plenzmd1 Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 2 23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I agree that's the argument - it's just very thin. As covered yesterday if the only thin holding him back was that rule, they would have indicted Flynn, Don Jr, and Manafort for obstruction to make the case easier for congress. But he didn't. Because he could never make any of those cases with or without the rule. this is pure speculation, and assumes many many things 1
GG Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 No, it only assumes one thing and that is that the obstruction was done solely by Trump without help from anyone around him. And that supposition is virtually impossible. 1
row_33 Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 so Mueller gave useful and sane people grounds to see there's nothing here and get on with your life and to all the nut-tard TDS folk it justified their insanity okay 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 22 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: he declared he did NOT find him innocent..nor guilty After 9 minutes of rambling slander and innuendo designed to make people think he COULD NOT find him guilty. Which, is not his job. He literally said what he was doing was unfair while he was doing it. And he was right. 19 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: this is pure speculation, and assumes many many things It isn't though. For over a year the speculation was that they were going to indict those men for exactly that crime. Even Mueller's own 10 examples of "possible" obstruction include references to Don Jr's role in the Trump Tower meeting for example. And Cohen's statements about a call he overheard w Trump and his son. If Trump obstructed justice he didn't do it alone. And there are a handful of existing indictments they could have used to tack on obstruction charges if Mueller believed he was only prevented from indicting Trump because of the "rule". But he didn't. Because he knew he couldn't make those cases. Just like he knows he couldn't make a case against Trump even if he wasn't prevented from doing so. The obstruction section of the report is ridiculous if you read it. It's untested, unchallenged testimony and legal theory which don't pass muster. 3
Nanker Posted May 30, 2019 Author Posted May 30, 2019 52 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: List all the evidence contained within the mueller report. Here's the 15 count indictment: Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Fired Comey Orange Man Fired Rosenstein Orange Man Fired Mueller Orange Man Started War with North Korea Orange Man Started War with China Orange Man Started War with Iran Orange Man Cut our taxes Orange Man Dissed Sidney Orange Man Plays Golf Orange Man is Rich Orange Man is Racist - he only gave Mexico one letter in the USMCA title while Canada and the US got two! Orange Man Bad 1 3
plenzmd1 Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 Quote After 9 minutes of rambling slander and innuendo designed to make people think he COULD NOT find him guilty. Which, is not his job. He literally said what he was doing was unfair while he was doing it. And he was right. Quote It isn't though. For over a year the speculation was that they were going to indict those men for exactly that crime. Even Mueller's own 10 examples of "possible" obstruction include references to Don Jr's role in the Trump Tower meeting for example. And Cohen's statements about a call he overheard w Trump and his son. If Trump obstructed justice he didn't do it alone. And there are a handful of existing indictments they could have used to tack on obstruction charges if Mueller believed he was only prevented from indicting Trump because of the "rule". But he didn't. Because he knew he couldn't make those cases. Just like he knows he couldn't make a case against Trump even if he wasn't prevented from doing so. The obstruction section of the report is ridiculous if you read it. It's untested, unchallenged testimony and legal theory which don't pass muster. Going to try it this way @Deranged Rhino 1) Have no clue what you mean by the first quote..could be you, could be me..but i have no clue? 2) Speculation means squadoosh 3) Yes, yes he can. Just asking McGahn to falsify testimony can be considered obstruction, even though McGahn did not follow the directive and has no part of the obstruction.
