Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Director Mueller Speaks in Public for the First Time...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Your delusions run deep ...
    Mine? Those are capitalist policies and republican policies. Why do you think they want less regulations and cuts to tax dollars going to these programs? Regulations hurt profits, hence why the middle class gets to suffer due to less safety laws and protections.
    Republicans want the money going to public education to be funneled to their crony capitalists. (charter schools, etc)
    Increasing the minimum wage may hurt profits, hence why they don't want the change. (middle class suffers)
    Illegal immigrants are relied upon by Big Agriculture/Farms. Stopping illegal workers will hurt profits.

    Pretty obvious stuff if you paid attention.

    Comment


    • Mueller Turns Justice System on Its Head
      ...
      Special Counsel Robert Mueller should be censured, if not disbarred, for violating Department of Justice rules and turning the legal system upside down for political purposes — to “get Trump.”

      His malpractice was on full display this week with his unnecessary press conference to smear the president’s character and reputation by inferring he committed crimes — without bringing charges.

      Our legal system doesn'’t work that way.

      The accused is either innocent or guilty based on factual evidence — not nuance or smoke and mirrors. If prosecutors have insufficient evidence and can’t bring charges against someone, the case is dropped. And prosecutors aren’t supposed to damage a person’s reputation for spite.

      But that’s exactly what Mueller did in violating Department of Justice rules and protocols.

      In the U.S. justice system, Americans are afforded the presumption of innocence, and the burden to proof is on law enforcement — not the defendant. But Mueller took a sledgehammer to that foundational principle during his partisan press conference by saying, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. … We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

      Seriously, folks? Mueller and his rabid team of partisan lawyers just completed a 22-month exhaustive special counsel investigation into all things Donald Trump at an estimated cost of $35 million. With unlimited resources — and the president’s full cooperation — Mueller and his cabal of pro-Hillary Clinton lawyers interviewed hundreds of witnesses including top White House officials, campaign associates and family members. They reviewed 1.4 million documents provided by the White House and conducted an over-the-top raid of the president’s former lawyer Michael Cohen’s home, forever damaging attorney-client privilege. They raided Roger Stone’s private home — in a heavy-handed, embarrassing spectacle — using helicopters, amphibious vehicles and a dozen heavily armed law enforcement agents to pull the old man out of bed in a pre-dawn arrest.

      If that wasn’'t enough, the special counsel used strongman tactics to inflict cruel and unusual punishment against Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, putting him in solitary confinement for white-collar crimes from years ago — that had nothing to do with the president, or Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

      If, after all that, Mueller and 19 high-priced lawyers couldn'’t find sufficient evidence a crime was committed and bring indictments against the president, it’s because it didn'’t happen.

      It was all a hoax, stemming from a discredited dossier and massive disinformation campaign waged by Trump’s political enemies.
      ...
      http://www.gopusa.com/?p=70346?omhide=true
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • What a complete crock of horseshit.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Massena View Post
          What a complete crock of horseshit.
          How does it feel to have spent the last couple of years believing all the crap that the left can throw? And being wrong every single time? Your track record of bashing Trump has zero validity and is based on lies. And that's all you have, a bunch of lies that you zealously cling to.

          I pity you.
          Credo quia absurdum.


          Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Massena View Post
            What a complete crock of horseshit.
            Well Mr. prosecutor, show us the evidence that Mueller missed. Share with us the specific crimes and charges that should be applied to Trump.

            So far you are the one dumping piles here.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

            Comment


            • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post

              Trump isn't a billionaire and I didn't say he was. Not all billionaires are capitalists. I'm not a capitalist outside of playing with the stock market. Most Americans are not capitalists. But a good portion are tricked by being scared into supporting capitalist policies over middle class ones.
              Komrade, it boils down to either of two paths;

              1) Capitalism ` Free Market/Enterprise where rewards(profit) tend to be proportional to investment (capital=money, tools, facilities, etc; labor, overhead, resources(raw materials cost), based upon what the market is willing to pay for your product ~ goods &/or services.

              2) Socialism/communism or some other named controlled economy where the State determines what goods and services will be available, whom will provide such, and what "price" consumers will pay. Unfortunately, history shows this sort of systems often don't balance cost to make/provide with a "price" that cover those costs.

              A note on "profit". The opposite is loss/debt. If you can't receive enough via price to cover costs of what you provide, you will be broke and out of business in quick time. Gross profits are what businesses use to pay off loan principle, such as for improved equipment, expanded production(usually more jobs), additional facilities/outlets a.k.a. growth. Gross profits will also pay for non tax deductible expenses. What is left over is net profit and this is often where dividends for stocks/shares will come from, plus funding for growth/improvement if wanting to not take out loans.

              Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
              Examples of capitalist policies: (which you support)
              This is the first delusion as many involved in free enterprise/capitalism do not support these. Loonie-Left believe this though.

              Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
              -Cutting SS, Medicare, Medicaid
              No, it is cutting the waste and abuse within these systems that is sought. Also better free market options for those whom may want to go that route instead of via the guv'mint programs.

              Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
              -Eliminating the public education system
              No, it is eliminate waste, abuse, and excess and unnecessary costs. Also allow for more private sector options to compete fairly and openly, on a level playing field.

              Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
              -Eliminating safety laws and oversight on corporations (regulations)
              No, safety laws help reduce worker injuries and assure consistent products in the market place from all providers. Regulations, when not ridiculous or onerous, when applied equally to all producers in an industry assure assure fair competition and consistent goods and services for consumers to select.

              Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
              -Not increasing the federal minimum wage
              Not exactly. Wages should be competitive for the industry, and common business sense is a company wants to pay the least they can based upon costs of replacing their workers. In other words, pay what the worker is worth.

              Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
              -Not stopping illegal immigration
              Again wrong. Most companies I've worked for prefer legal immigrants, if they are to be employed in place of native born citizens. This is also required by law and looks to have little traction or support to be repealed;
              https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/working-us

              Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
              All capitalist policies that most conservatives support. These policies hurt the middle class.
              1) Fairly obvious you don't really know much about capitalist, but you do know the socialist/communist party line and propaganda quite well.
              2) Nearly all costs related to the above are added to the price of the good or service they effect and get passed on to the end user/consumer. This includes those on both sides of the "middle class" and usually are most detrimental to those in lower class/economic strata.

              See my signature line and try to grasp and understand that concept.
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

              Comment


              • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                Well Mr. prosecutor, show us the evidence that Mueller missed. Share with us the specific crimes and charges that should be applied to Trump.
                One more time, very slowly, so that maybe even you can understand: Read Volume II of the Mueller Report.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Massena View Post

                  One more time, very slowly, so that maybe even you can understand: Read Volume II of the Mueller Report.
                  I don't have time to go through 241 pages right now. Was hoping in your wisdom you might provide your cliff notes version of what you think is there that shows criminal action and/or collusion with the Russians or illegal interference in the 2016 election.

                  A quick scan of the table of contents shows this may not be the subject of this Part II. Conclusion on page 182;

                  U .S. Department of Justice Att6mey W6rk Prrn:lt1et // May C6Htaifl Material Pr6teeted UHder Fed. R . Crim. P. 6(e) IV. CONCLUSION 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. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not ex onerate him.

                  Pile of doublespeak there, especially since the foundation of our criminal prosecution system is that of innocent until proven guilty and seems Mueller et al could not prove guilty of obstruction, but this says nothing about the issue/reason for the investigation, a.k.a. "the Russian interference in the 2016 election".

                  Last edited by G David Bock; 02 Jun 19, 14:22. Reason: fix math
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment


                  • New Damaging Info Comes Out On Disgraced FBI Agent Peter Strzok

                    ...
                    Fox News' Catherine Herridge reports that the FBI's mid-August 2016 counterintelligence "defensive briefing" for the Trump campaign did not notify campaign officials that Mike Flynn and George Papadopoulos were under investigation. Fox News reports:
                    Strzok, who was later removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team for sending anti-Trump texts, was a central coordinator for the FBI on the defensive briefing, which included multiple agencies. Three weeks earlier, Strzok opened an FBI counterintelligence investigation into campaign aide George Papadopoulos.

