(07-25-2019 12:21 PM)gdunn Wrote: Before the Mueller Investigation:
Libs: Trump is guilty.
Cons: Trump is innocent.
During the investigation:
Libs: Trump is guilty.
Cons: Trump is innocent.
After the Report is issued:
Libs: Trump is guilty?
Cons: Trump is innocent.
After Bob's first press conference:
Libs: Trump is guilty?
Cons: Trump is innocent.
After yesterday:
Libs: Trump is guilty?
Cons: Trump is innocent!
Today
Cons: I'm exhausted from winning!
Libs: We're f*cked in 2020
Mueller: Did I leave my banana phone on the desk?
Tomorrow:
Libs: Emoluments! Tax returns! Racism/Sexism/Oppressionism!
Media: Who's this Mueller you speak of?
Cons: Has anyone recently done a wellness check on RBG?
Trump: Covfefe.
(07-24-2019 10:27 PM)usmbacker Wrote: Jim Jordan Just Annihilates Mueller On Bias And Raises Another Problem With The Investigation
So not only didn’t Mueller charge Joseph Mifsud, but there’s evidence Mifsud worked for western intelligence despite them trying to suggest he was a Russian connected contact.
But but but Mueller is a war hero.
So was Benedict Arnold.....until he wasnt
You're on a roll. I think you're owning this thread.
(07-24-2019 07:15 PM)shere khan Wrote: Is it rayciss week, emoluments week, or stormy week next. I dont have the schedule
Right now I'd say it is the more ephemeral yet ubiquitous one that they use when they have absolutely zilch to operate with, "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" excuse is back, baby! It's what Dems say when they have nothing else! When Hilliary gets through Mueller will have been a double agent used by the right to destroy the "People's" party. And Trump's cool collective and antagonistic swagger was not self assured innocence, but the evil genius's confidence that his double agent would do her in. For the arrogant ignorance of a Democratic mind there can be no other possible explanation!
(This post was last modified: 07-25-2019 02:38 PM by JRsec.)
(07-25-2019 12:21 PM)gdunn Wrote: Before the Mueller Investigation:
Libs: Trump is guilty.
Cons: Trump is innocent.
During the investigation:
Libs: Trump is guilty.
Cons: Trump is innocent.
After the Report is issued:
Libs: Trump is guilty?
Cons: Trump is innocent.
After Bob's first press conference:
Libs: Trump is guilty?
Cons: Trump is innocent.
After yesterday:
Libs: Trump is guilty?
Cons: Trump is innocent!
Today
Cons: I'm exhausted from winning!
Libs: We're f*cked in 2020
Mueller: Did I leave my banana phone on the desk?
Tomorrow:
Libs: Emoluments! Tax returns! Racism/Sexism/Oppressionism!
Media: Who's this Mueller you speak of?
Cons: Has anyone recently done a wellness check on RBG?
Trump: Covfefe.
(07-25-2019 12:21 PM)gdunn Wrote: Before the Mueller Investigation:
Libs: Trump is guilty.
Cons: Trump is innocent.
During the investigation:
Libs: Trump is guilty.
Cons: Trump is innocent.
After the Report is issued:
Libs: Trump is guilty?
Cons: Trump is innocent.
After Bob's first press conference:
Libs: Trump is guilty?
Cons: Trump is innocent.
After yesterday:
Libs: Trump is guilty?
Cons: Trump is innocent!
Today
Cons: I'm exhausted from winning!
Libs: We're f*cked in 2020
Mueller: Did I leave my banana phone on the desk?
Tomorrow:
Libs: Emoluments! Tax returns! Racism/Sexism/Oppressionism!
Media: Who's this Mueller you speak of?
Cons: Has anyone recently done a wellness check on RBG?
Trump: Covfefe.
Nope.. Emoluments is now off the table..
Next week is family separation week.
Here comes those "kids in cages" pictures from the Obama administration again.
I kinda feel sorry for Barr if he starts investigating our former First Family. Barr will need a very faithful armed guard(s) to protect him from an unfortunate suicide. How many will have to die before this family gets their just due? Al Capone has nothing on this two, he's an angel in comparison.
(07-25-2019 06:58 PM)olliebaba Wrote: I kinda feel sorry for Barr if he starts investigating our former First Family. Barr will need a very faithful armed guard(s) to protect him from an unfortunate suicide. How many will have to die before this family gets their just due? Al Capone has nothing on this two, he's an angel in comparison.
Barr is a tough old goat. He just might be tougher than they are.
He should have been AG from day one. You wouldn't have the recusal snafu, you wouldn't have the Roy Moore/Doug Jones fiasco, for starters.
(07-25-2019 03:30 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote: They need another scream day.....
Maybe they could try screaming at the ocean for a change
That’s actually not a bad idea. We should encourage every democrat/ socialist/ liberal/ progressive/ Trump hater in an act of solidarity, to protest Trump and the “rising sea levels of climate change” and go stick their heads underwater in the ocean and drown.
(07-24-2019 10:27 PM)usmbacker Wrote: Jim Jordan Just Annihilates Mueller On Bias And Raises Another Problem With The Investigation
So not only didn’t Mueller charge Joseph Mifsud, but there’s evidence Mifsud worked for western intelligence despite them trying to suggest he was a Russian connected contact.
Mueller said it was classified. I wondered why no one I listened to brought that up. It may have been the biggest blunder of his testimony.
Jordan has taken over the role of Trey Gowdy, love it.
Yep...Im impressed with this guy. THIS is the biggest issue in the entire fiasco. I hope Barr uncovers that this all was a setup from the start.
I was listening to Fox News (free SXM trial with my new truck) this morning to work. Halfway I stopped and got breakfast.. I heard them hit on the subject of DeBlasio challenging Trump to a debate in NY (seems like they all want a shot at the champ until they don't), conditions at the border and how it's now how it's being portrayed on 99% of the other networks (apparently they're taking time and going to several along the border to prove AOC and her ilk wrong), Brexit, and a couple other minor things I didn't pay attention to. I got back in the truck and flipped it over to CNN. It's Friday, they're all still mulling over Mueller's testimony with the one takeaway that our resident Never Ever Trumper sounded off on earlier in the week, if Trump wasn't President he'd be indicted. That was th rest of the ride that and how Russians have interfered with the 2016 and will interfere with the 2020 elections and how Trump won't do anything.
Hello the last guy didn't. And apparently they missed the part Wednesday where Bob said they couldn't prove Trump committed a crime, so I'd like to know what they'd indict for. That's our talking points, Trump goes to jail when he's no longer in office for a crime not yet named and Russia.
(07-26-2019 06:16 AM)gdunn Wrote: I was listening to Fox News (free SXM trial with my new truck) this morning to work. Halfway I stopped and got breakfast.. I heard them hit on the subject of DeBlasio challenging Trump to a debate in NY (seems like they all want a shot at the champ until they don't), conditions at the border and how it's now how it's being portrayed on 99% of the other networks (apparently they're taking time and going to several along the border to prove AOC and her ilk wrong), Brexit, and a couple other minor things I didn't pay attention to. I got back in the truck and flipped it over to CNN. It's Friday, they're all still mulling over Mueller's testimony with the one takeaway that our resident Never Ever Trumper sounded off on earlier in the week, if Trump wasn't President he'd be indicted. That was the rest of the ride that and how Russians have interfered with the 2016 and will interfere with the 2020 elections and how Trump won't do anything.
Hello the last guy didn't. And apparently they missed the part Wednesday where Bob said they couldn't prove Trump committed a crime, so I'd like to know what they'd indict for. That's our talking points, Trump goes to jail when he's no longer in office for a crime not yet named and Russia.
There is one component to the, "if Trump wasn't President he'd be indicted," argument that gets too often ignored. Some of the things Trump did were exercises of constitutional powers. If he weren't President, he wouldn't have those powers. That's the flaw in the argument that goes, "what if the police were investigating your son and you pulled strings to get the chief of police fired?" You don't have the legal power to fire the chief of police. Trump has the constitutional power to fire anyone in the executive branch.
If he is exercising a constitutional power, then that is not criminal intent, unless there is some underlying criminal motive. That's why the failure to find collusion/conspiracy makes obstruction hard to prove.
