43 minutes ago, quandow said:

Honest men have nothing to hide.

How about instead of taking sides, we all work together, open up ALL the facts, then we can make an informed decision? I am one of the most digitally vocal opponents of Trump because of his behavior (defending Putin and removing Russian sanctions against the advice of ALL his advisors), his track record of black and white obstruction (obvious to all but the most blind sycophants), and the insane way he is blocking EVERY subpoena for info - his words, not mine - that Congress is legally owed. IF all the information was made available and it was suddenly made clear Trump was clean as a whistle, I'd be the first to eat a heaping helping of crow. Instead, we have obtuse stonewalling, lies upon lies, and the stench of the guilty permeates the White House.

Honest men have nothing to hide.

 

After 40 biased lawyers spent more than 2 years pouring over millions of documents, interviewing hundreds of people, visiting numerous foreign countries, the verdict is in...he will not be charged.

 

But, but...let's take a look over here...maybe there is something under this rock we can use for impeachment...

 

Trump...rightfully so...does not which to keep the country in limbo while Dems continue to contest the 2016 election...that is what this is all about!

1 minute ago, Puchaiyank said:

After 40 biased lawyers spent more than 2 years pouring over millions of documents, interviewing hundreds of people, visiting numerous foreign countries, the verdict is in...he will not be charged.

 

But, but...let's take a look over here...maybe there is something under this rock we can use for impeachment...

 

Trump...rightfully so...does not which to keep the country in limbo while Dems continue to contest the 2016 election...that is what this is all about!

"After 40 biased lawyers..."

Well, we know what kind of sources you get your news from...

And the reason he wasn't charged with obstruction of justice is because of Justice Dept rules about charging a sitting president with a crime. Nothing to do with the evidence.

Edited May 10, 20197 yr by bristolboy

33 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

Thanks for the civics lesson, Nyezhov. Allow me to return the favor. The former prosecutors didn't say Trump was guilty, they said he would be indicted (charged) for obstruction of justice if he wasn't the sitting President.

 

That would be great if they did. Then it all comes out, because its an actual criminal case instead of just the innuendo.

 

looks like Roger Stone just made the gov turn over the unredacted report to Judge Berman. Thats why the soon to be filed indictments agains Comey et al are so important. Once there is an arraignment, then .gov cant hide behind redactions or secrecy stamps any more and their lawyers will get the stuff. Then maybe we all will.  

32 minutes ago, quandow said:

You're either being disingenuous about reading the report or being disingenuous about seeing no such thing. And, again, 800 + (at last count) former prosecuting attorneys who actually DID read the report have sworn that they would have prosecuted and easily convicted anyone committing these felonies save for the fact that the subject is currently a sitting president.

Can you state:

1. How many of the former prosecuting attorneys are currently democrat or republican?

2. Why the are all 'former' attorneys?

3. Who, what organization spearheaded the effort to make the letter?

 

I don't know but I do know how deep misinformation goes today, it is frightening on all sides.

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"After 40 biased lawyers..."

Well, we know what kind of sources you get your news from...

And the reason he wasn't charged with obstruction of justice is because of Justice Dept rules about charging a sitting president with a crime. Nothing to do with the evidence.

You don't know that for a fact...listening to MSNBC are we?

4 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

After 40 biased lawyers spent more than 2 years pouring over millions of documents, interviewing hundreds of people, visiting numerous foreign countries, the verdict is in...he will not be charged.

 

But, but...let's take a look over here...maybe there is something under this rock we can use for impeachment...

 

Trump...rightfully so...does not which to keep the country in limbo while Dems continue to contest the 2016 election...that is what this is all about!

There are still other investigations currently ongoing. To say "he will not be charged" is premature.

 

He has committed offenses that would warrant impeachment save for the lickspittle sycophants in the senate. Remember when Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it? THOSE are members of the senate.

 

Congress hasn't said a thing about 2016. That's you and other Republicans trying to keep that albatross alive.

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

That would be great if they did. Then it all comes out, because its an actual criminal case instead of just the innuendo.

 

looks like Roger Stone just made the gov turn over the unredacted report to Judge Berman. Thats why the soon to be filed indictments agains Comey et al are so important. Once there is an arraignment, then .gov cant hide behind redactions or secrecy stamps any more and their lawyers will get the stuff. Then maybe we all will.  

I didn't know the Trump administration is so eager to release the unredacted reports. And all that's standing in its way is the Trump administration?

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"After 40 biased lawyers..."

Well, we know what kind of sources you get your news from...

And the reason he wasn't charged with obstruction of justice is because of Justice Dept rules about charging a sitting president with a crime. Nothing to do with the evidence.

"reason he wasn't charged with obstruction of justice is because of Justice Dept rules about charging a sitting president with a crime. "

 

Is that the conclusion of the Mueller report?

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

Can you state:

1. How many of the former prosecuting attorneys are currently democrat or republican?

2. Why the are all 'former' attorneys?

3. Who, what organization spearheaded the effort to make the letter?

 

I don't know but I do know how deep misinformation goes today, it is frightening on all sides.

I'll meet you half way:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-would-indict-donald-trump

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-prosecutors-trump-obstruction-20190506-story.html

https://truthout.org/articles/over-600-federal-prosecutors-say-trump-should-be-charged-with-obstruction/

 

YOU do the rest. Do your best to prove me wrong (though you already know you can't).

2 minutes ago, rabas said:

Can you state:

1. How many of the former prosecuting attorneys are currently democrat or republican?

2. Why the are all 'former' attorneys?

3. Who, what organization spearheaded the effort to make the letter?

 

I don't know but I do know how deep misinformation goes today, it is frightening on all sides.

How about Judge Napolitano from Fox News?

Napolitano: Under Barr's Theory Nixon Wouldn't Be Charged With Obstructing Justice Unless He Was Actually One Of The Watergate Burglars

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/03/andrew_napolitano_president_trump_obstructed_barr_would_not_charge_nixon_with_obstructing_justice.html

25 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

This is way bigger than Trump...while oversight committees enjoy their power and theatrics...important issues like immigration reform, healthcare overhaul, infrastructure projects, and many other important issues get tabled to pursue Trump...yes...Dems and Repubs...lets do some MMA on the Whitehouse lawn to settle the political infighting...winner take all...and get back to the business for which you were elected...

And who is doing all the stonewalling rite now?the Congress is attempting to do their duty just because a trump lackey says it’s done it isent nessairally so

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

9 minutes ago, rabas said:

Can you state:

1. How many of the former prosecuting attorneys are currently democrat or republican?

2. Why the are all 'former' attorneys?

3. Who, what organization spearheaded the effort to make the letter?

 

I don't know but I do know how deep misinformation goes today, it is frightening on all sides.

How about Judge Napolitano from Fox News?

Napolitano: Under Barr's Theory Nixon Wouldn't Be Charged With Obstructing Justice Unless He Was Actually One Of The Watergate Burglars

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/03/andrew_napolitano_president_trump_obstructed_barr_would_not_charge_nixon_with_obstructing_justice.html

I ask about the political balance of 800 attorneys. You provide one TV media guy who you like as an answer.

Your fired!

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Gee I have read the report and see no such thing.

Anyone who starts a sentence with 'Gee' can't be taken seriously

13 minutes ago, quandow said:

There are still other investigations currently ongoing. To say "he will not be charged" is premature.

 

He has committed offenses that would warrant impeachment save for the lickspittle sycophants in the senate. Remember when Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it? THOSE are members of the senate.

 

Congress hasn't said a thing about 2016. That's you and other Republicans trying to keep that albatross alive.

One man's albatross is another man's lion. 

Then, and now...

 

 

1 minute ago, rabas said:

One man's albatross is another man's lion. 

Whether albatross or lion, it's irrelevant.

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Yep. Im sure we can find 800 attorneys to say he was not. And you have to question the legal ethics of attorneys making public judgements as to the guilt and innocence of anyone, in a system where everyone is presumed inncocent. Even Donald.

 

 

Except of course, these former prosecutors didn't say that Trump was guilty or innocent. Simply that there was plenty of evidence to prosecute him for obstruction of justice.

2 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

Let's just cut to the chase...go ahead and have a prolonged civil war...divide the country into conservative states and progressive states...then maybe the two governments can go about the business of responding to people's needs...???? 

That would be tough for the red states. Since they get a lot more from the Federal government than they give. 

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Not surprising in the least the good thing with all of thease scandals is that Donald is exposed for what he is so people can make an informed choice in 2020

And, Nancy, Clinton and all the Washington politicians, both sides, are being exposed for what they are, and that's good.

53 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

That would be great if they did. Then it all comes out, because its an actual criminal case instead of just the innuendo.

 

looks like Roger Stone just made the gov turn over the unredacted report to Judge Berman. Thats why the soon to be filed indictments agains Comey et al are so important. Once there is an arraignment, then .gov cant hide behind redactions or secrecy stamps any more and their lawyers will get the stuff. Then maybe we all will.  

Further proof, as if any was needed, that you haven't read the Mueller report, Nyezhov. The Mueller report explains in precise detail why a sitting President can't be charged. It was written to preserve evidence, and to provide the American people and Congress a basis for understanding whether crimes were committed. Read the report and stop regurgitating Fox news talking points.

