LIBERBAL propaganda; the DOJ is NOT independent of the president.

Of course you don't. That's the point.

 

Mueller states in his report that it is possible his team would have reached a different conclusion were it not for some witnesses either withholding evidence or lying to him.
"The report noted that some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify (Donnie J refused to testify and his lying sack of shyte of a father refused to answer questions regarding obstruction) under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings."
https://apnews.com/f9c0ab20229140f18ea34e1f15a9f597

He also stated..........

Mueller says he 'generally' agrees Trump was not always truthful in written answers
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ays-truthful-in-written-answers-idUSKCN1UJ2R8

Mueller thought Trump's written answers were "inadequate"
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...ort-public/h_90b7c5d0d7958b7f71051b812999c2a3
....................................................................................................................
So please don't pretend Mueller's questions were answered honestly, or in some cases answered at all.

 

I don't know about logical, but unlike your version my version is factual.

The president has full constitutional authority to fire any principle officer he wants, anytime he wants, and for any reason he wants. The fact that he doesn't run his decision to fire someone past the Senate or, presumably, you in no way gives him absolute power. You talk like Trump is the only president that fired anybody, another factual error. You also imply that a president appointing officers who support his presidency is somehow bad and nefarious. one more factual error.

 

"I can certainly prove that the posters claims, have an exponentially higher degree of certainty than your claims. Especially, since your claims are totally subjective."

"Degree of certainty" is a subjective measure. In no way is such a standard equal to 'proven'.

It gets so tedious; there is one false accusation after another. The worst part of this nonsense is the time and energy that gets totally wasted.

Why do you do it?

"No investigation is necessary."

At least we agree on this; albeit for different reasons.

Tell the House nutjobs. They're investigating.

"All you need to apply, is a little common sense and logic."

Common sense and logic do not involve just making stuff up.

"Convergence of facts equals truth, and the Divergence of facts equals falsehood. Not so difficult."

Again, as there is no such convergence of facts, the narrative is false. Not so difficult.

Don't you get tired of pushing nonsense?

Your fake narrative is fake.

 

To be accurate; Nixon resigned because he didn't have the votes.

Clinton didn't resign because he did have the votes.

Trump didn't resign because he had the votes.

 

Agreed, except congress cannot pass any law or bill that removes the DOJ from presidential control. That would require a constitutional amendment.

 

You said......."If you believe answering a special prosecutor's questionnaire truthfully and honesty amounts to obstruction then neither I nor Mueller can help"

Mueller states in his report that it is possible his team would have reached a different conclusion were it not for some witnesses either withholding evidence or lying to him.

"The report noted that some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify (Donnie J refused to testify and his lying sack of shyte of a father refused to answer questions regarding obstruction) under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings."
https://apnews.com/f9c0ab20229140f18ea34e1f15a9f597

He also stated..........

Mueller says he 'generally' agrees Trump was not always truthful in written answers
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ays-truthful-in-written-answers-idUSKCN1UJ2R8

Mueller thought Trump's written answers were "inadequate"
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...ort-public/h_90b7c5d0d7958b7f71051b812999c2a3
..........................................................................................................
Maybe it's time for you to reconsider your sources of info since you are just flatly wrong about so much.

 

True the Constitution vest the power of the Executive solely into a President. The dems fundamentally want to change that since they lost the 2016 election.

 

In full agreement with the sentiment, but for clarification it was not stated or proven that Nixon committed any crime, and no specific crime was mentioned in his articles of impeachment.

 

Nixon, like Trump, broke no law and was not accused of breaking any specific law.

Mueller’s investigation of the president for obstruction of justice was fundamentally misconceived because it was not authorized in Mueller's appointment letter.

 

Like they would destroy the entire Constitution if they could.

 

You do know obstruction of justice is a crime, right?

Maybe it's time for you to reconsider your sources of info since you are just flatly wrong about so much.

 

They do not like our Constitution. It grta in the way of their tyranny

 

Lee, this is even absurd from your point of view.

It will be your mantra until as soon as you are once again defending someone like Loretta Lynch.

 

The doggie would have caught the rabbit if he hadn't stopped to take a crap! Cry as you wish, but not having witnesses to prove your case is what is known in jurisprudence circles as not having a case.

Someone "generally thinking that X was not always truthful" says absolutely nothing of value. If one is a prosecutor the obligation is to put up or shut up. If a prosecutor can prove falsehoods he so states and charges. Otherwise he shuts the hell up, unless his purpose is to drop little tidbits to feed the coup gladiators at the gate -- required prosecutorial conduct be damned.

Mueller thinking Trump's answers were inadequate has no probative value whatsoever. Maybe Mueller was hoping Trump would admit to a series of crimes and that, in his mind, would have been adequate. Mueller thinking answers inadequate has no relevance to answers being truthful.

