So now that the Mueller probe appears to be winding down, and there still has not been any tangible charges of conspiracy or collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, some Democrats are starting to panic.
The truth is that Mueller finding some direct link between Trump, Putin, and the hacked emails was always a long shot. Starting with the fact that neither the FBI or Special Counsel has ever really proven who it was that hacked the emails in the first place, tying the Trump team to that activity was always going to be virtually impossible. You cannot prove someone to be an accessory, without first proving both the crime and identity of the person responsible. A good guess or even a intelligence consensus is not proof in the eyes of the law.
But more alarming for the left is the actual laws and procedures that govern what a Special Counsel can and cannot do. This particular special counsel was not appointed to take over a criminal investigation. Mueller was effectively taking over a counterintelligence probe. While a criminal probe generally protects the identities and specifics of people investigated (but did not commit crimes), counterintelligence probes are mostly confidential and 99% of these investigations never see a public forum.
Now, more troubling is the basic premise of our constitution. We are all (even a President) protected from random investigations without due process. When or if a team of investigators decide to investigate someone, that information is always considered private, unless they find reason to indict them or otherwise bring charges. Prosecutors are not allowed to use the powers of our law enforcement to dig up political dirt, or air dirty laundry. They are bound to stay within their jurisdiction (which of course is the law).
So, by most accounts, people are expecting the Mueller probe to follow protocol, they expect that any report that Mueller writes will remain within the scope of his appointment, and that ultimately the Department of Justice will only release what is legally relevant within the scope of the law. This growing speculation is ultimately setting up a major disappointment for Democratic politicians, the media, and the liberal rank and file.
But the reality is that there is no forum within our American law enforcement to simply decide to investigate someone in general, look for any dirt, political scandal, and any other nefarious actions, and then simply report it to the public for the sake of a good public shaming. In our American law enforcement system, you have to be guilty of an actual crime for them to come after you.
However, on the left, there are many many many people who believe very strongly that this is exactly Robert Mueller's job. In their mind a special counsel was tasked to come up with enough political and personal dirt (whether those actions broke the law or not) to bring down the Presidency of Donald Trump by any means necessary. They so strongly believe this, that they are going to scream bloody murder if it turns out that Mueller does not provide them with these goods.
I am still not personally convinced that Mueller will not write a personal, political report. I have a gut feeling that he is too personally and emotionally involved in all of this to simply let it all go with a factual report that stays within the scope of his appointment. Spending two years, knowing that your success or failure will not be judged on what you actually found, but rather will be judged on whether or not you "got" the President, will provide incentive to do more than just write a factual report.
This (unfortunately) is where we may run into some serious issues. If Mueller decides to go beyond what the new Attorney General believes his scope was limited to, and the A.G. decides to hold back portions of the report (based on the law and the constitution)... this will result in a major political storm, likely complete with lawsuits, and an eventual USSC decision that will further disappoint and enrage the left.
73 comments:
There is no evidence based upon his actions as the investigation chief are politically motivated.
Whether or not that he "got" the President is irrelevant as long as the report is not withheld from the public for political restrictions imposed by the President
Duck and cover may soon once again taught to children in their schools.
The U.S. is withdrawing from a historic Cold War-era nuclear arms control treaty because of Russia's ongoing violations, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Friday.
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty has been central to limiting the kinds of nuclear weapons both countries can deploy, and without it, experts fear there will be a new nuclear arms race.
Pompeo first announced the U.S. intention to withdraw in December, giving Russia a 60-day window to come back into compliance, and that window runs out on Saturday. Withdrawal now requires an additional six-month window, according to the treaty's terms. The agreement, signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, banned ground-launched cruise missiles with a range between 310 and 3,100 miles.
President Donald Trump issued a statement saying Russia had violated the INF Treaty with "impunity, covertly developing and fielding a prohibited missile system that poses a direct threat to our allies and troops abroad."
In your "mind" the special counsel was tasked to come up with enough political and personal dirt (whether those actions broke the law or not) to bring down the Presidency of Donald Trump by any means necessary.
Moron, when you're the only side observing the treaty, you don't have a treaty.
Beside I thought you said Putin has something on Trump and that Trump is Putin's poodle?
Doesn't look to be the case now does it?
If an investigation finds out additional evidence of crimes of criminal conduct, it is not restricted from following the trail of evidence that can lead to indictments against other individuals.
Roger
Nobody is suggesting that the report will be withheld for "political restrictions"...