row_33 Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 whatever, let them play in their sandbox, more important things to do like keep MAGAing on
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 16 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Going to try it this way @Deranged Rhino 1) Have no clue what you mean by the first quote..could be you, could be me..but i have no clue? All good, my dude. No idea why your posts do this (and it's not just yours, I've noticed others get this issue as well). As for the first quote, what I mean is that prosecutors do not go out and discuss the cases they don't charge in public. They don't talk about the evidence that MIGHT have made their case, and they aren't (ever) expected to exonerate anyone they don't charge and explain why. As Mueller said, it would be unfair to talk about the evidence (which wasn't enough to make a case) in a way that slanders and makes it unfair for the subject of the investigation. Yet, that's exactly what Mueller did, while he was saying he wouldn't do it. He was speaking out both sides of his mouth and undercutting the fundamental tenant of justice system: innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty unless exonerated in full. That's a complete misrepresentation of how our system worked -- and it's what Mueller did in his press conference yesterday. 19 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: 2) Speculation means squadoosh If speculation means nothing, which I'd agree in a legal sense, then speculating Mueller COULD have charged him if not for X also means squadoosh, right? In other words, no matter what Mueller said yesterday his report and its findings remain: No charges for collusion. No charges for Conspiracy (and, as volume 1 lays out, there is little to no evidence for either of these charges which should be the biggest takeaway). No charges for Obstruction (Barr ruled on it after Mueller punted). In a legal sense, the matter is settled and Mueller -- by not indicting Trump -- declared him innocent. 21 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: 3) Yes, yes he can. Just asking McGahn to falsify testimony can be considered obstruction, even though McGahn did not follow the directive and has no part of the obstruction. If you read that section of volume 2 and the legal theory they lay out to make the case how it might be obstruction, you'll see this is one of the worst examples they brought up in their 10. First, McGahn was not cross examined, his testimony alone is not evidence or proof of anything. Second, talking about doing something and not doing it is NOT obstruction of justice. Unless you want to move into a world where federal prosecutors can indict, charge, and convict any American citizen for thought crimes. That's not a world any of us want to live in if you think about it beyond the politics of the moment. The reality is Trump was innocent of collusion and conspiracy, he knew he was innocent of these charges, and yet he had to suffer for 2.5 years with every outlet, every reporter, every American questioning, accusing, and speculating he was a traitor to his country. For a normal tempered person, that would weigh heavy and spark the occasional bout of outrage and anger -- and it'd be justified. For a narcissistic POTUS who is watching his presidency being hobbled by unfounded charges by his political enemies, I'd expect it to be much worse. Yet he did nothing but rant and rave... Legally that's not obstruction. Per Barr and even per Mueller/Weissman who hedged their bets during their report by couching it in "legal theory" -- which was largely untested in court. Politically you can try to make that case, and they are, but the reality remains the same. The political argument now, after three years of claiming he was a traitor working with Russia is: "he didn't collude/conspire with Russia but he THOUGHT about firing Mueller thus he committed the crime of obstructing the investigation into an event that did not happen." You don't think that's a persuasive card to play outside of the partisan bubble do you? I don't. 4 2 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: All good, my dude. No idea why your posts do this (and it's not just yours, I've noticed others get this issue as well). I think it is a board software coding error. I belong to another forum that uses the same software for their boards and quoted someone in a post yesterday where the same issue occurred (long beginning, could not edit the post afterward). Guess we will see after the next invision software update. 1
McGee Return TD Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 LOL - Wasn't there some #deepstater here who claimed the meeting was an obvious sign of Trump and Mueller working together because bleh blah blah #deepstate? 1
LB3 Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 16 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said: LOL - Wasn't there some #deepstater here who claimed the meeting was an obvious sign of Trump and Mueller working together because bleh blah blah #deepstate? Great recall from a guy who joined the site just a month ago. 1 3
McGee Return TD Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 Just now, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said: Great recall from a guy who joined the site just a month ago. Posts are forever until you delete them. It's not difficult to read through a thread. The QANON one has been my favorite.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 4 minutes ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said: Great recall from a guy who joined the site just a month ago.
transplantbillsfan Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said: Look at this nonsense. LOOK at this nonsense. Are we seriously going to allow this kind of trash post here? 8 days between the firing of Comey vs more than half a year from when Trump got elected. Deny it all you want, but the Comey firing was the catalyst for the hiring of the Speicial Counsel. Edited May 30, 2019 by transplantbillsfan 1
Q-baby! Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 1 hour ago, Nanker said: Here's the 15 count indictment: Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Bad Orange Man Fired Comey Orange Man Fired Rosenstein Orange Man Fired Mueller Orange Man Started War with North Korea Orange Man Started War with China Orange Man Started War with Iran Orange Man Cut our taxes Orange Man Dissed Sidney Orange Man Plays Golf Orange Man is Rich Orange Man is Racist - he only gave Mexico one letter in the USMCA title while Canada and the US got two! Orange Man Bad Wanker!
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: 8 days between the firing of Comey vs more than half a year from when Trump got elected. Deny it all you want, but the Comet firing was the catalyst. This is factually incorrect. You're saying the catalyst for the investigation into Trump began after he was elected? What about Crossfire Hurricane? What about the Counterintelligence investigation? Where those formed using some sort of precognition that Trump would fire Comey months later? You're wildly underinformed on this matter. Wildly. 3 1
Q-baby! Posted May 30, 2019 Posted May 30, 2019 30 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said: LOL - Wasn't there some #deepstater here who claimed the meeting was an obvious sign of Trump and Mueller working together because bleh blah blah #deepstate? Probably deranged re-tard.
Recommended Posts