Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[kiidcarter8]

As in a US court of law, the fact Mueller and his extensive team could not prove Trump did not commit a crime means NOTHING.

[josh]

No evidence of a larger conspiracy

- which is what many of you stood by all along.

Just repeating something a second time does not make it any less wrong.

Mueller today: The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

Insufficient evidence is not no evidence. 

Well done

Could not say whether a crime was/was not committed (NOT 100% CLEARED but couldn't be charged anyway)

Did say there was no broader conspiracy (CLEARED)

No, did not say that.

Said "insufficienet evidence to prove..." If he'd cleared it, he would have said he cleared it. NOWHERE does he say "there was no conspracy.

If aprosecutor cannot indict then the person under investigation is presumed innocent.
AS he or she is before any investigation.  Most kids learn that in High School.

But since Mueller was clear that he was not going to be Trump's prosecutor, your analogy is worthless.

The words 'special prosecutor' seem to confuse you.

The flat statements from Mueller seems to confuse you.

The Justice Department policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president meant that "charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider," Mueller said, adding that the Constitution requires a "process other than the criminal justice system" to address wrongdoing by a president.

"It would be unfair to potentially accuse someone of a crime" knowing the issue could not be resolved in the courts, Mueller said.

And to have charged the president under Mueller's interpretation of the Justice Department's policy would have been "unconstitutional," he said. "Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view. That too, is prohibited."

No matter how you wiggle and riggle and jiggle, Mueller's words were clear.
Mueller prosecuted many people, Ward.

However, his title was not Special Prosecutor[/i]. He was Special Counsel. Archibald Cox was a Special Prosecutor. After Nixon had him illegally fired, Leon Jaworski was the Special Prosecutor. Robert Fiske was a Special Prosecutor. Kenneth Starr was an Independent Counsel.

Mueller was Special Counsel.

It's so hard for you to keep your facts straight while you are turning yourself into a pretzel trying to exonerate the corrupt President of the United States.

[josh]

The statements from the US Dept of Energy confuse me.

https://slate.com/business/2019/05/freedom-gas-molecules-of-freedom-department-of-energy.html?fbclid=IwAR0D1qCBO01XaihpQZWurHP1Qu3kJg6IEBNPG9uElgodegj_e6mA5vpKigg

The Department of Energy Is Now Calling Fossil Fuels “Molecules of Freedom” and “Freedom Gas”

It's not satire.

[REDSTATEWARD]

 
The words 'special prosecutor' seem to confuse you.




However, his title was not Special Prosecutor[/i]. He was Special Counsel. Archibald Cox was a Special Prosecutor. After Nixon had him illegally fired, Leon Jaworski was the Special Prosecutor. Robert Fiske was a Special Prosecutor. Kenneth Starr was an Independent Counsel.

Mueller was Special Counsel.

The term special counsel simply replaced the term " special prosecutor" that was used through the 1980s, after which the laws around special prosecutors expired and were not renewed, therefore retiring the term.

Both terms refer to an independent overseer who can investigate governmental records and press criminal charges.

I hope this helps.

[kiidcarter8]

Now the PRESS is stringing you along - raising expectation that CONGRESS will act on Trump's "transgressions".

Have fun with it.

When again nothing occurs, you can blame the half of Congress you sadly have zero use for.

[kiidcarter8]

Partisan Mueller - indeed -

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445983-dershowitz-shame-on-robert-mueller-for-exceeding-his-role#.XO7RNRd2GnU.twitter

[whiskeypriest]

No evidence of a larger conspiracy

- which is what many of you stood by all along.

Just repeating something a second time does not make it any less wrong.

Mueller today: The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

Insufficient evidence is not no evidence. 

Well done

Could not say whether a crime was/was not committed (NOT 100% CLEARED but couldn't be charged anyway)

Did say there was no broader conspiracy (CLEARED)

At the top of the issue, I think there is a problem with saying he was "cleared" when there is documented evidence pointing toward conspiracy,

No evidence of guilt. None. Mueller said so. No Collusion. Case over.

Wow.  How many times does the difference between "insufficient" and "no" have to be pointed out to you. I never thought you were that stupid.

[josh]

 
The words 'special prosecutor' seem to confuse you.




However, his title was not Special Prosecutor[/i]. He was Special Counsel. Archibald Cox was a Special Prosecutor. After Nixon had him illegally fired, Leon Jaworski was the Special Prosecutor. Robert Fiske was a Special Prosecutor. Kenneth Starr was an Independent Counsel.

Mueller was Special Counsel.

