|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> 11 /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1559561475 Message started by WebsterMark on 06/03/19 at 04:31:15 |
|
Title: 11 Post by WebsterMark on 06/03/19 at 04:31:15 I finally read the infamous 11 instances of possible obstruction referenced in Mueller's report. I read a couple summaries, below is a good one. Given that Trump had the power to obstruct officially, the idea that Trump obstructed in the manners outlined in the report is ridiculous. He could have legally withheld information and ordered people not to respond. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/11-moments-mueller-investigated-for-obstruction-of-justice |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by LostArtist on 06/03/19 at 12:58:41 023037262130271834273E550 wrote:
"Given that Trump had the power to obstruct officially, the idea that Trump obstructed in the manners outlined in the report is ridiculous. He could have legally withheld information and ordered people not to respond. " you mean like he's doing now.... |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by Serowbot on 06/03/19 at 13:12:59 A President can legally fire someone and can withhold information,... but not to hide a crime. Not to hide his crime or anyone else's.... ..and that's exactly what he did. "Um,... this Russsier thing,..."... |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by WebsterMark on 06/03/19 at 13:14:31 495F48554D58554E3A0 wrote:
Huh? English. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by pg on 06/03/19 at 13:20:39 Put a fork in it, it is over. Even Schiff is back peddling and said they won't be able to impeach him. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by LostArtist on 06/03/19 at 16:40:46 4D5A5C505F4F3D0 wrote:
but we've even got a Republican congressman on our side, maybe you should read the report like he did... you know, look at the actual case and facts. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by T And T Garage on 06/03/19 at 16:58:50 7067616D6272000 wrote:
Oh, it's not even close to being over. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/03/19 at 17:02:19 TT is FINALLY correct. Lefties who created this farce will be indicted. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by T And T Garage on 06/03/19 at 17:05:03 7D6264637E7948784870626E25170 wrote:
LOL - wrong again (like you were on Sandy Hook being faked). Nice try. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by pg on 06/03/19 at 17:21:40 52716D6A5F6C6A776D6A1E0 wrote:
but we've even got a Republican congressman on our side, maybe you should read the report like he did... you know, look at the actual case and facts. [/quote] You are going to need a lot more than one. Mueller didn't move forward with charges, Rosenstein didn't move forward with charges, and Barr didn't move forward with charges. Do you believe you understand the facts of the case better than they did? Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by WebsterMark on 06/03/19 at 19:11:24 Read the article I posted and honestly answer if any of that is criminal obstruction. Like PG said, Muller did and couldn’t say it was. Grow up, it’s over. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by T And T Garage on 06/04/19 at 06:45:33 754740515647506F435049220 wrote:
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mr. Mueller said. He also noted that while Justice Department policy prohibits charging a sitting president with a crime, the Constitution provides for another remedy to formally accuse a president of wrongdoing — a clear reference to the ability of Congress to conduct impeachment proceedings. "Grow up"? Seems you're telling the wrong person to do that. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by Serowbot on 06/04/19 at 08:40:50 I think they should inquire their butts off to beyond the election. Then, if Trump loses, drop it and let criminal charges in the courts take over,... or if he wins, we'll be set to impeach with a possible Senate majority. In the meantime public hearings will inform the people. Most Pub's have no idea what Trump's been doing. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by WebsterMark on 06/04/19 at 08:58:43 You have no idea what Trump's been doing. You're fishing for anything, a minnow you can turn into a pretend whale. We spent two years and didn't find what you were so sure you'd fine. Seriously, why don't you just f'ing quit and go try win an election. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by T And T Garage on 06/04/19 at 09:25:18 1D2F28393E2F38072B38214A0 wrote:
Not to worry mark - 2020 will show us that the progressives are surging ahead of the likes of mcconnell and trump. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by pg on 06/04/19 at 09:51:07 Too bad for you Mueller Punted, he did not make a decision and he could have. This is how the justice system works in America, or at least how it is supposed to. The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by WebsterMark on 06/04/19 at 09:59:21 The desperate calls for an impeachment proceedings and an end run around the Constitution's Electoral College stem fom the fear that Trump will win again. This is the leftist only play left. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by T And T Garage on 06/04/19 at 10:00:21 3E292F232C3C4E0 wrote:
Seems you've forgotten that the Constitution doesn't allow a sitting president to be indicted. So, it's not about trump's "innocence", it's about the Constitution and what Mueller's restrictions are. But now you know. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by T And T Garage on 06/04/19 at 10:02:31 774542535445526D41524B200 wrote:
I think not. The trump core supporters are dwindling. He's lost the farmers, he's lost a lot of the rust belt and he's on the verge of impeachment. The impeachment is not a "end run", it's a Constitutional obligation. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/04/19 at 10:05:18 Juries exonerate. When prosecutors and investigators Fail to discover illegal activities that would be actionable, there is no case. So, technically, no, he didn't Exonerate trump. And several have stated that Mueller stated that the lack of obstruction charges had nothing to do with the constitution or a directive. Instead of relying on the List of obstructions Try explaining one of them. I've read it. Trump took NO ACTION that impeded the investigation. Mueller needs to be dragged in and forced to testify under oath. Questions he needs to answer. When did you know there was no collusion? Answer Immediately.. As if it wasn't perfectly obvious. The collusion was against Trump, paid for by Hillary. Monies run through Perkins Coie, Wait for it,, Well, who knows the true allegiance of any of these lifers in D.C.. I don't trust Barr either. Mueller should have been rotting in prison for years. The Paige and Strzock emails explain it clearly enough. Anyone who is intellectually honest can see what was going on. Look at Bruce Orr, and Nellie. It's obvious to anyone that Trump was the target of a soft coup. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by WebsterMark on 06/04/19 at 10:37:57 574946474A574C51230 wrote:
I think not. The trump core supporters are dwindling. He's lost the farmers, he's lost a lot of the rust belt and he's on the verge of impeachment. The impeachment is not a "end run", it's a Constitutional obligation.[/quote] None of that is true. Dwindling? Trump's poll numbers are essentially unchanged. Lost the farmers? Based on what? Find me a historically reliable poll of farmers to support that because if they were significant in number, their lack of support would show up in the larger polls. Verge of impeachment? I think you just said the opposite elsewhere. You don't really know what you're talking about on this topic. You're just spouting what you wish were true, not what reality actually is. I thought he was going to be impeached. Roll Eyes Best regards, I thought so too. There's still time, but who knows. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by T And T Garage on 06/04/19 at 11:03:53 1D2F28393E2F38072B38214A0 wrote:
I think not. The trump core supporters are dwindling. He's lost the farmers, he's lost a lot of the rust belt and he's on the verge of impeachment. The impeachment is not a "end run", it's a Constitutional obligation.[/quote] None of that is true. Dwindling? Trump's poll numbers are essentially unchanged. If by "unchanged" you mean a drop of about 6%, then ok... Lost the farmers? Based on what? Based on articles like this: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/what-soybean-farmers-think-of-trumps-trade-war-837492/ Find me a historically reliable poll of farmers to support that because if they were significant in number, their lack of support would show up in the larger polls. If you think they don't have significant pull in states like Texas - well, you're not paying very much attention. Farmers sustain a large part of the economy in the heartland. Are you going to question that? Therefore, they have power in elections. For better or worse, they helped that moron trump win in '16. Verge of impeachment? I think you just said the opposite elsewhere. No, I said they haven't yet, but it's not too late. I hope he does get impeached. No one is above the law - especially that dickhead. You don't really know what you're talking about on this topic. You're just spouting what you wish were true, not what reality actually is. Well mark, you're entitled to your opinion. As am I. However, my opinion (and my knowledge) reflects a majority of the US and yours doesn't. I thought he was going to be impeached. Roll Eyes Best regards, I thought so too. There's still time, but who knows.[/quote] |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by pg on 06/04/19 at 11:16:39 4C525D5C514C574A380 wrote:
Seems you've forgotten that the Constitution doesn't allow a sitting president to be indicted. So, it's not about trump's "innocence", it's about the Constitution and what Mueller's restrictions are. But now you know. [/quote] I disagree, he could have rendered a conclusion and stated, however we unable to charge the POTUS because of this statute. Since the special counsel's office had decided "not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment", they "did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct". The report "does not conclude that the president committed a crime" Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by Serowbot on 06/04/19 at 11:21:08 1. Trump’s net approval has declined in all 50 states since he took office https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trumps-popularity-is-holding-up-by-state/ Trump has to do better than 2016. - Several states have been ordered to correct gerrymandered districts. - I expect stronger anti-Trump turnout for Dems in 2020. - Every election has new voters,.. and younger voters and immigrants tend toward Democrats. Particularly after Parkland. - Hopefully,... Russian interference will be less. Just here in AZ,.. we now have one female Democrat Senator, and the Republican was appointed, not elected. (She will likely be voted out in 2020,as she lost her seat in Congress in 2018 to a Dem)... 2 Democrat Senators may shift the Presidential vote. Plus, Latin registration went up a lot in 2018. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by T And T Garage on 06/04/19 at 11:21:28 4255535F5040320 wrote:
Seems you've forgotten that the Constitution doesn't allow a sitting president to be indicted. So, it's not about trump's "innocence", it's about the Constitution and what Mueller's restrictions are. But now you know. [/quote] I disagree, he could have rendered a conclusion and stated, however we unable to charge the POTUS because of this statute. Since the special counsel's office had decided "not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment", they "did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct". The report "does not conclude that the president committed a crime" Best regards, [/quote] Perhaps you missed this post: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mr. Mueller said. He also noted that while Justice Department policy prohibits charging a sitting president with a crime, the Constitution provides for another remedy to formally accuse a president of wrongdoing — a clear reference to the ability of Congress to conduct impeachment proceedings. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by Serowbot on 06/04/19 at 11:32:29 Over 1,000 former DOJ prosecutors said they would prosecute based on Muellers evidence. https://www.newsweek.com/former-federal-prosecutors-trump-indicted-wasnt-president-1439716 Even Trump's favorite Judge Napolitano says he should be charged. Former favorite...;D |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by verslagen1 on 06/04/19 at 12:16:33 5D4B5C41594C415A2E0 wrote:
Nope, there's no illegal voting at all. Never happens. And we democrats don't condone it... to a large extent, just a little bit is ok. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by pg on 06/04/19 at 12:29:48 726C63626F726974060 wrote:
Well what are you waiting for then? Because it isn't going to happen. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by WebsterMark on 06/04/19 at 13:34:12 Based on articles like this: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/what-soybean-farmers-t... Oh my God, 5 soybean farmers in Rolling Stone Magazine..... |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by WebsterMark on 06/04/19 at 13:40:29 Trump has to do better than 2016. - Several states have been ordered to correct gerrymandered districts. How do you figure this will play out in a Presidential election?- I expect stronger anti-Trump turnout for Dems in 2020. I expect stronger Pro-Trump turnout for Reps in 2020. I don't know anyone, not a single person, who voted for him before who said they won't in 2020. - Every election has new voters,.. and younger voters and immigrants tend toward Democrats. Particularly after Parkland. Don't bet on it. On second thought, let's bet on it... - Hopefully,... Russian interference will be less. Zero minus Zero = Zero |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by WebsterMark on 06/04/19 at 13:43:31 352B242528352E33410 wrote:
I think not. The trump core supporters are dwindling. He's lost the farmers, he's lost a lot of the rust belt and he's on the verge of impeachment. The impeachment is not a "end run", it's a Constitutional obligation.[/quote] None of that is true. Dwindling? Trump's poll numbers are essentially unchanged. If by "unchanged" you mean a drop of about 6%, then ok... Lost the farmers? Based on what? Based on articles like this: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/what-soybean-farmers-think-of-trumps-trade-war-837492/ Find me a historically reliable poll of farmers to support that because if they were significant in number, their lack of support would show up in the larger polls. If you think they don't have significant pull in states like Texas - well, you're not paying very much attention. Farmers sustain a large part of the economy in the heartland. Are you going to question that? Therefore, they have power in elections. For better or worse, they helped that moron trump win in '16. Verge of impeachment? I think you just said the opposite elsewhere. No, I said they haven't yet, but it's not too late. I hope he does get impeached. No one is above the law - especially that dickhead. You don't really know what you're talking about on this topic. You're just spouting what you wish were true, not what reality actually is. Well mark, you're entitled to your opinion. As am I. However, my opinion (and my knowledge) reflects a majority of the US and yours doesn't. I thought he was going to be impeached. Roll Eyes Best regards, I thought so too. There's still time, but who knows.[/quote] [/quote] Since you've been on here, you've been wrong on virtually all of your predictions meaning either you read only a few sources of information which are typically wrong or you have no ability to correctly perceive reality and think for yourself. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by T And T Garage on 06/04/19 at 14:49:14 447671606776615E726178130 wrote:
Well mark, I think you're wrong in that assessment. I don't recall ever really predicting things as much as saying things like "this will not be good for trump", or "I hope he gets impeached", or "I doubt he'll last his first term", etc. I think the bulk of my posts deal with hypocrisy of the conservatives that support that buffoon trump. Here's an idea, relax and let the chips fall where they may. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. What the hell does it matter to you? Have a cookie and a nap maybe. Edit - I'm not going to get personal here. Seems you want to turn this into some kind of personal attack, mark. I nibbled, but I'm not gonna bite. You think I'm always wrong - so be it. IDGAF. :) |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by WebsterMark on 06/04/19 at 16:27:07 Edit - I'm not going to get personal here. Seems you want to turn this into some kind of personal attack, mark. I nibbled, but I'm not gonna bite. You think I'm always wrong - so be it. IDGAF. You are begging me to stoop to your level..... And it's not an opinion if you're wrong. I could go back and pull up dozens and dozens of ridiculous post where you analysis of a situation or predictions demonstrate monumental ignorance. You should purchase a cranium rectum extraction tool and put it to good use. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by Serowbot on 06/04/19 at 16:32:41 615354454253447B57445D360 wrote:
You stooped... |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by T And T Garage on 06/05/19 at 06:46:13 132126373021360925362F440 wrote:
My how witty. Very nice mark. |
|
Title: Re: 11 Post by T And T Garage on 06/05/19 at 06:47:23 2731263B23363B20540 wrote:
You stooped...[/quote] LOL, I know, right? Yet they continue to blame me for the degradation of this forum. Funny how that works... |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |