Jump to content
Zipper

Mueller Takes Shot At President Stumbling Out The Door

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, JHbowhunter said:

   Try to maintain some semblance of free speech here. 

that is appreciated. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2019 at 12:37 PM, deadonshot2 said:

So how exactly do you prove trump is a criminal when he cant be indicted? 

An indictment doesn't mean he is a criminal either. You know, the saying "you can indict a ham sandwich" has been around for a long time, for a reason. 

And to answer your question, many experts, whom you've chose to ignore, have said Mueller could have done exactly what Ken Star did, and say these are the crimes committed, and leave it up to the Justice Department to decide whether to adhere to, or ignore OLC Guidelines. 

And while you like to glomm on to the line that Mueller said he could not say conclusively Trump did not commit a crime, he never said he did commit one either, did he? Why do you think that is? The fact is, there are crimes that take place right near where you live and work, that we could  probably not conclusively say you didn't commit either. Seriously. It's a stupid standard to hold, and one that finally removed any doubt as to whether Bob Mueller was going to be an objective investigator, or a partisan hack. Partisan hack it clearly is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DV1 said:

An indictment doesn't mean he is a criminal either. You know, the saying "you can indict a ham sandwich" has been around for a long time, for a reason. 

And to answer your question, many experts, whom you've chose to ignore, have said Mueller could have done exactly what Ken Star did, and say these are the crimes committed, and leave it up to the Justice Department to decide whether to adhere to, or ignore OLC Guidelines. 

And while you like to glomm on to the line that Mueller said he could not say conclusively Trump did not commit a crime, he never said he did commit one either, did he? Why do you think that is? The fact is, there are crimes that take place right near where you live and work, that we could  probably not conclusively say you didn't commit either. Seriously. It's a stupid standard to hold, and one that finally removed any doubt as to whether Bob Mueller was going to be an objective investigator, or a partisan hack. Partisan hack it clearly is. 

Sorry but you are incorrect. Ken Star was an independebt counsel and subject to answer to the AG like mueller was. That is a huge difference. You may want to go check out the difference between an independent counsel and a special counsel. And as far as crimes go we could debate rhat for years. I will remind you that many here have considered hillary a criminal for years yet she also has not been brought up on charges.  So when may i expect your post defending her since she falls in the same category as trump. Or do the rules you play by only apply to dems as guilty without charges and trump innocent because of the same no charges?  You have successfully proven your bias. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Pelosi has lost her mind. Trump got to her with the Pelosi Drunk video. She's  done! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, deadonshot2 said:

Sorry but you are incorrect. Ken Star was an independebt counsel and subject to answer to the AG like mueller was. That is a huge difference. You may want to go check out the difference between an independent counsel and a special counsel. And as far as crimes go we could debate rhat for years. I will remind you that many here have considered hillary a criminal for years yet she also has not been brought up on charges.  So when may i expect your post defending her since she falls in the same category as trump. Or do the rules you play by only apply to dems as guilty without charges and trump innocent because of the same no charges?  You have successfully proven your bias. 

I'm not incorrect. Mueller could have identified the statue(s) Trump violated, and what he did that violated the statue(s), if he found a crime.  He didn't find a crime, and therefore, did identify one. If he did, he could have said so, he could have put all that in his report, and passed it on to the AG for a decision on whether to abide by OLC guidelines or not. You don't have to indict someone to identify a crime, and just because you indict someone doesn't mean they are guilty. That is what I said, it's not incorrect, and it's not bias, it's just fact.  

Since you are so educated on the Special Counsel statue, I'm sure you came across the part where there has to be a crime identified for a Special Counsel appointed to investigate. In this case, there wasn't. The Russia investigation was a counter-intelligence investigation, not a criminal one. The "crimes" prosecuted as a result of the investigation were crimes created by the investigation, not ones that were the subject of the investigation. The statue was never legally triggered to begin with. That is also a fact that many legal and constitutional experts continue to make, yet people like you ignore. 