The concept of a special counsel is to investigate potential crimes (or in this case take over a counterintelligence investigation).
They are just there to provide an investigation when there is a feeling that the FBI cannot otherwise investigate without some conflict of interest. But they are still bound by the same laws, rules, and regulations as any investigator would be.
Law enforcement never provides any sort of "report" to the public other than the actual indictments and charges that they bring. If they find that a person they are investigating did not commit a crime, they do not otherwise provide a public report that offers any sort specifics that fell outside of the scope of what they are investigating.
The only report that they would offer is going to be to a superior within their department. That report might tell their superior what other information came out and why they may have decided not to pursue charges against someone. Those reports, however, are confidential (by law and constitution and common sense).
Law enforcement has no formal (or informal) obligation to determine anything other than what is and isn't legal. More to the point, it is not only NOT their obligation, but also not their responsibility to judge whether or not legal actions are otherwise unethical, unwise, irresponsible, or anything else.
So again Roger...
I am on the side of the constitution, law, rules, and regulation. I am hoping that Special Counsel and the Department of Justice follows all of these to the letter.
You are hoping that Mueller and the DOJ ignore the constitution, law, rules, and regulation... and you are hoping that Mueller provide a political report to the general public that would (in your mind) report all of the President's "wrongdoing" whether or not those actions are criminal.
Nobody is suggesting that the report will be withheld for "political restrictions"...
If the report doesn't say what Roger wants it to say it will be a political restriction.
Democrats have had a bad week:
1. They crapped the bed supporting a bill that allowed for infanticide. In the process the moved the Overton window from "fetus, clump of cells to infant.
2. Their most cherished conspiracy theory about Don Jr. got blown out of the water when phone call before and after the Trump tower meeting was to friends and business associates.
3. They have a liberal billionaire running for president as a independent citing the Democrat party is too radical.
Whether or not that he "got" the President is irrelevant as long as the report is not withheld from the public for political restrictions imposed by the President
ok genius, who other than you and the voices in your head is suggesting the report will be withheld for political reasons/restrictions? or do you want us to believe you came up with particular pile of bullshit all by yourself?
If an investigation finds out additional evidence of crimes of criminal conduct, it is not restricted from following the trail of evidence that can lead to indictments against other individuals.
thank you captain obvious.
now when exactly, do you think mueller and his merry band of political hacks might get around to charging those as a result of this fictitious "additional evidence of crimes of criminal conduct," and what do you suppose that evidence is and those crimes are?
oh, and another one of your recent masturbatory fantasies just got blowed up:
(CNN)Senate investigators have obtained new information showing Donald Trump Jr.'s mysterious phone calls ahead of the 2016 Trump Tower meeting were not with his father, three sources with knowledge of the matter told CNN.
Records provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee show the calls were between Trump Jr. and two of his business associates, the sources said, and appear to contradict Democrats' long-held suspicions that the blocked number was from then-candidate Donald Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/senate-investigators-blocked-phone-calls-not-father-trump/index.html
if it turns out that the mueller report clears this president you're going to end up in a fucking straitjacket.
if it turns out that the mueller report clears this president you're going to end up in a fucking straitjacket.
he's not in one now?
If the report doesn't say what Roger wants it to say it will be a political restriction.
One of those things where the hype of special counsel does not live up to the reality of special counsel.
I think many on the left have believed from the start that this was all about Mueller spending two years handing out process crime indictments like halloween candy, all for the express intent of getting these people to spill beans on Trump.
I don't believe it matters to them whether or not the information is criminal or not criminal... because Mueller is a super prosecutor, with unlimited resources within law enforcement, but also with unlimited ability to act outside of the rules and regulations.
A legal means to bring down someone politically using law enforcement resources.
in other UNEXPECTED news -
Payrolls surge by 304,000, smashing estimates despite government shutdown
Job growth in January shattered expectations, with nonfarm payrolls surging by 304,000, the Labor Department says.
Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had expected payrolls to rise by 170,000.
There were revisions. December's big initially reported gain of 312,000 was knocked all the way down to 222,000, while November's rose from 176,000 to 196,000.
The unemployment rate ticked higher to 4 percent, a level where it had last been in June, a likely effect of the shutdown, according to the department.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/01/nonfarm-payrolls-january-2019.html
A legal means to bring down someone politically using law enforcement resources.
when your so fucking depraved you're willing to put four people in federal prison - two of whom died there - then it's apparent to any rational individual that there's nothing mueller won't do to achieve a desired and predetermined result.
this is what liberals like the alky are really hoping for. they don't give a FUCK about any actual crimes being committed. they just want trump brought down by any means - legal or not - necessary.
they are counting on mueller to invent something out of whole cloth if necessary. from the beginning it's been a demand from the left for a coup.
