Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Lieu is another one of the asshats who has been swearing to every camera in sight for three years that Trump committed TREASON and there was evidence to support it. Yet his first bite at the apple with Mueller he asks about OBSTRUCTION not TREASON. Rectify. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: He can't even be impeached for it now. And you're only hearing what you want to hear. There's no evidence of obstruction, just vague feelings and interpretations of conflicting opinions. But he can be charged for it once he's out of the White House. And there is evidence. The question would become if a prosecutor can convince a jury that it happened, based off written evidence and testimony from witnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2019 Author Share Posted July 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, pop gun said: No it's not! Everyone else is, FBI, media, my aunt Susie and the cat on the corner, all so unfair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Truly you are speculating on the reason..do you disagree it is speculation? Pretty simple i think??? Not when it's backed by evidence and motive. Which this is Easy to prove me wrong with another explanation that works. But there isn't one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Traitors. I want them hanged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: But he can be charged for it once he's out of the White House. And there is evidence. The question would become if a prosecutor can convince a jury that it happened, based off written evidence and testimony from witnesses. Every scrap of evidence is untested in court or by cross examination. It's not real. And there's ample evidence much of it was manipulated (like the edited voicemail to Flynn's counsel). There's nothing real here -- but for Vol I -- which they're trying their best to ignore. Why? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: "[C]learly stated Trump may have..." Do you even understand how stupid that sounds? How do you indict on 12 counts of "may have obstructed?" I thought we're supposed to assume people are innocent until proven guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: But he can be charged for it once he's out of the White House. And there is evidence. The question would become if a prosecutor can convince a jury that it happened, based off written evidence and testimony from witnesses. If there's evidence, impeach him on it. That's what impeachment is for: to remove an otherwise-immune official from office so he can be criminally charged. They've only fed you the "We'll charge him once he's out of office" line to string you along for 2020. Just now, jrober38 said: I thought we're supposed to assume people are innocent until proven guilty? Yes. And you're the one presuming guilt until innocence is proven. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: If there's evidence, impeach him on it. That's what impeachment is for: to remove an otherwise-immune official from office so he can be criminally charged. They've only fed you the "We'll charge him once he's out of office" line to string you along for 2020. I've already said I think this is what should and shouldn't happen with you. I agree they should impeach if that's what they want, and that the shouldn't go after him once he's out of politics. However it doesn't seem to be what Democrat Leadership wants. Impeachment is very unpopular among Americans, and it seems as though if anything does happen it will be after Trump is out of office. Edited July 24, 2019 by jrober38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 The government sets you up for a sham charge of a crime that the same government later admits you didn’t do and then comes down on you for trying to stop the sham that they set up. Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2019 Author Share Posted July 24, 2019 This guy is trying to exonerate Russia? Wow, what a fifth columnist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Two big questions here: Why did they edit the voicemail, why was Kilminik not identified as a US asset.... Mueller punts on both. (he's toast) 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, SoCal Deek said: The government sets you up for a sham charge of a crime that the same government later admits you didn’t do and then comes down on you for trying to stop the sham that they set up. Nice! Federal law enforcement has an awful lot of latitude that pretty much allows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Not when it's backed by evidence and motive. Which this is Easy to prove me wrong with another explanation that works. But there isn't one. we can argue to days end..unless you have access to DOJ and know for certain why he was not charged, it is by definition speculation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, plenzmd1 said: we can argue to days end..unless you have access to DOJ and know for certain why he was not charged, it is by definition speculation I do have access to the DOJ (kinda) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, jrober38 said: I've already said I think this is what should and shouldn't happen with you. I agree they should impeach if that's what they want, and that the shouldn't go after him once he's out of politics. However it doesn't seem to be what Democrat Leadership wants. Impeachment is very unpopular among Americans, and it seems as though if anything does happen it will be after Trump is out of office. Do you realize that you just stated that Democrats are doing nothing but playing politics with a criminal investigation? You clearly don't agree with me at all, if you're okay with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: Federal law enforcement has an awful lot of latitude that pretty much allows it. and obstructing, or trying to obstruct, that investigation is a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2019 Author Share Posted July 24, 2019 Witness tampering. This is a criminal enterprise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: Do you realize that you just stated that Democrats are doing nothing but playing politics with a criminal investigation? You clearly don't agree with me at all, if you're okay with that. I do realize that, and I think it's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: I do have access to the DOJ (kinda) unless you want to show the evidence in court..its all speculation..saying "i know, but i cant tell ya how" is speculation, plain and simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said: and obstructing, or trying to obstruct, that investigation is a crime. Mueller testified he wasn't obstructed. His investigation wasn't deterred or interfered with at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Witness tampering. This is a criminal enterprise They're going to go after him for all this stuff when he's done as POTUS. The left is too emotional, and they'll want revenge for the slights they think they've faced under the Trump administration. The far left won't be satisfied until Trump is behind bars. Edited July 24, 2019 by jrober38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Federal law enforcement has an awful lot of latitude that pretty much allows it. Not arguing that they do or don’t. Just making it clear what actually happened here. I agree with the President. This should not happen to another President...ever! We’ve ventured into slippery slope territory here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, plenzmd1 said: and obstructing, or trying to obstruct, that investigation is a crime. That was my point. Federal law enforcement is allowed to investigate an non-existent crime, to attempt to "create" a real crime of obstruction. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Mueller testified he wasn't obstructed. His investigation wasn't deterred or interfered with at all. but Trump intented to obstruct..and intent is all that is needed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, jrober38 said: But he can be charged for it once he's out of the White House. And there is evidence. The question would become if a prosecutor can convince a jury that it happened, based off written evidence and testimony from witnesses. If you're speaking generally, every president can be charged for "it" when they leave office. The dead ones are probably safe, but what about Gerald Ford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, plenzmd1 said: unless you want to show the evidence in court..its all speculation..saying "i know, but i cant tell ya how" is speculation, plain and simple The evidence is out there. Mueller accuses Mifsud of lying three times -- but didn't charge him despite charging everyone else who lied to his team. Every one. So, why would he let Mifsud slide but no one else? It is because Mifsud is right at the origin of the entire thing. And compromising him would reveal the entire investigation was started under false pretenses. This isn't even speculation anymore. It's backed by reams of evidence. Much of it available here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2019 Author Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: They're going to go after him for all this stuff when he's done as POTUS. The left is too emotional, and they'll want revenge for the slights they think they've faced under the Trump administration. Attorney General Kamala Harris. Dems have to go after someone that worked with a foreign power to steal an election, they have to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said: If you're speaking generally, every president can be charged for "it" when they leave office. The dead ones are probably safe, but what about Gerald Ford? Ford's dead too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-baby! Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I do have access to the DOJ (kinda) You are very important! That’s why you spend your life on a sub forum of a football site! ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: That was my point. Federal law enforcement is allowed to investigate an non-existent crime, to attempt to "create" a real crime of obstruction. so let me ask..you are saying they can truly make up an investigation on a crime they know not to have occurred? That i did not know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: and obstructing, or trying to obstruct, that investigation is a crime. Trump must be REALLY bad at ‘trying to obstruct’ then because Mueller testifies that he wasn’t obstructed. This is bizarro world stuff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: unless you want to show the evidence in court..its all speculation..saying "i know, but i cant tell ya how" is speculation, plain and simple It'll be shown in court. But not by DR. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, jrober38 said: They're going to go after him for all this stuff when he's done as POTUS. The left is too emotional, and they'll want revenge for the slights they think they've faced under the Trump administration. The far left won't be satisfied until Trump is behind bars. Who is doing the questioning today? The left or the far left? I can't see a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: The evidence is out there. Mueller accuses Mifsud of lying three times -- but didn't charge him despite charging everyone else who lied to his team. Every one. So, why would he let Mifsud slide but no one else? It is because Mifsud is right at the origin of the entire thing. And compromising him would reveal the entire investigation was started under false pretenses. This isn't even speculation anymore. It's backed by reams of evidence. Much of it available here. again, that is speculation...you thnik it is proof..until i see something or someone from DOJ testifies that is the reason no charge, speculation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, Buftex said: There was so much obstruction, trying to prove conspiracy was not possible. That's false. The investigation was not interfered with, stalled, or shut down per Mueller's own words. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) who is this dummy? This woman is a bigger tool than Jordan! Edited July 24, 2019 by plenzmd1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Trump must be REALLY bad at ‘trying to obstruct’ then because Mueller testifies that he wasn’t obstructed. This is bizarro world stuff. He didn't really say that...at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Dems have to go after someone that worked with a foreign power to steal an election, they have to Agreed. Time to get them. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, plenzmd1 said: again, that is speculation...you thnik it is proof..until i see something or someone from DOJ testifies that is the reason no charge, speculation It's not speculation to state Mifsud is at the center of the origin, or if he was compromised it would destroy the entire foundation of the case. That's factual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts