Jumbo

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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

The person Trump picked based on his previous experience running the Watergate Iran-Contra coverup claimed that they did.  

fixed

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Which ones say he can’t come to a conclusion?

 

He said he would have chosen to conclude Trump was innocent if he thought Trump was innocent, regardless of the guidelines, which you claim say he can’t come to a conclusion.

 

 

Why wouldn’t he conclude Trump was guilty if he thought he was guilty?

 

 

 

NO CONCLUSION! SAD!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

“Might” 

 

 

 

 

The Senate CAN'T if the House does not .

 

One is a certainty w/o the other......for some reason you wish to assert Can't as a House excuse.....or is it why bother?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

Which ones say he can’t come to a conclusion?

 

He said he would have chosen to conclude Trump was innocent if he thought Trump was innocent, regardless of the guidelines, which you claim say he can’t come to a conclusion.

 

 

Why wouldn’t he conclude Trump was guilty if he thought he was guilty?

 

 

 

NO CONCLUSION! SAD!

 

 

are you really that stupid?    or are you playing stupid?   or do you think everyone you are talking to is stupid?   

 

because those are really the only choices. .... and it gets tiresome talking to a brick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

fixed

 

What do you two think Barr is covering up and how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

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”.

 

 

actually.. Mueller has said over and over again that this is EXACTLY what he would NOT do, under any circumstance.   Explicitly and clearly.     IN addition, this has been explicitly and pointed out to YOU...over and over and over again.    

 

 

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

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

 

the attny general (and Rod Rosenstein before him) directed the investigation, limiting the scope and setting the rules of engagement as they saw fit (such as, not allowing the team to actually directly question Trump... the ultimate source of the investigation)

 

 

in spite of all of that the team laid out a case of obstruction of justice,  (not even including the DoJ obstruction).. the report provided the clear guidelines for a criminal charge.   The fact that Barr and Trump keep saying "No Collusion, No Obstruction" is just pure fantasy... designed as a sleight of hand for the stupid, and as a cheap convenient political escape route for the unscrupulous and dishonest.    

 

 .... which are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

are you really that stupid?    or are you playing stupid?   or do you think everyone you are talking to is stupid?   

 

because those are really the only choices. .... and it gets tiresome talking to a brick.

 

 

Youre calling me stupid. You haven't explained why what I’m saying is stupid.

 

explain this logic:

 

Mueller can legally come to the conclusion that Trump is innocent but declines to do so.

 

(which is what mueller said himself).

 

Mueller can not legally come to the conclusion that Trump is guilty, and therefore declines to do so.

 

(which is what you are saying is the reasoning behind him not comming to a conclusion).

 

Explain it to me. 

 

 

This is a separate issue from whether or not trump is actually guilty.

 

 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

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

 

So are any congress members saying there was a crime and not calling for impeachment being unfair????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barr and Mueller need to testify at the same hearing.  So when Barr starts lying, you can pivot to Mueller to say what the truth is right in front of him.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, justice98 said:

Barr and Mueller need to testify at the same hearing.  So when Barr starts lying, you can pivot to Mueller to say what the truth is right in front of him.  

 

The Dems should do that.....call Nancy now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Dems are suckers. They should be using this to go after the Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham types by openly asking what Trump has on them to "Throw away their careers, their lives, and their country". 

 

Usually I balk at this type of stuff. But flat out question their patriotism. 

Edited by @SkinsGoldPants
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It is an ethical issue which, sad to say, i don't expect Trump defenders to appreciate. Mueller is not going to say his conclusion is that Trump should be charged or Trump committed crimes or that "normally charges would be filed but in this case they can't be" or any other generic description he could have explicitly used because it still puts the onus of guilt and crime on the President with no trial or avenue for his defense. Add to that the fact that doing so could appear or be used to remove an impartiality he has tried maintain throughout this investigation.

 

This is a near unprecedented circumstance which why Mueller tread so carefully and he moved past this ethical question by deciding that he would not explicitly make that conclusion. He investigated and submitted evidence making it as clear as possible without directly violating those ethics that: sufficient evidence of conspiracy was not confirmed in large part due to obstruction, cover-up, lying and destruction of evidence. As for the obstruction, he details the instances and crimes pretty clearly and concludes that he never had the intent or ability to charge the President with a crime regardless of the results of his investigation due to standing DOJ policy and that it would be left to our Constitutional processes, Congress, to handle. No reading between the lines is required. The results of this investigation are clear and he didn't need to jeopardize his impartiality or ethics in due process to relay that message. 

 

"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President' s conduct.The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

Edited by Momma There Goes That Man
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Crowd: Why Didn't Mueller do this

 

Mueller: The reason I didn't do this is because.........

