So having read through the Mueller report several times, I find it strange that Mueller seems to interchange actions made by Trump's personal attorney (assuming Jay Sekulow) with Trump himself. For instance, a couple of the sections Mueller refers to as possible obstruction charges has to do with Cohen, Pardons, and whether Cohen was directed to lie.
Is there something that I am missing here in terms of the criminal liability of an attorney? I assume that an attorney is responsible for these sorts of actions, even if he was directed by someone else to do it. Obviously Sekulow is not a President, so Mueller would not have the same problem/excuse for not making a prosecutorial decision on whether Sekulow committed obstruction through his actions with Cohen?
So bottom line. If Mueller was clearly convinced that the discussions regarding Cohen's testimony, along with discussions regarding Pardons were actually an obstruction case that can be proven, is there any "legal" reason that he could not have indicted Sekulow for this crime?Oddly, I did not get any response from the email. I have probably sent a half dozen emails in the past to the Powerline team and always gotten some sort of response. But they did address this general subject on their blog this morning (only the issue was the Dowd phone call to Flynn's attorney, rather than any issues with Cohen).
This is what they wrote on their blog today:
If Dowd’s message to Kelner was obstructive, as the report asserts, Dowd himself would be liable whether or not he acted at the president’s behest or with his knowledge. Attorneys have no right to commit crimes on behalf of their principal.
Indeed, there is a crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. See, for example, the matter of Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen. The exception would clearly apply to conversations in which the principal instructs the attorney to undertake obstructive action. I declare this aspect of the Mueller Report a complete and utter crock.So perhaps I was two days away from having the question answered and the issue discussed, had I just bided my time. But this has become an important question (especially in light of the recent release of the Dowd phone call transcripts).
The reality is that if Mueller felt that these actions were obstruction, then he could have (and should have) indicted Dowd and/or Sekulow for them. By not indicting either attorney for these actions, Mueller quite literally admits that there isn't actually a real obstruction case either having to do with Flynn or having to do with Cohen. Which not only eliminated two of the eleven possible issues brought forward by Mueller, but possibly eliminates the two most "realistic" issues of actual obstruction. The reality is that they were the only two genuinely documented cases of anything potentially deemed to be "tampering".
If those were not indictable issues, and clearly we know that they were not. Then most certainly the other nine could not possibly be indictable given the less serious and more legally murky nature of those allegations.
53 comments:
Intimidation of potential witnesses is objection of justice. It's not easy to prove, but it is not legal.
Prosecutors can offer lower charges or protection in exchange for testimony.
Privately held political beliefs are not illegal. Muller is a Republican.
Responding to Attorney General Bill Barr’s interview on CBS, where he once again dismissed special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, former FBI director James Comey lashed out at President Donald Trump ‘s hand-picked AG, telling him to put up or shut up about conspiracy theories.
On Twitter, Comey wrote, “Bill Barr on CBS offers no facts. An AG should not be echoing conspiracy theories. He should gather facts and show them. That is what Justice is about.”
In the interview, Barr addresses only one of Trump’s multiple efforts to interfere in the investigation. He asserts that Trump’s firing of Comey in May 2017 can’t be obstruction of justice, because “we don’t believe that the firing of an agency head could be established as having the probable effect, objectively speaking, of sabotaging a proceeding.”
That’s preposterous. Mueller’s report documents a direct attempt by Trump, through Comey, to sabotage a proceeding. In February 2017, Trump expelled everyone else from the Oval Office so he could speak with Comey alone. Trump used this opportunity to ask Comey to drop the FBI’s investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who had been caught lying about his contacts with Russia. Mueller reports that just before this meeting, Trump told a friend that getting rid of Flynn would end the Russia inquiry. But Comey continued the inquiry, and Trump fired him. That’s prima facie evidence of intent to sabotage the investigation.
