Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Clean, Mar 23, 2019.
Don’t you need a crime first before you can impeach? Source of TDS is not an impeachable offense.
Maybe one of the lawyers in the room can explain to me how an investigation based on a bought and paid for bogus "dossier" from the opposition candidate can be deemed a legal investigation as someone alluded to several posts ago.
Obstruction of justice isn't a crime?
There was no "justice" to obstruct. The whole investigation was a traveshamockery from the very beginning, thus no possibility of actual justice being obstructed.
There might have been obstruction of injustice, but even then I doubt it.
I admit I tuned out some time ago.
so I am asking sincerely
SH? " Obstruction of justice isn't a crime?"
Was there obstruction? What kind and by whom?
Most definitely there was obstruction of justice. The bleach bit and hammering of her phones definitely obstructed the investigation.
Above is known symptom of TDS.
TDS is taking on a different meaning with it's overuse just as Fake News. Above all, it's a sign any rebuttal is weak so the purveyor of statements resorts to personal accusations.
Too many Benjamin Button debaters on the West Mall. A bunch of old men whose argumentation skills are regressing as they age. Y'all have followed DJT back to grade school.
So says the poster who posts crazy allegations about the president with even loonier legal theory to back it up.
What obstruction took place and by whom?
I supposes saying that someone who disagrees with Trump has TDS is much worse than being called a racist if you disagreed with Obama.
My opinion is the latter happened with much greater frequency.
Well being called a racist is much worse than being called crazy or deranged in today's world.
A deranged person can claim victimhood. Seattle Husker should embrace it, he will be surrounded by supportive SJWs if he does.
Yes, I know. I was being facetious.
Still can't dispute that "obstruction of justice" is a crime. You asked, I answered, you changed the subject.
No, using my personal freedom, I chose not to argue it. If I did, the first thing I would say is that the onus is on the prosecution, not the defendant, to make the case.
"Still can't dispute that obstruction of justice" is a crime.'"
I am not saying it didn't happen. I do not know
What obstruction happened? By whom?
Come on Horn6721, we're talking Trump here. He MUST be guilty. Presumption of innocence, my ***! Legal principles reaching back the the Magna Carta? Who gives a damn! Tear them up! Get Trump!!!
But Trump told someone to fire Mueller. That is clearly obstruction of justice. The investigation vaporized after that.
As I said it got so convoluted I tuned it out.
But Mueller was not fired. Did Trump ask for the investigation to be halted? If he did that would seem obstruction but to ask for the head to be removed while the rest of the people continue does not seem to me to be obstruction.
Further does not the POTUS have the authority to fire Mueller?
It is hard to know what is going on.
Are you gonna act like Part 2 of the Mueller report doesn't exist? Fake News I suppose? 10 separate instances of obstruction? Mueller flatly stating that he couldn't say Trump was innocent of obstruction but also had no ability to charge him?
Since when is a prosecutor supposed to prove a person's innocence? Remember, Trump is presumed to be innocent. If Muller is trying to prove that, then he is coming from a presupposition of guilt.
To draw a purely hypothetical analogy, if I was assigned to prove you were even vaguely intelligent, you'd think my base assumption is that you're a mouthbreathing dumbass of the highest order, and that I'm striving to find something to dissuade myself of that notion. And that assumption on my part might just offend you a bit.
Similarly, Muller and his democrat attack dogs started with the assumption Trump was guilty of colluding with Russia, spent thousands of man hours and millions of dollars to realize their assumption was flat out wrong, and now are reduced to mewling that Trump might have asked somebody to make their witch hunt a little bit tougher because he was probably a little offended at the notion. Waaah, waaah, waah.
Part II was full of TDS, but being afflicted with TDS, you can’t see it.
I will never forgive the Dems for driving this woman out of politics. Deez, you with me?
The Most Farcical Sections Of Hope Hicks' Closed-Door Testimony Revealed
I am with you that she is the hottest woman I have ever seen in politics, and it's a blowout. If I had to bet, I'd bet that Trump has gone there, and if he hasn't, it sure as hell isn't from a lack of trying.
But beyond her hotness, as significant as that is, I'm not sure that she brings much to our politics.
District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth (UT Law) for the District of Columbia -
"I was actually dumbfounded when found out that Cheryl Mills had been given immunity [by the Comey FBI], because I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath."
Who said anything about her looks? Geez, what a jerk.
Unfortunately for you, Muller explained that he was not allowed to assert a guilty charge and present charges either. The rest of your post is more of the same. More attempts at insults due to lack of viable arguments. I'm going to start calling you Sangre Buttons.
No, that is ********. Look at the interview with Barr. Barr says that was not the case. Barr said Mueller was free to recommend charges. Why do you persist in trafficking in this bs?
Your hero Mueller is nothing but a duplicitous hack.
Barr is in cahoots with Trump and can't be trusted. You didn't get the MSM memo?
Mueller report built on a foundation of lies. Also, his biggest indictment related to Russia is falling apart.
Judge Shreds Mueller 'Evidence' Of Kremlin Meddling