Nobody is suggesting that the report will be withheld for "political restrictions".
Really? Barr basically said that when he said he would review the report and release what he thought was appropriate!!!!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/barr-still-refuses-to-pledge-to-release-mueller-probe/2019/01/28/733214b6-2327-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html?utm_term=.1045eef528c5
Suggest Lil Scotty open his eyes and read the following....
MSDNC's ralphie strap on says pooty poot could shut down our power grid and freeze us all to death -
https://twitter.com/i/status/1090904018447224832
the cray cray is strong with this one.
As is standard for a counterintelligence investigation.
Not release will be information that affects the national security, indenties of uncharged persons and information that violates innocent people's privacy.
Suggest Lil Scotty open his eyes and read the following....
wow. scathing.
the guy promises to obey the law.
“Where judgments are to be made by me, I will make those judgments based solely on the law and Department policy and will let no personal, political, or other improper interests influence my decision,” Barr wrote in response to a question from top committee Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) about how he would approach Mueller’s probe.
good catch denny!
now post an article declaring water to be wet!
Assbreath suggests this is something new....
says pooty poot could shut down our power grid and freeze
When in reality it has been warned about for years.....maybe you should google about enemies hacking our power grid...there are lots of germane pieces to review....something you are too lazy to look at....LOLOLOL
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-hackers-are-targeting-americas-power-grid-intelligence-officials-warn-1046506
when the news is too good to check to get it right -
On Friday evening, The Washington Post reported that hackers affiliated with the Russian government had penetrated the United States electric grid by attacking a utility company in Vermont. The story was originally illustrated with an image of the headquarters of a Russian spy agency, which it alleged was behind the intrusion. Then, on Monday, the Post published a new story walking back its allegation of Russian interference. Now, it says, the internet traffic that raised the red flag may in fact have been harmless.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/the-vermont-hack-debacle-doesnt-mean-attributing-cyberattacks-is-impossible/512078/
he's not in one now?
right?
mail order had better be sleeping with one eye open. when the report is made public and clears trump, the alky is going to lose his shit so bad she'll probably have to put him down.
Really? Barr basically said that when he said he would review the report and release what he thought was appropriate!!!!
Well, that is because the DOJ has to follow rules, regulations, and laws that have been determined by our constitution.
What you have here, Denny... is Barr taking a shot across the bows on this one. A warning for Mueller to keep the report to what it legally should be based on the laws of special counsel and the common sense decency of our rules and regulations of the DOJ.
If Mueller steps across that line (as some of think he will do) and attempts to provide a political report, rather than the factual legal report he is tasked by the law to provide...
Then the Attorney General has an obligation under the law to keep things within the confines of the law.
There are also considerations regarding anything that might be classified, private, or otherwise not information that should be provided to the general public (or even Congress).
Well, that is because the DOJ has to follow rules,
FUCK YOU!!!!!! As head, Barr can rewrite any of those rules at his discretion....once again Lil Scotty the only thing proved is you now swallow......so sad....
. Then, on Monday, the Post published a new story walking back its allegation of Russian interference. Now, it says, the internet
LOLOLOLOL You obviously don't see them walking back the Newsweek piece I linked and you ignored the multitude of articles saying otherwise...nothing new there as the willfully lazy try to skip through life with their head stuck up their asses...LOLOLOL!!!!
Since ass breath is too lazy....use this for your search....fucking idiot;;;
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrJ7F2ZX1RcaEoAWLVXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA3lmcC10BGdwcmlkA1ZtZ2gwZEFJUU1HSEZnSHo4SV9QMUEEbl9yc2x0AzAEbl9zdWdnAzMEb3JpZ2luA3NlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzAEcHFzdHIDBHBxc3RybAMwBHFzdHJsAzU4BHF1ZXJ5A3Bvd2VyJTIwZ3JpZCUyMHZ1bG5lcmFibGUlMjB0byUyMHNodXQlMjBkb3duJTIwYnklMjBydXNzaWEEdF9zdG1wAzE1NDkwMzM3MjM-?p=power+grid+vulnerable+to+shut+down+by+russia&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t&fp=1
Hackers working for a state-sponsored cyber-espionage unit with alleged links to Russia could have caused electricity blackouts in the U.S. last year after gaining access to some utility control rooms, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official disclosed this week.