Barr doesn’t just assert Trump’s innocence. He says there’s no evidence that Trump is damaging American institutions. “People are saying that it’s President Trump that’s shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that,” Barr told Crawford. The real “shredding of our norms and our institutions,” Barr contends, is coming from “the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him.”
Again, that’s boilerplate spin from the Trump camp. And again, it flies in the face of the Mueller report.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/william-barr-cbs-interview-lies.html
Intimidation of a potential witness.....like raiding his home at 4 am with guns drawn?
FROM THE PULPIT
A novel approach to Jesus
JAMES BOSWELL
Honest biblical scholarship has revealed realities about the historical Jesus that are not widely shared in churches because they are considered too disturbing. Those realities indicate that Jesus had a number of mistaken expectations about his near future, and if that is true, it means that he was a limited human being — something which many Christians, especially fundamentalists and Bible literalists, will not admit, for it reveals that Jesus was not "inerrant."
Although that is disturbing, if something is true, it is true. I have tried, therefore, in a recent novel, to be as honest about Jesus as I can and must be. That does not mean that I enjoy being controversial or hurtful. Rather, it means I am convinced that any truth about Jesus should somehow result in good. Somehow, it should. For that reason, I am delighted to learn that there are atheists, skeptics, and members of other world religions who find my depiction of Jesus so convincing that they now believe he really did exist, and are interested in learning more about him. I recommend the "Info" page on my website, www.TheDeadSeaGospel.com, for a listing of some excellent historical Jesus studies now available.
However, I was even more delighted to receive a note from a Christian believer indicating that she also benefited from historical honesty. She wrote, "Your work, 'The Dead Sea Gospel,' genuinely impacted my life with its theologies and perspectives on the historical Jesus. In fact, I can't stop thinking about it, and thoughts of it influence and abide in my Lenten reflections. In sum, I find it liberating — in no way damaging my faith, but rather enhancing it. Thank you. Your book is a gift. I feel indebted to you."
She also said she found the novel's storytelling "stunning. [This] Jesus is radically incarnate, thoroughly and even limitedly human. I find my faith strengthened, not lessened by that fact. And paradoxically, as I encounter Jesus emerging in such (human) form, I find myself grasping and embracing the idea and mystery of atonement as never before! This remarkable novel, grounded in brilliant scholarship, has actually renewed my faith and contributed to my spiritual understanding of Jesus."
I am humbly, deeply grateful for such responses, whether they come from skeptics or from believers. And any "brilliance" in my book is largely attributable to the exceptional studies listed on that "info" page. Good studying to all!
___________
Boswell is a retired Disciples of Christ pastor. Contact him at jamezbozwel@aol.com.
Roger
Why is it that you never really seem to ever get a point?
Question: If it was illegal for Dowd or Sekulow to "tamper" with these witness, and it was an actual indictable crime.
Why were they not indicted????
Mueller indicted all sort of other people surrounding the President for acts of obstruction and false/misleading testimony.
Why not Dowd or Sekulow?
Again, they are not protected (as Mueller believes the President is) and what better way for Mueller to prove his point that these are actual crimes than to actually indict, try, and find someone guilty of obstruction for these actions.
The failure for Mueller to indict either Dowd or Sekulow is case closed evidence that he didn't have a case to make in court.
The Pimp Pastor
Why are the Socialist Democrats trashing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr . Accusing him of accossory to Rape and generally who're mongering?
JFK, AG Bobby Kennedy and FBI Director all Democras spied on Dr. King and now some of it is being leaked.
