Monkeys typing wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Those former prosecutors - I am guessing - just like ALL of the investigators on Mueller's team were former Hillary donors - are liberals and/or Dems who despise Trump.
The list is a matter of public record and it shows your assumption is wrong.
Yes, I will correct myself to say not all were Hillary donors. But, ALL, to my knowledge, were liberals/Dems. Would you agree with this statement or can you offer evidence that it is wrong?
Sally Vix wrote:
Monkeys typing wrote:
The list is a matter of public record and it shows your assumption is wrong.
Yes, I will correct myself to say not all were Hillary donors. But, ALL, to my knowledge, were liberals/Dems. Would you agree with this statement or can you offer evidence that it is wrong?
Your problem is that you don't do any research and you assume Dems are as corrupt as Rs.
"The nonprofit group Protect Democracy organized the massive, bipartisan list of former federal prosecutors to serve as signatories.
The Washington Post noted numerous names on the list were prominent Republican prosecutors, office holders, and conservative Trump critics, such as former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, who is challenging Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020.
As well as Paul Rosenzweig, a senior counsel to Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel whose own investigation made the case for impeachment against President Bill Clinton. Other Bush and Reagan administration alumni appear on the list as well"
agip wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Yes, I will correct myself to say not all were Hillary donors. But, ALL, to my knowledge, were liberals/Dems. Would you agree with this statement or can you offer evidence that it is wrong?
Your problem is that you don't do any research and you assume Dems are as corrupt as Rs.
"The nonprofit group Protect Democracy organized the massive, bipartisan list of former federal prosecutors to serve as signatories.
The Washington Post noted numerous names on the list were prominent Republican prosecutors, office holders, and conservative Trump critics, such as former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, who is challenging Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020.
As well as Paul Rosenzweig, a senior counsel to Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel whose own investigation made the case for impeachment against President Bill Clinton. Other Bush and Reagan administration alumni appear on the list as well"
I am talking about the clowns on the Mueller investigation. Was even 1 a conservative or a republican?
agip wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
How can he be guilty based on the Mueller report when the AUTHOR of the said report said they never reached a determination of guilt. He had access to ALL the evidence but Fat Hurts - sitting on the outside and not privy to all the evidence - can say that Trump was guilty when the one running the investigation said he never found Trump guilty.
I know republicans would rather depend on ideology than experts, but experts feel trump was guilty.
"“We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report," the former federal prosecutors said in a statement."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hundreds-former-prosecutors-say-trump-would-have-been-indicted-if-n1002436
Yes, you are right. ""Democrats"" would rather depend on ideology than experts.
Hence why you lost in 2016. Keep trying agip, eventually you'll post something worth reading. I wouldn't click on your biased for anything. The whining is hilarious.
agip wrote:
Pookie Washington wrote:
Remain in the cellar? Trump's approval rating is at 45%. You lie more than Hillary and Bill combined. If you keep saying it, eventually you'll believe it. Others here realize that you are plain stupid.
538 has it at 42%. The lowest of any president at this point other than Carter. And it hasn't risen or fallen - that's my point. It just stays in the cellar - everyone has made up his or her mind already. Nothing new matters.
Of course, your source is factual, others are wrong. He has risen, where have you been. Challenge me and I'll post the link. Ever hear of 2017? Ever hear of 2018? His approval rating has gone up, but you're simply so biased that you'll find fault in the good.
agip wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Yes, I will correct myself to say not all were Hillary donors. But, ALL, to my knowledge, were liberals/Dems. Would you agree with this statement or can you offer evidence that it is wrong?
Your problem is that you don't do any research and you assume Dems are as corrupt as Rs.
"The nonprofit group Protect Democracy organized the massive, bipartisan list of former federal prosecutors to serve as signatories.
The Washington Post noted numerous names on the list were prominent Republican prosecutors, office holders, and conservative Trump critics, such as former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, who is challenging Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020.
