Mueller Report Finally Released...

Seattle Husker said:
You seem to be debating an argument I haven't seen anyone make, along with Dershowitz. Has anyone claimed firing Mueller, or even Comey was unconstitutional? If so, I haven't read that perspective.

I'm saying Nixon's constitutional act of firing his AG was used against him in impeachment articles. Is Dershowitz claiming that the firings, and underlying motivation, couldn't legally be used in an obstruction case against Trump?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
mchammer said:
Above is known symptom of TDS.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Seattle Husker said:
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.
Click to expand...
So says the poster who posts crazy allegations about the president with even loonier legal theory to back it up.
 
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.
 
Monahorns said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. I was being facetious. :)
 
Seattle Husker said:
Still can't dispute that "obstruction of justice" is a crime. You asked, I answered, you changed the subject.
Click to expand...
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.
 
SH
"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.
 
Horn6721 said:
SH
"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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Seattle Husker said:
Mueller flatly stating that he couldn't say Trump was innocent of obstruction
Click to expand...
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.
 
Seattle Husker said:
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?
Click to expand...
Part II was full of TDS, but being afflicted with TDS, you can’t see it.
 
mchammer said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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." ​
 
Mr. Deez said:
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.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about her looks? Geez, what a jerk. :smile1:
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Seattle Husker said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
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.
Click to expand...
mchammer said:
No, that is ********. Look at the interview with Barr. Barr says that was not the case. Why do you persist in trafficking in this bs?

Your hero Mueller is nothing but a duplicitous hack.
Click to expand...

Barr is in cahoots with Trump and can't be trusted. You didn't get the MSM memo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top