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.
Mueller gathered evidence for action by Congress and evidence to charge Trump after his removal or cessation from office.DOJ has a policy that protects President Trump from being indicted for anything, and, election fraud case in under the jurisdiction of Southern District of NY, not Mueller.no one was indicted for election fraud. so I'm still unclear what you're bantering on about. again, Cohen was tax fraud, not election fraud...
Election fraud encompasses laws against illegal activities of manipulating elections. You can look up election fraud on Google or some other search engine for detailed codes and laws. Perhaps you should learn a few things before acting like such an arrogant jerk.election fraud? what is that? name the crime bubba.
here, Michael Cohen sentenced to 3 years in prison
"received three years in prison for a series of tax fraud and lying charges,"
And if I'm not mistaken, mueller didn't find any election tampering. just saying, you still can't figure it out cause you're overcome with alien drool.
\
from Mueller's summary..."the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
So if, according to your wackadoodle theory, it's utterly impossible for Mueller to have done anything to Trump, the question becomes, "Then what was the fucking point of having Mueller investigate him for two years and spend all that money?"
The Democrats in the House are only interested in trashing Trump on TV. They have a right and duty to carry on the business of government
After 6 years of phony scandals and trashing Obama and Clinton non stop, I find it amusing to hear this high pitched whine from the right after only what, 4 months of a Democrat controlled House? Hahahaha and Holy shit, ya'll are gonna be really frothy by the time election day comes along.
The definition of "phony scandal" is NOT "we're not going to report on it, we're not going to listen to it, we're going to pretend nothing every happened"
Oddly, that remind me of the recent choruses of "No Collusion". "No Obstruction".
to do what exactly? and there is no sealed indictment so you're just flat ass wrong.Mueller gathered evidence for action by Congress and evidence to charge Trump after his removal or cessation from office.DOJ has a policy that protects President Trump from being indicted for anything, and, election fraud case in under the jurisdiction of Southern District of NY, not Mueller.no one was indicted for election fraud. so I'm still unclear what you're bantering on about. again, Cohen was tax fraud, not election fraud...
Election fraud encompasses laws against illegal activities of manipulating elections. You can look up election fraud on Google or some other search engine for detailed codes and laws. Perhaps you should learn a few things before acting like such an arrogant jerk.election fraud? what is that? name the crime bubba.
here, Michael Cohen sentenced to 3 years in prison
"received three years in prison for a series of tax fraud and lying charges,"
And if I'm not mistaken, mueller didn't find any election tampering. just saying, you still can't figure it out cause you're overcome with alien drool.
\
from Mueller's summary..."the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
So if, according to your wackadoodle theory, it's utterly impossible for Mueller to have done anything to Trump, the question becomes, "Then what was the fucking point of having Mueller investigate him for two years and spend all that money?"
Barr lied to congress and is too chicken to go before a panel led by Democrats who won't let him get away with it. He white washed the Mueller report to protect the so called president . He needs to be held in contempt and we need to see the full report. He and T-Rump are terrified of that prospect.Barr testified before the mature branch of government, no need to stand for cross examination by the junior house. The little boys and girls should be focusing on issues that directly impact their constituents and stop wasting time with political gamesmanship.
Trump Would Have Been Charged With Obstruction If He Weren't President, Former U.S. Prosecutors Say | HuffPost
President Donald Trump’s conduct as outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report would have led to obstruction of justice charges if he were not a sitting president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors said in a statement Monday.
“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” said the statement, which was posted online after garnering at least 375 signatures.
In other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.You clearly are not familiar with the Barr memo you are laughing about. If you were, you wouldn't post such nonsense. Here is a link to the memo and he clearly says a president can be guilty of obstruction and cites the relevant laws and federal court decisions. He makes two important points, that the definition of obstruction Mueller seems to be using has no precedent and there is no case law to support it, and that if Mueller was never investigating a crime, then there can be no obstruction. Read it - you don't have to look up every law or court decision Barr cites to understand his argument - and then maybe you will be able to post an intelligent comment on this subject. Here's the link.If that were true than you wouldn't be looking to House committees for answers.
Lol - should we rely on president-can't-possibly-obstruct Barr? Who should we look to???
Who has the credibility and means to hold POTUS accountable if not Congress?
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf
STOP
1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.
According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.
2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.
If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.
Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.
3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.
As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.
this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.
NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.
You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.
In the end run we conservative are kind people and we will let them participate in the benefits of what Trump is doing even though they are kicking and screaming ingrates.This is all the Dems have. Their desperation is so obvious. The economy is doing great, no new stupid wars, America is becoming great again, and they can’t stand it.
