No Collusion!

[firstfloor]

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?

[Cow Poke]

Careful CP; this is me your talking to.

"You're" -- you're doing that on purpose, aren't you! You're allowing yourself to be influenced by JimL!

You mean, when AG Barr exposes the poison tree from which all this rotten fruit comes? I with ya, brother!

[JimL]

A) 2) Repeating the same ignorance over and over does not make it true.

Of course not, it just happens to be true regardless of how many times you ignore it.

The Constitution is actually silent on whether a sitting president can be indicted, regardless what your puppet masters tell you.

Duh! The Justice dept. isn't silent on it though, dummy

Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President

As you stated, the Constitution is silent about it.

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

No, I'm not unaware. Perhaps you're unaware that the Atty. Gen. is also subject to the law, and not subject to the President.

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

LiberalTalkingPointsForDummies strikes out again!

No, it isn't an ignorant lie. The Constitution may be silent on the matter, but the Justice Dept has it as policy and Mueller is following that policy. Lawrence tribe disagree's, and, as he points out himself in that very article, other distinguished professors of law disagree with him. Mueller made his opinion on the matter apparent in the report itself and so is following his opinion concerning it. If he had ignored the OLC policy, and indicted the President, we all know who would be the first ones to critizize him for breaking official policy. Yes, that would be you!

[Cow Poke]

Of course not, it just happens to be true regardless of how many times you ignore it.

No, Jimmy, ignorance is ignorance no matter how many times it's expressed.

Duh! The Justice dept. isn't silent on it though, dummy

Your ignorant statement was, and I quote "according to the Justice dept. law, can not charge/indict a sitting president." That's false.

As you stated, the Constitution is silent about it.

You obviously have no idea what the implication of that is.

No, I'm not unaware. Perhaps you're unaware that the Atty. Gen. is also subject to the law, and not subject to the President.

Well, you're not the brightest color in the light socket, so...

No, it isn't an ignorant lie.

Then you should be able to cite the actual law. You can't, because even the LiberalTalkingPointsForDummies doesn't attempt to do that.

The Constitution may be silent on the matter, but the Justice Dept has it as policy and Mueller is following that policy.

Good to know you've come around to admitting it's a POLICY, not a LAW, as you had originally ignorantly stated.

Lawrence tribe disagree's,

Disagrees. It's not a possessive, Jimmy. And he's expressing an opinion.

and, as he points out himself in that very article, other distinguished professors of law disagree with him.

If there were actual case law, as you falsely claimed, there would be no valid disagreement.

Mueller made his opinion on the matter apparent in the report itself and so is following his opinion concerning it. If he had ignored the OLC policy, and indicted the President, we all know who would be the first ones to critizize him for breaking official policy. Yes, that would be you!

How bout just manning up and admitting you were wrong about it being "Justice dept. law".

Jimmy.... SSSS.... Stop Saying Stupid Stuff!

[JimL]

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.

What you continuously fail to realize is that a special prosecutor investigating the President, because only in such a case can the accused not be indicted, can't indict. But, if you recall, the report also states that, according to the evidence gathered he could not exonerate him either. Therefore his intention, which is also made clear in the report itself, is that his report should go to Congress, and that they should wiegh the evidence and decide for themselves as to whether or not to impeach. Remember, the President can't be indicted, but he can be impeached! Once impeached, he can be indicted.

[Cow Poke]

Remember, the President can't be indicted, but he can be impeached! Once impeached, he can be indicted.

Once again, you are demonstrating how profoundly ignorant you are of all things legal and procedural.

On the one hand, you claim that "according to the Justice dept. law, can not charge/indict a sitting president". As we have already established, there is no such law. It's a POLICY of the DoJ, and there is absolutely nothing keeping that POLICY from being changed.

Next, you're demonstrating your ignorance of the impeachment process -- a president can be impeached, and STILL be president. Bill Clinton is a fairly recent example. ASSUMING that a sitting president can not be indicted (as you repeatedly and do by referencing a non-existent law), he is still PRESIDENT until the Senate acts to remove him from office.

Stop Saying Stupid Stuff!!!

[Tassman]

On the one hand, you claim that "according to the Justice dept. law, can not charge/indict a sitting president". As we have already established, there is no such law. It's a POLICY of the DoJ, and there is absolutely nothing keeping that POLICY from being changed.

a president can be impeached, and STILL be president. Bill Clinton is a fairly recent example. ASSUMING that a sitting president can not be indicted (as you repeatedly and do by referencing a non-existent law), he is still PRESIDENT until the Senate acts to remove him from office.

This is why House Speaker Pelosi is opposing impeachment; it would never get through the Senate as things stand at present. Best to wait until Trump loses the 2020 election, THEN he can be indicted as a private citizen.

[Mountain Man]

I really think you guys are setting yourselves up for another disappointment.

[Cow Poke]

Which even a bigot like you knows is not a LAW.

This is why House Speaker Pelosi is opposing impeachment; it would never get through the Senate as things stand at present.

Why don't you take some time to explain impeachment to Jimmy.

Best to wait until Trump loses the 2020 election, THEN he can be indicted as a private citizen.

