Alan,
You need to refute this prior statement of yours: "Read the report, if you can read. If Trump were not president he would be indicted on obstruction."
You need to refute it and you need to say you were wrong. If you can't do that, you have no credibility. Thanks in advance.
agip wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Mueller does appear to be much older than he has before. Not great optics.
Ultimately this doesn't really help Trumpists though, not to any large degree.
What is most likely at this point is that this is just a step toward the House beginning impeachment proceedings. It will likely do that before they recess in August. The House will impeach.
Mueller just made crystal clear that Trump can be charged with obstruction once he is out of office. This makes the 2020 election even more important now that he has stated that out loud.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done. He is ultimately going to prison.
I do think the Ds will impeach...Nadler has been quietly moving to the pro-impeach side and he'd run the show.
I think when the house comes back for the fall they'll do it.
I think they have to. Clearlly he obstructed justice. Clearly he broke campaign finance laws. Clearly he has agitated against the Constitution and is probably in direct violation of the emoluments clause.
That alone is enough and makes it the duty of congress to impeach. Shouldn't establish a precedent of 'look the other way' ism.
The only reason the Ds might not impeach is if a Dem takes a commanding lead by September and things look smooth sailing. But I doubt that will happen.
Mueller specifically said his team never reached a determination as to whether Trump obstructed justice. Now retract your statement.
Flagpole wrote:
agip wrote:
I do think the Ds will impeach...Nadler has been quietly moving to the pro-impeach side and he'd run the show.
I think when the house comes back for the fall they'll do it.
I think they have to. Clearlly he obstructed justice. Clearly he broke campaign finance laws. Clearly he has agitated against the Constitution and is probably in direct violation of the emoluments clause.
That alone is enough and makes it the duty of congress to impeach. Shouldn't establish a precedent of 'look the other way' ism.
The only reason the Ds might not impeach is if a Dem takes a commanding lead by September and things look smooth sailing. But I doubt that will happen.
Yes. They have to do it as I have said for a long time. The timing is not 100% clear, but it seems to me that after this Mueller testimony, there is no reason to wait. As long as it happens though, fine by me. Trump clearly broke the law, most especially with regard to Obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering. Both are serious crimes. The House will impeach.
Trump will ultimately go to prison (unless he dies first or criminal or space alien behavior prevent it).
Mueller and his team spent 2-plus years looking at everything, and interviewing hundreds of people and examining thousands of documents and never were able to determine if obstruction of justice happened. So YOU retract your statement.
Sally Vix wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Yes. They have to do it as I have said for a long time. The timing is not 100% clear, but it seems to me that after this Mueller testimony, there is no reason to wait. As long as it happens though, fine by me. Trump clearly broke the law, most especially with regard to Obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering. Both are serious crimes. The House will impeach.
Trump will ultimately go to prison (unless he dies first or criminal or space alien behavior prevent it).
Mueller and his team spent 2-plus years looking at everything, and interviewing hundreds of people and examining thousands of documents and never were able to determine if obstruction of justice happened. So YOU retract your statement.
Good luck with that.
I predict Flagpole will try to spin his way out of it.
Trollminator wrote:
Ciro wrote:
Fox turning on Trump?
Are they tired of his inability to deliver on his big promises?
The wall
Mexico paying for it
Hillary is still free
Failure to replace Obamacare
Failure to clear or even reduce the deficit
Massive failure to hit is GDP targets
All the while rubbing shoulders with Kanye, Kim K and ASAP rapper guy. Maybe finally realizing they were conned.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/andrew-napolitano-donald-trump-092821963.htmlWell, Supreme Court just ruled that more than a billion redirected from military to wall funding is ok. I think this is a giant win for him for his base. If he moves to build that wall quickly and he can later show some immigration “stats” to prove that it is working then it might gain more popularity.
The Supreme Court DID NOT RULE that redirected fund for the wall is ok. They ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. They never ruled on the merits of the case.
Sally Vix wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
WTF are you even talking about. I didn't say anything about either of them winning. Not that I remember. I'm sure I thought she would, because even the right was saying Trump was gonna lose. I didn't vote for Hillary either.
Read the report, if you can read. If Trump were not president he would be indicted on obstruction. If after reading the report you cannot come to the conclusion that he would be indicted then you should blame your 5th grade English teacher for not teaching you reading comprehension. Now before you get all triggered remember I said indicted. Guilt would still have to be proven and guilt on obstruction is all about proving motive and if you knew you were obstructing.
Alan
This is a lie Alan, A flat-out lie. JUST A EFFING FLAT-OUT LIE. Jerry Nadler said Trump wasn't indicted for obstruction of justice because of a Justice Dept. opinion prohibiting charging a sitting president with a crime. This was in reference to an exchange with Ted Lieu. On Wednesday Mueller himself went out of his way to clarify that he didn't suggest that. This is what Mueller said, "I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. I want to go back to one thing that was said in my testimony with Lieu who said that you (Mueller) did not charge Trump with a crime because of the OLC opinion. That is not correct. As we said in the report, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."