Jonathan Homer, chief of industrial control system analysis at the agency, said that hackers “got to the point where they could have thrown switches” and mess with power flows, according to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the news from a federal briefing on Monday.
Homer said there had been “hundreds of victims” since the attacks began in 2016, but they have not been named. It remains unclear to what extent they were compromised. The cyberattack, he warned, may be ongoing. But experts in the national infrastructure field this week remained skeptical of his claims, stressing that language used in such incidents is often overblown.
According to the DHS, the culprits work for a Russian hacking unit. Active since 2010, the unit has had various code names, including Energetic Bear, Crouching Yeti and Dragonfly. It has been well-documented over the years by government and private sector security experts including Homeland Security’s ICS-CERT alongside Kaspersky Lab, FireEye and Symantec.
And for the bias and jaded Lil Scotty.....the following has been offered to avoid Barr from doing the big hide the report....
On Monday, Sens. Richard J. Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill to guarantee that every special-counsel report would be released directly to Congress and the public, effectively taking out the attorney general as middleman.
FUCK YOU!!!!!! As head, Barr can rewrite any of those rules at his discretion.
Well actually not. Any new rules he decides to write would have to follow the guidelines set for by the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments to the constitution...
No Attorney General can order a situation where law enforcement is allowed to bypass the bill of rights, for purposes of political gain.
What you are hoping for here, is that the deep state is allowed to get away with using the unlimited law enforcement and prosecutorial resources of the Federal Government, to engage in an investigation that does not necessarily lend itself to criminal activity.
By nature, the resources of our law enforcement is limited to investigating identified potential crimes. As much as it upsets you, they are not allowed to just investigate political figures to see what dirt they can dig up.
No Attorney General can just rewrite that American legal constitutional
standard.
On Monday, Sens. Richard J. Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill to guarantee that every special-counsel report would be released directly to Congress and the public, effectively taking out the attorney general as middleman.
Well good luck with that one. Even if it passed both chambers and President Trump signed it into law, Congress does not have the legal authority to bypass constitutional considerations that are part of the existing law.
There are already laws in place that guide what Special Counsel can and cannot do. Those laws will be the determining factor for what Mueller "should" be writing in his report, and will definitely be the determining factor of the A.G.
But thanks for pointing out this. Obviously Democrats wouldn't be trying to "change the rules after the game started" - if they had solid legal grounds to demand what they are asking for.
But at least it's an admission that they do not currently have the law behind their request.
Well actually not. Any new rules he decides to write would have to follow the guidelines set for by the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments to the constitution...
the US Constitution. frustrating liberals since 1789.
What you are hoping for here, is that the deep state is allowed to get away with using the unlimited law enforcement and prosecutorial resources of the Federal Government, to engage in an investigation that does not necessarily lend itself to criminal activity.
that was the basis for and the goal of this entire investigation.
Any new rules he decides to write would have to follow the guidelines set for by the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments to the constitution...
What a pile of bullshit that is Lil Scotty....he can amend any rules that you are questioning for the release of the report...He SAID HE WOULD REVIEW THE REPORT AND PUBLISH WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS IN COMPLIANCE......IOW's jaded by his bias to trump, which is why he was nominated....Sorry Lil Scotty, it stinks as bad as your asshole!!!! Get back to work since your skills as a lawyerly commentator suck worse than your GW is fake....LOLOLOL
This is a bad joke you are trying to rationalize....I DON"T BUY THE BS!!!
Barr stressed that his “goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law” in several of the answers he provided to panel senators, who challenged him to offer better assurances that he would release the report than he did during a confirmation hearing earlier this month. Democrats on the panel also failed to secure a firmer promise from Barr to alert them if Justice Department ethics officials advise him to recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller probe, reserving the final decision for himself.
“Where judgments are to be made by me, I will make those judgments based solely on the law and Department policy
On Monday, Sens. Richard J. Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill to guarantee that every special-counsel report would be released directly to Congress and the public, effectively taking out the attorney general as middleman.
that's nice. grassley should know better. just because a couple of senators introduce a bill, any bill, doesn't mean that it's constitutional or that the president will sign the thing.
there could be legitimate national security reasons for not making the report public. there could also be information that involves those not charged that should be kept private.
in other words genius - making the report public - or not - does not speak to the legitimacy of the report. it speaks only to the political motivations of those dismayed by the decision, whichever way it goes.
Where judgments are to be made by me, I will make those judgments based solely on the law and Department policy
That's what CH has been saying all along.
