Originally posted by JimL
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
No Collusion!
Collapse
X
-
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostThat's correct, some do, but most of us don't want to begin the impeachment process right away, we want hearings and public testimony so that those who aren't as politically aware, as well as those republicans who are in denial, can see for themselves whether the impeachment process should proceed, or not. Those who want impeachment to begin, want that because they have seen the evidence and to them the evidence of guilt is obvious. Polls on this basically mean nothing at this point, because whatever the truth of the investigation is, is not apparent yet to the general public. Trump, and Atty Gen Barr are aware of that, which is why they tried to hide it behind the Atty Gen's false rendering of the Mueller report. Don't be afraid of transparency, MM, your Country is at stake, democracy is at stake. You should welcome the hearings, not fear them.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYou guys are playing right into Trump's hands - he loves fight, and will continue to make it a campaign issue. The Mueller report was a big flop. YUGE. Keep repeating those talking points, Jim, and Trump will get a second term.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostDon't fear transparency CP.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYou need your diaper changed again, Jimmy. And I don't fear transparency. Not even a teeny little tad. But DO keep spewing forth those talking points for liberal dummies!!!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSure you do, CP. We can all see that,
you are all scared to death of Congressional hearings, because we know that you're not a complete idiot,
and you know as well as we do, but can't admit, that Atty Gen. Barrs renedering of the Mueller report was a bunch of BS. You're afraid that will be exposed just like Barr himself is which is why he is himself threatening not to appear before Congress.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostFirst off Rasmussen is a biased pollster, and second, what the majority of americans want is public hearings which is what Trump and you are afraid of. Impeachment would come after that although he may be ousted by the electorate by that time if his stalling/obstruction technique works to his corrupt advantage. Then he, like so many of his appointed cronies, you know, the swamp, will still have to face the many financial crimes he is accused of in State courts. That's your guy! Your team!Originally posted by JimL View PostFirst off Rasmussen is a biased pollster, and second, what the majority of americans want is public hearings which is what Trump and you are afraid of. Impeachment would come after that although he may be ousted by the electorate by that time if his stalling/obstruction technique works to his corrupt advantage.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThat's correct, some do, but most of us don't want to begin the impeachment process right away, we want hearings and public testimony so that those who aren't as politically aware, as well as those republicans who are in denial, can see for themselves whether the impeachment process should proceed, or not.
Who is this we he speaks of?
Where are his sources?
This is all opinion posing as fact.
Hence "Gish-Gallop"
Tass you should be happy that JimL has given you a very good example of the "Gish-Gallop style of writing" hope you can learn from this. I tried to keep it to single syllable words so you and JimL would understand.
Originally posted by JimL View PostThose who want impeachment to begin, want that because they have seen the evidence and to them the evidence of guilt is obvious.
But, before you do remember what the report said. In short:
(1) "No American colluded with Russia" Quote from the document (Last time I check Trump was an American.)
(2) The Second part of the Mueller report started by telling us that they could not find evidence of "obstruction of justice" in a court of law when a prosecutor tells the Judge that there is no evidence the automatic judgment is not guilty, nothing else the prosecutor says is taken into account. It is not up to the defense to prove evidence, it only needs to refute the evidence the prosecutor brings no evidence no guilt. Its not the prosecutions job to absolve anyone of a crime just present the evidence. So it means nothing when Mueller says he can't exonerate Tump its true because he legally can't do it (Not his Job Man), His saying that he found no evidence of "obstruction of justice" that is the exoneration.
All this stuff that follows is just sour grapes from the investigation team.
So, now that I have educated you, I ask again. What evidence do you have that Mueller could not find after 2yrs, over 300 witnesses, and 3 mil. pages of documents could not find?
You can impress me if you can tell me, if you can't you and Tass are just like a pair of three year olds crying because you did not get what you wanted.
Originally posted by JimL View PostPolls on this basically mean nothing at this point,
Originally posted by JimL View Postbecause whatever the truth of the investigation is, is not apparent yet to the general public. Trump, and Atty Gen Barr are aware of that, which is why they tried to hide it behind the Atty Gen's false rendering of the Mueller report. Don't be afraid of transparency, MM, your Country is at stake, democracy is at stake. You should welcome the hearings, not fear them.
Also, it hard to say the Trump is a traitor if you can't prove collusion. It's obvious to me that there is no "there there". And unlike you I can only speak for myself (Others will agree with me if they like). You claim to speak for the faceless masses (Most of them you have never met).
Tass, JimL, I am truly sorry for the long post I know it hard for you to read a post this long.Last edited by The Pendragon; 04-29-2019, 12:27 PM."Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"-- Arthur C. Clark
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostRight... and do you find it just as significant that at least half have accepted Mueller's findings that the President committed no crimes,
and they wish the Democrat party would do something more productive than continue their witch-hunt?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostObstruction of Justice is a crime. And Mueller specified apparent Obstruction of Justice on 10 separate occasions in his Report,
If you would have read my post (the one right above yours) you would have known that the 10 instances in the report where just sour grapes from the Mueller Team.
