No Collusion!

[The Pendragon]

JimL, you have a lot of talking point that you keep stating and rearranging, but you have not defended any of them. Undefended talking points are either Undependable or Irrelevant. Either way they are Useless.

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.

Have you read the report JimL? I guess you missed the whole first part where Mueller explains that "No American colluded with Russia". Please tell me how you can Conspire with Russia without first colluding with them. Was Mueller lying?

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.

Again you are wrong the Senate. It is not compulsory for the Senate to vote to remove a President from office. Look at what I said about Mueller and the collusion non-issue. If you haven't read the report don't keep insisting that Mueller said the was collusion you just show your ignorance. the campaign finance fraud does not apply to Trump even with paying off women you have to prove that Trump would not have paid the off if he was not running for President hard to prove, the emoluments cause violation are bogus, Trump does not have to sell his company just to run for president that is unconstitutional because it would mean that we would not have a citizen government. and no one has proven intent in obstruction, there are alternate plausible explanations to the claims of obstruction and that's all that is needed.

So you are ignorant when it comes to Impeachment and the under-lying evidence.

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

And your ignorance is shining like a bright beacon for all to see. You need to get some better talking points your are getting used and worn-out. Or at lest get your handlers to explain what is behind them so that you can at least attempt to defend them. "It would be nice if they had taught you how to think instead of just what to think"

JimL, your really good at projection, but a word of advice: "when you've dug yourself into a hole the first thing you need to do is stop digging". Then again you have to smart enough to realize you are digging yourself a hole in the first place.


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]

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.

Right, so stop repeating it.

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.

No, he can't charge a sitting president according to the OLC policy. That was Muellers reasoning for not coming to a conclusion either way. Now how many more times do you have to hear this for it to sink in?

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.

It does make sense, but I'm not going to continue wasting my time trying to explain it to you. Already did that![/QUOTE]
It doesn't say that the person who is President can't be indicted, it says that they can't be indicted while still President. Why? I'm not sure of the reasoning behind the policy. Take it up with the OLC. He has to be impeached and out of office first. then he can be indicted.

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.

Defense lawyers don't exonerate either, the evidence or lack there of, does. The evidence underlying the Mueller report does not, according to Mueller, exonerate the president. That's his opinion, but not his call.

Then, Why didn't Mueller put enough evidence in the report to allow Congress to impeach?

What makes you think he didn't?

Why does Congress have to investigate more? Why do they need to call more witnesses or the same witnesses?

Because they want to, and they want the american people to, see all the relevant evidence and hear the witnesses in their own words, and not just Trump and his legal teams spin on it.

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.

Who said Mueller wanted Congress to impeach? What Mueller wants is for Congress to get the full report with the underlying evidence and to decide for themselves whether they should impeach or not. My guess is that he believes the president and his campaign to be guilty, and that this treasonous wannabe dictator should be impeached. But it's not his call to make.

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:

Try to get it in your head that with respect to the president the Congress is the court, and they can not indict, but they can impeach and oust him from the office. The special prosecutors job in this case is to investigate and supply the Congress with the evidence with which to decide to begin impeachment hearings or not.

[Tassman]

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.

[The Pendragon]

Ok, so Tass and JimL have conceded on Collusion and Obstruction and are now trying to make the point that Mueller is asking that Congress Impeach Trump.

Can anyone give me a citation from the report where Mueller is calling for Congress to Impeach Trump?

That aside, If Mueller intent was to have Congress take this over for Impeachment because he could not indict a sitting President.
Then:

1. Why didn't he make the case for Impeachment in the report?
2. Why can't Congress just start Impeachment proceedings right away just using the report?
3. Why does Congress have to rehash every thing that Mueller was already gone over for 2 years?
4. Do the Dems in Congress even have the ability to do the extra investigation they are saying they need?

You need to answer the first 3 for me because they all go to intent or motive of Mueller. These are all things that would show that Mueller was serious about wanting Trump Impeached. Without them either the evidence was not there or Mueller felt Trump should not be Impeach.

But, If he really wanted to keep the investigation going he would obfuscate (I know it's a big word, Tass and JimL will just have to look it up) the point that he had no valid evidence against Trump and make a claim that meant nothing, but was a "Dog Whistle" to Liberals. Like Oh say, "While I could not find enough evidence to Indict Trump, I could not find enough to exonerate him" (The statement is an oxymoron). The first statement contradicts the second. I've already explained this but some of us are a little dense (Tass, JimL) here it is again:

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.

As for the 4th question. that goes to the ability for Congress to handle the investigation:
It seems to me that after the Dems in Congress repeatedly said that they couldn't investigate the Confirmation of Kavanaugh and needed the FBI to do it for they and come back with their findings. They want all the under-lying information and the complete un-redacted report from the Mueller investigation. The Mueller investigation is 1000 times more complicated then the Kavanaugh Investigation. Why does Congress think it can handle this Investigation.

