No Collusion!

[The Pendragon]

If all "Dog Whistles" are conservative talking points, Why do only liberals hear them?

[Cow Poke]

If all "Dog Whistles" are conservative talking points, Why do only liberals hear them?

I'm sorry, what did you say?

[The Pendragon]

Except that Mueller never found that Trump, or his campaign, was innocent of anything. Mueller didn't conclude anything. That was Barr's cherry picked, out of context, spin on the special councels work. Since a sitting President can't be indicted, then the only body able to decide the matter is Congress, not Mueller, and not the Atty Gen. But the Atty Gen took it upon himself anyway (bag job) to declare the President innocent without even reading the report or the underlying evidence supporting the report.

Poor JimL, He thinks that Mueller was appointed as "Special Counsel for the Defense"

JimL, Mueller was appointed as "Special Prosecutor". Prosecutors don't find people innocent, they try and find guilt, NO EVEDENCE OF GUILT FOUND.
NO GUILT = NOT GUITY, NOT GUILTY = INNOCENT.

AG Barr is required ignore Mueller comment s on not finding innocence because under the Constitution, proof of innocence is not required "Its presumed". Saying there is no evidence to prove innocence is hollow word and means nothing. Otherwise the Constitution would read "Guilty until Proven Innocent". I the US guilt must be proven and you keep concentrating an having to prove Innocence.

JimL, Are you really making the point that the Prosecutor in a case was also be a the Defense Lawyer? I think that is called a "Conflict of Interest".

Thank You JimL,
You just made a good case of "Conflict of Interest" and the part of Mueller.
I guess JimL also make the case that Trump was right to asking that Mueller be removed because of "Conflict of Interest"

WOW, JimL actually destroyed his own case, all on his own. Along with disproving a lot of the evidence he claim proves his point.
"I love it when a plan comes together"

By the way, I'm not reading your mind just reading your post.

[JimL]

How many times do you need to be told that a special prosecutor does not exonerate, and cannot exonerate? That is because making conclusive determinations of innocence is never the task of a special prosecutor. Their job is to complete an investigation and then either ask the grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case and nothing more.

If the special prosecutor doesn't think that they can make the case then they're supposed to drop it. It isn't like they keep searching until they can exonerate the accused because that is not the job of any prosecutor. Ever.

How many times do you need to read the Mueller report before your able understand that he, according to the Justice dept. law, can not charge/indict a sitting president. Therefore the report, the underlying evidence of the report, is turned over to Congress, not to the subject of the investigations hand picked, unelected defense attorney. Mueller could have substantial evidence, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and still he hasn't the power to charge, or indict the sitting president.

[JimL]

Poor JimL, He thinks that Mueller was appointed as "Special Counsel for the Defense"

JimL, Mueller was appointed as "Special Prosecutor". Prosecutors don't find people innocent, they try and find guilt, NO EVEDENCE OF GUILT FOUND.
NO GUILT = NOT GUITY, NOT GUILTY = INNOCENT.

JimL, Are you really making the point that the Prosecutor in a case was also be a the Defense Lawyer? I think that is called a "Conflict of Interest".

Thank You JimL,
You just made a good case of "Conflict of Interest" and the part of Mueller.
I guess JimL also make the case that Trump was right to asking that Mueller be removed because of "Conflict of Interest"

WOW, JimL actually destroyed his own case, all on his own. Along with disproving a lot of the evidence he claim proves his point.
"I love it when a plan comes together"

By the way, I'm not reading your mind just reading your post.

You my friend obviously have reading comprehension problems.

[JimL]

It's understandable why you didn't include an actual link or cite or quote. What he actually said was:

"No, we accepted the statements in the report as a factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate," Barr said of himself and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

So, your account is inaccurate, at best.



Jimmy is sharing his LiberalTalkiingPointsForDummies with you, eh?

Barr didn't even know what was in the report when he was asked by Senators about certain events that the report detailed. That he didn't read it was obvious to any one actually watching the hearing. Apparently you didn't watch.