 

Crowd: ............ok but.........Why didn't you do this?

 

At this point I don't even understand how the questions being asked weren't literally just answered by Mueller during his statement. 

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

Dems are suckers. They should be using this to go after the Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham types by openly asking what Trump has on them to "Throw away their careers, their lives, and their country". 

 

Usually I balk at this type of stuff. But flat out question their patriotism. 

 

The old guard of the Democratic party is a collection of spineless fools.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess they haven’t started impeachment hearings quite yet.  Voting Pelosi as the speaker was a huge mistake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

Which ones say he can’t come to a conclusion?

 

 

Do I work for the FBI or the Attorney General? How the hell would I know internal DOJ guidelines?

 

Mueller just explained it to you. Guidelines said he couldnt charge a sitting President, without a charge he's not allowed to conclude said President committed a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

Do I work for the FBI or the Attorney General? How the hell would I know internal DOJ guidelines?

 

Mueller just explained it to you. Guidelines said he couldnt charge a sitting President, without a charge he's not allowed to conclude said President committed a crime.

 

 Charge. Yes. I get it. Charge is different that comming to a conclusion that a crime did or did not occur. Is that that hard to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The entire democratic congress and the members of the Special Counsel have repeatedly stopped just short of accusing the president of the crimes he has committed in front of our faces on live television and crimes he's been clearly implicated of by those closest to him. Nobody is going to "do" anything. 

 

No proof of collusion? "Russier, if you're listening..." That's all the collusion anyone needs to see with their own naked, steaming eyes. Absolutely ridiculous that this alone wasn't enough. 

 

No proof of obstruction??? "You know, when I fired Comey I was thinking this whole Russier thing..." Even more ridiculous that this wasn't some sort of back-breaking straw for the camels of congress and the DoJ. 

 

For God's sake, the man skated all charges the very second these two things were let go in the wind. He can do and say whatever he wants for some insane reason. The dictatorship is in full-bloom. It's over. The american way is gone. The republicans gave it away to a crook and the democrats were too busy acting casual to pull it back and now it's way too late.

 

Anybody who thinks we can vote him out of office hasn't been paying attention. The Putin model works and if for some reason that doesn't, he'll just declare war and invoke some "no change of office" BS. This guy is running Planet Earth until he dies. We're a joke and the punch line is Monarchy.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Chachie
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

Youre calling me stupid. You haven't explained why what I’m saying is stupid.

 

explain this logic:

 

Mueller can legally come to the conclusion that Trump is innocent but declines to do so.

 

(which is what mueller said himself).

 

Mueller can not legally come to the conclusion that Trump is guilty, and therefore declines to do so.

 

(which is what you are saying is the reasoning behind him not comming to a conclusion).

 

Explain it to me. 

 

 

This is a separate issue from whether or not trump is actually guilty.

 

 

 

None of this is a "legal" issue, because not indicting a sitting POTUS isn't a law, it's a DOJ rule/guideline. From what I've read that guideline doesn't say "you also cannot exonerate a POTUS".

 

We've all read that Mueller is a very by the book guy, and this shows it. I think he's working from an ethical standpoint. If he puts out there that Trump didn't obstruct then that's that, and there's nothing stopping him from doing that..it also goes to the presumption of innocence. However, if he puts out there that he DOES think Trump obstructed justice but that he can't indict him then he's in a whole new pickle because he basically just directly accused POTUS of a crime but POTUS has no way to defend himself since it can't go to the courts because of a lack of indictment. 

 

Mueller very carefully explained this stuff in the report and his news conference. I'm really not sure why some people are finding it so hard to follow. 

 

6 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 Charge. Yes. I get it. Charge is different that comming to a conclusion that a crime did or did not occur. Is that that hard to understand?

 

Again, see above. Mueller has explained this thoroughly now twice.

Edited by mistertim
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump will get a lot named after him on the Federal side. But it'll be anti-corruption laws in the future to be able to hold future leaders more accountable without the gray space that he's been squeezing his 300lb frame in.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Btw, the Mueller report also doesn't say "No Collusion" either.  It just says that the activities between Russia and The President didn't rise to a clear cut case of Conspiracy, which would be the actual criminal charge.  To pretend like the Mueller report is suggesting there was nothing nefarious going on between both parties and contacts of both parties is being a bit dense. 

 

But it seems like 30-40% of the country doesn't care about the actual report because Barr already told everyone what he thinks it says. 

Edited by NoCalMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Why do you guys dignify the nonsense with a response?

 

Cause I’m pretty sure telling them to “shut ya dumb ass the **** up” directly would get me banned. 

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.