|
|
Post by uwphoto on Mar 19, 2019 18:08:10 GMT -8
Haha. Nunes suing Twitter. Right wingers: Facebook is biased. None of the big rock bands want their music played at our Rallys!.. wa wa wa. Tom Petty, Springsteen, Stones, John Cougar Mellancamp ..and on and on. Saturday Night Live is biased, wa wa wa. Answer, far Right has nobody with that kind of talent. Dennis Miller bombed on Monday night football because he wasn't funny and no one could understand him. We want equal time. wa wa wa. OK, bring back Hee Haw and maybe the Cable Guy. Lynyrd Skynyrd after the crash? Charlie Daniels and Ted Nugent? Damn I wish we had far Right entertainment on 24/7.. SNOWFLAKES.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Mar 20, 2019 6:35:00 GMT -8
Literally all right wingers have done in the past decade is project.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 20, 2019 10:08:16 GMT -8
Don't forget Rush Limbaugh's stint on Sunday Night Football.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Mar 25, 2019 12:41:34 GMT -8
Speaking of snowflakes....  |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Mar 25, 2019 16:03:32 GMT -8
Speaking of snowflakes.... “I’ve been fully exonerated by a report I won’t let you see, but here’s a short letter by a man I installed as AG because he wrote an odd memo about how I couldn’t have obstructed justice after I spend a year pressuring my first AG to violate a criminal conflict of interest law.” That pretty much sum up what you’re crowing about? |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Mar 25, 2019 18:03:10 GMT -8
Speaking of snowflakes.... “I’ve been fully exonerated by a report I won’t let you see, but here’s a short letter by a man I installed as AG because he wrote an odd memo about how I couldn’t have obstructed justice after I spend a year pressuring my first AG to violate a criminal conflict of interest law.” That pretty much sum up what you’re crowing about? Disclaimer: I don't get too caught up in politics, especially on this board but somewhat follow it and try to stay in the middle. Don't you think that if Mueller actually found him guilty and the AG is lying, Mueller would speak up? |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Mar 26, 2019 10:32:53 GMT -8
Speaking of snowflakes.... “I’ve been fully exonerated by a report I won’t let you see, but here’s a short letter by a man I installed as AG because he wrote an odd memo about how I couldn’t have obstructed justice after I spend a year pressuring my first AG to violate a criminal conflict of interest law.” That pretty much sum up what you’re crowing about? Crowing? Hahahaha. You funny. Now go to your safe space and enjoy your dinner....  |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 26, 2019 11:17:20 GMT -8
“I’ve been fully exonerated by a report I won’t let you see, but here’s a short letter by a man I installed as AG because he wrote an odd memo about how I couldn’t have obstructed justice after I spend a year pressuring my first AG to violate a criminal conflict of interest law.” That pretty much sum up what you’re crowing about? Disclaimer: I don't get too caught up in politics, especially on this board but somewhat follow it and try to stay in the middle. Don't you think that if Mueller actually found him guilty and the AG is lying, Mueller would speak up? Mueller specifically said, or at least he was quoted by Barr as saying, "“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
However, Mueller made no determination on whether Trump obstructed justice or not; The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Mueller was following the Justice Department rule which said that a sitting President could not be indicted. "... but [he] ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction."
Mueller basically did the same thing as the Watergate prosecutor. He gathered the evidence and presented it for further determination. The difference in this case is that Barr took it upon himself to make that determination. This is bothersome since he has said himself that he believes that a sitting president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice. The evidence should be forwarded to Congress for examination. As in Watergate, Congress then has the option of determining whether or not an impeachable offense has occurred.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Mar 26, 2019 12:32:15 GMT -8
Disclaimer: I don't get too caught up in politics, especially on this board but somewhat follow it and try to stay in the middle. Don't you think that if Mueller actually found him guilty and the AG is lying, Mueller would speak up? Mueller specifically said, or at least he was quoted by Barr as saying, "“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
However, Mueller made no determination on whether Trump obstructed justice or not; The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Mueller was following the Justice Department rule which said that a sitting President could not be indicted. "... but [he] ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction." Mueller basically did the same thing as the Watergate prosecutor. He gathered the evidence and presented it for further determination. The difference in this case is that Barr took it upon himself to make that determination. This is bothersome since he has said himself that he believes that a sitting president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice. The evidence should be forwarded to Congress for examination. As in Watergate, Congress then has the option of determining whether or not an impeachable offense has occurred.
Well, keep clinging to hope! But don't hold your breath on throwing him out of office on the flimsy idea that it is possible to obstruct justice with regard to resisting an investigation which was started based on fraudulent information, and with no underlying crime. That would be so, ah.. SOVIET.  |
|
