIN chooses a random person that has fallen afoul of Democrat dogma and investigate their entire lives looking for something that could be said wrong.

Exactly, Grand Inquisitor Mewler-Torquemada has declared Trump guilty.

The task now is to determine what Trump is guilty of. If no crime can be found, one will be created. Perhaps a perjury charge?

I have to wonder why anyone talks to the FBI. Knowing what happened to Martha Stewart and Skooter Libby, if I got a call from the FBI asking for an interview, I would tell them to talk to my lawyer.

 

[eddiew37]

you'll find out soon enough bri but 5 will get you 10 anything that comes out you and your fellow tards ,un included, will call it false

UN I can't wait That and the State of the union speech will have me rolling Funny how all repubs will believe the sack of crap reading from a tele prompter....just remember this is a 9 year bull run and your AH keeps taking credit for shit he hasn't done

 

[evenflow1969]

Guilty of what?

I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.

If you don't know, then what is Mewler investigating? Prosecutors are supposed to investigate crimes. Investigating people who haven't been accused of crimes is what a police state does.

The American communist FIN chooses a random person that has fallen afoul of Democrat dogma and investigate their entire lives looking for something that could be said wrong.

Exactly, Grand Inquisitor Mewler-Torquemada has declared Trump guilty.

The task now is to determine what Trump is guilty of. If no crime can be found, one will be created. Perhaps a perjury charge?

I have to wonder why anyone talks to the FBI. Knowing what happened to Martha Stewart and Skooter Libby, if I got a call from the FBI asking for an interview, I would tell them to talk to my lawyer.

People want to think they are fucking perry mason or some shit. I like you would say nothing at all ever whether guilty or not!

 

[bripat9643]

I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.

If you don't know, then what is Mewler investigating? Prosecutors are supposed to investigate crimes. Investigating people who haven't been accused of crimes is what a police state does.

The American communist FIN chooses a random person that has fallen afoul of Democrat dogma and investigate their entire lives looking for something that could be said wrong.

Exactly, Grand Inquisitor Mewler-Torquemada has declared Trump guilty.

The task now is to determine what Trump is guilty of. If no crime can be found, one will be created. Perhaps a perjury charge?

I have to wonder why anyone talks to the FBI. Knowing what happened to Martha Stewart and Skooter Libby, if I got a call from the FBI asking for an interview, I would tell them to talk to my lawyer.

People want to think they are fucking perry mason or some shit. I like you would say nothing at all ever whether guilty or not!

Don't ever talk to the cops either.

 

[jc456]

‘“Attempted obstruction is obstruction even when the perpetrator backs down after failing to get his consigliere to do the deed for him,” constitutional lawyer Larry Tribe [notes]. “In addition, it’s part of a persistent pattern of obstruction. And it’s also strong evidence of consciousness of guilt.” As the Times report notes, Trump has “long demonstrated a preoccupation with those who have overseen the Russia investigation.” He threw a fit when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia probe, and he fired Comey after he failed to extract an oath of loyalty. The attempt to decapitate the probe again goes to Trump’s intent to stymie an independent investigation and his seeming cluelessness that these actions would be potentially illegal, an abuse of his power.'

Opinion | In trying to fire Mueller, Trump digs his own legal grave

Trump is indeed clueless, ignorant of the law, and blinded by his arrogance.

You’re just too stupid for a discussion

 

[usmbguest5318]

Obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor plus intent, not a crime of achievement and intent, or of mere achievement.

• 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
  • 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
    
    In this particular section of federal obstruction codes, one finds the following language "Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States..."
    
    That is the general tone and tenor of, AFAIK, all obstruction of justice statutes.

Because the law is as it is, whether ones successfully obstructs justice -- by a single act or by a collection/sequence/series of acts -- is legally irrelevant because prosecutors are not at trial burdened with proving that one's efforts did obstruct justice. They are not so burdened, if for no other reason, because the mere fact that one has been charged with obstruction (a charge that's difficult to prove, thus one that's not lightly brought) necessarily means that some aspect(s) of one's efforts to do something (criminal or not; e.g., having sex with Monica L. violated no federal laws) and do so undiscovered and unpunished failed.

That obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor is why the disclosure of the fact that Trump considered firing Mueller and that only upon the WH General Counsel (not Trump's personal attorney; the distinction between the two being significant) threatening to resign if Trump sallied forth and fired Mueller. [1]


Note:

1. OT:
   Make no mistake; that WH counsel doesn't remotely strike me as a man of sterling character insofar as he's defended several ethically questionable choices Trump has made. That said, I think he knew full and well that were Trump to have fired Mueller his licence to practice law could very easily have been called into question and possibly revoked.
   
   Quite simply, an attorney cannot be knowingly complicit in or party to an illegal act. Among other common attorney behaviors, not asking an accused criminal whether they did indeed commit the crime with which they've been charged is not among the questions defense attorneys, for example, don't ask their clients. Were they to know one is guilty, and also, on one's behalf, enter a not-guilty plea, and then prevail at trial, they would then be deemed complicit in the commision of their defendant's crime. Once that happens, bye-bye bar membership.

Endeavor means action. There was no action. And it's within his powers to fire him without question!

Yes, as far as I know he can absolutely fire him. I believe Nixon did years ago when he was being investigated.

So, how did that work out for Nixon?

It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The attempt to decapitate the probe again goes to Trump’s intent to stymie an independent investigation and his seeming cluelessness that these actions would be potentially illegal, an abuse of his power.'

...Trump is indeed clueless, ignorant of the law, and blinded by his arrogance.

I disagree only with the bolded sentence above. I don't think trump is clueless about the law or his abuse of power. I believe trump feels he is above our laws.

That's what makes him truly dangerous, imo. That and his utter incompetence.

Mr. Utter Incompetence has stomped your

liberal asses and your corrupt media into total stupidity......

Are you certain he had anything to do with it?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor plus intent, not a crime of achievement and intent, or of mere achievement.

• 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
  • 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
    
    In this particular section of federal obstruction codes, one finds the following language "Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States..."
    
    That is the general tone and tenor of, AFAIK, all obstruction of justice statutes.

Because the law is as it is, whether ones successfully obstructs justice -- by a single act or by a collection/sequence/series of acts -- is legally irrelevant because prosecutors are not at trial burdened with proving that one's efforts did obstruct justice. They are not so burdened, if for no other reason, because the mere fact that one has been charged with obstruction (a charge that's difficult to prove, thus one that's not lightly brought) necessarily means that some aspect(s) of one's efforts to do something (criminal or not; e.g., having sex with Monica L. violated no federal laws) and do so undiscovered and unpunished failed.

That obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor is why the disclosure of the fact that Trump considered firing Mueller and that only upon the WH General Counsel (not Trump's personal attorney; the distinction between the two being significant) threatening to resign if Trump sallied forth and fired Mueller. [1]


Note:

1. OT:
   Make no mistake; that WH counsel doesn't remotely strike me as a man of sterling character insofar as he's defended several ethically questionable choices Trump has made. That said, I think he knew full and well that were Trump to have fired Mueller his licence to practice law could very easily have been called into question and possibly revoked.
   
   Quite simply, an attorney cannot be knowingly complicit in or party to an illegal act. Among other common attorney behaviors, not asking an accused criminal whether they did indeed commit the crime with which they've been charged is not among the questions defense attorneys, for example, don't ask their clients. Were they to know one is guilty, and also, on one's behalf, enter a not-guilty plea, and then prevail at trial, they would then be deemed complicit in the commision of their defendant's crime. Once that happens, bye-bye bar membership.

Endeavor means action. There was no action. And it's within his powers to fire him without question!

Yes, as far as I know he can absolutely fire him. I believe Nixon did years ago when he was being investigated.

