Nineforty

Mueller took it as a mandate. And maybe we'll find out Barr forced this view on him. I doubt it. I bet Mueller believes in the import of the memo's philosophy. It's somewhat comical to me that we are on the opposite sides of this, and you're saying IT'S NOT A MANDATE, when leading up to Mueller's issuance of the report, I was hoping beyond hope that that is what he would believe. You just think it's part of some conspiracy that Robert Mueller is a part of to fool "low information" people like me. Gotcha.

Yes? It's a quality site. You should try it sometime. It actually has conservative and liberal voices. To understand, it would require you to make some effort in understanding the OLC memo and it's history and relevance to this. I believe a traitor such as Trump It's not that hard to find a Foxnews.com article with Robert Mueller's quote that I was using from Vox.

Let me be blunt. I want Trump to hang. But I also understand the argument that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Ever. And I would welcome that debate after Trump.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bound-olcs-memos-presidential-immunity I know a lot about this memo and it's impact. But don't take my word for it, take it straight from congressional testimony of Mueller, "We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted,” he said.

I don't disagree with the bolded. Of course. Did you click on the ***** links? lol I can tell you didn't. The first one is no an opinion piece as you put it. Sure it has the word "opinion" in the link title lol... ROBERT MUELLER'S OWN WORDS: We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted,” he said. The OLC policy itself is relatively straightforward: Most recently reevaluated in 2000, it argues that the executive branch would be incapacitated by a criminal prosecution: The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. In his report, Mueller did not ultimately charge the president. He made clear during his afternoon testimony that because of the OLC opinion, his team did not even reach a conclusion about “whether the president committed a crime.” This point was a major clarification of an earlier exchange in which Mueller seemed to signal that he would have potentially charged the president, were it not for the OLC opinion.

Simple answer: 1. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president’s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution (there is a pdf if you'd like to read the OLC Memo) 2. Here is an explainer: https://www.vox.com/2019/7/24/20708393/robert-mueller-report-trump-olc-justice-department-indictment-charge-sitting-president 3. Trump was impeached. Forever impeached. He was acquitted by the Senate.

You didn't read it. It's really okay because I don't know many on either side of the issue that have. I read it and listened to it twice actually. If anyone reads Part I and comes away with the conclusion that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was false, misleading, or part of a coup/deep-state/election reversal, or "nonsense" as you put it, then you are as bad as Trump, Stone, Flynn, Manafort. You are not a patriot. You are ignorant of the truth. Of what is right. And I view on the same level as these traitors. Except, you're not an actual traitor like them. You live in an echo chamber filled with QAnon twitter, Fox News TV, Breitbart news and it's all bull#### just recycled and regurgitated. You will live with your shame for a long time. It's just a matter of time before you realize it. And Part II proves obstruction of justice. Also, you do realize that the Mueller report turned a profit after Manafort's seizures? Of course, I highly doubt that money goes into funding the investigation, but I find it newsworthy nonetheless when people like yourself play the "this investigation cost taxpayers _____ argument". Even if they didn't make more off the seizures, this is a dumb comment filled with many.

I can see you have not read the Mueller Report and and are part of a cult. "Trump/Russia" is very real and it's disheartening you really believe it isn't. I bet you believe there was no collusion when the report is littered with it. And I know the difference between charging someone or a group with Criminal Conspiracy and proving it in a court of law, versus evidence of clear cut collusion. I will not waste any more time on you. Good day.

Of course, if you want to get bogged down in semantics. Which is why there is a trial where you can weigh certain statements or evidence and seek to determine one's guilt or innocence. Excuse me for thinking it was an important part of his conviction when you have someone on your own team reluctantly admitting you're a god damned traitor. I guess I didn't realize that counts for nothing because he couched his RELUCTANT statement in words like "generally believed" and "at that time". Guess the jury was supposed to ignore this. Gotcha.

"Bannon says Stone was Trump campaign link to WikiLeaks" BANNON TESTIFIED TO THIS! Reluctantly, but nonetheless, he did. From the trial transcript: Q. Now, I want you to turn to page 14, line 4. I’m going to read line 4 through 8 on page 14. And you’re asked, “And just within the campaign, who was the access point to WikiLeaks?” And you responded, “I think it was generally believed that the access point or potential access point to WikiLeaks and to Julian Assange would be Roger Stone.” Did I read that correctly? A. That’s correct. Q. And did you, at that time, did you personally believe or you personally view Roger Stone as the access point between Trump campaign and WikiLeaks? A. Yes. https://apnews.com/f0356496978045e1891f6543e7218c45 https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/12/roger-stone-trial-donald-trump-wikileaks-070368

1. McCabe wasn't even indicted. Stone was indicted and found guilty. Would you like me to go into detail for what? I'd be glad to. "Following a weeklong trial last November, a Washington jury found Stone guilty on all seven felony counts he faced: five of making false statements to Congress, one of obstruction of Congress, and one of witness tampering with both the House Intelligence Committee inquiry and special counsel Robert Mueller's probe." (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/10/prosecutors-prison-roger-stone-113542) 2. It's ironic/interesting to me that the "crime" McCabe was accused of was lying to cover up being involved in a story that hurt HILLARY, not TRUMP. 3. Stone's sentencing recommendation was for 7-9 years. This was recommended by a different entity, not the prosecutors. The prosecutors agreed. Judge Jackson has final say and can go above or below those guidelines. In my opinion (I've actually read the Mueller Report and know what Stone stands charged with and is likely hiding, and thus why Trump at all costs needs Stone to not see Jail time), Roger Stone is a traitor to America for his role with Wikileaks and the Trump 2016 campaign. I could go on and on and on with facts destroying this kind of nonsense...but is it worth it?

24-22 bills. Guaranteed.

thanks!

Sorry for the randomness of this, but I just saw this quote earlier (casual fan. stateside. don't have a team I follow, I just know from a friend this guy is.... interesting)... "I think the yellow card is fair because I was rude, but I was rude to an idiot." Coach Mourinho Who is the NFL coaching equivalent?

Wow dallas getting the ball out of half

When rex/bills played the ravens I called into jim rome radio show to give him a poor bills themed parody of 'the raven'... knowing he disliked poetry, it was cut off 15 seconds in, (?"I DONT LIKE THAT CALL"?) " Edgar Allan ran... I asked for a call not a poem."

https://mobile.twitter.com/BarstoolBigCat/status/1191489002999816192

I have him in my IR spot in fantasy. But that's not enough to want the Bills to make a foolish trade. He will be back with SD, playing by week 10 at the latest. That's my educated guess.

I don't think he is a chemistry killer. Could be. But you sure as hell don't know. I don't see the fit here, but it's from a cost stand point for a player you won't have beyond 2020. Also, he wants to shadow best receiver and play mainly man to man. We don't do that. I'm not saying we wouldn't be better with him. We would be. But our entire defensive scheme would change. And it's reported that he is well liked by his teammates on defense...I think it was Ryan Clark who said this recently. He is there best player in my opinion. I like the Brinks truck move too. It is fun and harmless and assists him in his leverage, even in an indirect, incalculable way.

Remember not too long ago when Dalton carved us up and had the ball out of his hand super quickly every freaking play? Me neither. It's 2019. We're onto 2019 Cincy

No OBJ, Chubb, or Landry. Not that that has to change anything for anyone...

Check it again. For me, just the pre game was blacked out... Thankfully the fiancee got the rabbit ears working. No shame.