As well as Paul Rosenzweig, a senior counsel to Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel whose own investigation made the case for impeachment against President Bill Clinton. Other Bush and Reagan administration alumni appear on the list as well"
Yes, we know that your problem is you won't do any research and you assume that Republicans are as corrupt as Dems, but they aren't. Democrats pander to the poor and lie to the nth degree.
Facts aren't for Democrats wrote:
agip wrote:
I know republicans would rather depend on ideology than experts, but experts feel trump was guilty.
"“We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report," the former federal prosecutors said in a statement."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hundreds-former-prosecutors-say-trump-would-have-been-indicted-if-n1002436Yes, you are right. ""Democrats"" would rather depend on ideology than experts.
Hence why you lost in 2016. Keep trying agip, eventually you'll post something worth reading. I wouldn't click on your biased for anything. The whining is hilarious.
Conservatives (and Repubs) would rather depend on facts. Not on "experts." Not on ideology. But on facts. And on evidence. MUeller and team of all liberals spent almost 3 years investigating Trump. After the 3 years, the main investigator - MUeller - said no determination was reached on Trump's culpability - but THOSE EXPERTS ON THE OUTSIDE NOT PRIVY TO ALL THE EVIDENCE - signed off on some crap document declaring that Trump should be prosecuted. That is not how the American legal system works. I am so exhausted with the Trump derangement syndrome by you nutjobs.
Gordon Frank wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
When Bill Clinton was president 89% of the media was liberal/conservative and only 6% was conservative. Those former prosecutors - I am guessing - just like ALL of the investigators on Mueller's team were former Hillary donors - are liberals and/or Dems who despise Trump.
Oh, MY dumba$$ prick has an opinion, once again based on my own ignorance. Shocking was an idiot I am.
I am Gordon and I approve this post that I corrected.
agip wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Yes, I will correct myself to say not all were Hillary donors. But, ALL, to my knowledge, were liberals/Dems. Would you agree with this statement or can you offer evidence that it is wrong?
Your problem is that you don't do any research and you assume Dems are as corrupt as Rs.
"The nonprofit group Protect Democracy organized the massive, bipartisan list of former federal prosecutors to serve as signatories.
The Washington Post noted numerous names on the list were prominent Republican prosecutors, office holders, and conservative Trump critics, such as former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, who is challenging Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020.
As well as Paul Rosenzweig, a senior counsel to Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel whose own investigation made the case for impeachment against President Bill Clinton. Other Bush and Reagan administration alumni appear on the list as well"
You have to ask yourself this simple question: Why would these prosecutors sign this "list."
Know your History wrote:
You have to ask yourself this simple question: Why would these prosecutors sign this "list."
You failed to ask a question. Ask yourself this simple question: What are you missing?
Democrats are racist pieces of trash.
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
Your problem is that you don't do any research and you assume Dems are as corrupt as Rs.
"The nonprofit group Protect Democracy organized the massive, bipartisan list of former federal prosecutors to serve as signatories.
The Washington Post noted numerous names on the list were prominent Republican prosecutors, office holders, and conservative Trump critics, such as former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, who is challenging Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020.
As well as Paul Rosenzweig, a senior counsel to Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel whose own investigation made the case for impeachment against President Bill Clinton. Other Bush and Reagan administration alumni appear on the list as well"
I am talking about the clowns on the Mueller investigation. Was even 1 a conservative or a republican?
You are a moron.
Pookie Washington wrote:
agip wrote:
I think the big surprise this campaign cycle will be the lack of surprises. Biden will continue to lead the race and win the nomination, trump's approval rating will remain in the cellar, and Biden will win by recapturing MI WI PA.
Just looking at how the polls and betting odds move...not much seems to change.
People seem to have made up their minds - they loathe trump and long for the calm normalcy of Obama again. Biden is that path.
Although I suppose the next step will be when candidates start dropping out - that will rejigger support as voters lose their candidate and choose a new candidate.