So, how did that work out for Nixon?

It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.

Aldo Raine, do you truly think/believe and mean both of the emboldened statements I've below quoted? If so, how does that happen? In one passage, you show zero acknowledgement of the absence of control individuals have on the actions of others and have thus asserted what what will or won't happen based on a non-existential state of being (that of having control over the behavior of whatever quantity of individuals it takes to impeach and "convict" a POTUS -- first quote below, posted at 12:42 pm today) and then, in less than an hour, post the perfectly rational response you did regarding the investigation (second quote below, posted at 1:29 pm today), which very clearly and implicitly acknowledges the unpredictability associated with ?

It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.

I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.

I'm asking because the thought processes (analysis) that lead to either conclusive assertion are unmistakable (provided one truly meant both remarks):

• "It won't work this time either if he is indeed guilty." --> This is a positive statement, and nobody can today make that statement and, but for the Moirai's will, be assured of having done so accurately. (Were you to have written something to the effect of "...probably won't...," I wouldn't have anything to say about it, other perhaps than to say I agree and click the "agree" rating on the post that contained the statement. Alternatively, it's possible that had you written more, context would have made clear that that your "won't work" diction is just a typo of sorts.)
• "It shouldn't work this time either if he is indeed guilty." --> This is a normative statement, and anybody can accurately make it because it attests to what the writer/speaker believes should (past tense of "shall") in the future happen, had rather happen, not what in fact will in the future happen.

FWIW, though I realize your remark had nothing to do with economics, I've posted the video below because the concept of normative and positive statements is applicable to any topic.

​

Am I criticizing your grammar or diction? No, I'm asking for input. I'm not criticizing your grammar/diction because I believe you're fluent enough in English that you know the denotative difference between "won't" and "shouldn't;" thus I think that what you wrote accurately expresses your analysis of and conclusion on the matter about which you wrote. I think that because it's disrespectful to presume a writer isn't literate enough to aptly and accurately express the ideas in their own mind. I realize your diction may, however, have resulted from a mistake, and that is why I asked the question with which I opened this post; I too have made inapt word choices.

 

[monkrules]

OMG...a Hillary Clinton supporter claims that Trump feels he's above our laws? Because he's understandably angry at being accused of doing something that he NEVER did and that Hillary Clinton DID do?

This entire thing is becoming farce...

Please....Try to be honest, for once in your posting life.

There is NO fucking way you can know that trump is innocent of colluding with his butt-buddy, Vladimir.

You're forever engaging in wishful thinking when it comes to the Orange Butt-Plug.

Your right Comrade, which is why you Maoists were required to provide EVIDENCE, which you failed to ever do.

Now we DO have evidence, PROOF in fact, that Mafia Don Hillary colluded with the Russians. You know this, but continue to lie, because you're a fucking Communist without a shred of integrity.

{


It's important to note that the Fusion founders in their op-ed did confirm things that earlier had been reported: Namely, that the anti-Trump research was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, as first reported by the Washington Poston October 24 and subsequently confirmed by Fox News and CNN.

As the Post said, "Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research ... Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC."

Indeed, the DNC paid for the research all the way until the very end of October, merely days before the election. Fusion GPS delivered Steele's reports and other research to Elias, for use by the Democrats.

This is important because as we're now finding out, part of the dossier was also used by the FBI to convince a FISA court to let the FBI spy on Trump campaign officials. So there's a real conflict here: A dossier paid for by one political party and its candidate being used by the government to spy on that candidate's opponent.}

Fusion GPS' 'Fake Investigation' — And Hillary Clinton's Real Russian Collusion | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

That's some grade A collusion there, you little commie fuck.

But Grand Inquisitor Mewler-Torquemada has utterly ignored this, why? If Torquemada were investigating Russian interference with the election, then there it is, irrefutable; indict Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and the FBI love birds.

But that is not and never was his goal, he is there to "GET TRUMP" through any means possible. Like you, he doesn't give a damn about evidence or fact.