By the way it is against the Law for AG Barr to un-redact the Grand Jury testimony (this is to protect the witnesess), it is also aginst the law for AG Barr to release the under lying evidence (This was put into law by the Dems after the Star investigation) . So if AG Barr is suppose to follow the Law why do you and the Dems want him to break it.

Now it is time for Tass and JimL to go back to your handlers to see how to defend your talking points.

[firstfloor]

[The Pendragon]

Right, so stop repeating it.

If I'm right (You said it, not me) as you say and I have disproven your points, Why do you keep using them?

No, he can't charge a sitting president according to the OLC policy. That was Muellers reasoning for not coming to a conclusion either way. Now how many more times do you have to hear this for it to sink in?

He can't be indicted while a sitting President, But he can be charged and that would go a long way in and impeachment hearing. So if Mueller is advocating for Impeachment as you and Tass suggest why didn't he charge him.

And his reasoning for not Indicting was many fold:

1. Not enough reliable evidence. (I know you and Tass don't want to here that but its there) This along is enough to sink Obstruction charges.
2. He could not exonerate Trump from Obstruction. (Again you two don't want to hear this) But as you said JimL this is opinion and has no legal standing.
3. The OLC policy. If he had the reliable evidence why didn't he say so. He could have made a dissension just like AG Barr. Only for to suggest action against Trump. If Mueller felt he had the evidence he could have made a direct case for Impeachment, that is within his purview. Unlike exoneration which is out of his scope.

It doesn't say that the person who is President can't be indicted, it says that they can't be indicted while still President. Why? I'm not sure of the reasoning behind the policy. Take it up with the OLC. He has to be impeached and out of office first. then he can be indicted.

I have never said that the President couldn't be Indicted after he was out of office. so your this post is non sequitur.

Defense lawyers don't exonerate either, the evidence or lack there of, does. The evidence underlying the Mueller report does not, according to Mueller, exonerate the president. That's his opinion, but not his call.

Actually, it's the Defense Lawyers Job to get an exoneration by disproving the Prosecution's Case. So in a way the Defense Lawyer does exonerate.

But I must thank you for making my point for me. "the evidence or lack there of, does.". Mueller himself in the report said he could not prove Obstruction and that no Americans colluded with Russia. a fact that you and Tass seem to always ignore. In the above statement you say that a lack of evidence leads to exoneration. I'm glad that you agree that Mueller did exonerate Trump when he said he had no evidence that was able to convict him. See how easy that is. Mueller was even stronger on Collusion (Which you need to prove Conspiracy) Saying that No Americans Colluded with Russia. Slam Dunk for exoneration on collution.

What makes you think he didn't?

I've all ready explained this several times and in several post. I even showed where you yourself disproved a lot of it. I guess you really don't read the full posts.

The evidence is all hearsay with out cooperating evidence, This not reliable evidence.
Some of it is from a convicted perjurers, really unreliable evidence (can actually sink a case), especially since there's no cooperating evidence.

Because they want to, and they want the american people to, see all the relevant evidence and hear the witnesses in their own words, and not just Trump and his legal teams spin on it.

Who said Mueller wanted Congress to impeach? What Mueller wants is for Congress to get the full report with the underlying evidence and to decide for themselves whether they should impeach or not. My guess is that he believes the president and his campaign to be guilty, and that this treasonous wannabe dictator should be impeached. But it's not his call to make.

To start with it is against the Law for AG Barr to un-redact the Grand Jury testimony (this is to protect the witnesses), it is also against the law for AG Barr to release the under lying evidence (This was put into law by the Dems after the Star investigation) . So if AG Barr is suppose to follow the Law, By your standards. Why do you and the Dems want him to break it.

If Mueller did his job as he should All the relevant evidence is in the report. It's That was what he was tasked to do. If there was accrual evidence in the report then Impeachment should start now no other investigation is necessary.

If Mueller has done his Job We have all the relevant evidence even the relevant witness testimony.

Why said Mueller wanted Congress to Impeach? You and Tass have said it. Not in so many words, but your whole argument about Mueller not exonerating him and him not charging a sitting President, so he has to pass it over to Congress. You two have been trying your hardest to make the point that Mueller is trying for Impeachment. So you might want to look in the mirror.

You don't like Trumps Views, His policies, that way he communicates, But his policies are working, his views are resonating in middle America, and he is actually a great communicator. So you call him a tyrant, prejudice,

Try to get it in your head that with respect to the president the Congress is the court, and they can not indict, but they can impeach and oust him from the office. The special prosecutors job in this case is to investigate and supply the Congress with the evidence with which to decide to begin impeachment hearings or not.

