patrick.net

"Fake News and Bogus Polls have been vetted to the best of our ability."

Well, because real polls are just too much damned work.

Onvacation says

How can there be obstruction of justice when there is no crime to obstruct

It doesn't work that way as almost any (Barr excepted) attorney will tell you. There does not have to be a proven or even indictable underlying crime. For example, mob boss tells a witness to not cooperate with an investigation into the mob boss, they have him on tape. The crime they are investigating goes nowhere, maybe because the witness won't cooperate, maybe because there isn't enough other proof. There can be made a perfectly legit Obstruction of Justice charge against the mob boss. There may have never been a crime to begin with, maybe the boss didn't want other matters revealed in the course of the investigation, but by obstructing the investigation into it he commits a crime. Same with Trump. Now there is a case that Barr and to a lessor extent Dershowitz makes that because the Pres. is the technical head of Justice Dept. he can do whatever he wants and sees fit to do regarding any investigation, including his own. He simply can't obstruct justice. That may well get litigated after Trump leaves office. If it is constitutionally true, it is IMO a real flaw in the rule of law. And the President, any President is indeed above the law.

Why is it always bla bla bla x number of FORMER something bla bla bla, they can fuck off. Out of 1000s they find some fucks that hate Trump what a surprise.

over 300 million people think liberals are a joke.

Game Over!

Okay, so I see a zero next to my ignore number by my username. So no one is missing my comments. So what's up?

WookieMan says

So you're just going to dismiss the Smollett hoax?

Seriously. I get Trump is the great American leader. He wasn't actually elected (even though he was) and he likes pussy (apparently this is a problem). If we're throwing out prosecutors signatures, you have to take account for the Smollett/Foxx situation. I mean you don't have to, but it would be a bit disingenuous toward your argument if you didn't.

Quigley says

The more you keep arguing your case, the more we know it’s just about getting rid of Trump by any means possible or even remotely probable

I'm not arguing a case. I don't think that as of now there is grounds to remove Trump from office (although I don't know).

I also don't think there is grounds to indict him, but only becasue he is the President.

I'm just busting your balls, becasue all the Trump Cuck assholes think that if they repeat often enough that the Mueller report totally exonerated Trump, that it will become true, just by the sheer force of their desperate hopes

If you want this to be over, you should admit that Trump has and had a lot of corrupt idiots working for him, and that Trump himself is a corrupt idiot that only acts in his self interest, and that his ass has been saved several times by staffers that ignore his orders, and that he may very well have, or probably did obstruct justice in this case.

Admit that he's a corrupt moron that shouldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons, but that for some weird reason, you love having him as President,, perhaps becasue it freaks the hell out of so many of the sane intelligent folks.

marcus says

Barr has acknowledged in testimony that he did not consider any evidence in the Mueller report in forming his opinion

FACT: Barr said and I listened to his whole testimony before the senate, that he did not look at the underlining evidence that supported the findings in the Mueller report, but instead decided to trust Mueller. Interesting, hun? Some people just can't get their facts right. Is it because you are getting them from proven liars like Peter Jennings?

rdm says

Hmm where in the report is that statement? Maybe we should hear from Mueller himself, oh shit they don't want him to testify so I guess we can make all kinds of shit up.

Mueller can testify to the House anytime they invite him. Why haven't they?

To keep the BS going, that's why. If Mueller comes and nixes their last few talking points, what will the Dem House do until 2020?

rdm says

That must be why he didn't charge Trump for obstruction it had nothing to do with the OLC memo. Where did this come from? The "gateway pundit" a well known respected legal commentator?

He didn't charge Trump with obstruction because there was nothing he could get a grand jury to indict on.

WillPowers says

but instead decided to trust Mueller

He didn't trust Mueller. He didn't echo Muellers finding on obstruction, which many interpret as, Trump did obstruct probably justice, but he is not being charged becasue he's thePresident.

Instead, Barr claims that since Mueller didn't charge Trump with obstruction, the decision is up to him (Barr himself) to decide, and he therefore decides that Trump should not be charged, simply becasue Mueller didn't, but implying it's becasue there wasn't sufficient reason. And yet he never fully considered the evidence.

marcus says

think that if they repeat often enough that the Mueller report totally exonerated Trump, that it will become true, just by the sheer force of their desperate hopes

Again, what indictments did Mueller recommend against Trump?

Note again: He had everything from Wiretaps to Warrants on demand. Rosenstein approved everything he asked for. Mueller ended his investigation when he felt like it; in fact the case against Trump being insufficient was decided back Before the 2018 Election.

HonkpilledMaster says

Again, what indictments did Mueller issue against Trump?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

marcus says

but he is not being charged becasue he's President

No, you are wrong, it's because there wasn't enough evidence to support a charge of obstruction and he considered Mueller's findings, the man ,eftist decided they could trust. Now, because he didn't turn out what you want to hear, he is suddenly not to be trusted?

marcus says

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

Marcus, do you actually believe there is some Secret Trump-Russian collusion hiding in the tiny amount of redactions, and that Mueller isn't saying anything all this time, while Barr and Trump cover it all up?

rdm says

And the President, any President is indeed above the law.

False. If Mueller found enough evidence to indict, he would have recommended impeachment, the legal remedy to remove a president from office to face charges. Then a president can face criminal charges.

Lolz!! I decided that my alter ego 39 year veteran Hugh Jais Esquire, Senior Prosecutor (there is no such title) should add his name to this list of prestige.



Luckily, my honorable reputation and total lack of either an email which matched the name or even a LinkedIn account, convinced them that I am totes real.

Thank you Justin and Cameron, for protecting democracy in the same way you protect integrity.

Sincerely,

Hugh Jais, Equire 39 year Senior Prosecutor with the DOJ

CBOEtrader says

Lolz!! I decided that my alter ego 39 year veteran Hugh Jais Esquire, Senior Prosecutor (there is no such title) should add his name to this list of prestige.

List owned. Story done.
Next?

marcus says

That's right 720 and counting.

Think I'm currently the 5th most tenured veteran.

As a 39 year senior prosecutor at the DOJ, I, Hugh Jais Esquire approve this message.

rdm says

they have him on tape. The crime they are investigating goes nowhere, maybe because the witness won't cooperate, maybe because there isn't enough other proof.

Maybe because she liked having her pussy grabbed?

There was no crime of collusion or obstruction! Trump is your president. Get a life.

That might prove that the number is bogus. But it doesn't prove that those former prosecuters from the Reagan, Bush and Trump admin aren't legit. Rudy Guliani's former assistant is on the list.

So, is Trump going to be successful in reventing Mueller from testifying to congress ?

Why doesn't he want him to ? He should finally be able to put this issue to rest.

marcus says

becasue

Do you do this to bother me? Or do you really think that is how you spell because?

People do judge you on the words you use.

Just BECAUSE!

WillPowers says

becasue he's President

No, you are wrong, it's because

marcus says

So, is Trump going to be successful in reventing Mueller from testifying to congress ?

It won’t matter. Mueller can’t provide any more information than was already provided. And the best thing is if he makes accusations or insinuates that there’s more wrongdoing somewhere, that will just make him look bad for not investigating it. He’s got nothing to say.

marcus says

Why doesn't he want him to ? He should finally be able to put this issue to rest.

it will never be put to rest. Jesus Christ could appear and declare Trump free of these accusations and the media wouldn't stop.

marcus says

Over 720 former prosecutors say Trump would be indicted if he weren't president

After Trump serves his 8 years as president and you finally realize that all your panic attacks and hair pulling were all for naught. Wasting all those years trying to convince people that Trump wasn't worthy. (and not convincing anyone).
Will you finally be able to free yourself from TDS and get on with your life?

HonkpilledMaster says

Mueller can testify to the House anytime they invite him. Why haven't they

They have, Trump doesn't want him to testify, I guess Trump fears being re-exonerated. Too much winning