Listen up you stupid partisan asshole: I'm not a Hillary lover. I hate her nearly as much as I hate the Orange Pile of shit you support.

But trump is president. The American people have to know if our election process was tampered with by the Russians. And if trump was helped by colluding with the Russians we deserve to know. This is more important than any other outcome of the election. trump doesn't matter, he's just a Draft-Dodging coward and a predatory harasser of women. But the security of our elections does matter.

By the way, dooshbag, do you know that SIXTEEN women have now accused the Orange Scum of harassing them sexually? How can you support such disgusting dirt bag. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

 

[Aldo Raine]

Obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor plus intent, not a crime of achievement and intent, or of mere achievement.

• 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
  • 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
    
    In this particular section of federal obstruction codes, one finds the following language "Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States..."
    
    That is the general tone and tenor of, AFAIK, all obstruction of justice statutes.

Because the law is as it is, whether ones successfully obstructs justice -- by a single act or by a collection/sequence/series of acts -- is legally irrelevant because prosecutors are not at trial burdened with proving that one's efforts did obstruct justice. They are not so burdened, if for no other reason, because the mere fact that one has been charged with obstruction (a charge that's difficult to prove, thus one that's not lightly brought) necessarily means that some aspect(s) of one's efforts to do something (criminal or not; e.g., having sex with Monica L. violated no federal laws) and do so undiscovered and unpunished failed.

That obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor is why the disclosure of the fact that Trump considered firing Mueller and that only upon the WH General Counsel (not Trump's personal attorney; the distinction between the two being significant) threatening to resign if Trump sallied forth and fired Mueller. [1]


Note:

1. OT:
   Make no mistake; that WH counsel doesn't remotely strike me as a man of sterling character insofar as he's defended several ethically questionable choices Trump has made. That said, I think he knew full and well that were Trump to have fired Mueller his licence to practice law could very easily have been called into question and possibly revoked.
   
   Quite simply, an attorney cannot be knowingly complicit in or party to an illegal act. Among other common attorney behaviors, not asking an accused criminal whether they did indeed commit the crime with which they've been charged is not among the questions defense attorneys, for example, don't ask their clients. Were they to know one is guilty, and also, on one's behalf, enter a not-guilty plea, and then prevail at trial, they would then be deemed complicit in the commision of their defendant's crime. Once that happens, bye-bye bar membership.

Endeavor means action. There was no action. And it's within his powers to fire him without question!

Yes, as far as I know he can absolutely fire him. I believe Nixon did years ago when he was being investigated.

So, how did that work out for Nixon?

It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.

Aldo Raine, do you truly think/believe and mean both of the emboldened statements I've below quoted? If so, how does that happen? In one passage, you show zero acknowledgement of the absence of control individuals have on the actions of others and have thus asserted what what will or won't happen based on a non-existential state of being (that of having control over the behavior of whatever quantity of individuals it takes to impeach and "convict" a POTUS -- first quote below, posted at 12:42 pm today) and then, in less than an hour, post the perfectly rational response you did regarding the investigation (second quote below, posted at 1:29 pm today), which very clearly and implicitly acknowledges the unpredictability associated with ?

It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.

I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.

I'm asking because the thought processes (analysis) that lead to either conclusive assertion are unmistakable (provided one truly meant both remarks):

• "It won't work this time either if he is indeed guilty." --> This is a positive statement, and nobody can today make that statement and, but for the Moirai's will, be assured of having done so accurately. (Were you to have written something to the effect of "...probably won't...," I wouldn't have anything to say about it, other perhaps than to say I agree and click the "agree" rating on the post that contained the statement. Alternatively, it's possible that had you written more, context would have made clear that that your "won't work" diction is just a typo of sorts.)
• "It shouldn't work this time either if he is indeed guilty." --> This is a normative statement, and anybody can accurately make it because it attests to what the writer/speaker believes should (past tense of "shall") in the future happen, had rather happen, not what in fact will in the future happen.

FWIW, though I realize your remark had nothing to do with economics, I've posted the video below because the concept of normative and positive statements is applicable to any topic.

​

Am I criticizing your grammar or diction? No, I'm asking for input. I'm not criticizing your grammar/diction because I believe you're fluent enough in English that you know the denotative difference between "won't" and "shouldn't;" thus I think that what you wrote accurately expresses your analysis of and conclusion on the matter about which you wrote. I think that because it's disrespectful to presume a writer isn't literate enough to aptly and accurately express the ideas in their own mind. I realize your diction may, however, have resulted from a mistake, and that is why I asked the question with which I opened this post; I too have made inapt word choices.

Not sure I am grasping all you are saying. But what I mean is that it will not derail the continuation of the investigation. And I have NO idea if he is guilty or innocent, but I am willing to let it play out. Does that make it any clearer or an I not understanding what your question is?

 

[monkrules]

Mr. Utter Incompetence has stomped your

liberal asses and your corrupt media into total stupidity......

The Orange Dooshbag is president only because voters grew complacent.

They refused to believe American voters could be stupid enough to elect the Orange Shitbag.

You Communists sure didn't turn complacent.

You fucking traitors colluded with Russia to thwart our elections and corrupted the FBI to tamper with elections and attempt a coup on a sitting president.

{
Digenova condemned the FBI for working so closely with the controversial Fusion GPS, a political hit squad paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign to create and spread the discredited Steele dossier about President Trump. "Without a justifiable law enforcement or national security reason, he says the FBI "created false facts" so that they could get surveillance warrants. Those are all crimes. He ads, using official FISA-702 'queries' and surveillance was done to create a false case against a candidate, and then a president."

"The FBI now has to be completely reconstructed from the ground up, the men and woman at the FBI are great people, that is not who we are talking about, we are talking about people like James Comey, McCabe, Strzoke, Page, Baker,Rosenstein and others. There is a huge civil liability for these and other individuals.

"It is also now very clear that the 'Russian Collusion' was a complete fabrication by the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton Campaign, Fusion GPS, and Senior DOJ & FBI officials. There is literally no evidence whatsoever that has ever been produced of any Trump / Russia collusion and the Christopher Steel Dossier is not at all credible; in fact Rod Rosenstein himself wrote in his appointment letter and memorandum about it that there is no evidence of any crime by Donald Trump, but 'for political reasons there should be an investigation'. The truth is that the appointment of a Special Council was completely unnecessary, there was no need or justification of it.}

http://skagitrepublicans.com/The99PageFISADocumentDeclassifiedTheAttemptedCoupandCoverup

You Communist fucks tried to overthrown the United States government, but you failed.

Do you know what happens to traitors who stage a coup and fail?

Hey, they would offer you a cigarette as you stand against the wall commie; but smoking is bad for you...

trump supporter are the ONLY traitors in this country, asshole. You're the only ones afraid of getting to the truth.

If the Russians DID interfere with our elections, we have to know it. What are you afraid of? Do you think the dooshbag you love will be found to have stolen the election?

Don't be afraid of the truth, little one. The big bad Truth won't hurt you. But your new Jesus wannabe, trump, could very likely give you a big bad STD. He's a sleazy Pig, you know.

 

[USApatriotz]

‘“Attempted obstruction is obstruction even when the perpetrator backs down after failing to get his consigliere to do the deed for him,” constitutional lawyer Larry Tribe [notes]. “In addition, it’s part of a persistent pattern of obstruction. And it’s also strong evidence of consciousness of guilt.” As the Times report notes, Trump has “long demonstrated a preoccupation with those who have overseen the Russia investigation.” He threw a fit when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia probe, and he fired Comey after he failed to extract an oath of loyalty. The attempt to decapitate the probe again goes to Trump’s intent to stymie an independent investigation and his seeming cluelessness that these actions would be potentially illegal, an abuse of his power.'

Opinion | In trying to fire Mueller, Trump digs his own legal grave

Trump is indeed clueless, ignorant of the law, and blinded by his arrogance.

You're citing Jennifer Rubin??!? She's a left wing RINO PSYCHO who has been wrong about Trump ever since he declared for President in June 2015!

She said he'd NEVER win the GOP nomination, then she said he'd lose in a LANDSLIDE to Hillary! Then she said he likely won't last his first year!

So if she thinks he's in legal trouble then what it REALLY means is there is ZERO Trump/Russia collusion!!

 

[eddiew37]

OMG...a Hillary Clinton supporter claims that Trump feels he's above our laws? Because he's understandably angry at being accused of doing something that he NEVER did and that Hillary Clinton DID do?

This entire thing is becoming farce...

Please....Try to be honest, for once in your posting life.

There is NO fucking way you can know that trump is innocent of colluding with his butt-buddy, Vladimir.

You're forever engaging in wishful thinking when it comes to the Orange Butt-Plug.

Your right Comrade, which is why you Maoists were required to provide EVIDENCE, which you failed to ever do.

Now we DO have evidence, PROOF in fact, that Mafia Don Hillary colluded with the Russians. You know this, but continue to lie, because you're a fucking Communist without a shred of integrity.

{


It's important to note that the Fusion founders in their op-ed did confirm things that earlier had been reported: Namely, that the anti-Trump research was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, as first reported by the Washington Poston October 24 and subsequently confirmed by Fox News and CNN.

As the Post said, "Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research ... Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC."

Indeed, the DNC paid for the research all the way until the very end of October, merely days before the election. Fusion GPS delivered Steele's reports and other research to Elias, for use by the Democrats.

This is important because as we're now finding out, part of the dossier was also used by the FBI to convince a FISA court to let the FBI spy on Trump campaign officials. So there's a real conflict here: A dossier paid for by one political party and its candidate being used by the government to spy on that candidate's opponent.}

Fusion GPS' 'Fake Investigation' — And Hillary Clinton's Real Russian Collusion | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

That's some grade A collusion there, you little commie fuck.

But Grand Inquisitor Mewler-Torquemada has utterly ignored this, why? If Torquemada were investigating Russian interference with the election, then there it is, irrefutable; indict Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and the FBI love birds.

But that is not and never was his goal, he is there to "GET TRUMP" through any means possible. Like you, he doesn't give a damn about evidence or fact.

Listen up you stupid partisan asshole: I'm not a Hillary lover. I hate her nearly as much as I hate the Orange Pile of shit you support.

But trump is president. The American people have to know if our election process was tampered with by the Russians. And if trump was helped by colluding with the Russians we deserve to know. This is more important than any other outcome of the election. trump doesn't matter, he's just a Draft-Dodging coward and a predatory harasser of women. But the security of our elections does matter.

By the way, dooshbag, do you know that SIXTEEN women have now accused the Orange Scum of harassing them sexually? How can you support such disgusting dirt bag. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

That is the question All our Christian citizens sit on their hands supporting this pervert in our presidency while they bashed Clinton

 

[Aldo Raine]

Yes, as far as I know he can absolutely fire him. I believe Nixon did years ago when he was being investigated.

So, how did that work out for Nixon?

It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.

Guilty of what?

I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.

Investigation?

Shit, Torquemada is going after 12 year old SEC violations.

This is a witch hunt. It's all it ever was. Grand Inquisitor Mewler-Torquemada has fount Trump guilty.

Now he is desperately searching for what it is Trump is guilty of.

He does not have the power to find him guilty. You're letting your bias show.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Mr. Utter Incompetence has stomped your

liberal asses and your corrupt media into total stupidity......

The Orange Dooshbag is president only because voters grew complacent.

They refused to believe American voters could be stupid enough to elect the Orange Shitbag.