                    A source familiar with sensitive records documenting the August briefing told Fox News that Strzok was in a unique -- and apparently conflicted -- position. Strzok opened the FBI investigation into Russian outreach to Trump campaign aides, while at the same time he was supposed to be warning the Trump campaign about Russian activities.
                    During a segment on Fox News, Herridge noted that the time of the events is significant as days before the briefing Strzok and Page spoke about their "insurance policy" against then-candidate Donald Trump.

                    "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk," Strzok texted FBI lawyer Lisa Page, whom he was having an affair with."It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40."
                    ...
                    https://www.dailywire.com/news/47868...aign=position1
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bwaha View Post

                      How does it feel to have spent the last couple of years believing all the crap that the left can throw? And being wrong every single time? Your track record of bashing Trump has zero validity and is based on lies. And that's all you have, a bunch of lies that you zealously cling to.
                      It is a real shame that you cannot respond to any posting with any substantial information. All that you are apparently able to do is answer material with derogatory personal comments that just are not true. You have the nasty habit of falsely accusing someone with whom you disagree. Further you cannot, or will not, counter points made in the discussion or argument with anything that contradicts them.

                      That shows either a dearth of research skills or the inability to articulate anything that makes sense to reasonable people. In short, your postings are despicable for their lack of skill, knowledge, and the ability to do anything but make false accusations, misrepresentations, and defamatory material.

                      I don't even feel sorry for your personal plight-I merely feel disgust at your disgraceful conduct.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                        I don't have time to go through 2412 pages right now. Was hoping in your wisdom you might provide your cliff notes version of what you think is there that shows criminal action and/or collusion with the Russians or illegal interference in the 2016 election.
                        Here you go, all impeachable offenses.

                        You either support the constitution or do not.

                        https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruct...eport-heat-map

                        Comment


                        • Well done.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                            Here you go, all impeachable offenses.

                            You either support the constitution or do not.
                            I would say he does not.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                              Here you go, all impeachable offenses.

                              You either support the constitution or do not.

                              https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruct...eport-heat-map
                              Lawfareblog is very leftwing liberal . Its director and the writer of the article have worked for the Wapo (= the propagana newspaper of ISIS ). It is also a part of the Brookings Institution which is funded by people as Soros .
                              Last edited by ljadw; 02 Jun 19, 13:40.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                                Here you go, all impeachable offenses.

                                You either support the constitution or do not.

                                https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruct...eport-heat-map
                                Let's just take one of your source's suppositions and examine it.

                                E. Efforts to fire Mueller

                                Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

                                Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

                                Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”
                                It isn't an "obstructive act" for Trump to talk about firing Mueller. For it to be an ACT you need proof that Trump moved to actually fire him. That is, unless you can show a paper trail, etc., that Trump started to or substantially made efforts to actually fire Mueller you have nothing. Talk is cheap and doesn't amount to an act.

                                The "Nexus" is based on essentially hearsay. You have nothing but a single witness claiming something second hand. Without the paper trail or other first hand evidence (that is direct evidence Trump did something), you have no nexus.

                                Intent requires proof that Trump actually moved to remove Mueller. Talk alone is insufficient.

                                Yet, this source claims Trump is clearly guilty of obstruction on this charge. That isn't the case. In fact, in all of their suppositions, they grossly overstate the value of what evidence is available in order to bolster a pre-decided outcome. That is, they want to find Trump guilty of obstruction so they make the evidence fit the conclusion.

                                In simple terms what you and this source are claiming is essentially this:

                                Trump, angry with Mueller and the investigation says something like, "I hate Mueller and I'm going to fire the SOB!" Yet, he makes no actual effort to do so.

                                For you and this source, that amounts to obstruction of justice. That's absurd.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X