Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[Dan T.]

I can only conclude that some people were dropped on their heads when they were babies.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

 

He also said that he COULDNT because the investigation was obstructed. And he listed the ways. 

 

No matter how hard you try, you can’t make me think you are actually this stupid. I know you can read. 

 

 

Can you make a determination as to whether or not a crime was committed? If Meuller can’t, certainly there is no way you can. But you can, can’t you. So mueller must have been able to as well, right? 

 

He chose not to. This is ultimately a failure of democracy.

[mcsluggo]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

If they had confidence he did commit a crime they would have said so.

 

 

 

actually...he EXPLICITLY said that under no circumstances would the report have accused Trump of a crime, because it would be unfair to do so, since Trump could not defend himself in court.    

 

 

... but...you know that

[NoCalMike]

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

He chose not to. This is ultimately a failure of democracy.

 

I believe Mueller offered 10 instances where Obstruction may have occurred and then basically told Congress to investigate those and come to a determination. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I believe Mueller offered 10 instances where Obstruction may have occurred and then basically told Congress to investigate those and come to a determination. 

 

 

They were in the report, but when it came time to offer up a conclusion, his conclusion was “no conclusion”

 

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

8 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

He also said that he COULDNT because the investigation was obstructed. And he listed the ways. 

 

No matter how hard you try, you can’t make me think you are actually this stupid. I know you can read. 

 

And he said they never could charge the president with a crime due to DOJ policy and it would be unfair to accuse the president of a crime without the opportunity for a trial. 

So he collected all the evidence, pointed to a pretty obvious conclusion and said that he was leaving it in the hands of the Constitution aka Congressional impeachment. But people are going to try to spin and muddy the waters for Trump

[Dan T.]

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I believe Mueller offered 10 instances where Obstruction may have occurred and then basically told Congress to investigate those and come to a determination. 

 

You forgot to mention he backed up each of those 10 instances with substantial evidence.  Enough that 900 former Federal prosecutors - both Democrat and Republican, who read the report signed an open letter saying, yeah, we would have charged this guy with obstruction of justice if he wasn't President.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

actually...he EXPLICITLY said that under no circumstances would the report have accused Trump of a crime, because it would be unfair to do so, since Trump could not defend himself in court.    

 

 

... but...you know that

 

 

When investigators investigate crimes they present there into to the AG (in this case congress” and suggest there is enough evidence to convict. Not say “here ya go, we’re not making a conclusion as to whether or not he is guilty”.

 

 

I can’t see how anyone could be satisfied with the job Mueller did.

[twa]

3 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I believe Mueller offered 10 instances where Obstruction may have occurred and then basically told Congress to investigate those and come to a determination. 

 

Certainly did.

IF they believe obstruction occurred or if they care.

 

 

[Dan T.]

12 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

I can only conclude that some people were dropped on their heads when they were babies.

 

[Larry]

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate, equally important groups. The police, who investigate crimes. And the District Attorneys who prosecute the offenders. 

Edited May 29, 2019 by Larry

[Llevron]

12 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

He chose not to. This is ultimately a failure of democracy.

 

He followed the law. Your sense of justice is more important than that? Or are you just talking out of your ass? Again. 

[twa]

1 minute ago, Dan T. said:

 

You forgot to mention he backed up each of those 10 instances with substantial evidence.  Enough that 900 former Federal prosecutors - both Democrat and Republican, who read the report signed an open letter saying, yeah, we would have charged this guy with obstruction of justice if he wasn't President.

 

The public would have been better served if the letter stated they would bring charges against the President if allowed....which is not what the letter says.

 

 

[China]

Just now, Larry said:

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate, equally important groups. The police, who investigate crimes. And the District Attorneys who prosecute them. 

 

This requires Congress which is not a DA

  

[twa]

2 minutes ago, China said:

 

This requires Congress which is not a DA

  

 

Well he left off the judges(Congress in this case)

[youngestson]

37 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Rational people: It looks like a duck.  It quacks like a duck. It was hatched from an egg laid by a duck.

 

Trump supporters:  it could be a chicken with orange swim fins glued to its feet.

Fins glued to its feet by the Deep State and Clinton's child sex slave ring. 

[mcsluggo]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

I think ya'll do.

 

Nadler obviously does 

 

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

Mueller just told you he gave you all he had....if you don't believe him feel free to pursue him.

Congress can request whatever it desires, though opening impeachment hearings would be the best way IF they see something worth pursuing.(the courts give more weight in that case).

 

The Dem leadership lacks the courage of it's stated convictions otherwise.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

What is Nancy playing?

 

 

The house can impeach.  then it is up to the senate to decide whether to convict.   Senate republicans have clearly signalled themselves to be Republicans above being Americans in this matter, and have signalled that they will not convict under any circumstances.   

 

That is where we are.  and as long as the assholes out there will continue to either BE stupid, or PLAY stupid (in a clearly treasonous manner) ...it is where we are.   

 

 

Just be honest for once, and say:   "The country is ****ed because Republicans will never convict... hahahaha, losers"  and quit your stupid transparent dance.     you either think everybody else here is a booger-eating-moron...      or.... 

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, China said:

 

This requires Congress which is not a DA

  

 

My post was directed at those who are claiming that it's the cop's job to decide whether to prosecute, and what for. 

[twa]

I hate when people excuse not acting on their beliefs because of what someone else might not do.

 

It makes me question if they truly believe what they are saying.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

15 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

He followed the law. Your sense of justice is more important than that? Or are you just talking out of your ass? Again. 

Which law says your report can’t come to a conclusion? Can’t prosecute, can’t convict, can’t charge... OK. But can’t come to a conclusion...

Edited May 29, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Dan T.]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Which law says your report can’t come to a conclusion?

 

 

You've been told that several times here.  Mueller mentioned in both in the report and in his statement this morning.  It's not a law, it's long-standing Department of Justice policy that he chose to abide by.

[TheGoodBits]

24 minutes ago, twa said:

I hate when people excuse not acting on their beliefs because of what someone else might not do.

 

It makes me question if they truly believe what they are saying.

 

“Might” 

 

 

[mistertim]

22 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Which law says your report can’t come to a conclusion? Can’t prosecute, can’t convict, can’t charge... OK. But can’t come to a conclusion...

 

You're literally sitting right next to @twawhile typing these aren't you?

[Larry]

Just now, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

“Might” 

 

 

 

They spent the last two years accurately claiming that the Trump campaign worked with the Russian intelligence services.  ("Collusion" is the false narrative that the Trump campaign created to try to shield themselves from what they knew they were guilty of.)  

 

(The FBI's investigation of the matter started because a member of said campaign openly boasted that they were doing this, to someone who turned out to be a spy for a US-allied government, who reported it to the FBI.)  

 

No, the DOJ did not conclude no collusion, no obstruction.  The person Trump picked based on his previous experience running the Watergate coverup claimed that they did.  

 

[Mooka]

23 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Which law says your report can’t come to a conclusion? Can’t prosecute, can’t convict, can’t charge... OK. But can’t come to a conclusion...

 

It's not a law. Its DOJ guidelines. 

 

Your response is literally if I walked into a McDonalds demanding free cheeseburgers asking what law prevents them from giving me free cheeseburgers.