You Communists sure didn't turn complacent.

You fucking traitors colluded with Russia to thwart our elections and corrupted the FBI to tamper with elections and attempt a coup on a sitting president.

{
Digenova condemned the FBI for working so closely with the controversial Fusion GPS, a political hit squad paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign to create and spread the discredited Steele dossier about President Trump. "Without a justifiable law enforcement or national security reason, he says the FBI "created false facts" so that they could get surveillance warrants. Those are all crimes. He ads, using official FISA-702 'queries' and surveillance was done to create a false case against a candidate, and then a president."

"The FBI now has to be completely reconstructed from the ground up, the men and woman at the FBI are great people, that is not who we are talking about, we are talking about people like James Comey, McCabe, Strzoke, Page, Baker,Rosenstein and others. There is a huge civil liability for these and other individuals.

"It is also now very clear that the 'Russian Collusion' was a complete fabrication by the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton Campaign, Fusion GPS, and Senior DOJ & FBI officials. There is literally no evidence whatsoever that has ever been produced of any Trump / Russia collusion and the Christopher Steel Dossier is not at all credible; in fact Rod Rosenstein himself wrote in his appointment letter and memorandum about it that there is no evidence of any crime by Donald Trump, but 'for political reasons there should be an investigation'. The truth is that the appointment of a Special Council was completely unnecessary, there was no need or justification of it.}

http://skagitrepublicans.com/The99PageFISADocumentDeclassifiedTheAttemptedCoupandCoverup

You Communist fucks tried to overthrown the United States government, but you failed.

Do you know what happens to traitors who stage a coup and fail?

Hey, they would offer you a cigarette as you stand against the wall commie; but smoking is bad for you...

trump supporter are the ONLY traitors in this country, asshole. You're the only ones afraid of getting to the truth.

If the Russians DID interfere with our elections, we have to know it. What are you afraid of? Do you think the dooshbag you love will be found to have stolen the election?

Don't be afraid of the truth, little one. The big bad Truth won't hurt you. But your new Jesus wannabe, trump, could very likely give you a big bad STD. He's a sleazy Pig, you know.

Ahhh...... the POWER of the patriotic silent white majority!!!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
trump supporter are the ONLY traitors in this country, asshole. You're the only ones afraid of getting to the truth.

Trump won the presidency. You tried to stage a coup - that is treason.

If the Russians DID interfere with our elections, we have to know it. What are you afraid of? Do you think the dooshbag you love will be found to have stolen the election?

Don't be afraid of the truth, little one. The big bad Truth won't hurt you. But your new Jesus wannabe, trump, could very likely give you a big bad STD. He's a sleazy Pig, you know.

We DO know it, Hillary paid Russia to interfere with our election, as did the FBI.

Funny though, Grand Inquisitor Mewler-Torquemada seems to be more interested in 12 year old SEC violations.

Almost is if he's a corrupt hack running a witch hunt or Stalinist purge...

 

[monkrules]

[
trump supporter are the ONLY traitors in this country, asshole. You're the only ones afraid of getting to the truth.

Trump won the presidency. You tried to stage a coup - that is treason.

If the Russians DID interfere with our elections, we have to know it. What are you afraid of? Do you think the dooshbag you love will be found to have stolen the election?

Don't be afraid of the truth, little one. The big bad Truth won't hurt you. But your new Jesus wannabe, trump, could very likely give you a big bad STD. He's a sleazy Pig, you know.

We DO know it, Hillary paid Russia to interfere with our election, as did the FBI.

Funny though, Grand Inquisitor Mewler-Torquemada seems to be more interested in 12 year old SEC violations.

Almost is if he's a corrupt hack running a witch hunt or Stalinist purge...

You're a partisan hack who's not worth talking to. Your head is in the sand.

The truth WILL come out, whether you and other trump lovers like it, or not.

Why are you people so fucking afraid of the truth...?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Endeavor means action. There was no action. And it's within his powers to fire him without question!