You can wish in one hand and spit in the other, and see which fills up first.

[Mountain Man]

I find it curious that liberals continue to confidently predict that Trump will go down any day now when they have been so consistently wrong.

[The Pendragon]

What you continuously fail to realize is that, you continue to use arguments that I have already disproven without rebutting my arguments. You can repeat the same wrong crap over and over again, but it does not make it true.

What you continuously fail to realize is that a special prosecutor investigating the President, because only in such a case can the accused not be indicted, can't indict.

I do not fail to realize this if Mueller thought that Trump Colluded and Obstructed he could have still charged him and giving congress enough proof in the report to Impeach him, with no need to hold more hearings or talk to more people no need to see any underling document or evidence. The report should be enough to Impeach Trump. That is why the Dems wanted a " Special Prosecutor" for in the first place.

If he can't charge / indict the President why did we waste all that money, time and resources on an investigation, that makes no sense.

But, if you recall, the report also states that, according to the evidence gathered he could not exonerate him either.

Headline Just in:
Mueller is a "Prosecutor" not a "Defense Lawyer" therefore he does not have the power to exonerate

There you are JimL I put it an a headline so you would read it. Now read the whole post.

Ok, JimL if you can't tell me where Mueller gets the power to exonerate the point is irrelevant and you just look stupid and ignorant using it. "Prosecutors Do Not Exonerate" Ok, I'll help you out: There is one way a Prosecutor can exonerate, by not coming up with evidence sufficient to make a charge stick, because of a silly little thing in the Constitution that you continuously fail to realize "You are Innocent Until Proven Guilty". Once the Prosecutor says I do not have the evidence to convict that part of the constitution kicks in. If you are Innocent Until Proven Guilty and you are not proven guilty (Mueller stated that in the report) you are innocent.

Therefore his intention, which is also made clear in the report itself, is that his report should go to Congress, and that they should weigh the evidence and decide for themselves as to whether or not to impeach. Remember, the President can't be indicted, but he can be impeached! Once impeached, he can be indicted.

Then, Why didn't Mueller put enough evidence in the report to allow Congress to impeach? Why does Congress have to investigate more? Why do they need to call more witnesses or the same witnesses?

If Mueller wanted Congress to impeach the report alone should be sufficient. If you are right and Trump is guilty, then I want my money back from Mueller, He and his team give back their pay.

You might try actually reading my whole posts because you look ignorant just spewing the same false statement over and over again.

Try reading and answering this post this post:

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

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 says, but I can't prove you Innocent either, the second statement is irrelevant because without 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.

[JimL]

Once again, you are demonstrating how profoundly ignorant you are of all things legal and procedural.

On the one hand, you claim that "according to the Justice dept. law, can not charge/indict a sitting president". As we have already established, there is no such law. It's a POLICY of the DoJ, and there is absolutely nothing keeping that POLICY from being changed.

Don't quibble over semantics CP, it simply makes you look like a jerk. Call it what you will, law or policy, the point remains the same. As far as Mueller is concerned he is bound by it without the ability to indict a sitting President. He says as much in the report, try reading it instead of basing your arguments, like the Atty. Gen., without ever having read it.

Next, you're demonstrating your ignorance of the impeachment process -- a president can be impeached, and STILL be president. Bill Clinton is a fairly recent example. ASSUMING that a sitting president can not be indicted (as you repeatedly and do by referencing a non-existent law), he is still PRESIDENT until the Senate acts to remove him from office.

Duh! He can also be impeached and no longer be president. If he is impeached, the Senate will have little choice but to remove him from office. This isn't Clinton being impeached for lying about a sexual relationship, this would be impeachment over collusion and conspiracy with a foriegn adversary, campaign finance fraud, emoluments violations, and many instances of attempted obstruction to cover up his crimes. When the american people become more aware of what the president has done and what he is up to, such as attempting to undermine the very democratic government they live by, the corrupt Republican Senate will break. Then Trump would be indicted.

Stop Saying Stupid Stuff!!!

You should, you're making yourself look dumber than you actually are.

[JimL]

I really think you guys are setting yourselves up for another disappointment.

I think you're counting your chickens before they've hatched. What you have here is a slow moving coup, an attempt by Trump, with the aid of many corrupt Republicans, to overthrow the U.S Government. We will see if our democratic institutions can hold fast. That will depend on the courts and ultimately on the american people. You, CP, rogue, and others here on tweb, will, we know, be on the other side.

[JimL]

Which even a bigot like you knows is not a LAW.



Why don't you take some time to explain impeachment to Jimmy.



You can wish in one hand and spit in the other, and see which fills up first.

You must make such a good pastor, CP.

[JimL]

I find it curious that liberals continue to confidently predict that Trump will go down any day now when they have been so consistently wrong.

Oh, we've never been wrong, MM, we've known what a corrupt treasonous con man Trump is, and we've known it nearly since his campaign began. Many of us knew what a conniving thief he was even before his campaign. Unfortunately you brain dead loons will obviously never see it. When he goes down, and if he goes down, is another matter. If he doesn't go down, then you can kiss U.S democracy bye bye and say hello to your new King.