 

The AG can be replaced at any time because he is an officer of the US, just like any US Attorney.
That gets into the Constitutional delegation of separate branches.
Mueller, for example, should have been designated as a US Attorney because he operated in more than one jurisdiction.

The Democrats are throwing up this smoke screen to try to diminish Barr's credibility when the US Attorney in Pittsburgh starts issuing indictments.

HUGE! US Attorney in Pittsburgh Is Vetting Giuliani Docs on Biden Crime Family
by Cristina Laila February 11, 2020

“The Justice Department has the obligation to have an open door to anybody who wishes to provide us information that they think is relevant,” Barr told reporters. “But as I did say to Senator [Lindsey] Graham … we have to be very careful … with respect to any information coming from the Ukraine.”

“We can’t take anything we receive from the Ukraine at face value,” Barr said. “For that reason, we had established an intake process in the field so that any information coming in about Ukraine could be carefully scrutinized by the department” to assess its credibility.

The Washington Post reported that Scott Brady, the US Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, will vet the Ukraine documents gathered by Rudy Giuliani about the Biden crime family.

 

"......... and obstruction of justice" as written in Nixon's articles of impeachment was a generic term not a specific criminal term. However there were supporting words in the Articles (unapproved, BTW) stating witness tampering that would count as a specific criminal charge, so I stand corrected. But that was an accusation with little evidence provided.

 

And AG Barr in an interview with ABC News said that the president "has never asked me to to anything in a criminal case," including Roger Stone's. So in this respect he is operating independently of Trump.

 

Plenty of accusations by the media that Barr is only working in Trump's interests.

Was Eric Holder only working in Obama's interests? I don't recall that the media ever asked that question or ever implied that assumption in opinion venues.

AKA: The country is only divided when the Left says that it is divided.

 

They are not servants to the office. They are servants to the people and the Constitution. This is not a dictatorship... yet....

 

They are servants to office you need to read article 2 that also makes them servants to the people because the office is a service to the people.

Did you just come to Earth yesterday?

 

It doesn't matter. This was obstruction.

No, it's not. And the fact that Doug Collins (my mistake) was so careful to omit the word "obstruction" was no accident. But I wouldn't expect Mueller to get up and look up the word on a dictionary in the middle of a round of rapid-fire questions. What he meant was clear. Especially in light of the fact that what he meant was clear during his testimony and in the report.

Obviously I said this because Trump refused to answer it. I do "fuss at Mueller" because he wouldn't insist. But that's besides the point. The point is that Trump obstructed.

Wrong! Mueller can:

Mueller (C1): "We received the President's written responses in late November 2018. 4 In December 2018, we informed counsel of the insufficiency of those responses in several respects."​

The responses were anything but honest or truthful, and anybody can tell that by reading them. But it is foolish to insist that Trump did not obstruct in the face of such overwhelming evidence.



neither I nor Mueller can help -- you are on your own for that faulty thinking. Finally you adamantly ignore and try to bury the fact that Trump's and his administration's cooperation with Mueller was unprecedented, including the unheard of a hours-long testimony by the white house counsel.[/QUOTE]

 

Firstly, I know that you are smarter than this. After 3 years of Trump, no one still gives a rat's ass because he won the election. We would only care, if he stayed in office another 4 years. Fool us once, shame on you, but twice...., well you know the rest. These silly partisan comments, might give you some false sense of superiority, but for the rest of us, these comments are just silly and childish. Both parties have done very little for "We the people", except in making better promises and bad excuses, to fatten their own purses and egos. There is only ONE government, and it is called the United State's Government. Not the Democratic or the Republican Government. It is people like you that keep our country weak and divided. You don't seem to care, that your master is wasting hundreds of Billions of our dollars, on wasteful wars, to make war profiteers richer, and to threaten countries into obedience. You don't seem to mind that he ignores all of our urgent domestic issues. But hey, we just have different priorities. Yours is blind loyalty to your master, and mine is loyalty to the needs of the people.

I want you to type in "WHO IS THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES?". What are your results? Who is in charge of the FBI, DEA, ATP, US Marshals Service, of the Fed. Bureau of Prisons? Is the President also the Chief of each of these law enforcement agencies? Does he get 15 different cabinet salaries, as well as his own?

Where in any Civics resources does it state, that the President is also the Chief Law Enforcement officer? You should know, from your civics class in high school, that it is the legislative branch that makes all laws for the President to sign or veto. Does this mean the President is also the Chief Law Maker as well? Does he get a Congressional salary as well? You should also know, that the President's Executive Orders are NOT laws, they are directives for the Executive Branch. If you want to convince yourself, about something that is not true, then there is nothing I can do about it. An apple will always be an apple to me, and not an orange. No matter how much I want it to be an orange.

 

Mueller is very good at throwing out words that he hopes will be interpreted differently and more dastardly than what he actually spoke. You fall for that hook, line, and sinker.

 

Yes. Is the CEO of a conglomerate the head of every Division and Subsidiary? That answer is also YES.