Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's pretty much all the Democrats can do, at this point.Congress can impeach Trump.
They won't. They know they can't do it. They will do jack fucking shit and like it.
Deflection.Doom is spelled BORDER WALL.
.
the dems could wait until right before the election in 2020 to start impeachment proceedings-
Accusimg trump of a crime in the report would have been a formal accusation. Mueller explicitly said that a formal accusation against the president was not an option he could consider.Mueller's decision was not guilt or innocence but rather whether charges would be made against Trump. Since he was not allowed by the regulations he worked under to charge the president, he did exactly the right thing. He left it to congress. As he said, it would be unfair for him to accuse the president without charging him and leave him no legal means of clearing himself.Sorry, but that's a coward's way out.But longstanding policy did. So he left it to the AG and to the congress. As he said.The law doesn't prevent him from making a decision on guilt or innocence.
Come on people, this is not complicated stuff.
His job was to make a decision....not leave it to Congress or the media to decide guilt or innocence.
Many of the accusations being made against the president come more under the category of bad conduct, conduct unbecoming a president, or actions that are borderline criminal behavior. These are the type charges that are more fitting impeachment than a criminal court.
Sure it was. Ken Starr did it. He out and out accused Bill Clinton, gave his reasons, and provided his evidence.
The 1978 law governing the office of the Independent Counsel. Again, go read up. It is not a good comparison.The case took place in the later 90's. So what law are you talking about?
What could possibly be Trump's motive in obstructing investigations that were trying to discover evidence that he colluded with the Russians to win the election?It does, however, require a specific motive,m which Mueller could not find.Obstruction of justice does not require an underlying crimeI do find this rather amazing in that apparently the president may possibly be guilty of obstruction of justice in the commission of a crime that was never committed in the first place. Got to be kidding me, so all I have to do is create a false narrative and anyone attempting to discredit said narrative is possibly guilty of obstruction of justice? So how did the president actually obstruct the investigation?
I think the key is burden of proof? Good luck with that.
The better question is why would Trump try to obstruct an investigation on him of something he was never guilty of?
Uff...The 1978 law governing the office of the Independent Counsel. Again, go read up. It is not a good comparison.The case took place in the later 90's. So what law are you talking about?
You don't even realize you defeated your own argument.
The Starr investigation took place after 1978. The Mueller investigation took place after 1978. You made claim that a new law was created between the late 90's and today. So what new law was that?
What you just admitted to is that Starr and Mueller were guided by the same exact regulations. I call that an impeccable comparison.
Yep....impeachment used to be a legal matter......now Democrats are using it to overturn electionsWhy do you think this is meaningful?Yeah, he had no proof that Trump wasn't a damn criminal,Mueller had no proof, wonder girl.
Hoe does this translate, outside your world of make-believe, that Trump is a criminal?
Mueller told you very clearly that if he could have cleared Trump of obstruction, he would have. He could not. Now given that he did so in Vol1, it's not hard to see what he meant.
That doesn't mean he could prove it in a court of law either.
.
He didn't need to, dope. Congress doesn't need to either.
Starr wasn't operating under DOJ rules, fool.You folk on the far right need to revisit Sweet Lindsay's views and thoughts about what impeachment means and what a President can be impeached about during the Clinton years.
It's on YouTube, you really should take a look and get up to speed.
The Starr report said Clinton was guilty 11 times. Come up with similar statements in the Mueller report.
.
Yep....impeachment used to be a legal matter......now Democrats are using it to overturn electionsWhy do you think this is meaningful?Yeah, he had no proof that Trump wasn't a damn criminal,
Hoe does this translate, outside your world of make-believe, that Trump is a criminal?
Mueller told you very clearly that if he could have cleared Trump of obstruction, he would have. He could not. Now given that he did so in Vol1, it's not hard to see what he meant.
That doesn't mean he could prove it in a court of law either.
.
He didn't need to, dope. Congress doesn't need to either.
But what do you expect from a bunch of anti-Americans.
If it was you know you'd get laughed out of court.Yep....impeachment used to be a legal matter......now Democrats are using it to overturn electionsWhy do you think this is meaningful?
Hoe does this translate, outside your world of make-believe, that Trump is a criminal?
Mueller told you very clearly that if he could have cleared Trump of obstruction, he would have. He could not. Now given that he did so in Vol1, it's not hard to see what he meant.
That doesn't mean he could prove it in a court of law either.
.
He didn't need to, dope. Congress doesn't need to either.
But what do you expect from a bunch of anti-Americans.
It was never a legal matter.
Delusion, delusion, delusion. It's long past time for democommies to deal with their loss and get their worthless asses in gear and get to work.Most important thing said: MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'
MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'
But, the GOP are going to continue to spin, spin, spin!
Impeachment never required crimes. Only misconduct.If it was you know you'd get laughed out of court.Yep....impeachment used to be a legal matter......now Democrats are using it to overturn electionsMueller told you very clearly that if he could have cleared Trump of obstruction, he would have. He could not. Now given that he did so in Vol1, it's not hard to see what he meant.
That doesn't mean he could prove it in a court of law either.
.
He didn't need to, dope. Congress doesn't need to either.
But what do you expect from a bunch of anti-Americans.
It was never a legal matter.