Worthy of a repost
RRB posted:
""Trump is known as a builder, but if there's anything really Trump likes to do, it's breaking things. Trump broke Kathy Griffin. He broke her really badly. He broke Michael Moore. He reduced Hillary Clinton to a bitter old drunk. He broke both Michael Avenatti and Stormy Daniels. He broke Rosie O'Donnell. He broke his former aide Omarosa. He's in the process of breaking the anti-Trump propaganda network CNN completely. Everyone who goes up against Trump loses. It's uncanny how some celebrity or athlete goes off on an anti-Trump rant and then fails professionally in some fashion, sometimes in unrelated ways. Just look at this schadenfreudelicious list. And now I hear that there are supposedly a whole bunch of anti-Trump movie scripts that have lately been floating around Hollywood. It reminds me of the height of the Iraq war when Hollywood released a bunch of anti-Iraq war movies. They were abysmal failures at the box office. They must've thought that most Americans were against the Iraq War. But at that time, most Americans supported the war. What a bubble they must live in. They must think that most Americans hate Trump. But that's the way to get more Trump. And they're going to get more Trump. Good and hard."
http://minx.cc:1080/?post=381527
No such thing as a coincidence or a worthwhile post from rat the bigot or the goat fucking idiot..... Seems trumps good bud, the leader he longs to be may have some trouble in river city!!!!!
So far, the most important conclusion we can draw from reports North Korea’s senior nuclear negotiator and four foreign ministry officials were executed in March is this: Kim Jong Un is not the reliable, trustworthy negotiator President Trump has made him out to be.
According to the South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo, a senior aide to leader Kim Jong Un was “sent to a labor and reeducation camp,” and two lower-level officials were imprisoned.
The detention of aide Kim Yong Chol, who led Pyonyang’s outreach to Washington for two Trump-Kim summits, had been known for more than a month, but many are questioning whether Kim Hyok Chol, the nuclear negotiator, was in fact put to death by a firing squad at an airport in the North.
Whatever the accuracy of the Chosun Ilbo reporting—Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday said he was looking into the matter—there is evidence of severe turmoil in Pyongyang political circles, and it appears Kim Jong Un’s grip on power has been weakening in recent months.
This increasingly evident turmoil undercuts the notion, advanced by Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in, that Kim can negotiate in good faith on a range of issues from denuclearization to inter-Korean reconciliation.
Ace of spades goat fucker is a bot site run by russians.....!!!!
Because the policy of the Department of justice is that he cannot indict the sitting President.
I used to think you were intelligent. I was wrong.
ll Democras spied on Dr. King and now some of it is being leaked.
Hey goat fucker....a white supremacist killed him.....one of your kind.....BTW.....that was 60 years agp and J Edgar spied and had files on hundreds of americans......asshole...
'You may remember all the glowing predictions made for the December 2017 tax cuts by congressional Republicans and the Trump administration: Wages would soar for the rank-and-file, corporate investments would surge, and the cuts would pay for themselves.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has just published a deep dive into the economic impact of the cuts in their first year, and emerges from the water with a different picture. The CRS finds that the cuts have had virtually no effect on wages, haven’t contributed to a surge in investment, and haven’t come close to paying for themselves. Nor have they delivered a cut to the average taxpayer.
..
The CRS says that the cuts produced an increase of 0.3% at most in gross domestic product in 2018. For the cuts to pay for themselves, an increase of more than 6.7% would be necessary. In other words, the report says, the cuts produced less than one-twentieth of the economic gain needed to pay for themselves.
“There is no indication of a surge in wages in 2018 either compared to history or relative to GDP growth.” Real wages (that is, adjusted for inflation) increased by only 1.2% in 2018. “Ordinary workers had very little growth in wage rates.”
..
Corporate shareholders, however, have made out great. The repatriated earnings mostly have been used for “a record-breaking amount of stock buybacks, with $1 trillion announced by the end of 2018.” As the CRS notes tactlessly, the same phenomenon occurred in 2004, when a one-time tax holiday allowed companies to bring back earnings stashed abroad at a lower rate. That tax holiday had been promoted as a spur to investment and wage growth too. Never happened.
Indeed, government statistics show that shareholder dividends fairly exploded in the first quarter of 2018, immediately following the tax cut enactment, while reinvestments of those repatriated funds cratered. (Both figures returned to levels close to their historical averages soon afterward.)
The bottom line, then, is becoming clearer with every quarter. The tax cuts did almost nothing for ordinary Americans and may even have cost them money. The apparent gains in their income were negligible and short-lived. Wealthy Americans reaped the benefits of lower taxes and higher dividends. The cuts had a negligible effect on U.S. economic growth while depriving the government of revenue.
Put it all together and this massive restructuring of the U.S. tax system should prompt average Americans to ask Republicans in Congress and the White House that age-old question: Who are you really working for?'
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-tax-cut-effects-20190529-story.html?fbclid=IwAR0cC9diC0ktOsQj0Q1ReEs8qPE02YflThtWBYuNGia-WykzXFjWqj4AjH8
Scott, Maureen Dowd is not a Democrat, nor does she hate Barr or the President.
But she eloquently says how filthy politics have become, especially since Trump was elected.
I agree that I am not happy that Mueller didn't actually change the President. But Barr is a total asshole.
====
The twisty saga of Robert Mueller and Bill Barr is a case of an imperfect hero and a perfect villain.
Barr is not so much the attorney general as the minister of information. His interview with Crawford was tactically brilliant. Barr once more deftly took advantage of the fact that Mueller, with his impenetrable legalese and double negatives, has handcuffed himself.
Even when the reclusive and mute Mueller finally stepped up to the lectern on Wednesday, he was still hiding. "Sad"
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” said Mueller, sounding like Odysseus struggling to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”
Mueller is as elliptical as Barr is diabolical. The special counsel is clearly frustrated that we don’t understand his reasoning. But his reasoning is nonsensical.
Adding insult to injury, the man whose whole career has been about asking the tough questions wouldn’t even take questions. And he doesn’t want to deign to testify about his $35 million report.
Mueller was trying to let himself off the hook by insisting that he couldn’t reach a conclusion on the president’s obstruction because he was bound by a Department of Justice opinion stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Plus, he layered on some extra “principles of fairness.”
But talking to Crawford, Barr took the knife he had already stuck in his old friend and twisted it, using St. Mueller’s prestige against him. He said Mueller, in fact, was not barred from reaching a conclusion, and this is why a “surprised” Barr and his former deputy, Rod Rosenstein, had to step in and reach a conclusion on obstruction, one ending up favoring Trump.
After indicating that Mueller was derelict and misguided, Barr went ahead and belittled him and his dream team as inept.
Dismissively noting he and Rosenstein did not agree with a lot of the legal analysis in the Mueller report, Barr said he applied what he considered to be “the right law,” though he confusingly said he didn’t rely on that when pronouncing Mueller’s evidence on the 11 instances of potential obstruction laid out in the report.
When Barr moved on to his investigation of the investigators who worked on the case of possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, he really bared his claws.
About the F.B.I. team that did the investigating, Barr backed up all of Trump’s deep-state rants, saying: “Republics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state.” He added, ominously, “Things are just not jiving.” investigate the investigators?
The expansion of executive authority should bother you, but not when a Republican does it.
Lowering the Barr https://nyti.ms/2Mle091
Because the policy of the Department of justice is that he cannot indict the sitting President.
So again... I ask. How can you continue to miss the point?
He cannot indict the President.
Nobody is arguing that, so why are you bringing it up??
But he could indict Dowd or Sekulow if he believed these were crimes.
So why didn't he indict Dowd or Sekulow if these were crimes?
Answer: Because they were not even close to being something he could indict or bring to court.
Your obsession continues.
Kevin Drum.
Bill Barr is appalled
CBS
Attorney General William Barr sat down yesterday with Jan Crawford of CBS News to talk about the Mueller investigation. As you know, President Trump has claimed that the Obama administration “spied” on him during the 2016 campaign, and Barr himself has also used that word. Crawford asked him about that:
CRAWFORD: You’ve gotten some criticism for using that word.
BARR: Yeah, I mean, I guess it’s become a dirty word somehow….It’s part of the craziness of the modern day that if a president uses a word, then all of a sudden it becomes off bounds. It’s a perfectly good English word, I will continue to use it.