You want him and Mueller to go beyond the law and basically produce a political hit piece.
That's not the DOJ's job. Nor is it the FBI's job dispite what some former heads think.
I DON"T BUY THE BS!!!
genius, your refusal to accept reality is your problem and no one else's.
What the Democrats are asking Denny...
Is that Barr promise to ignore the existing laws regarding special counsel, ignore rules and procedures of the Department of Justice, and ultimately they are hoping to have him ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
While I have no doubt that Robert Mueller is fully capable of writing a politically biased, personal hit job against the President... that is not his job under the guidelines of the Special Counsel laws.
The report will be required to be redacted for:
- Anything that classified
- Anything that endangers national security
- Anything that is a violation of rights
Moreover, if Congress wants some promises that they will see an unredacted version of the reports... then they need to go back in time and undo all of the leaking and grandstanding that makes it difficult to trust them.
But... at the end of the day, Mueller might just get away with writing a political hit job, and Barr may release it anyway (due to overwhelming political pressure from the left).
Seems that fake story from texas of 100k illegal registered voters is another pile of bullshit embraced by the week minded Lil Scotty, Ass breath and Pauline.....amazing how truth eventually trumps BS!!!!
y Mimi Swartz
Ms. Swartz, an executive editor at Texas Monthly, is a contributing opinion writer.
The state, which as yet cannot take anyone off the voter rolls, turned to county officials, who can. They are supposed to hunt those miscreants down by sending notices demanding they appear at voter registrars’ offices with proof of citizenship (birth certificate, passport, etc.) within 30 days. Otherwise, they would be stricken from the rolls and, presumably, ICE would be pounding on their doors soon after.
ADVERTISEMENT
Among many who seized on this appalling narrative was President Trump, who tweeted: “These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. All over the country, especially in California, voter fraud is rampant. Must be stopped!”
Well, yes, someone had to be stopped here in Texas, and the narrative was appalling, but not for the stated reasons. Within 24 hours, various groups devoted to voting rights had put on their thinking caps — they don’t give them out at the Statehouse — and were noting a few problems with the list.
Like, some of this “research” was 25 years old, during which time a lot of people holding driver’s licenses could have become naturalized citizens who, at least so far, are allowed to vote in Texas. In other words, state leaders were not experts in data compilation, a finding that should surprise no one. As our former governor and the current secretary of energy Rick Perry would say, “Whoops.”
Within a few days, Harris County (which includes Houston) had found that 60 percent of the 30,000 people on the DPS’s list should never have been there in the first place, because they had become citizens in the last quarter-century or so. The League of United Latin American Citizens also filed suit against Mr. Whitley and Mr. Paxton, claiming a violation of the voting rights act, and declared the whole mess a “witch hunt” intended to scare Latinos away from the ballot box.
What the Democrats are asking Denny...
NO LIL SCOTTY....THEY ARE NOT.....Keep making up bullshit arguments that are pure fantasy in your own mind...Does that make you feel like a big man, lil one???? NOBODY IS QUESTIONING CLASSIFIED DATA, if that is in there...But I suspect Mueller is smarter than you and will not have sensitive data in there....Keep digging Lil Scotty, your bullshit is getting rather deep!!!! BWAAAAAAA!!!
Seems that fake story from texas of 100k illegal registered voters is another pile of bullshit embraced by the week minded Lil Scotty
Interesting deduction, since I didn't write about this.
btw... what is a week mind? One that works for seven days?
Ms. Swartz, an executive editor at Texas Monthly, is a contributing opinion writer.
hmmm...
let's see...
do i take the word of the Texas AG, or a contributor to some liberal rag out of austin?
i think i'll go with the AG, even if mimi did manage to get the old gray whore to pick up one of her hit pieces.
Texas AG, or a contributor to some liberal rag out of austin?
Nice ad hominem asshole....suggest the Texas AG is in the pocket of typical R BS afraid their whiteness is being diminished, just like you ass breath....
Ignorance or venality? Hard to say. Stupidity is always a good bet, but Texans are already trying to exercise their civic duty with one of the nation’s strictest voter identification laws in effect — regular people already need to show a government-issued ID to vote here. Then, too, the convoluted rules for running third-party voter registration drives here would send Rube Goldberg to bed with a blinding migraine.