But it used to be you needed crimes to start impeachment. Since they don't have a crime and have been talking about impeachment since the day he won the election, more than half of America knows impeachment is purely political and illegitimate. The public may be moved to act. Democrats/Communists need a disarmed electorate in order to function.
Barr is a liar in trumps pocket to protect the vile posBarr clarified the issue here......Barr says Mueller "could've reached a decision" on whether Trump obstructed justiceHis assignment had zero to do with "opining". He was there to find facts, not "opine".
He was there to do both. It's really simple. If his "facts" made Trump guilty of something, then he should have said they did. If they didn't, then he should have said they didn't.
Again, that wasn't his assignment either. I understand he also didn't check the weather report for Auckland for last October 12th for the same reason.
And I don't know, or care, who was on his staff. I'm sure it was investigators. And no, I'm not willing to plug in comic book fantasies to what is a simple (and boring) mundane operation. I prefer to dabble in Reality.
Apparently you don't, because his legal team were mostly anti-trumpers. A few were A-political, but not one conservative.
Now you're going to try and pass off that an investigation into Russian collusion had nothing to do with a dossier that was supposed to be about Russian collusion?Actually, that's the point Mueller made in the report. Because he followed the DOJ's guidelines he couldn't charge the president with a crime. He could only conclude, not guilty (as he did in the conspiracy part of the investigation in regards to Trump). Or not, not guilty (as he did in the obstruction of justice part). That means he is prohibited from saying that Trump is guilty, plain and simple.He was there to do both. It's really simple. If his "facts" made Trump guilty of something, then he should have said they did. If they didn't, then he should have said they didn't.
Then what you are really saying is Barr lied, correct? Because Barr asked Mueller three times if the DOJ standard was what prevented him from making any allegation or charge, and Mueller told Barr no, it had nothing to do with his findings or decisions.
"Barr said Thursday he did not know what Mueller was "suggesting" in his statement.
"The Department of Justice doesn't use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress," he added.
Asked about accusations that he has been shielding the president from scrutiny since taking office, Barr said he expected the flurry of criticism, which he noted "goes with the territory of being attorney general in a hyper-partisan period of time."
"The Department of Justice is all about the law, and the facts and the substance," he said. "And I'm going to make the decisions based on the law and the facts and I realize that's in tension with the political climate we live in because people are more interested in getting their way politically.""
As they are here, they are going to ignore anything Barr says. As many of us pointed out repeatedly, Barr got conformation from Muller on why he came to his decisions. They ignore it. Instead, they decide how to interpret what Mueller said.
Yeah Billy DOW only down 297 Bet not many are finding that as funny as you doTrump the moron is guilty of business and financial malpractice This new tariff on Mexico is his latest throwing turd at our economyYeah, republicans really hate Trump. I guess that explains why Trump has a 90% job approval rating from themMueller himself is a republican and certainly didn't show any favoritism toward Trump. FBI agents, as most law enforcement, tend to be conservative, law-and-order types, so my guess is most would tend to be Republicans or conservative Democrats or just plain Independents.Doesn't matter what it "would have" done. It wasn't in the directive. Simple as that.
It didn't have to be. Mueller could have opined on anything he desired. He didn't have any limitations in regards to his report. So he left it ambiguous on purpose. He wanted to make Trump look guilty without actually saying it.
I wouldn't know. I don't claim to speak for him. I guess you do but I wouldn't go there.
All indications point that way, don't they? Do you think it was pure coincidence most of his staff in this investigation were all Trump haters or Hillary lovers? Do you think it was an accident he never looked into the FISA warrant or Steele report?
You mean like Stroke-off and Paige?
Yes, Mueller hates Trump as other Republicans do. Just because he's a Republican doesn't mean shit; especially in this case. Yes, before Obama, the FBI was an on-the-level agency; that was until Ears weaponized them.
Wait...Rules of DOJ, did not allow him to charge the president regardless of evidence so he decided not to make accusations because it would be unfair to do so. As he said, "It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution..." His job was to determine if there was sufficient evidence to pursuit an indictment before the grand jury. It certainly was not to issue press statements about his opinion of guilt or innocence of the president.
What could possibly be Trump's motive in obstructing investigations that were trying to discover evidence that he colluded with the Russians to win the election?It does, however, require a specific motive,m which Mueller could not find.
REALLY Couldn't accuse if president couldn't defend himself and then there's a president can't be indicted??Wait...Rules of DOJ, did not allow him to charge the president regardless of evidence so he decided not to make accusations because it would be unfair to do so. As he said, "It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution..." His job was to determine if there was sufficient evidence to pursuit an indictment before the grand jury. It certainly was not to issue press statements about his opinion of guilt or innocence of the president.
Mueller could not, under DOJ rules conclude the President committed a crime?
Mueller, under the pretense of fairness, could not accuse, or potentially accuse, the President of a crime?
Really?
So you agree - Mueller did not accuse, or potentially accuse, much less conclude, the President committed a crime.REALLY Couldn't accuse if president couldn't defend himself and then there's a president can't be indicted??Wait...
Mueller could not, under DOJ rules conclude the President committed a crime?
Mueller, under the pretense of fairness, could not accuse, or potentially accuse, the President of a crime?
Really?
There are 10 examples of obstruction in Muellers reportWhat could possibly be Trump's motive in obstructing investigations that were trying to discover evidence that he colluded with the Russians to win the election?It does, however, require a specific motive,m which Mueller could not find.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.