Again, Mueller specifically said they never reached a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.
Alan certainly did not lie.
Just because Mueller was prohibited from reaching a determination of Tiny's guilt does not mean that others, including Alan, can not reach a determination on their own.
Note that over 500 prosecutors have signed on to a letter saying that the evidence in the Mueller report is sufficient to charge Tiny with the crime of obstruction.
The statement signed by the prosecutors says in part:
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.
Sally Vix wrote:
Alan,
You need to refute this prior statement of yours: "Read the report, if you can read. If Trump were not president he would be indicted on obstruction."
You need to refute it and you need to say you were wrong. If you can't do that, you have no credibility. Thanks in advance.
Alan is correct. See above.
Mueller and his team spent 2-plus years looking at everything, and interviewing hundreds of people and examining thousands of documents and never were able to determine if obstruction of justice happened. So YOU retract your statement.[/quote]
Good luck with that.
I predict Flagpole will try to spin his way out of it.[/quote]
—————————————————————
Stop lying...holy shyt! Just read and comprehend what was written in the report and what Mueller said from his own mouth!! NEVER WAS IT STATED THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE OOJ BASED ON THEIR FINDING. NEVERRRRRR!
Here is Mueller’s words EXACTLY (I even capped the main reason he states that they would state a determination):
“Third, our investigate of efforts to obstruction the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance. Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the governments effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. Finally as described in Volume II of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the President towards the investigation (approximately 10). Based on JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY and PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS (i.e. indicting a sitting president/upcoming election), we decided we WOULD NOT (not could not) make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and remain our decision today.”
(Starts at the 2:04.35 mark)
Dummies!!
I.C.E (I Comprehend English) wrote:
Mueller and his team spent 2-plus years looking at everything, and interviewing hundreds of people and examining thousands of documents and never were able to determine if obstruction of justice happened. So YOU retract your statement.
Good luck with that.
I predict Flagpole will try to spin his way out of it.[/quote]
—————————————————————
Stop lying...holy shyt! Just read and comprehend what was written in the report and what Mueller said from his own mouth!! NEVER WAS IT STATED THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE OOJ BASED ON THEIR FINDING. NEVERRRRRR!
Here is Mueller’s words EXACTLY (I even capped the main reason he states that they would state a determination):
“Third, our investigate of efforts to obstruction the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance. Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the governments effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. Finally as described in Volume II of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the President towards the investigation (approximately 10). Based on JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY and PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS (i.e. indicting a sitting president/upcoming election), we decided we WOULD NOT (not could not) make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and remain our decision today.”
https://youtu.be/-rVCZpmvFv4(Starts at the 2:04.35 mark)
Dummies!![/quote]
This is pretty much VERBATIM what Mueller said just Thursday "I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. I want to go back to one thing that was said in my testimony with Lieu who said that you (Mueller) did not charge Trump with a crime because of the OLC opinion. That is not correct. As we said in the report, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime." NOT that Mueller and his team would not make a determination. NO - we DID NOT REACH a determination." NOT would WE WOULD NOT make a determination. We DID NOT reach a determination."
Sally Vix wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
WTF are you even talking about. I didn't say anything about either of them winning. Not that I remember. I'm sure I thought she would, because even the right was saying Trump was gonna lose. I didn't vote for Hillary either.
Read the report, if you can read. If Trump were not president he would be indicted on obstruction. If after reading the report you cannot come to the conclusion that he would be indicted then you should blame your 5th grade English teacher for not teaching you reading comprehension. Now before you get all triggered remember I said indicted. Guilt would still have to be proven and guilt on obstruction is all about proving motive and if you knew you were obstructing.
Alan
This is a lie Alan, A flat-out lie. JUST A EFFING FLAT-OUT LIE. Jerry Nadler said Trump wasn't indicted for obstruction of justice because of a Justice Dept. opinion prohibiting charging a sitting president with a crime. This was in reference to an exchange with Ted Lieu. On Wednesday Mueller himself went out of his way to clarify that he didn't suggest that. This is what Mueller said, "I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. I want to go back to one thing that was said in my testimony with Lieu who said that you (Mueller) did not charge Trump with a crime because of the OLC opinion. That is not correct. As we said in the report, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."
Again, Mueller specifically said they never reached a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.
Because why? You gotta learn to interpret.
Alan
Sally Vix wrote:
Alan,
You need to refute this prior statement of yours: "Read the report, if you can read. If Trump were not president he would be indicted on obstruction."
You need to refute it and you need to say you were wrong. If you can't do that, you have no credibility. Thanks in advance.