Editors’ Picks
There is one simple fact fomenting all this hysteria, of course: According to census estimates, the state’s Hispanic population grew to 11.2 million in 2017, from 9.7 million in 2010. The population of white Texans grew by only about half a million people, to 11.9 million, during the same period. By 2022, the state is guesstimated to be majority Latino. (By 2050 our booming population — with all our Latinos — is supposed to surpass California’s.) This may or may not mean that Texas will turn blue around the same time, though the anti-immigrant/build the wall bias of state and national leaders who know better might be helping that process along. On the other hand, maybe our leadership plans to just deport them all.
n, since I didn't write about this.
SO FUCKING WHAT....Did get your attention though.....LOLOLOLOL!!!! Maybe you can act as spell checker for donnie who has trouble with There or Their....BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Denny
Go back in time, to other Special Prosecutors, etc... The Starr Report was limited completely to who he charged, why he charged them, and what criminal activity he felt the President could have been indicted for, had he had the power to indict a sitting President.
The Starr report only offered his legal opinions, nothing else. He did not provide any judgement on whether or not Clinton was a good President, or whether he should or shouldn't have had Interns blowing him in the oval office, or anything else that might be considered political. His was purely a legal report.
This should be the same report that Mueller writes. If there is evidence that Trump committed crimes, then I would fully expect that those activities would be detailed (as they should) in the report.
But where Mueller did not find any evidence of criminal activity, it would not be his job to otherwise attempt to "incriminate" someone with any sort of speculation or opinion.
He may or may not provide his reasoning as to why certain people were not charged with certain crimes (where there was speculation). He may suggest that he couldn't charge conspiracy because of X,Y, and Z. Or he may suggest that there was not enough evidence to charge anyone with obstruction. But where someone is "not" charged with a crime, it is not the policy (nor should it be) that the details of those investigation into innocent Americans be made public.
As much as the public feels curious... they don't have the right to know things about these American citizens as they would have the right to know about any other American citizen who has been investigated (and found not to have committed a crime).
Presidential Canidate and Life Time Democrat is getting attacked by his former party.
In 1974 Nixon said the same things about the Watergate investigation during the state of the union address. He resigned a few months later.
ADVERTISEMENT
Editors’ Picks
too stupid to even c&p properly
Another BS hair on fire that some assholes yesterday were running around with...As I thought and posted....complete and utter bullshit that D's were embracing infanticide......assholes especially ass breath rat hole....
Under current law in Virginia, third-trimester abortions are permitted when a woman’s physician and two other doctors certify that continuing a pregnancy would result in a mother’s death, or “substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.” This week Kathy Tran, a Democrat in Virginia’s House of Delegates, testified in favor of a bill that would end the requirement for two extra doctors to sign off on such abortions, and strike the words “substantially and irremediably” from the existing law. Similar legislation has been introduced in past years. Despite what you might have heard, at no point did Tran try to legalize infanticide.
When Tran appeared before a statehouse subcommittee, the Republican majority leader, Todd Gilbert, presented her with an outré hypothetical. Could a woman about to go into labor request an abortion if her doctor certified that she needed one for mental health reasons? Tran said that the decision would be between a woman and her doctor, but, evidently taken aback by the question, eventually allowed that it would be permitted under her bill.
Tran handled the moment poorly. She might have pointed out that legislation is not generally written with an eye to prohibiting ridiculous and unprecedented scenarios.
Go back in time, to other Special Prosecutors, etc.
MORE BULLSHIT HYPOTHETICALS WITH NO RELEVANCE TO BARR and his politically driven opinions....sorry that you are so full of shit...
If
If there is evidence that Trump committed crimes, then I would fully expect that those activities would be detailed (as they should) in the report.
Then.
You will choose not to believe the results of the investigation because it was politically motivated.
aliphate4vr said...
ADVERTISEMENT
Editors’ Picks
too stupid to even c&p properly
Even less content than usual.....such a douche nozzle since it makes him feel like the big man Lil Scotty wants to be....BWAAAAAAAAAA
do you ever make sense? Like prior to your daily wake-n-bake
Another of fatty's predictions down the drain
China has agreed to resume purchases of U.S. soybeans following talks Thursday between President Trump and Beijing's top trade negotiator, Vice Premier Liu He. It will start purchasing 5 million metric tons a day, according to Trump.
"Five million tons of soybeans per day," Trump told reporters at a Oval Office meeting with Liu. "That's going to make our farmers very happy. That's a lot of soybeans."
Roger...
If Mueller provides EVIDENCE of crimes, then I would expect that evidence to be detailed. I would also expect it to be actual evidence of a normal crime where such evidence is generally used to convict someone of a crime. I might even expect that he could detail other examples where the evidence he is citing resulted in criminal prosecution and a guilty verdict.
Where I would take issue, Roger... would be if Mueller decides to invent something where Trump took a legal action that has never been deemed a crime before, and Mueller says it should have been.
For instance, firing Comey being considered obstruction, or paying off Stormy Daniels is a campaign violation. Two examples where there is no historical examples of these actions ever being charged and convicted.
You will choose not to believe the results of the investigation because it was politically motivated.
well rog, this is the difference between you and me -
if mueller produces a fact-based, evidence-based conclusion based upon actual crimes and not fucking nonsense like "collusion" i'll take it at face value and accept it for what it is.
the same holds true if trump is completely cleared, whereas your fucking head will explode and mail order will be having you admitted to the kaiser permanente mental ward. to a private room with rubber wallpaper
???????Mueller decides to invent something ??????
You will choose not to believe the results of the investigation because it was politically motivated.
No matter what the candidate or President Trump did, you will never believe that he did anything illegal.
Roger
To be clear... I already have researched the concept of obstruction, the concept of the Stormy Daniels payoffs being campaign violations. I have read about two dozen different opinions on these subjects. There are opinions I trust, and opinions that seem out to lunch.
So here is how it works, Roger.
There is evidence.
There is opinion.
We know most of the facts surrounding these events. If Mueller provides no new information, that otherwise would be relevant to these sorts of issues, then all he would be doing is providing his own personal opinion about know facts.
In that case, he is just one of a few thousand prosecutors, attorneys, law professors, and other legal pundits with an opinion.
His "opinion" will not hold ANY particular weight with me.
The EVIDENCE that he comes up with will hold ALL of the weight.
For instance. If Mueller has incriminating documentation that Trump was threatening investigators, soliciting perjury, withholding subpoenaed documents, or otherwise can be proven to have lied to investigators... then he would be in the exact same position as Bill Clinton, whom Starr suggested would been charged with perjury and obstruction.
But if there is no "new" evidence, and Mueller attempts to paste together an obstruction case based on innuendo, guesswork about motive, and some of the other nonsense spewed by certain pundits... then I will have no more respect for his "OPINION" as any other person holding that same opinion.
Bottom line: Mueller's "opinion" is not the same thing as an objective conclusion.
Nick Short
Verified account
@PoliticalShort
Even as he admits Russia has violated the INF Treaty for years, @RepAdamSchiff denounces Trump for withdrawing from it. Why is Schiff such a Putin sycophant? Someone should investigate whether Putin has some leverage on him! That’s how this works right?
https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-schiff-statement-on-trump-administration-withdrawal-from-inf-treaty …
No matter what the candidate or President Trump did, you will never believe that he did anything illegal.
well rog,
two things -
first of all, if mueller can come up with actual crimes, and can produce actual evidence that can make them stick, then i'll accept all of that at face value.
second - trump is innocent until PROVEN guilty. and your stage IV TDS doesn't change that fact.
and for the record, i do believe, as any rational thinking person would, that this entire debacle is politically motivated. an assortment of very sore losers needed to explain away the failure of the worst candidate in the history of the republic who was supposed to win an election that was a veritable lock. BY A LANDSLIDE.
trump winning was not a crime. not by any measure. but felonia von pantsuit was SUPPOSED to win. the presidency was HERS. it was PROMISED to her as her consolation prize for staying married to a cad.
but the american electorate had other ideas. so here we are.
so the question is not whether my team will accept the results of the mueller investigation. the question is if YOUR side will... if it exonerates trump.
iow's you're psychologically projecting again.
the alky and lil schitt weep...
Investigators on the Senate Intelligence Committee have learned the identities of three blocked phone calls with Donald Trump Jr. just before and after the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016, three sources familiar with the calls told ABC News.
The calls to blocked numbers, which came on June 6, and after the meeting on June 9, were between Trump Jr.’s cell phone and two family friends -- NASCAR CEO Brian France and real estate developer Howard Lorber, according to the sources.
Both men have close ties to President Donald Trump and actively supported his campaign during the 2016 election.
Trump gloated about the news in a late-night tweet on Thursday, saying the call were "conclusively found NOT to be made to me."
https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/Politics/blocked-calls-long-mystery-longtime-trump-family-friends/story?id=60766720
Rat -
The whole, entire, 100% hope here from the left is that Barr will allow Mueller to write a report that is not fact based, but rather opinion based.