Let the petulant children throw their hissy fits all the until Election Day.
In other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.You clearly are not familiar with the Barr memo you are laughing about. If you were, you wouldn't post such nonsense. Here is a link to the memo and he clearly says a president can be guilty of obstruction and cites the relevant laws and federal court decisions. He makes two important points, that the definition of obstruction Mueller seems to be using has no precedent and there is no case law to support it, and that if Mueller was never investigating a crime, then there can be no obstruction. Read it - you don't have to look up every law or court decision Barr cites to understand his argument - and then maybe you will be able to post an intelligent comment on this subject. Here's the link.Lol - should we rely on president-can't-possibly-obstruct Barr? Who should we look to???
Who has the credibility and means to hold POTUS accountable if not Congress?
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf
STOP
1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.
According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.
2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.
If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.
Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.
3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.
As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.
this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.
NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.
You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.
What a completely ass-backward load of horseshit. I can't decide if you're really that fucking stupid, or just pathetically willing to look that stupid in service of your masters.
Hope they at least give you a Snausage, Fido.
In other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.You clearly are not familiar with the Barr memo you are laughing about. If you were, you wouldn't post such nonsense. Here is a link to the memo and he clearly says a president can be guilty of obstruction and cites the relevant laws and federal court decisions. He makes two important points, that the definition of obstruction Mueller seems to be using has no precedent and there is no case law to support it, and that if Mueller was never investigating a crime, then there can be no obstruction. Read it - you don't have to look up every law or court decision Barr cites to understand his argument - and then maybe you will be able to post an intelligent comment on this subject. Here's the link.Lol - should we rely on president-can't-possibly-obstruct Barr? Who should we look to???
Who has the credibility and means to hold POTUS accountable if not Congress?
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf
STOP
1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.
According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.
2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.
If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.
Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.
3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.
As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.
this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.
NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.
You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.
What a completely ass-backward load of horseshit. I can't decide if you're really that fucking stupid, or just pathetically willing to look that stupid in service of your masters.
Hope they at least give you a Snausage, Fido.
Trump asserts executive privilege to keep full Mueller report SECRET as Bill Barr held in CONTEMPT | Daily Mail Online
If anyone should be held in Contempt it should be Nadler for criminally demanding the US AG break the law and for affecting this criminal political theatrical performance of voting Barr in Contempt for refusing to break the law by handing over information Nadler knows he has no legal right to see!
There is a much less redacted version of the report Nadler could have seen by now, but he has refused to do so because he knows there is nothing in it. Only this continuous political theater of false accusations and bogus Contempt Charges can keep the traitor-supporting snowflakes holding on while they continue to undermine the US govt / this administration and attempt to continue their e posed coup.
derpIn other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.You clearly are not familiar with the Barr memo you are laughing about. If you were, you wouldn't post such nonsense. Here is a link to the memo and he clearly says a president can be guilty of obstruction and cites the relevant laws and federal court decisions. He makes two important points, that the definition of obstruction Mueller seems to be using has no precedent and there is no case law to support it, and that if Mueller was never investigating a crime, then there can be no obstruction. Read it - you don't have to look up every law or court decision Barr cites to understand his argument - and then maybe you will be able to post an intelligent comment on this subject. Here's the link.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf
STOP
1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.
According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.
2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.
If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.
Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.
3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.
As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.
this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.
NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.
You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.
What a completely ass-backward load of horseshit. I can't decide if you're really that fucking stupid, or just pathetically willing to look that stupid in service of your masters.
Hope they at least give you a Snausage, Fido.
go tune in Fox and agree with Hannity while the rest of the world passes by BOTH OF YOU.
then we should just stay out of their way and let them dig.They're digging their own grave.
um...iran is calling. and as far as i know we're still stationed in places trump said we'd pull out of by now.This is all the Dems have. Their desperation is so obvious. The economy is doing great, no new stupid wars, America is becoming great again, and they can’t stand it.
Let the petulant children throw their hissy fits all the until Election Day.
In the end run we conservative are kind people and we will let them participate in the benefits of what Trump is doing even though they are kicking and screaming ingrates.This is all the Dems have. Their desperation is so obvious. The economy is doing great, no new stupid wars, America is becoming great again, and they can’t stand it.
Let the petulant children throw their hissy fits all the until Election Day.
how is anyone getting in their way? no one I've seen. they are all on for destruction of themselves.then we should just stay out of their way and let them dig.They're digging their own grave.