The details are in the post just above yours, the above is just a summery.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostEasily fixed. Allow Congress do it's job of presidential oversight and respond to it's subpoenas, rather than doing everything possible to sweep it all under the carpet.
So none of the 10 instances you are talking about are proof of Obstruction of Justice (this according to Mueller) so they are zeros as far as adding up to Obstruction of Justice. 10 X 0 is still 0.
The Key here is that Mueller said in the report that He could not have accrual evidence of Obstruction of Justice. Again No Evidence = Not guilty. That is the way it works in the U.S.A.
I know that the post is long but before you try to answer Mountain Man you need to disprove my post, you know the one right above yours. I know it's hard with all that reading that you and JimL dislike so much. But I tried to keep it as simple as I could so that you two could understand."Any sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from Magic!"-- Arthur C. Clark
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pendragon View PostI guess you could not read all of my post the minute Mueller stated that he had not conclusive evidence. the game is over for Obstruction of Justice. Again No Evidence = Not guilty
If you would have read my post (the one right above yours) you would have known that the 10 instances in the report where just sour grapes from the Mueller Team.
The details are in the post just above yours, the above is just a summery.
Oversight on what? Mueller was their Oversight. He has spent 2 yrs. interviewed over 300 people, and gotten over 1 Million pages of documentation, without Trump using executive privilege, and he could not find surfactant evidence to bring a conviction on Obstruction of Justice.
So none of the 10 instances you are talking about are proof of Obstruction of Justice (this according to Mueller) so they are zeros as far as adding up to Obstruction of Justice. 10 X 0 is still 0.
[FONT=arial]The Key here is that Mueller said in the report that He could not have accrual evidence of Obstruction of Justice. Again No Evidence = Not guilty. That is the way it works in the U.S.A.[/FONT
I know that the post is long but before you try to answer Mountain Man you need to disprove my post, you know the one right above yours. I know it's hard with all that reading that you and JimL dislike so much. But I tried to keep it as simple as I could so that you two could understand.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pendragon View Post(2) The Second part of the Mueller report started by telling us that they could not find evidence of "obstruction of justice" in a court of law when a prosecutor tells the Judge that there is no evidence the automatic judgment is not guilty, nothing else the prosecutor says is taken into account. It is not up to the defense to prove evidence, it only needs to refute the evidence the prosecutor brings no evidence no guilt. Its not the prosecutions job to absolve anyone of a crime just present the evidence. So it means nothing when Mueller says he can't exonerate Tump its true because he legally can't do it (Not his Job Man), His saying that he found no evidence of "obstruction of justice" that is the exoneration.
All this stuff that follows is just sour grapes from the investigation team.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Pendragon already answered this: "...in a court of law when a prosecutor tells the Judge that there is no evidence the automatic judgment is not guilty, nothing else the prosecutor says is taken into account."
The second Mueller himself admitted that he couldn't conclude that the President had committed any crimes, it was game over as far as obstruction of justice is concerned, no exoneration necessary.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
If Mueller's case for obstruction were in any way damning then Washington Democrats would be quoting from the report itself and preparing to impeach instead of gearing up for endless hearings and investigations.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pendragon View PostI guess you could not read all of my post the minute Mueller stated that he had not conclusive evidence. the game is over for Obstruction of Justice. Again No Evidence = Not guilty
If you would have read my post (the one right above yours) you would have known that the 10 instances in the report where just sour grapes from the Mueller Team.
The details are in the post just above yours, the above is just a summery.
Oversight on what? Mueller was their Oversight. He has spent 2 yrs. interviewed over 300 people, and gotten over 1 Million pages of documentation, without Trump using executive privilege, and he could not find surfactant evidence to bring a conviction on Obstruction of Justice.
So none of the 10 instances you are talking about are proof of Obstruction of Justice (this according to Mueller) so they are zeros as far as adding up to Obstruction of Justice. 10 X 0 is still 0.
The Key here is that Mueller said in the report that He could not have accrual evidence of Obstruction of Justice. Again No Evidence = Not guilty. That is the way it works in the U.S.A.
I know that the post is long but before you try to answer Mountain Man you need to disprove my post, you know the one right above yours. I know it's hard with all that reading that you and JimL dislike so much. But I tried to keep it as simple as I could so that you two could understand.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seanD, Yesterday, 05:54 PM
|
0 responses
17 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 05:54 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-14-2024, 09:50 PM
|
55 responses
246 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Yesterday, 08:49 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-14-2024, 04:03 AM
|
25 responses
126 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 11:21 AM | ||
Started by carpedm9587, 05-13-2024, 12:51 PM
|
133 responses
791 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by carpedm9587
Yesterday, 09:15 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-13-2024, 06:47 AM
|
5 responses
47 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by mossrose
05-13-2024, 12:18 PM
|
Comment