Proof Mueller was acting in a partisan, political manner is this: there was no legitimate legal purpose for his press conference, especially since he said nothing different than what was in his report. The was no legal purpose for it, only a political purpose. As a Special Counsel, he is supposed to be apolitical. He was anything but. His staffing decisions were all suspect, but the most glaring example is that his mandate...his purpose...was supposed to be to investigate Russian involvement/interference in our election, yet he ignored the largest, most direct involvement, that did create the most chaos and confusion about the election: the Steele document. Steele admitted he used his current and former Russian intelligence/Government sources for the information. That document compiled by Steele, aided by Russian government officials, was financed by one political candidate to be used against another. Those are all facts, not mere allegations. We know those are facts, yet Mueller never went near them. HE ONLY INVESTIGATED ONE PERSON/CAMPAIGN...PRESIDENT TRUMP...NOT RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT. That was not his mandate, or was it? 

Answer these questions. Was he appointed to investigate an act...Russian involvement in our election... or was he appointed to investigate a person or that persons campaign; President Trump? If he was supposed to investigate Russian involvement, why did he fail to examine the most prominent example of it, and if he was appointed to investigate just one candidate, how is that not a politically motivated investigation? 

Edited by DV1
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DV1 said:

I'm not incorrect. Mueller could have identified the statue(s) Trump violated, and what he did that violated the statue(s), if he found a crime.  He didn't find a crime, and therefore, did identify one. If he did, he could have said so, he could have put all that in his report, and passed it on to the AG for a decision on whether to abide by OLC guidelines or not. You don't have to indict someone to identify a crime, and just because you indict someone doesn't mean they are guilty. That is what I said, it's not incorrect, and it's not bias, it's just fact.  

Since you are so educated on the Special Counsel statue, I'm sure you came across the part where there has to be a crime identified for a Special Counsel appointed to investigate. In this case, there wasn't. The Russia investigation was a counter-intelligence investigation, not a criminal one. The "crimes" prosecuted as a result of the investigation were crimes created by the investigation, not ones that were the subject of the investigation. The statue was never legally triggered to begin with. That is also a fact that many legal and constitutional experts continue to make, yet people like you ignore. 

Proof Mueller was acting in a partisan, political manner is this: there was no legitimate legal purpose for his press conference, especially since he said nothing different than what was in his report. The was no legal purpose for it, only a political purpose. As a Special Counsel, he is supposed to be apolitical. He was anything but. His staffing decisions were all suspect, but the most glaring example is that his mandate...his purpose...was supposed to be to investigate Russian involvement/interference in our election, yet he ignored the largest, most direct involvement, that did create the most chaos and confusion about the election: the Steele document. Steele admitted he used his current and former Russian intelligence/Government sources for the information. That document compiled by Steele, aided by Russian government officials, was financed by one political candidate to be used against another. Those are all facts, not mere allegations. We know those are facts, yet Mueller never went near them. HE ONLY INVESTIGATED ONE PERSON/CAMPAIGN...PRESIDENT TRUMP...NOT RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT. That was not his mandate, or was it? 

Answer these questions. Was he appointed to investigate an act...Russian involvement in our election... or was he appointed to investigate a person or that persons campaign; President Trump? If he was supposed to investigate Russian involvement, why did he fail to examine the most prominent example of it, and if he was appointed to investigate just one candidate, how is that not a politically motivated investigation? 