If Mueller simply sticks with the facts, then assuming there are no real "new" facts to be seen, then the only people moving their opinions will be those who based them on the assumption of additional information that doesn't actually exist.
At this point in time, the legal consensus is that there is nothing out there (that we know) that points to any criminal conspiracy or criminal obstruction. Now, certainly it's just a consensus (a majority, which includes most objective legal bloggers and legal pundits I frequent). There are always some who see everything as potentially a criminal conspiracy and uses convoluted logic to get from A to B.
What the left is hoping for is that Mueller will write a report that falls into line with the conspiracy theorists and Trump-haters who believe that Trump has committed multiple crimes. If only someone like Mueller would agree with them, then that belief becomes mainstream.
The problem for Mueller (other than such speculative conclusions will likely be tempered by Barr) is that there is a fine line between being able to use your own weight to boost up the opinions of the crazies, vs aligning yourself away from the mainstream legal thinking and opening him up to criticism of seeing the situation through partisan eyes.
Hi Roger. Your use of your walker to shuffle away from your topics is artful.
What the left is hoping for is that Mueller will write a report that falls into line with the conspiracy theorists and Trump-haters who believe that Trump has committed multiple crimes. If only someone like Mueller would agree with them, then that belief becomes mainstream.
and a belief that becomes mainstream becomes grounds for impeachment. yeah, i get it.
you know, i have to be honest with you - i am surprised at the stamina of the left. i really expected this to just quietly slip out of the news cycle at some point simply because it's all so ludicrous, so ridiculous, so laughable that it could never be defensible over the long run.
it just goes to show that there are no lengths to which the left will not go to achieve their fucked up goals.
i mean, did anyone ever expect to be having infanticide codified into law???
Hi Roger. Your use of your walker to shuffle away from your topics is artful.
his secret is fresh tennis balls.
Blogger C.H. Truth said...
Rat -
The whole, entire, 100% hope here from the left is that Barr will allow Mueller to write a report that is not fact based,
Most amusing LIL SCOTTY,,,,, especially impugning Muellers reputation on nothing more than your wishful thinking...when complaining about the left....you seriously should look in the mirror first because your mind has been taken over by trump....Sad, how you have lost your brain to bias and stupid talking points that are not even yours!!!!!
To be clear... I already have researched the concept of obstruction
Which means what??? In my world....NOTHING BUT MORE BS and speculation from a biased trumpite with nothing to say....!!!!
Anonymous caliphate4vr said...
Another of fatty's predictions down the drain
Which prediction was that dumbass???? I really did not make any predictions about soybeans and china other than the tariffs were hurting farmers....Want to expand on that Pauline....I'm curious to what you think I said....BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! asshole
Yes you did.
Old stupid and forgetful.
As did always wrong Roger.
Best that you two stay in your lane.
Blogger KD said...
Yes you did.
Old stupid and forgetful.
Instead of being the dumb fuck you are and expert in everything....why don't you tell me what I said instead of talking out your ass again.....Because you can't....thanx for playing just like you proving a prediction for 2 years in the future is not wrong....LOLOLOLOL!!!
Trump claims big parts of the border wall are almost completed and that many D's support the wall but don't know how to express themselves.....almost as funny that I predicted something about china and soybeans....Hysterically funny and so typical of sophomoric assholes whose head is too big to get through a door....LOLOLOLOLO
This just keeps getting better and better.
Welp: Yearbook Page For Pro-Infanticide Ralph Northam Features A Man In Blackface And Another In A KKK Outfit
It was Big League Politics that found the photo. It started circulating on conservative Twitter, then the Virginian-Pilot checked BLP’s work and found that, yep, the photo’s legit. Now we wait for the follow-up story: Is Northam the guy in the hood, or the one in blackface? And which is worse?
I can imagine the headline already. “Conservatives pounce on photo of state governor in regional attire.”
By the way, this guy defeated a formidable Republican in Ed Gillespie by nearly 10 points to become governor in 2017. Crack job by Gillespie’s oppo team in missing the other candidate’s BLACKFACE/KLANSMAN YEARBOOK PHOTO.
This was his medical school yearbook when he was about 25.
In fairness to him, a lot of dumb kids did offensive things back when they were [checks notes] 25 years old. In medical school.
I recall a speaker who had a youthful indiscretion at the age of 49 and you embraced him....If he is in picture....resign now.....idiot
Denise has become incoherent.
Blogger KD said...
Denise has become incoherent.
And you are suffering from dementia.....Henry Hyde the salami ring a bell?????/
Post a Comment