Well that is a close analogy and I'll take it. But you left out one thing, "The pre-trial hearing" you know where the Prosecutor makes his case to a Judge to see if the case can go to trial. Well in this scenario that's Mueller and the Mueller Report. If a Prosecutor says to a Judge "I do not had the evidence to convict, but I can't exonerate he either". The Judge throws the case out and it never goes to court. Also before the Pre-Trial a district attorney may look at a case from one of his Prosecutors and ask "Do we have enough evidence to convict?" and the answer is "I do not had the evidence to convict, but I can't exonerate he either" a good AG will say "We don't even bring it up to pre-trial 'Case Closed' ". Mueller failed to even get it to Pre-Trial because he said that he did not had the evidence to charge, that ends it not other word are valid after that point.


What spin has Trumps team put on it? AG Barr is not part of Trump Legal team. I've explained why and you and Tass haven't disputed me on it.

[The Pendragon]

Almost, you are correct our court system does not rule Innocence, only Guilty or Not Guilty. It is presumed that at Not Guilty is Innocent in most cases. And you are right in all cases it is on the Prosecution to prove Guilt otherwise the default is Not Guilty.

My point still stands If a prosecutor in this case Mueller Says "I don't have the evidence to convict, But I don't have the evidence to exonerate (ie.. prove Not Guilty)" he has not met the "burden of proof" needed to prove Guilt and the verdict is Not Guilty, (ie .. presumed Innocent). Which was AG Barr's call. So AG Bar was not ruling for Trump as Trump's lawyer as has been said on the thread, instead he is doing what is required by law.

[The Pendragon]

I give Jimmy an incomplete on "Impeachment" and a failing grade on "The Presumption of Innocence".

Yahoo, Tass called me "the pretentious blowhard". Insults without disproving my assertions or defending any of his talking point that I challenged.
Knock Out. Round goes to "The Pendragon" Yah, I win.

Now If you want to go for round two Tass how about you accually answer some questions or disprove my challenges:

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.

[firstfloor]

Almost, you are correct our court system does not rule Innocence, only Guilty or Not Guilty. It is presumed that at Not Guilty is Innocent in most cases. And you are right in all cases it is on the Prosecution to prove Guilt otherwise the default is Not Guilty.

My point still stands If a prosecutor in this case Mueller Says "I don't have the evidence to convict, But I don't have the evidence to exonerate (ie.. prove Not Guilty)" he has not met the "burden of proof" needed to prove Guilt and the verdict is Not Guilty, (ie .. presumed Innocent). Which was AG Barr's call. So AG Bar was not ruling for Trump as Trump's lawyer as has been said on the thread, instead he is doing what is required by law.

[Cow Poke]

Then the prosecution should have done a better job!

[Cow Poke]

Yes, I said so.

Perhaps you could be a dear and help out your weaker brother.

It's obviously what drives you. You're certainly not here for the fellowship.

If he did, he wouldn't keep blundering.

Careful, Tass -- you're slipping back into Drama Queen Mode.

See? You're a bigot! And a Drama Queen one, at that!

[Mountain Man]

But in Trump's case, there is no evidence that any crimes were committed at all. We're not talking an OJ Simpson scenario where there is abundant evidence against him, everybody knows he did it, but the prosecutors botched the trial. Let's put it this way: a prosecutor who knows he has the goods on someone doesn't fail to reach a definitive conclusion. In fact, Mueller's case against Trump was so impotent that he couldn't even compel Trump to sit for an interview, or even answer additional questions in writing! No evidence, no leverage, no case. Game over.

As I've said before, if the case against Trump was as damning as liberals claim, then Democrats would be reading direct quotes from Mueller's report and using it as Exhibit A in a motion to impeach. But they know they have nothing, which is why they're queuing up for endless hearings and investigations, desperately hoping to find something, anything that Mueller might have missed and to drag the witchhunt into the 2020 campaign season. Based on the buzz I'm hearing, it's possible they'll have their hands full with another scandal long before then.

[firstfloor]

But in Trump's case, there is no evidence that any crimes were committed at all. We're not talking an OJ Simpson scenario where there is abundant evidence against him, everybody knows he did it, but the prosecutors botched the trial. Let's put it this way: a prosecutor who knows he has the goods on someone doesn't fail to reach a definitive conclusion. In fact, Mueller's case against Trump was so impotent that he couldn't even compel Trump to sit for an interview, or even answer additional questions in writing! No evidence, no leverage, no case. Game over.

As I've said before, if the case against Trump was as damning as liberals claim, then Democrats would be reading direct quotes from Mueller's report and using it as Exhibit A in a motion to impeach. But they know they have nothing, which is why they're queuing up for endless hearings and investigations, desperately hoping to find something, anything that Mueller might have missed and to drag the witchhunt into the 2020 campaign season. Based on the buzz I'm hearing, it's possible they'll have their hands full with another scandal long before then.

[Mountain Man]

You are shockingly misinformed...

Says the low-info moron who listens to Rachael Maddow and bought the Collusion Delusion hook, line, and sinker.

walls_closing_in_trump_censored.jpg

trump maddow collage.jpg

[firstfloor]

Says the low-info moron who listens to Rachael Maddow and bought the Collusion Delusion hook, line, and sinker.