Did you just say, "If you can't do that, you have no credibility."? Seriously?
BZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!
Sorry, but but your own declaration, you are not even allowed to EVER respond to Alan (or agip or Flagpole or Fat Dude or ...). Unless, of course, you want to call yourself a liar.
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
I do think the Ds will impeach...Nadler has been quietly moving to the pro-impeach side and he'd run the show.
I think when the house comes back for the fall they'll do it.
I think they have to. Clearlly he obstructed justice. Clearly he broke campaign finance laws. Clearly he has agitated against the Constitution and is probably in direct violation of the emoluments clause.
That alone is enough and makes it the duty of congress to impeach. Shouldn't establish a precedent of 'look the other way' ism.
The only reason the Ds might not impeach is if a Dem takes a commanding lead by September and things look smooth sailing. But I doubt that will happen.
Mueller specifically said his team never reached a determination as to whether Trump obstructed justice. Now retract your statement.
why retract anything? I think and most lawyers think spanks obstructed justice. Mueller listed something like 10 examples that might be tryable as obstruction of justice. Mueller also said he made no decision one way or the other.
So what's to retract? I think it is clear that Spanks obstructed justice. I stand by that.
agip wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Mueller specifically said his team never reached a determination as to whether Trump obstructed justice. Now retract your statement.
why retract anything? I think and most lawyers think spanks obstructed justice. Mueller listed something like 10 examples that might be tryable as obstruction of justice. Mueller also said he made no decision one way or the other.
So what's to retract? I think it is clear that Spanks obstructed justice. I stand by that.
This, hence my statement .
Some of y'all are getting triggered by the word indictment. Indictment doesn't equal guilt. Trump would be indicted if he wasn't president. Btw, same with Bill Clinton.
Read the report. It lays it all out.
Alan
Alan, does the report lay out the full elements of the crime committed? If it doesn’t then the case is not strong.
Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:
Alan, does the report lay out the full elements of the crime committed? If it doesn’t then the case is not strong.
It does lay out all elements of obstruction. If you read the report or watched the hearings you would see that quite clearly.
Only the best people . . .
.
"The verdicts . . . amount to a belated courtroom victory for special counsel Robert Mueller, who investigated the $600,000 lobbying and public relations contract at the heart of the case and then handed the matter off to other federal prosecutors . . . ."
Yeah, about that... wrote:
"The verdicts . . . amount to a belated courtroom victory for special counsel Robert Mueller, who investigated the $600,000 lobbying and public relations contract at the heart of the case and then handed the matter off to other federal prosecutors . . . ."
Just supplying some helpful emphasis here.
Trollminator wrote:
Ciro wrote:
Fox turning on Trump?
Are they tired of his inability to deliver on his big promises?
The wall
Mexico paying for it
Hillary is still free
Failure to replace Obamacare
Failure to clear or even reduce the deficit
Massive failure to hit is GDP targets
All the while rubbing shoulders with Kanye, Kim K and ASAP rapper guy. Maybe finally realizing they were conned.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/andrew-napolitano-donald-trump-092821963.htmlWell, Supreme Court just ruled that more than a billion redirected from military to wall funding is ok. I think this is a giant win for him for his base. If he moves to build that wall quickly and he can later show some immigration “stats” to prove that it is working then it might gain more popularity.
The $1B is about 4% of the projected total cost for the Wall so there won't be any statistics to analyze. It will be like the toll both in Blazing Saddles:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsURunningart2004 wrote:
agip wrote:
why retract anything? I think and most lawyers think spanks obstructed justice. Mueller listed something like 10 examples that might be tryable as obstruction of justice. Mueller also said he made no decision one way or the other.
So what's to retract? I think it is clear that Spanks obstructed justice. I stand by that.
This, hence my statement .
Some of y'all are getting triggered by the word indictment. Indictment doesn't equal guilt. Trump would be indicted if he wasn't president. Btw, same with Bill Clinton.
Read the report. It lays it all out.
Alan
Alan, you need to read this closely and slowly. Mueller specifically said this "It is not true that Trump would have been indicted if not being a sitting president." Nadler and Lieu both made this claim and it is not true. Mueller said Trump would not have been indicted if he had not been a sitting president. Please read this a few times.
Sally Vix wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
This, hence my statement .
Some of y'all are getting triggered by the word indictment. Indictment doesn't equal guilt. Trump would be indicted if he wasn't president. Btw, same with Bill Clinton.
Read the report. It lays it all out.
Alan
Alan, you need to read this closely and slowly. Mueller specifically said this "It is not true that Trump would have been indicted if not being a sitting president." Nadler and Lieu both made this claim and it is not true. Mueller said Trump would not have been indicted if he had not been a sitting president. Please read this a few times.
BZZZZZZZZ!!!!
RETRACT that entire post! If you fail to do this you are admitting that you have ZERO integrity.