Yes, as far as I know he can absolutely fire him. I believe Nixon did years ago when he was being investigated.

So, how did that work out for Nixon?

It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.

Aldo Raine, do you truly think/believe and mean both of the emboldened statements I've below quoted? If so, how does that happen? In one passage, you show zero acknowledgement of the absence of control individuals have on the actions of others and have thus asserted what what will or won't happen based on a non-existential state of being (that of having control over the behavior of whatever quantity of individuals it takes to impeach and "convict" a POTUS -- first quote below, posted at 12:42 pm today) and then, in less than an hour, post the perfectly rational response you did regarding the investigation (second quote below, posted at 1:29 pm today), which very clearly and implicitly acknowledges the unpredictability associated with ?

It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.

I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.

I'm asking because the thought processes (analysis) that lead to either conclusive assertion are unmistakable (provided one truly meant both remarks):

• "It won't work this time either if he is indeed guilty." --> This is a positive statement, and nobody can today make that statement and, but for the Moirai's will, be assured of having done so accurately. (Were you to have written something to the effect of "...probably won't...," I wouldn't have anything to say about it, other perhaps than to say I agree and click the "agree" rating on the post that contained the statement. Alternatively, it's possible that had you written more, context would have made clear that that your "won't work" diction is just a typo of sorts.)
• "It shouldn't work this time either if he is indeed guilty." --> This is a normative statement, and anybody can accurately make it because it attests to what the writer/speaker believes should (past tense of "shall") in the future happen, had rather happen, not what in fact will in the future happen.

FWIW, though I realize your remark had nothing to do with economics, I've posted the video below because the concept of normative and positive statements is applicable to any topic.

​

Am I criticizing your grammar or diction? No, I'm asking for input. I'm not criticizing your grammar/diction because I believe you're fluent enough in English that you know the denotative difference between "won't" and "shouldn't;" thus I think that what you wrote accurately expresses your analysis of and conclusion on the matter about which you wrote. I think that because it's disrespectful to presume a writer isn't literate enough to aptly and accurately express the ideas in their own mind. I realize your diction may, however, have resulted from a mistake, and that is why I asked the question with which I opened this post; I too have made inapt word choices.

Not sure I am grasping all you are saying. But what I mean is that it will not derail the continuation of the investigation. And I have NO idea if he is guilty or innocent, but I am willing to let it play out. Does that make it any clearer or an I not understanding what your question is?

Not sure I am grasping all you are saying.

The words "I don't know..." explicitly indicate an awareness of uncertainty. The words "it won't work..." explicitly indicate complete certainty for it's an alternative way to say "it is impossible for 'such and such' to work."

The point of my post was to say that I don't understand how the same mind that in writing...

I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.

...clearly recognizes the uncertainty of outcomes associated with the "Russia" investigation also wrote...

It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.

...which is a statement that acknowledges no uncertainty of outcomes related to what actions Congress may take if Trump acts to fire Mueller. Just as we do not know what will be the outcome of the "Russia" investigation, we don't know that Congress will impeach/"convict" Trump should he order that Mueller be fired.

Seeing in one remark the capacity to recognize when a set of circumstances includes a measure of uncertainty of outcomes, and seeing in the other remark that you tacitly deny the existence of any measure of uncertainty of outcomes with regard to a set of circumstances that clearly can have up to 535 sources of uncertainty, I was curious to learn how that happens in one person's mind, in this instance yours. That is why I asked the questions I did:

Aldo Raine, do you truly think/believe and mean both of the emboldened statements I've below quoted? If so, how does that happen?

Mind you, you're not the only USMB member who makes principly/cognitively incongruous remarks; however, you are among those for whom I have enough respect to ask "what up with that" rather than simply post a criticism, recrimination or rebuke. You have earned that respect by often enough posting thoughts that don't strike me as, well, flat-out f*cking stupid, indefensible, and/or poorly founded.