The Right Wing had better be right about this "Deep State" stuff.

[M14 Shooter]

He said that he didn't indict Trump because he couldn't....

...because the necessary corrupt intent could not be clearly demonstrated.

Mueller HAS JUST TESTIFIED to tell you straight up - you are full of shit.

Aside from the fact Mueller did not testify...
Nothing he said, anywhere, any time, contradicts what I said; everything I said is supported directly by the report.

The only reason he didn't indict was because he believed DOJ guidelines prohibited him from doing so.

That's -not- what he said.

Why do you lie to yourself?

 

[M14 Shooter]

As with most things in life, the degree of actionable obstruction probably lies along a spectrum.

So now it's a matter of whether Pelosi thinks it's wise politically.

Politics, political calculation and political advantage. That's all that matters now.
.

Thats right - those damn Democrats need to stop playing politics and start holding Trump accountable for the plain acts of Obstruction detailed in the report.
It's time for impeachment.

As soon as they can clearly demonstrate a corrupt intent, sure -- else, there's no crime.
But, as Mueller said, they cannot.

 

[AntonToo]

M14 Shooter while you are at it, do you want to explain to our idiot president how there can be Obstruction without an underlying crime?

 

[AntonToo]

As with most things in life, the degree of actionable obstruction probably lies along a spectrum.

So now it's a matter of whether Pelosi thinks it's wise politically.

Politics, political calculation and political advantage. That's all that matters now.
.

Thats right - those damn Democrats need to stop playing politics and start holding Trump accountable for the plain acts of Obstruction detailed in the report.
It's time for impeachment.

As soon as they can clearly demonstrate a corrupt intent, sure -- else, there's no crime.
But, as Mueller said, they cannot.

You are either an idiot or a fucking liar.

Thats NOT what he said. He said that HE COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY INDICT A SITTING PRESDIENT, EVEN IF GUILTY.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 Shooter while you are at it, do you want to explain to our idiot president how there can be Obstruction without an underlying crime?

When I make a claim to that effect, let me know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As with most things in life, the degree of actionable obstruction probably lies along a spectrum.

So now it's a matter of whether Pelosi thinks it's wise politically.

Politics, political calculation and political advantage. That's all that matters now.
.

Thats right - those damn Democrats need to stop playing politics and start holding Trump accountable for the plain acts of Obstruction detailed in the report.
It's time for impeachment.

As soon as they can clearly demonstrate a corrupt intent, sure -- else, there's no crime.
But, as Mueller said, they cannot.

You are either an idiot or a fucking liar.
Thats NOT what he said. He said that HE COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY INDICT A SITTING PRESDIENT, EVEN IF GUILTY.

It -is- what he said.
He said for the crime of obstruction to exist, there must be a clearly demonstrable a corrupt intent -- else, there's no crime.
He also said that, because of the circumstances, motives other than corrupt intent -must- be considered -- thus, corrupt intent cannot be clearly demonstrated.
Absent the motive the crime does not exist.

 

[Norman]

Americans ARE correct about the deep state stuff.

 

[Faun]

As with most things in life, the degree of actionable obstruction probably lies along a spectrum.

So now it's a matter of whether Pelosi thinks it's wise politically.

Politics, political calculation and political advantage. That's all that matters now.
.

Thats right - those damn Democrats need to stop playing politics and start holding Trump accountable for the plain acts of Obstruction detailed in the report.
It's time for impeachment.

As soon as they can clearly demonstrate a corrupt intent, sure -- else, there's no crime.
But, as Mueller said, they cannot.

LOL

You already admitted corrupt intent is not required to prove obstruction. Now you're simply calling yourself a liar and an idiot.

 

[xyz]

Ironically, the real Deep State is the Russian influence in politics in many countries and spreading their lies.

 

[Faun]

As with most things in life, the degree of actionable obstruction probably lies along a spectrum.

So now it's a matter of whether Pelosi thinks it's wise politically.

Politics, political calculation and political advantage. That's all that matters now.
.

Thats right - those damn Democrats need to stop playing politics and start holding Trump accountable for the plain acts of Obstruction detailed in the report.
It's time for impeachment.