So i will start off by answering your quedtions. Mueller investigated russia AND whstever other avenues opened through the investigation. He found and charged many russians as a result. There were many people in trumps camp that lied about contacts with russia and you had trump himself asking for russia to find hillarys emails. So all suspicion was drawn to trump through their own actions. Hillarys camp was the one that had emails stolen and was viewed the victim because our intelligence determined trump was who russia preferred as potus. You may want to listen to fox conspiracy theories and believe them but i rather not. As far as a partisan investigation again facts support otherwise. Trump appointed republican rosenstein. Even thought he was great and used rosensteins suggestion to get rid of commey. But all of a sudden  rosenstein was deep state because he named a SC. Again mueller a lifelong republican who both sides said was best chouce when he was named. But of vourse when things dont turn out like you want ot expect it is so easy to make that fake claim he was a political hack. We can debate forever but mueller had tight reigns compared to ken starr and did not have the options ken starr had. But since i answered your questions how about answering mine. How did ken star investigate a bj when his mission was to invedtigate a land deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, deadonshot2 said:

So i will start off by answering your quedtions. Mueller investigated russia AND whstever other avenues opened through the investigation. He found and charged many russians as a result. There were many people in trumps camp that lied about contacts with russia and you had trump himself asking for russia to find hillarys emails. So all suspicion was drawn to trump through their own actions. Hillarys camp was the one that had emails stolen and was viewed the victim because our intelligence determined trump was who russia preferred as potus. You may want to listen to fox conspiracy theories and believe them but i rather not. As far as a partisan investigation again facts support otherwise. Trump appointed republican rosenstein. Even thought he was great and used rosensteins suggestion to get rid of commey. But all of a sudden  rosenstein was deep state because he named a SC. Again mueller a lifelong republican who both sides said was best chouce when he was named. But of vourse when things dont turn out like you want ot expect it is so easy to make that fake claim he was a political hack. We can debate forever but mueller had tight reigns compared to ken starr and did not have the options ken starr had. But since i answered your questions how about answering mine. How did ken star investigate a bj when his mission was to invedtigate a land deal?

Well, Ken Star did the same thing Mueller did...those "other avenues" you speak of. For Mueller, it was taxi medallions, for Star, it was an oval office affair with a young White House intern. I don't see much difference in the two, except that Star caught Clinton lying under oath and Trumps lawyers prevented him from falling into that trap. I'm sorry your feelings are still hurt regarding what has happened to Hillary and Bill Clinton throughout the years. It's clear that still bothers you, as you even still call Hillary a victim. Do you not think Trump is a victim of Russian disinformation?

Mueller selectively investigated Russian involvement. You did not answer my question because you did not address why he ignored the Russian disinformation paid for and used by one candidate against the other. That Dossier had more impact on the election, and the results of the election, than any conversation anyone in Trumps orbit may have had with a Russian. Mueller should have examined how a Russian disinformation document was able to have such a huge impact on our election, and our country after the election, if he was really serious about investigating Russian involvement. He didn't, in my opinion, because James Comey is one of his best friends, and Comey was neck deep in using that dossier. Maybe that's why Mueller should have been removed and replaced with someone much more neutral or objective. 

As for your statement about our intelligence agencies deciding Russia preferred Trump...you do know that was not exactly as reported, right? Initially, they reported all 17 Intel agencies came to that conclusion, that was all over the news. Later, it was discovered that it was James Comey at the FBI, John Brennan at the CIA and James Clapper at DNI that came to that conclusion only. Not the others.  That little tidbit never seemed to make much news but it's important because those players are clearly the ones who have become so partisan against President Trump.

Point of fact...Russia acted to negatively impact our election, and that means both candidates. That's what they do: they act in ways to hurt the US, not help us in any way. There were many social media campaigns by Russians aimed to caused doubt about Hillary, and Trump too. And of course, there is that dossier that they aimed squarely at Trump to cripple his candidacy and or Administration if he won. They work to cause doubt and chaos about both candidates so whomever wins, they have planted the seeds. Look at how well that has worked. 

That's what Russia does, they act to harm the US, not help it. The Democrats and Media turned Russian interference into something only  beneficial to Trump because, well, they hate him and wanted to cripple his Administration as much as the Russians did with their disinformation dossier. Do you still not understand that?

-Again, if Mueller found evidence of a crime, he could have said so. 