Another twist will be the Warren/Bernie people. They are the same ideologically....and they have split the lefty vote between them. if one drops out then the other would logically jump up to near biden status. But I don't see either dropping out for a long time.
Remain in the cellar? Trump's approval rating is at 45%. You lie more than Hillary and Bill combined. If you keep saying it, eventually you'll believe it. Others here realize that you are plain stupid.
Do you have problems with hostility because it sure does seem like it.
I have no dog in this fight, but I am guessing others must realize your issues
Not a good look for the angry black errrrrr, indian( dot not feather) woman.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article233375207.html
Sally Vix wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Again, there is a big difference between INNOCENT and PRESUMED INNOCENT.
Tiny is guilty. That is obvious from the evidence in the Mueller report. It just hasn't been proven in a court of law.
How can he be guilty based on the Mueller report when the AUTHOR of the said report said they never reached a determination of guilt. He had access to ALL the evidence but Fat Hurts - sitting on the outside and not privy to all the evidence - can say that Trump was guilty when the one running the investigation said he never found Trump guilty.
He is guilty because he committed crimes. Full stop.
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
Your problem is that you don't do any research and you assume Dems are as corrupt as Rs.
"The nonprofit group Protect Democracy organized the massive, bipartisan list of former federal prosecutors to serve as signatories.
The Washington Post noted numerous names on the list were prominent Republican prosecutors, office holders, and conservative Trump critics, such as former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, who is challenging Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020.
As well as Paul Rosenzweig, a senior counsel to Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel whose own investigation made the case for impeachment against President Bill Clinton. Other Bush and Reagan administration alumni appear on the list as well"
I am talking about the clowns on the Mueller investigation. Was even 1 a conservative or a republican?
Yes. His name is Robert S. Mueller.
Sally Vix wrote:
Conservatives (and Repubs) would rather depend on facts. Not on "experts." Not on ideology. But on facts. And on evidence. MUeller and team of all liberals spent almost 3 years investigating Trump. After the 3 years, the main investigator - MUeller - said no determination was reached on Trump's culpability - but THOSE EXPERTS ON THE OUTSIDE NOT PRIVY TO ALL THE EVIDENCE - signed off on some crap document declaring that Trump should be prosecuted. That is not how the American legal system works. I am so exhausted with the Trump derangement syndrome by you nutjobs.
Speaking of not being privy to the facts....how we doing this morning Sally.
Clueless as ever.
Sally Vix wrote:
I am talking about the clowns on the Mueller investigation. Was even 1 a conservative or a republican?
Are you feigning stupidity or are you just a complete moron?
TTH wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Conservatives (and Repubs) would rather depend on facts. Not on "experts." Not on ideology. But on facts. And on evidence. MUeller and team of all liberals spent almost 3 years investigating Trump. After the 3 years, the main investigator - MUeller - said no determination was reached on Trump's culpability - but THOSE EXPERTS ON THE OUTSIDE NOT PRIVY TO ALL THE EVIDENCE - signed off on some crap document declaring that Trump should be prosecuted. That is not how the American legal system works. I am so exhausted with the Trump derangement syndrome by you nutjobs.
Speaking of not being privy to the facts....how we doing this morning Sally.
Clueless as ever.
Sally seems to deal with facts. The responder TTH, gives no facts or evidence whatsoever. Reminds me ( a democrat) of the dif between dealing with a conservative and a liberal. Conservative - " I see your point, but disagree, here's why.."
Liberal "What? You're an idiot!!!! Where's your car??? I'm gonna damage it!! How dare you disagree with ME!!!!"
Fat hurts wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
How can he be guilty based on the Mueller report when the AUTHOR of the said report said they never reached a determination of guilt. He had access to ALL the evidence but Fat Hurts - sitting on the outside and not privy to all the evidence - can say that Trump was guilty when the one running the investigation said he never found Trump guilty.
He is guilty because he committed crimes. Full stop.
No collusion
No obstruction
No indictment
Mueller time is over
Stop the whining
You lost