As soon as they can clearly demonstrate a corrupt intent, sure -- else, there's no crime.
But, as Mueller said, they cannot.

You are either an idiot or a fucking liar.
Thats NOT what he said. He said that HE COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY INDICT A SITTING PRESDIENT, EVEN IF GUILTY.

It -is- what he said.
He said for the crime of obstruction to exist, there must be a clearly demonstrable a corrupt intent -- else, there's no crime.
He also said that, because of the circumstances, motives other than corrupt intent -must- be considered -- thus, corrupt intent cannot be clearly demonstrated.
Absent the motive the crime does not exist.

Liar, you said...

"But, absent an underlying crime, motives other than corrupt intent must be considered."​

Learn what "other than" means.

 

[AntonToo]

As with most things in life, the degree of actionable obstruction probably lies along a spectrum.

So now it's a matter of whether Pelosi thinks it's wise politically.

Politics, political calculation and political advantage. That's all that matters now.
.

Thats right - those damn Democrats need to stop playing politics and start holding Trump accountable for the plain acts of Obstruction detailed in the report.
It's time for impeachment.

As soon as they can clearly demonstrate a corrupt intent, sure -- else, there's no crime.
But, as Mueller said, they cannot.

You are either an idiot or a fucking liar.
Thats NOT what he said. He said that HE COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY INDICT A SITTING PRESDIENT, EVEN IF GUILTY.

It -is- what he said.
He said for the crime of obstruction to exist, there must be a clearly demonstrable a corrupt intent -- else, there's no crime.
He also said that, because of the circumstances, motives other than corrupt intent -must- be considered -- thus, corrupt intent cannot be clearly demonstrated.
Absent the motive the crime does not exist.

1. Lets note you diverting to a SEPARATE POINT, because you know damn well you were wrong when you said that the reason Mueller said he could not indict was due to the specifics of the case.

2. On the specifics of the case you are again WRONG. In not a single place did Mueller say that the intent CAN'T be demonstrated here. All he said was that there are additional considerations because he is the president.

We've been over that inluding specifics of Trumps Obstruction that demonstrate a clear corrupt intent to anyone half-sane (perhaps not you).

I asked you to propose a non-corrupt explanation for his actions and you could not.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ironically, the real Deep State is the Russian influence in politics in many countries and spreading their lies.

So true. People need to wise up. The Russians are sowing dissent and unrest all over the western world.

Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz loses confidence vote - CNN

 

[M14 Shooter]

WRONG. In not a single place did Mueller say that the intent CAN'T be demonstrated here.

He said:
Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct

If the consideration of other motives is REQUIRED, then it is impossible to "concrete[ly]" show that a Trump acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Thus, corrupt intent cannot be demonstrated.

We've been over that inluding specifics of Trumps Obstruction that demonstrate a clear corrupt intent to anyone half-sane

You seriously need to stop lying.
Please cite the text of the report where Mueller agrees with you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As with most things in life, the degree of actionable obstruction probably lies along a spectrum.

So now it's a matter of whether Pelosi thinks it's wise politically.

Politics, political calculation and political advantage. That's all that matters now.
.

Thats right - those damn Democrats need to stop playing politics and start holding Trump accountable for the plain acts of Obstruction detailed in the report.
It's time for impeachment.

As soon as they can clearly demonstrate a corrupt intent, sure -- else, there's no crime.
But, as Mueller said, they cannot.

You are either an idiot or a fucking liar.
Thats NOT what he said. He said that HE COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY INDICT A SITTING PRESDIENT, EVEN IF GUILTY.

It -is- what he said.
He said for the crime of obstruction to exist, there must be a clearly demonstrable a corrupt intent -- else, there's no crime.
He also said that, because of the circumstances, motives other than corrupt intent -must- be considered -- thus, corrupt intent cannot be clearly demonstrated.
Absent the motive the crime does not exist.

1. Lets note you diverting to a SEPARATE POINT, because you know damn well you were wrong when you said that the reason Mueller said he could not indict was due to the specifics of the case.