The term special counsel simply replaced the term " special prosecutor" that was used through the 1980s, after which the laws around special prosecutors expired and were not renewed, therefore retiring the term.

Both terms refer to an independent overseer who can investigate governmental records and press criminal charges.

I hope this helps.

Ward, had I used the wrong term, you would have been all over me as a know-nothing and mocked me.

You just can't admit that you're wrong.

That includes that Mueller knew he would not be prosecuting Trump before he accepted the position, regardless of his findings. Nor would he declare in his findings that the President had committed a crime, as there would be no way for the President to defend himself from the claim.

[whiskeypriest]

No evidence of a larger conspiracy

- which is what many of you stood by all along.

Just repeating something a second time does not make it any less wrong.

Mueller today: The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

Insufficient evidence is not no evidence. 

Well done

Could not say whether a crime was/was not committed (NOT 100% CLEARED but couldn't be charged anyway)

Did say there was no broader conspiracy (CLEARED)

No, did not say that.

Said "insufficienet evidence to prove..." If he'd cleared it, he would have said he cleared it. NOWHERE does he say "there was no conspracy.

If aprosecutor cannot indict then the person under investigation is presumed innocent.
AS he or she is before any investigation.  Most kids learn that in High School.

Most people.also learn that the presumption of innocence only applies in criminal cases in court. Nowhere else. Not, for instance, an impeachment inquiry, a congressional investigation or an internet dis ussion.

[facilitatorn]

Innocent men disclose their tax returns when running for office.

Innocent men use criteria other than nepotism and cronyism when making appointments.

Innocent men do not accept bribes.

Some posters have clouded judgement, probably because they are so obsessed with freedom molecules they have been sucking them in from the tailpipes of running automobiles causing further cognitive impairment. As such they have barred themselves from making the clear and obvious conclusion about trump. They prefer to wallow in scum.

[facilitatorn]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/muellers-seething-message-this-isnt-a-hoax-this-is-a-crime?ref=home

Meanwhile some suck their tailpipes and think it’s freedom.

[REDSTATEWARD]

No evidence of a larger conspiracy

- which is what many of you stood by all along.

Just repeating something a second time does not make it any less wrong.

Mueller today: The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

Insufficient evidence is not no evidence. 

Well done

Could not say whether a crime was/was not committed (NOT 100% CLEARED but couldn't be charged anyway)

Did say there was no broader conspiracy (CLEARED)

No, did not say that.

Said "insufficienet evidence to prove..." If he'd cleared it, he would have said he cleared it. NOWHERE does he say "there was no conspracy.

If aprosecutor cannot indict then the person under investigation is presumed innocent.
AS he or she is before any investigation.  Most kids learn that in High School.

Most people.also learn that the presumption of innocence only applies in criminal cases in court. Nowhere else. Not, for instance, an impeachment inquiry, a congressional investigation or an internet dis ussion.

LOL.
No conclusion in this discussion was as off-the-mark as that one. 

[barton]

Trump being crooked as a dog's leg is the safest presumption you can make.   Given that Trump has openly boasted about his ability to cheat and to ignore the law, given his gross violations of public trust and the most basic decency, it takes severe brainwashing to think of him as innocent. 

   More than 450 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he holds.

The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.   

  - from May 6, The Post.

The Large Molecule  continues its gaseous existence protected by the OLC policy and its dubious attempt to find constitutional grounds. 

[whiskeypriest]

No evidence of a larger conspiracy

- which is what many of you stood by all along.

Just repeating something a second time does not make it any less wrong.

Mueller today: The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

Insufficient evidence is not no evidence. 

Well done

Could not say whether a crime was/was not committed (NOT 100% CLEARED but couldn't be charged anyway)

Did say there was no broader conspiracy (CLEARED)

No, did not say that.

Said "insufficienet evidence to prove..." If he'd cleared it, he would have said he cleared it. NOWHERE does he say "there was no conspracy.

If aprosecutor cannot indict then the person under investigation is presumed innocent.
AS he or she is before any investigation.  Most kids learn that in High School.

Most people.also learn that the presumption of innocence only applies in criminal cases in court. Nowhere else. Not, for instance, an impeachment inquiry, a congressional investigation or an internet dis ussion.

LOL.
No conclusion in this discussion was as off-the-mark as that one.

Glad you can finally admit that.one of your comments was off the mark.

[josh]

The Commander-in-Pettiness strikes again:

White House Wanted USS John McCain ‘Out of Sight’ During Trump Japan Visit
The White House wanted the Navy to move a warship named for the late Sen. John McCain—a frequent target of President Trump’s ire—and his father and grandfather ahead of the president’s visit to Japan.