-It's a material fact that the DNC and Clinton campaign paid for, through Fusion GPS, a document sourced by current and former Russian government/intelligence officials to be used against their opponent. These facts are not in dispute. They prove more actual Russian Government involvement in our election than anything Mueller found surrounding Trump, yet he never investigated it. That is also a fact. Why do you think that is? 

Start engaging your entire brain on this instead of just accessing the portion of it that hates Trump.

Edited by DV1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DV1 said:

Well, Ken Star did the same thing Mueller did...those "other avenues" you speak of. For Mueller, it was taxi medallions, for Star, it was an oval office affair with a young White House intern. I don't see much difference in the two, except that Star caught Clinton lying under oath and Trumps lawyers prevented him from falling into that trap. I'm sorry your feelings are still hurt regarding what has happened to Hillary and Bill Clinton throughout the years. It's clear that still bothers you, as you even still call Hillary a victim. Do you not think Trump is a victim of Russian disinformation?

Mueller selectively investigated Russian involvement. You did not answer my question because you did not address why he ignored the Russian disinformation paid for and used by one candidate against the other. That Dossier had more impact on the election, and the results of the election, than any conversation anyone in Trumps orbit may have had with a Russian. Mueller should have examined how a Russian disinformation document was able to have such a huge impact on our election, and our country after the election, if he was really serious about investigating Russian involvement. He didn't, in my opinion, because James Comey is one of his best friends, and Comey was neck deep in using that dossier. Maybe that's why Mueller should have been removed and replaced with someone much more neutral or objective. 

As for your statement about our intelligence agencies deciding Russia preferred Trump...you do know that was not exactly as reported, right? Initially, they reported all 17 Intel agencies came to that conclusion, that was all over the news. Later, it was discovered that it was James Comey at the FBI, John Brennan at the CIA and James Clapper at DNI that came to that conclusion only. Not the others.  That little tidbit never seemed to make much news but it's important because those players are clearly the ones who have become so partisan against President Trump.

Point of fact...Russia acted to negatively impact our election, and that means both candidates. That's what they do: they act in ways to hurt the US, not help us in any way. There were many social media campaigns by Russians aimed to caused doubt about Hillary, and Trump too. And of course, there is that dossier that they aimed squarely at Trump to cripple his candidacy and or Administration if he won. They work to cause doubt and chaos about both candidates so whomever wins, they have planted the seeds. Look at how well that has worked. 

That's what Russia does, they act to harm the US, not help it. The Democrats and Media turned Russian interference into something only  beneficial to Trump because, well, they hate him and wanted to cripple his Administration as much as the Russians did with their disinformation dossier. Do you still not understand that?

-Again, if Mueller found evidence of a crime, he could have said so. 

-It's a material fact that the DNC and Clinton campaign paid for, through Fusion GPS, a document sourced by current and former Russian government/intelligence officials to be used against their opponent. These facts are not in dispute. They prove more actual Russian Government involvement in our election than anything Mueller found surrounding Trump, yet he never investigated it. That is also a fact. Why do you think that is? 

Start engaging your entire brain on this instead of just accessing the portion of it that hates Trump.

Mueller was not tasked with finding who paid for dossier. Hos avenue was tactics used by russia and why they wanted trump over hillary. And mo i do not think trump is a victim. He stated NOBODY from his csmpaign was in contact with russia. We know that is totally false as there were at seven that lied about it. Then he also knew about covering up the tower meeting and he also lied about the moscow project. So if these were all innocent why lie about them repeatedly? He caused the scrutiny by his and his administrations actions. As far as your clinton comment and lawyers. Again that is the difference between an IC  and  SC. I only use the star investigation since you brought it up.  So since you are on the short end again you rely on you typical bs talking point about some bad feelings about clinton being impeached.  But finally sonce you didnt answer from first post i will ask again. If you think it is wrong of me to consider trump a criminal because he has not been charged, when will you set the record straight with the masses here that hillary is not a criminal since she has not been charged? Hey lets make sure you use the same criteria. So hillary and trump are two fine law abiding citizens according to you. Good to know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There only 3 ways the perverted dems beat Trump in 2020