[Cow Poke]

How many times do you need to read the Mueller report before your able understand that he,

A) You mean "you're" - and you left out "to" -- "you're able to understand". (Which you're obviously not)
2) Repeating the same ignorance over and over does not make it true.

according to the Justice dept. law,

"Justice Dept. law"? No, it's Justice Department POLICY. The Constitution is actually silent on whether a sitting president can be indicted, regardless what your puppet masters tell you.

can not charge/indict a sitting president.

Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President

Therefore the report, the underlying evidence of the report, is turned over to Congress, not to the subject of the investigations hand picked, unelected defense attorney.

Perhaps you're unaware that ALL Attorneys General are "unelected", including Eric holder, Obama's "wing man".

Mueller could have substantial evidence, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and still he hasn't the power to charge, or indict the sitting president.

That's just an ignorant lie of the left, and you really should stop repeating it.

LiberalTalkingPointsForDummies strikes out again!

[Cow Poke]

You my friend obviously have reading comprehension problems.

peewee hulk.jpg

[The Pendragon]

You my friend obviously have reading comprehension problems.

Sorry, I edited the post while you where answering it so you post is off.

If I am wrong it should be easy for you to dispute the content of the post instead of attacking me. I see no dispute only an insult.


I'll make it simple:

Prosecutors prove "Guilt".
Counsel for the Defense prove "Innocence".


In your post you assured that Mueller could not prove "Innocence". This is the job for the Defense so I have no other option but to assume 1 of 2 things:

1. You are confused, and thing that Prosecutors prove "Innocence"
2. You feel that Mueller can be both the Prosecution and Defense at the same time.

I was the assuming that you believed the second case and answer on that assumption, because the first just make you seem ignorant.

You have not proved either assumption wrong. Or made a case against the "conflict of interest" the two assumptions. so my post still stands.

Please read my post a few more times, then try to dispute what I said in the post. I gave my evidence and you did not dispute it so my evidence stands.

[The Pendragon]

If all "Dog Whistles" are conservative talking points, Why do only liberals hear them?

I'm sorry, what did you say?

Did I say something?

[Cow Poke]

How many times do you need to read the Mueller report before your able understand that he, according to the Justice dept. law, can not charge/indict a sitting president. ....

Even Eric Holder, Obama's unelected wing man, tends to think it's wrong to claim that a sitting president cannot be indicted...

[Cow Poke]

Did I say something?

You said "bacon" and I said "hallelujah!" You don't remember?

[The Pendragon]

You my friend obviously have reading comprehension problems.

JimL, Tass, I'm make it easy for you. Instead of insulting me, you can destroy all of our cases by proving 1 little thing.

Our case centers around the fact that a Prosecutor does not prove Innocence.
Give us you evidence that a Prosecutors job is to prove Innocence. Our case falls flat if you can.
If you can't you look stupid and ignorant every time you use that to prove your point.

It would also help your case if you can prove that Innocence needs to be proved in the Constitution. I believe it's "Innocent until Proven Guilty", though that one might be a little hard.

If you are "Innocent until Proven Guilty" and a prosecutor says I can't prove you guilty, then the prosecutor say, but I can't prove you Innocent either, the second statement is irrelevant because with out evidence for showing Guilt or Innocence the default applies Innocent.

So, I guess I was wrong, if you can prove that a Prosecutor's Job is to prove Innocence, You still need to prove that the Constitution does not provide "Innocent until Proven Guilty". WOW, sucks to be on that side of the argument.

[The Pendragon]

You said "bacon" and I said "hallelujah!" You don't remember?

"Bacon, Bacon, Bacon, Yummy Bacon"

[The Pendragon]

How many times do you need to read the Mueller report before your able understand that he, according to the Justice dept. law, can not charge/indict a sitting president.

Wrong again JimL, You can charge a sitting President, the argument is whether you can indict him or have to wait until he is out of Office before you indict him. He's still vulnerable to indictment. Which was what Mueller messed up on.

Mueller could have still charged Trump if he thought he was guilty. regardless of an indictment or not, that would be evidence for Impeachment. but again If Mueller had enough evidence for that the congress would only need the Report to impeach.

Oh, by the way, Grand Jury proceedings and the underlying evidence are both protected by Law. Meaning that without a High Court's permission AG Barr can't release it or he goes to jail along with any congressman that conspired with him to release it.