Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, May 20, 2020.
Unsubstantiated vacuous declarations -- incompetent rebuttal.
So if we don't bash Trump it doesn't count? Where is the rule book?
Mitt Romney... is that you?
Threads like this are more proof of how weak the Democrat party is.
They are scared of Barr.
They weren't scared of sessions. He was one of them.
Democrats are doing their best to get out in front of the coming indictments and trying to paint it all as corrupt from the start.
Be afraid Democrats. Justice is coming for the traitors.
I only hope fox news gets tipped off so we can watch the Democrats getting dragged out of their houses at 6 am by troopers.
There is no emoluments case. However much it haunts your imagination it is not real. Emoluments would be like your son getting a 7 figure salary for a job he is unqualified for that normally pays 5 figures while you were vice president.
You declare is is not possible for you to demonstrate your position sound, that you could only use opinion, et al, in support.
This is a cop-out - an excuse to not have to meaningfully support what you said.
Fact is, you can demonstrate your claim to be true, or you can't -- and you can't.
Y'all have no clue as what real corruption is.
~ Who does this Barr dude think he is - James Comey !?
But that's exactly what the charges were, vacuous assumptions based on misquotes.
Except that my views on this are based on three years of substance. All that was used for the entire three years of Trump-Russia collusion hoax by the hate-Trumpeters, that you people bought into, was nothing but - repeating rumors, inserting innuendo, conjecture, and politically biased speculative assumptions.
This is the republican narrative that 's been floating around for years now.
Investigations are not hoaxes, they are put into motion when there are credible suspicions. After they are put into motion, their function is to:
1. To prove the suspicions and lay the ground work for indictments or impeachment.
2. To establish innocence.
3. A combination of 1 & 2.
Any of the above outcomes indicate a successful investigation. The Mueller report was #3, whereupon conspiracy was not proven to a degree for recommended prosecution or impeachment, where 10 cases of obstruction were and of those CW has it that about 4 were open and shut cases.
Since there was no trial that would fit the definition of a legitimate trial, the impeachment trial, for the first time in history, did not achieve fruition for or against, though the right narrative won't accept this premise.
Your comment reflects a simplistic view, a right wing narrative, for the events, facts, the totality of the thing cannot be adequately reduced to a right wing sound bite as you have done.
When DOJ investigations on Republican presidential campaigns is based upon unverified opposition research paid for by the DNC and the opposing Democrat candidate for president, then it sure as hell is not credible. So you need to come back to planet earth, and live in reality.
When placed under oath, no one, not Clapper, not Comey, not Brennen, Not Strzok, not no one, not no how, ever testifies that they had any evidence of Russian collusion between the Russians and anyone in the Trump campaign. So there was no basis in fact in the entire three year farce, perpetrated by the Democrats and Obama's DOJ.
~ Soon the "collusion delusion" rats will all turn on each other . Could be quite a show !
TOTAL CRAp, although true, A lie is a lie is a lie. The person spouting the lie does not even necessarily KNOW it is a lie. Therefore, if this moderation was anything like fair, only telling the person they are a liar, or that they lie like a rug etc should be counted.
Actually the Mueller report was "Crap the best we could find was paying pawn stars shut up and go away money, and that's so weak we sent it to the NYC office and even after unprecedented violations of attorney client privilege, we still got nothing even with the shyster promising to sing like a canary.
Investigations gather evidence of a specific action or set of actions. That evidence is used to determine if further legal proceedings are warranted.
Investigations never prove innocence as that is a legal finding from a court; they can and do find there is insufficient evidence to warrant further legal action, but that's not the same thing.
And #3 is mutually exclusive - you cannot be proven innocent of an act by the same investigation that finds sufficient evidence of said act to warrant further legal action.
The evidence Mueller had did not establish that Trump or anyone in his organization considered or coordinated with the Russians; Mueller did not prove or disprove anything.
Mueller cited 10 potentially obstructive acts, but not necessarily 10 instances of obstruction of justice.
-Nowhere- did Mueller reach the factual determination that Trump acted with the corrupt intent necessary for a charge of obstruction of justice, and as such Mueller could not make the determination that said acts qualified as obstruction of justice.
And, of course, the question begs: If 4 of these cases were open-shut, why didn't the Democrats impeach him?
Your comments are simplistic and fall into the usual left-wing narrative of half-truths and ignorance.
For someone to lie, they have to know their statement is false.
Else, they are simply wrong.
~ The Mueller investigation was politically motivated - there was no crime. The same is true with General Flynn .
Mueller / Rosenstein/ Comey Weissmann all belong in prison. There are many others as well - all part of the Obama administration .
So, from your rebuttal you are saying, essentially, that because Mueller deliberately chose not to conclude a crime was committed, that, therefore, no crime was committed. In fact, Mueller addressed that point. In fact, he told the hearing committee that his report did not specifically ( at least on obstruction ) exonerate Trump.
You mistakenly conclude ( that is what you are implying, you cannot deny it, or why point it out? ) you mistakenly conclude that Mueller's deliberate choosing not to conclude a 'crime' that no crime was committed. That's simply not true.
It's that Mueller chose not to conclude a crime because of the OLC opinion, NOT because there was no crime. Because of the OLC opinion, he chose not to use language which would prejudice any conclusion, he just gave the facts. Given that the legal definition requires 3 elements to exist for a crime of obstruction, he laid out the 3 elements for each of the ten examples of obstruction.
It begs the question: Why do this, UNLESS Mueller believes there is a good case for obstruction of justice, IN THE EVENT Congress, or anyone else, choose to pursue it.
Mueller cited 10 potentially obstructive acts, but not necessarily 10 instances of obstruction of justice.
He stated why he didn't use language which would conclude anything, which was he was trying to be fair to the president, and was abiding by the DOJ's OLC guidelines, not to indict a sitting president, so he couldn't have used any language which concluded anything. He's leaving that up to a future prosecutor, or congress to deal with as they choose. So, at this juncture, it's just your opinion against mine, and that's the long and short of it, but impeachment outcome proves nothing, one way or the other.
Well, there was considerable pressure for Pelosi from the left to go all out, and she certainly could have, but she knows that Trump is going to stall on everything, he's going to block everything, he's take her to court on everything, and when that produces a result, he's going to drag it back to court again, and each item of evidence, witness, is going to be block and fought tooth and nail, the long and short of it is that she understood the pragmatics, which dictate she keep the indictment narrow and focused on the most salient impeachable acts he committed, because, given who Trump is, she won't have enough time. It's Trump's strategy to run out the clock, which is precisely what he could do, and drag it all the way to the November election, at which point everyone is going to say, "let the voters decide". She knew this and decided 2 articles of impeachment.
But, this idea that because she didn't include any of the 10 items of obstruction, that he didn't commit obstruction of justice is a heap of nonsense. There was plenty of evidence for Obstruction Of Congress, the evidence is overwhelming to that count, but Republicans did not care, they coward at the thought of his mean tweets and being primaried if they voted against him.
This is a rigged Senate, and there was no legitimate trial. No evidence, no witness, no trial. The Senators who said "they heard enough" are not coming to a conclusion he is innocent because he was actually innocent, they are voting with the president to avoid being bullied and losing their jobs The only guy whose job cannot be threatened is Mitt Romney, whose constituents would not vote him out because of any bullying tactic by Trump, so Romney could speak his mind. One wonders how many other senators would follow suit if their constituents were not solid Trump fans like Romney's base is not controlled by Trump. I personally don't see how anyone could actually disagree with this point, I should think it's fairly obvious.
If Mueller did not believe was any evidence of Obstruction, he wouldn't have listed 10 examples of obstruction, each with great detail. That he did, clearly tells us his thinking.
He is not commenting on possible abuse of power or crimes committed out of fairness to the president, and to follow the OLC guideline, but he's providing plenty of detail for a future governing body or prosecutor if they chose to go down that road.
I think there is plenty of evidence in the report, and many former prosecutors, I think there were about a thousand of them, signed a letter to that effect, they believed the MR put forth a solid case against the president for obstruction of justice.
From the letter:
But, put those signatures in front of republicans whose bubble is fortified with fear of Trump, they just ignore the list, in a cavalier fashion, as if it means nothing.
It does mean something, over 1000 men and women who worked in the courts, who prosecuted criminals for a living, believer there is a solid case for obstruction, and many of them are republicans.
I don't give a damn what any right winger says, those signatures PROVE there IS a case, a criminal case, for obstruction.
No, they don't prove there is obstruction, that can only be done for a court trial, but they prove there definitely IS a case to made.
Naturally, Barr, who clearly has proved he is AG only on paper, he acts like Trump's private attorney, and so he is not going to even consider it. His opinion doesn't counter those 1000 signatures.
I'll take their opinion over yours, Barrs, or any one on the right. In my view, Barr should be impeached. But, there isn't time.
The trouble is, the Left has had the authority on their side so long, they are upset when AG Barr comes along and demands justice on both sides. General Flynn was set up. New reveled records show that.