CRAWFORD: You’re saying that spying occurred. There’s not anything necessarily wrong with that.
BARR: Right.
Poor Bill Barr. He just doesn’t understand why spying has suddenly gotten a negative connotation that it never had before Trump mentioned it. Prior to 2017, it was just an ordinary, nonjudgmental English word that everyone used for any kind of police investigation. But these are hyperpartisan times, so what can you do?
Following this linguistic flim-flam, Barr explains that he wants to investigate this spying because he came of age during the 60s and is really, really sensitive to the possibility of the FBI violating someone’s civil liberties. Yes, we’re talking about the same Bill Barr who approved this. Seriously:
BARR: The fact that today people just seem to brush aside the idea that it is okay to you know, to engage in these activities against a political campaign is stunning to me especially when the media doesn’t seem to think that it’s worth looking into. They’re supposed to be the watchdogs of, you know, our civil liberties.
CRAWFORD: What have you seen? What evidence? What makes you think, I need to take a look at this? I mean, what have you seen in the summer of 2016?
BARR: Well, I’ll say at this point is that it, you know, I, like many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities, I had a lot of questions about what was going on. I assumed I’d get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions, and that some of the facts that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.
CRAWFORD: What do you mean by that?
BARR: That’s all I really will say. Things are just not jiving….
Barr has seen things. He can’t tell us what they are, but they’re worrying, very worrying. For example, there are those texts between the two FBI lovebirds that Trump keeps tweeting about, which all of us have seen and pretty much dismissed:
BARR: It’s hard to read some of the texts with and not feel that there was gross bias at work and they’re appalling. And if the shoe were on the other—
CRAWFORD: Appalling.
BARR: Those were appalling.
Appalling! And just in case you were not as appalled by those texts as Fox News was, Barr has some more shocking news for us:
BARR: From my perspective the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him and you know, really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring.
CRAWFORD: And you think that happened even with the investigation into the campaign, potentially?
BARR: I am concerned about that.
Resisting a president! Good God, what’s next?
Roger
Barr made Mueller look bad, not because was diabolical, but because he was telling the truth. Everyone from Barr, to McCarthy, and even Jonathan Turley (who is no Trump fan) agrees that Mueller's excuse about not coming to a conclusion was complete bullshit.
Mueller made a stupid argument, that was not part of any DOJ policy. Every previous special counsel independent prosecutor, etc made decisions. He accepted the job which tasked him to make a decision. Both of his bosses told him he could make a decision.
He just chose to not to, and made a horrible argument as to why he didn't. He looks bad, because of his own actions. Not because of Barr.
Furthermore... like it or not... the items he listed are certainly not (by many, many, many accounts, including the top three people of the DOJ) by definition of the law, criminal.
Look at his volume II report. He spends a good portion of the report trying to provide an excuse/rationale as to why he believes that Obstruction has become whatever a prosecutor "deems" it to be. Discrediting prosecutors is not obstruction. Making a case to the media is not obstruction. Being upset about being under investigation for 2/5 years for something you didn't do is not obstruction.
99.999% of Obstruction cases prosecuted in this country fit neatly into about three or four different actions. Most of these eleven actions would quite literally be the first time IN THE HISTORY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT that any prosecutor believed these actions to be unlawful.
That (not a diabolical A.G.) is why Mueller looks to fucking stupid today. Bringing nonsense, pretending it "might" be a crime (when everyone knows it's not). Demanding that he could not make a decision (when clearly he could have). Then slinking away demanding that he would not answer any questions from anyone.
Seriously, Roger... If I had told you 6 months ago that Robert Mueller would write a report that decided nothing (other than there was no collusion) and then demanded he not have to answer a single question, you would have called me insane. But here we are, and somehow you are defending the indefensible.
He believes that he can't indict him, so he left it to the house of representatives.
I watched the interview Roger.