It -is- what he said.
He said for the crime of obstruction to exist, there must be a clearly demonstrable a corrupt intent -- else, there's no crime.
He also said that, because of the circumstances, motives other than corrupt intent -must- be considered -- thus, corrupt intent cannot be clearly demonstrated.
Absent the motive the crime does not exist

 

[AntonToo]

Thats right - those damn Democrats need to stop playing politics and start holding Trump accountable for the plain acts of Obstruction detailed in the report.
It's time for impeachment.

As soon as they can clearly demonstrate a corrupt intent, sure -- else, there's no crime.
But, as Mueller said, they cannot.

You are either an idiot or a fucking liar.
Thats NOT what he said. He said that HE COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY INDICT A SITTING PRESDIENT, EVEN IF GUILTY.

It -is- what he said.
He said for the crime of obstruction to exist, there must be a clearly demonstrable a corrupt intent -- else, there's no crime.
He also said that, because of the circumstances, motives other than corrupt intent -must- be considered -- thus, corrupt intent cannot be clearly demonstrated.
Absent the motive the crime does not exist.

WRONG. In not a single place did Mueller say that the intent CAN'T be demonstrated here.

He said:
Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct

If the consideration of other motives is REQUIRED, then it is impossible to "concrete[ly]" show that a Trump acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Thus, corrupt intent cannot be demonstrated.

We've been over that inluding specifics of Trumps Obstruction that demonstrate a clear corrupt intent to anyone half-sane

You seriously need to stop lying.
Please cite the text of the report where Mueller agrees with you.

Horseshit, just because we should consider various motives DOES NOT mean that a reasonable jury would not find Trump's actions corrupt.

How many round-and-round are we going to have to go about that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Horseshit, just because we should consider various motives DOES NOT mean that a reasonable jury would not convict

If a prosecutor must allow to the defense other reasonable and plausible motives for an action, how can a rational person conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that said action was undertaken with the -one- motive required for that act to be a crime?

We've been over that inluding specifics of Trumps Obstruction that demonstrate a clear corrupt intent to anyone half-sane

Please cite the text of the report where Mueller agrees with you

How many round-and-round are we going to have to go about that?

Until you stop lying to yourself.

 

[AntonToo]

Horseshit, just because we should consider various motives DOES NOT mean that a reasonable jury would not convict

If a prosecutor must allow to the defense other reasonable and plausible motives for an action.

You are again lying, nowhere does Mueller say other motives would be found reasonable or plausable upon consideration. He makes no judgement on their quality.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Horseshit, just because we should consider various motives DOES NOT mean that a reasonable jury would not convict

If a prosecutor must allow to the defense other reasonable and plausible motives for an action.

You are again lying, nowhere does Mueller say other motives are reasonable upon consideration. He makes no judgement on their quality.

Why would Mueller allow for other motives if they were inherently unreasonable?
Are there any number of movies form Trump action other than corrupt intent? Yep.
Where's the burden of proof? On the prosecution, to concretely demonstrate corrupt intent motivated Trumps actions to the exclusion of all other reasonable and plausible motives.


If a prosecutor must allow to the defense other reasonable and plausible motives for an action, how can a rational person conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that said action was undertaken with the -one- motive required for that act to be a crime?

We've been over that inluding specifics of Trumps Obstruction that demonstrate a clear corrupt intent to anyone half-sane

Please cite the text of the report where Mueller agrees with you

 

[AntonToo]

Horseshit, just because we should consider various motives DOES NOT mean that a reasonable jury would not convict

If a prosecutor must allow to the defense other reasonable and plausible motives for an action.

You are again lying, nowhere does Mueller say other motives are reasonable upon consideration. He makes no judgement on their quality.

Why would Mueller allow for other motives if they were inherently unreasonable?

Because THAT IS WHAT MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE. That is what Congress must contemplate in the trial to establish guilt. Duh

 

[Olde Europe]

Ironically, the real Deep State is the Russian influence in politics in many countries and spreading their lies.

So true. People need to wise up. The Russians are sowing dissent and unrest all over the western world.

Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz loses confidence vote - CNN

Yeah, just "the Russians" had nothing whatsoever to do with that.

...

On another note... would you consider sparing the forum these spying Google links? TIA.