You do know Gen. Flynn made that call to Russia as Trump's National Security Advisor and to find out what problems exist between the two nations. The FBI made transcripts of that conversation and said their was nothing wrong in what was said. They called him in knowing what he said and a note left by a FBI agent that has been just released, after three years has an agent asking what was the purpose of the interview with the General, to get him to lie, or to get him fired? They made him feel it was just a normal inquiry. Mc Cabe told him the interview would go much easier if he didn't bring in a lawyer. Once it started they made him think he had broken the law by contacting Russia, with a law that was made in 1799 and never used once. So he lied about calling Russia. If he had had a lawyer, they would have told him he didn't need to lie, no one has even been charged with that law. I repeat, he said nothing to Russia that was wrong, except making the call. They even threatened to prosecute his Son for a crime if he didn't sign he lied. Our intelligence and Obama wanted him out. I think our intelligence thought he would shake up the intelligence community for the advice they gave Obama for the way he ran the war against ISIS, which was terrible. Flynn didn't agree with Obama on how he ran the war.
Now they wanted to hang General Flynn for lying, yet Hillary lied her ass off and they let her go, knowing if charged she would not be able to run for President.
Crowdy grills Comey on Hillary’s E-mail.
The Democrats and intelligence agencies went after Trump using a phony dossier they knew was not true or verified yet they signed papers to the FISA Court saying it was. It was illegal and meant to cause a political coep on a newly elected President. It was all lies and the John Durham report will show it. They had nothing to start that investigation.
The Greatest Hoax on America
The provide said records. I haven't seen anything that proves such a thing that Flyn was set up.
But they didn't rule it out, either
This is all a sideshow, really.
Here's what i actually know about Flynn, he was on stage encouraging Trump fans to 'lock her up'. No General worth his or her salt would ever do such a thing.
He stained the Uniform by doing that. IF Barr gives him a pass, fine, I could give a damn. His being a lobbyist for Turkey is a chase for the dollar, that's what drove him to be an agent of Turkey. He was a soldier, they never get paid well, and even if you rise to the top of the heap in the military, you are paid no where near what others are paid of a similar level or responsibility in the private sector, and that fact really bother him. Everyone knows that, you know that when you sign up for the Military. Flynn wanted to get rich, to be financially i a similar class as his private peer counterparts. That's what is driving this man. The fact that he didn't register as a foreign agent tells me that he wan't proud of it, and didn't want it to become known. When you are a man of that caliber, you don't get to say 'I didn't know I was supposed to'.
I understand had a long devoted career in the Military, several wars, awards, commendations, and all that, but, a man of that caliber should know that standing on a stage and rooting for the crowd to lock up a political rival is a gross act unworthy of the uniform. It's not a minor thing, it was at the Republican convention, he's in a position of authority, people will follow his lead, will believe what he did was acceptable behavior. It's one thing for some petty political staff to do it, but Flynn was a general.
There is no excuse for it, there is nothing that can mitigate the unworthiness of it, it fits squarely, in a very big way, in the 'conduct unbecoming of an officer' category.
This is not a 'good man' or a man of integrity or a man with dignity that befits the Uniform. He might have been a good soldier once upon time, thank him for his service and all that, but he blew and as far as I'm concern, even if he skirts jail, he's in the dog house forever. He should just fade from view, his 15 minutes of fame are up.
As I stated, this is all a side show. I know the right is frothing at the mouth to gin up allegations about Obama this or FBI/deep state that, but it's all smoke and mirrors to deflect from Trump's failure on the pandemic front, which is not just a simple failure, its epic in its scope, and all of this on top of destroying the plight of many family farms, on top of separating thousands of children from their parents such that incompetent record keeping resulted in the children permanently lost in the system for a crime no worse than a class B misdemeanor,, all this on top of sending the deficits careening out of control, the endless pettiness, mindless tweeting, 25 women accusing him of sex predation, his vulgarity, excessive time spent on the golf course, and he won't even wear a damn mask because "it makes him look bad", Trump will go down as truly the worst president in history. I really don't get what republicans see in Trump, for the life of me, I don't get it.
It's not about Flynn, it's all about Trump, and even Trump says so, every day of the week.
Call it smoke and mirrors if you want. The General might not be snowy white. But he didn't deserve what they did to him. He was set up and threatened. There was no need to call him in for an interview. They already knew what he said to the Russians. Like the note, just released asked, why are we bringing him in? To get him to lie, or get him fired? He had a 33 year career and they broke him. He lost everything including his home because Obama and the intelligence agencies wanted him gone. Wanted to get at Trump. Flynn didn't deserve that. That isn't smoke and mirrors unless it's on the Left. It was all about Trump, so why do to that man what they did?
Bombshell notes unsealed from interview of Mike Flynn reveal ...
The notes, which were released on Wednesday, are from the Jan. 24, 2017, interview of Flynn. "What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" one of the notes read. Critics say this proves that they were setting a perjury trap for Flynn. Other notes provide further context:
Tell me, what can be worse than trying to do a political coup against a setting President. You expect that to happen in these banana republics, not in the USA. It doesn't get much worse than that.
Separate names with a comma.