Barr simply told the truth about what is going on in the country in the eyes of many, many, many Americans.
You just don't want to hear that perspective.
I agree that I am not happy that Mueller didn't actually change the President. But Barr is a total asshole.
So are you and the Republicans who have been turned into Trumpets.
He believes that he can't indict him, so he left it to the house of representatives.
Why do you keep repeating this, like it matters?
Why did he not indict Dowd or Sekula? After all they were responsible for three of the eleven items?
If you cannot answer this question... then you are as dumb as a box of rocks. If you ignore it. Then you are dishonest and creepy to boot.
I watched it live and I believe that Barr should be impeached.
You do understand Roger...
That Cohen/Mueller didn't accuse Trump of witness tampering. They accused Sekulow.
Mueller didn't accuse Trump of witness tampering of Flynn. He accused Dowd.
So these were indictments that would have had to start with Dowd and Sekulow. They can be indicted. They are not a sitting President. They were not.
I watched it live and I believe that Barr should be impeached.
But if you are too dumb to answer my question?
Then why would anyone care what you think?
Dowd or Sekula? Because they were not part of the investigation into the Russian intervention into the election..
But 10 or more have been indicted and convicted.
Trump attorney Jay Sekulow’s family has been paid millions from charities.
Unrelated to the investigation into the Russian government intervention.
Dowd is still under investigation.
Dowd or Sekula? Because they were not part of the investigation into the Russian intervention into the election..
When Dowd contacted Flynn or when Sekulow talked to Cohen, they became part of the investigation. Either way, you don't have to be the "target" of the investigation to be charged with a process crime. You just have to commit the action.
Three of the actions Mueller sites were not committed by Trump himself. He cannot be charged for something other people do, unless he is charged as a co-conspirator. But you cannot charge someone with conspiring to commit a crime if you don't charge the person who actually committed the act.
Anyone with an IQ over 80 would understand this.
Why can you not?
Ok, yawn.
Roger did you bore Mail Order into leaving you.
Why don't you care about his behavior and lying?????
Dowd is still under investigation.
Really? Certainly not by Mueller or anyone else associated with the Russian investigation. Mueller BY LAW had to include everyone who was charged or could be charged in his report. Dowd was not listed as someone who was charged or referred to another department.
This isn't that difficult Roger.
All you have to do is stop being illogical. This is classic cognitive dissonance. The truth is there if you just accepted it.
There are many other investigations in the federal courts.
Anyone with an IQ,over 85 would be concerned about his lies and deception.
You don't give a shit.
Roger...
Think about it. Mueller lists actions by Dowd and Sekulow in his report.
But you claim that they were not charged because they were not part of the investigation.
If they were not part of the investigation, how did they end up in the report?
Do you understand how illogical your argument has become, all in the name of defending the idiocy of the Mueller Report, Mueller decision to not make a call, and the Mueller implications we all know are not true?
There is a reason Mueller doesn't want to answer these questions. Barr told the truth, and if someone like Barr got to question Mueller under oath, Mueller would crumble like year old bread.
There are many other investigations in the federal courts.
Nothing directly involving Russian collusion or obstruction or anything do to with what Mueller wrote in his report.
Only investigations that were considered unrelated to the directive of Special Counsel were outsourced/ The only things outsourced from within Mueller's probes were the prosecutions of things (like the Russians) that were already indicted or listed.
There are no ongoing probes left on any of this.
It ain't going to happen.
"On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “MTP Daily,” House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee Co-Chair Debbie Dingell (D-MI) stated that she doesn’t “want to play into Russia’s hands and divide this country more with a partisan impeachment.”
Dingell said, “I don’t want to play into Russia’s hands and divide this country more with a partisan impeachment,,,,,"
But what's telling here Roger is your behavior.
You don't answer questions. You just complain about Trump's behavior in general... as if that actually matters to the law.