5 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

Further proof, as if any was needed, that you haven't read the Mueller report, Nyezhov. The Mueller report explains in precise detail why a sitting President can't be charged. It was written to preserve evidence, and to provide the American people and Congress a basis for understanding whether crimes were committed. Read the report and stop regurgitating Fox news talking points.

The report does explicitly say that it does not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. I don't think it says why a sitting president can't be charged. It just cites DOJ policy. It's a quibble but the kind of thing Barr took advantage of to mislead the media and the public.

1 hour ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I have read that the Republican/ Democrat divide is  basically a continuation of the original American Civil war anyway.

Just another one that has never actually been  won !

Keep reading. You will find an approximate 1/3 conservative Loyalists wanting to remain a British Colony of the world's strongest power, 1/3 liberal Revolutionaries wanting to establish government directed by the colonists and 1/3 of the populace who wanted to stay out of harm's way if merchants they would sell to either side who presented money.

Just goes to show how stupid these people are then as you actually have to have committed Crimes that can hold up in a court of law.

Since Trump has not committed any crimes no matter how much the Liberals want him to have the reality (which they refuse to even consider) is that there is nothing to warrant impeaching Trump.

The really sad thing is if the Democrats and Liberals put as much effort into doing positive things as they do trying to take down Trump they just might have a chance of winning in 2020 

The way it is THEY HAVE ZERO CHANCE of winning 

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The report does explicitly say that it does not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. I don't think it says why a sitting president can't be charged. It just cites DOJ policy. It's a quibble but the kind of thing Barr took advantage of to mislead the media and the public.

The fact that they have not charged Trump with anything means he is EXONERATED 

Mueller had to put something in there to cast dout because he waster almost 3 years and 30 Million bucks on a nothing burger.

I really hope Barr takes down those that have spied on the President and used the fake dossier to commit these crimes against the American people.

Even if it was against Obama (who I detest) I would stll have to stand up and call for the prosecution of those involved.

 

1 hour ago, Puchaiyank said:

After 40 biased lawyers spent more than 2 years pouring over millions of documents, interviewing hundreds of people, visiting numerous foreign countries, the verdict is in...he will not be charged.

 

But, but...let's take a look over here...maybe there is something under this rock we can use for impeachment...

 

Trump...rightfully so...does not which to keep the country in limbo while Dems continue to contest the 2016 election...that is what this is all about!

It could interfere with his golfing or his reading lessons

49 minutes ago, rabas said:

And, Nancy, Clinton and all the Washington politicians, both sides, are being exposed for what they are, and that's good.

Yes it’s horrible dear god they are trying to performe their oversite duty’s the horrors mustn’t have that 

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

That would be tough for the red states. Since they get a lot more from the Federal government than they give. 

I forgot about this one. The people who criticize government spending and complain their tax money is used to help other people, actually live dominantly in red states that are highly subsidized by blue states. ????

"Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71.

Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents."

 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/ap-fact-check-blue-high-tax-states-fund-red-low-tax-states

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Really? At 840 days into his first term, Obama had an average of 51.5%. Trump is at 42.4%. And this despite the strong showing of the economy. Trump is clearly a political genius.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump's base is flat earthers. 

19 minutes ago, Hogs said:

Just goes to show how stupid these people are then as you actually have to have committed Crimes that can hold up in a court of law.
 

 

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.  That and your other statements show that your understanding of basic criminal law is comical, to put it mildly.  

 

 

21 minutes ago, Hogs said:

Mueller had to put something in there to cast dout because he waster almost 3 years and 30 Million bucks on a nothing burger.

 

About three dozen people have been indicted, convicted or plead guilty as a result of the probe.  You should buy a dictionary and look up the word "nothing".  Also, "dout".

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Can you state:

 

1. How many of the former prosecuting attorneys are currently democrat or republican?

2. Why the are all 'former' attorneys?

3. Who, what organization spearheaded the effort to make the letter?

 

1. A great many of them are not political appointments; they are career professionals.  That is what makes the letter so powerful.

2. Because they are not employed as attorneys any more.

3. Oh come on!  Once in a while read something other than Thai Visa forums.  It's the very first sentence in the Post story:

 

"The bipartisan group Protect Democracy has organized a letter signed by more than 450 former federal prosecutors (who have served in both Republican and/or Democratic administrations).  [...] The authors explain that by directing then-White House counsel Donald McGahn to get rid of Mueller — and then prod McGahn to deny he had done so — Trump’s conduct fit squarely within the definition of obstruction."

 

It goes on to give other clear examples.