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.
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.Election fraud for paying off a porn star, plus, Mueller suggested 10 examples of obstruction of justice. Add to that multiple offenses not included in Mueller's report. He ordered multiple officials to not cooperate in investigations making him guilty of conspiracy to obstruct and obstruction itself.ok, name one that had anything to do with trump? I'll wait, forever, I'm sure. but go ahead, prove your point, name that crime!!!
And on Cohen, trump gave him up like yesterday's trash. no obstruction there, right? Mueller said so. he investigated it.
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."
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.
"need"? Wtf does that mean?
House of Reps have a RIGHT AND DUTY to conduct oversight over DOJ and Admin. It's not up to you or administration to tell THEM what they need or not need.
Whoever told you that Congressional oversight meant that the Executive Branch works for and is subordinate to the Legislative Branch should be slapped.
The law tells Congress what they get to have and don't get to have. Deal with it.
Showing up for a hearing does not make you a subordinate or an employee of the Congress you fucking idiot.
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.
"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.Election fraud for paying off a porn star, plus, Mueller suggested 10 examples of obstruction of justice. Add to that multiple offenses not included in Mueller's report. He ordered multiple officials to not cooperate in investigations making him guilty of conspiracy to obstruct and obstruction itself.
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
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.
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.
First of all, the special investigator found absolutely nothing on Trump, and to shove your faulty reasoning even further up your ass, a special investigator does not have the power to indict anybody in the first place.Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion so that I may rip it to shreds and shove it up your ass?laws do not apply to Trump or anyone in his cartel -
Trump Obstructed Justice and there is only one reason he is not getting into the orange jumpsuit right now - he happens to be slightly-above-the-law POTUS. Special investigator felt he COULD NOT indict a sitting president and it's up to Congress to keep his corrupt ass in check.
Again, cut the bullshit. No honest person believes the House committee intends to do anything but trash the President on TV. Truth and transparency are not concepts the House Democrats are familiar with.
Truth hurts brainless commie scum twits, twit.Cut the bullshit. 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, not to use the House to campaign for the next election.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.
"need"? Wtf does that mean?
House of Reps have a RIGHT AND DUTY to conduct oversight over DOJ and Admin. It's not up to you or administration to tell THEM what they need.
No you cut the bullshit, your little theories on motiovations is MOOT. Congress has the RIGHT to conduct investigastions for WHATEVER REASON THEY MAY SEE FIT. PERIOD.
If Republicans can have 8 fucking Benghazi investigations, then surely Democrats are entitled to conduct their own investigations no matter what you rightwingers may feel about them.
No, YOU cut the bullshit. However far up the ass of government your nose is, Congress does NOT have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without having to justify it as legitimate business of the people.
The fact that YOU consider the Benghazi investigations to be pointless on the basis of you not wanting your precious Democrats investigated is irrelevant to whether or not the Democrats get to legitimately investigate Trump ad infinitum for suspicion of beating them in an election.
hold it while I file your opinion in the partisan hack drawer ....
yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
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.
If it was up to today's demoncraps we would not have a country.Meet the new boss, same as the old...The House is ruled by bat shit crazy Dem's.
The dance continues. Americans get screwed by their faux-republic. Party over country.
And of course you are simply lying.His personal lawyer began a prison sentence today. He named a bunch of them.what obstruction did he do? please, name a crime he obstructed.Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion so that I may rip it to shreds and shove it up your ass?laws do not apply to Trump or anyone in his cartel -
Trump Obstructed Justice and there is only one reason he is not getting into the orange jumpsuit right now - he is the President.
Obviously the Congress and you want the Top Law enforcement Official in America to Break the Law and release Grand jury testimony, so you can begin the harassment and smear campaign against Federal Grand Jury witnesses.
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.Fuck you, I want the truth and nothing but.
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.
Republicans don't care if scump is scum ,,It's ok just as long as he's their scumMeet the new boss, same as the old...The House is ruled by bat shit crazy Dem's.
The dance continues. Americans get screwed by their faux-republic. Party over country.
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.
trump didn't pay cohen's taxes? huh? since when was that trump's responsibility? then it's as much your stupid fault as trump!!! just saying I can point fingers too.ok, name one that had anything to do with trump? I'll wait, forever, I'm sure. but go ahead, prove your point, name that crime!!!His personal lawyer began a prison sentence today. He named a bunch of them.what obstruction did he do? please, name a crime he obstructed.Trump Obstructed Justice and there is only one reason he is not getting into the orange jumpsuit right now - he is the President.
And on Cohen, trump gave him up like yesterday's trash. no obstruction there, right? Mueller said so. he investigated it.
All of them. He was Trumps employee. If he was doing all those things without Trumps permission why didn't Trump fire him? Mueller did not say no corruption, Trump did.
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.
Nice twisting of logic. Sorry, but that letter indicated Mueller was unappy with the MEDIA's misrepresenting the report, not Barr. He stated Barr's summary was NOT incorrect or misleading. Whether or not to indict a sitting President did NOT enter into the decision, a lack of evidence did. Mueller had TWO choices. Charge or not. He did not because he couldn't prove anything. Period. End of book. By all means keep crying as Trump rolls to re-election and the tables get turned. Starting with the incompetent Comey.
You demoncraps don't care about the truth. You proved that with the Clinton's and obuthole.the House are only interested in trashing Trump on TV.
"Trashing" is the DIRECT RESULT of a fucked up, corrupt and unethical administration.
What is the orange moron AFRAID of????...A little scrutiny...a little transparency...a little expose' of the TRUTH???