It doesn't matter. He could be the worst President and worst human being that ever existed, and it wouldn't change the law one fraction. It wouldn't change the arguments on obstruction one bit. It wouldn't change anything legally.
Mueller's probe was a legal probe. Not a political probe to determine Trump's fitness to be President.
The fact that you cannot debate the facts of the case without continuously throwing in your opinion about Trump as a person... PROVES THAT YOU ARE NOT OBJECTIVE. Proves it 100% without a doubt.
Because you obviously believe that the law must be bent or changed because of how much you hate the President. If you DIDN'T believe this, you wouldn't keep bringing up your hatred of the President.
You keep using irrelevant names. There are at least 6 other investigations going on. The two names you asked about why Muller didn't charge, are under investigations, The Southern New York region is investigating those people.
I can not have two different things going on here.
As to this "He could be the worst President and worst human being that ever existed," and you don't care.
The investigation was not to determine his fitness for the office.
You never have answered my questions about his b0ehavior and lying about everything, clear back to Birther bullshit.
I have been reading the report part two.
I'm not a lawyer but it's disturbing.
You believe that he is above the law.
I'm not twisting laws to get Trump out.
I'm not twisting laws to get Trump out.
you're not?
sure you are.
you absolutely are.
you guys have taken the most basic and fundamental tenet of our legal system - the presumption of innocence - and turned it on it's head, insisting upon a presumption of guilt.
all because of your seething, burning, psychotic hatred of trump, and your desire to remove him from office by any means necessary.
you guys really need to impeach this week, sport. let's go. i'm particularly interested in reading the articles of impeachment. that's the part where the assclowns on your side of the aisle get to explain, in exquisite detail, exactly what the high crimes and misdemeanors are that support trump's removal from office. those should be so hilarious might i suggest you write them in comic sans.
he presumption of innocence - and turned it on it's head, insisting upon a presumption of guilt.
Another horseshit opinion based on nothing there sport......No one of note has said he is guilty......yet......dumb fucking asshole.....
Let the congress spend as much time on this as Gowdy wasted on benghazi......idiot...
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so...”
- robert mueller, obviously operating from a presumption of guilt.
Roger
Neither John Dowd or Jay Sekulow are under any investigation. In fact, both of these instances were obviously investigated by Mueller or they wouldn't be in the report.
Mueller decided not to charge either of them, because apparently he believe that those portions of Volume II were not worthy of an indictment. The fact that he named instances publicly for people who were not indicted (and not the President) is a violation of DOJ regulations.
You never have answered my questions about his b0ehavior and lying about everything, clear back to Birther bullshit.
It's irrelevant to this conversation. 100% irrelevant. The fact that you continue to believe it is, just reinforces the your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
This is strictly a debate about the law.
I have been reading the report part two. I'm not a lawyer but it's disturbing.
Well all that matter is whether something is or is not against the law. Moreover, all you are seeing is a one sided prosecution strategy. It's like a trial where the prosecution gets to present a case, but the defense never gets to provide a rebuttal.
So since we know that you ignore Dershowitz, McCarthy, Turley and most legal experts who agree with Barr and the DOJ, and since we know that you have "predetermined in your own head" that Barr is dishonest (when in fact he has always been even more well respected than Mueller)...
You are basically listening to the prosecution case, and then walking out of the jury box the minute the Defense goes up, because you have already predetermined whatever they say doesn't matter.
You are only allowing one side of the trial to be heard.
Plus you have simple facts (like telling me Dowd and Sekulow are under investigation in the NYSD) completely wrong. Likely because the only way you can defend your inane argument is by making up facts.
there are many who believe that part II of the report was either mostly or totally authored by that scumbag andrew weissman, so i can see why the alky is so quick to believe it.
- robert mueller, obviously operating from a presumption of guilt.
BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! Your stupidest post to date, asshole.....
Black Male, non story. No MAGA Hat.
"DeWayne Craddock has been identified as the shooter in Virginia Beach shooter that killed 11 people."
Post a Comment