I don't have him on ignore but I ignore him.
Wish I had a screen shot of the settings page where it shows 'who quoted me' previously. He apparently spent most of a day replying to me. He's a stalker and he's a sicko.
Mueller did not exonerate trump on obstruction
- Thread starter christiefan915
- Start date
I don't have him on ignore but I ignore him.
Wish I had a screen shot of the settings page where it shows 'who quoted me' previously. He apparently spent most of a day replying to me. He's a stalker and he's a sicko.
reagansghost
eternal
sorry Tea Bag Nation, Mueller did not exonerate trump on obstruction
I think everybody is missing the true bombshell in the Mueller report. But it is sitting there almost in plain sight. Ask yourself why Mueller did not draw a conclusion on the obstruction question. Not because he couldn’t decide the question, but because he believes it wasn’t his place to decide the question.
Justice department guidelines hold that a sitting president cannot be indicted. So what would be the point of weighing in on that issue?
Who is assigned the role of standing in judgement of a sitting president then? No one?
Answer the Congress, obviously! And Mueller intended to lay out the “difficult issues of law and fact” to the Congress. Mueller’s report is an open invitation to Congress to begin deliberating impeachment, with his findings as a roadmap.
That’s the real bombshell.
But a funny thing happened, on the way to these deliberations. In a brazen act of usurpation, Barr intercepted the invitation and tried to hide it.
Image if he had not. Imagine the headlines.
Dateline Washington DC. Mueller invites Congress to consider impeachment.
~ kennetha's Journal, DU
I think everybody is missing the true bombshell in the Mueller report. But it is sitting there almost in plain sight. Ask yourself why Mueller did not draw a conclusion on the obstruction question. Not because he couldn’t decide the question, but because he believes it wasn’t his place to decide the question.
Justice department guidelines hold that a sitting president cannot be indicted. So what would be the point of weighing in on that issue?
Who is assigned the role of standing in judgement of a sitting president then? No one?
Answer the Congress, obviously! And Mueller intended to lay out the “difficult issues of law and fact” to the Congress. Mueller’s report is an open invitation to Congress to begin deliberating impeachment, with his findings as a roadmap.
That’s the real bombshell.
But a funny thing happened, on the way to these deliberations. In a brazen act of usurpation, Barr intercepted the invitation and tried to hide it.
Image if he had not. Imagine the headlines.
Dateline Washington DC. Mueller invites Congress to consider impeachment.
~ kennetha's Journal, DU
I’m trying to educate you. Obviously, you have earned an “F”
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Interesting quake fluff article, We know the constitution’s core remedy for a President who commits “high crimes or misdemeanours” is through Congress and the power of impeachment, but that this doesn’t legally mean a sitting President cannot be indicted. if Mueller thought there was a public interest requirement to indict Trump, he could ask Attorney General Bill Barr for an exception. In short ,He left it open for the public and up to the AG to decide.
That's something I hope we'll learn if and when the entire report is made public.
How am I spinning, moron? I'm saying what Barr said, is he spinning also?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello anonymoose,
I hope they try. I'm sure it will turn up at least as much quality results as the President's Commission on Voter Fraud didn't.
I hope they try. I'm sure it will turn up at least as much quality results as the President's Commission on Voter Fraud didn't.
That's not what I read. Gross negligence is defined as "a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care."
Conscious and voluntary = the intention not to use reasonable care.
You are claiming Mueller had nothing chargeable but there is no evidence of that. I am claiming that Mueller has something dicey but it's not enough to charge him.
If your claim were 100% certain the headlines would read: "Mueller did not find trump or his campaign conspired with Russia, and also exonerated him on obstruction."
Do I have to type these words in another language? The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
You seem to be having a real hard time understanding Barr's words.
No, it did not. It said the evidence developed was not sufficient.
The dossier was commissioned by repubs or have you forgotten? Just too bad it got away from you guys.
Yet Trump is exonerated. Interesting.
You can squawk it out like a parrot until hell freezes over but that still won't make it true.Trump exoneration:
"did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."
Definition of exoneration:
1 : to relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship
2 : to clear from accusation or blame
Nope, i remember. They let it go when it was obvious Trump would win the nom. Then the hrc campaign ran with it. Stinks to high heaven , doesn't it?
CharacterAssassin
Verified User
I love it when asshats who know I have them on ignore still post to me.
It's their way of saying they're my bitch.
Fun!
It's their way of saying they're my bitch.
Fun!
That's not true. Though the Washington Free Beacon employed FusionGPS for opposition research, FusionGPS hired Steel to compile the dossier after The Washington Free beacon ended their contract.