1.  IMPEACH

2. TAX FRAUD PROOF 

3. KILL HIM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Batsto said:

There only 3 ways the perverted dems beat Trump in 2020

1.  IMPEACH

2. TAX FRAUD PROOF 

3. KILL HIM

I have a feeling they already know it and this election will be a complete disaster for this nation. I think they are already planing on how to alter election results by changing results instead of securing votes. At the end this maybe A very long battle in court or even civil war when they make the move to attack this basic element of democracy. They already did it many times on a smaller scale but this time they may go all out

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, deadonshot2 said:

Mueller was not tasked with finding who paid for dossier. Hos avenue was tactics used by russia 

I'll only address this because the rest of your post didn't make much sense, and/or was based on repeating fake news reports. Also, you seem to have a lot of hard feelings about how things turned out for Hillary. 

So, as to the quoted part...Mueller was "supposed" to investigate Russian involvement/interference in the 2016 election, and the dossier WAS a tactic used by Russia. To make it as simple as I can for you: the Clinton campaign and DNC hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research (find dirt) on Trump. Fusion employed Christopher Steele for this task, who then went to some of his Russian Government sources for the material that became the dossier. These are all facts we already know. There are money trails and paper trails, as well as testimony proving these facts.

You say Mueller was not tasked to investigate this. I say you may be right, and therefore we agree: Mueller was not appointed to investigate Russian involvement in the election, only any connection to Trump and Russian involvement in the election. So it seems we agree on that, it's just you seem to be okay with the idea that candidate Clinton's involvement with Russians in the election is okay, but any allegation of Trumps campaign was not, so it should have been investigated...but not Clinton's campaign involvement, right? Seems you would agree because that is the position you are defending.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DV1 said:

I'll only address this because the rest of your post didn't make much sense, and/or was based on repeating fake news reports. Also, you seem to have a lot of hard feelings about how things turned out for Hillary. 

So, as to the quoted part...Mueller was "supposed" to investigate Russian involvement/interference in the 2016 election, and the dossier WAS a tactic used by Russia. To make it as simple as I can for you: the Clinton campaign and DNC hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research (find dirt) on Trump. Fusion employed Christopher Steele for this task, who then went to some of his Russian Government sources for the material that became the dossier. These are all facts we already know. There are money trails and paper trails, as well as testimony proving these facts.

You say Mueller was not tasked to investigate this. I say you may be right, and therefore we agree: Mueller was not appointed to investigate Russian involvement in the election, only any connection to Trump and Russian involvement in the election. So it seems we agree on that, it's just you seem to be okay with the idea that candidate Clinton's involvement with Russians in the election is okay, but any allegation of Trumps campaign was not, so it should have been investigated...but not Clinton's campaign involvement, right? Seems you would agree because that is the position you are defending.

I have no issue if they investigate, find wrong doing and charge hillary. But that was not what mueller was hired for. Again he was appointed by the republican who trump appointed and deemed a great guy when he wrote the letter about comey. If clinton or any other dem broke a law, charge them, put them on trial and let a jury decide. No skin off my nose. If I was into hillary I would have voted for her but she did not meet my standards. So there are no hard feelings she lost, could care less her email got hacked, etc. So you are wrong. AG Barr has the ability to investigate or name a SC to investigate hillary and her campaign. And if he did, I am fine with that. 

The part you state that about mueller being hired to only investigate russia and anyone in trumps camp would be because of what I stated previously. His campaign lied many times about contact with russia, he hired two people with ties to russia in flynn and manafort, he stood on stage and asked russia openly for help getting hillarys emails and finally let us not forget his good friend roger stone and his contact with Julian Assange. I would tend to believe even captain obvious would focus on trumps campaign as a direct result of their own actions. 

 

  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...