Ok word police what now
 

Trump. Tell US troops and Japanese troops

" happy memorial day "

nothing from the usual suspects...

Trump is such a tool, to bring up politics on a trip to one of our closest allies is bad enough, but to downplay NK’s continued launches as no big deal, in the face of the alley most at risk is embarrassing. Just another example of his love affairs with strong armed dictators and his continued isolationist approach to our allies.

To agree with Kim on comments about a Joe Bidden is so wrong, so inappropriate, so unpresidential but his base rolls on with the means justifies the ends approach, as do the majority of the GOP. I don’t think I can argue the economy remains strong, I can debate how much Trump has to to with maintaining it, but I think his foreign policy skills are juvenile and damn right scary, which is why we lost so many good people that could keep him in check. He doesn’t read, doesn’t take security briefings as fact and with him and Bolton at the helm is scary sh*t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

~ F U C K T R U M P ~

Clearly,the best president of our lifetime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mueller’s news conference today made it crystal clear he did not exonerate Trump, in fact he stated again the reason being its policy not to indite a sitting president and since that policy exists; charges even if warranted wouldn’t be fair since it couldn’t go forward. Best president of our lifetime, boy you set the bar low.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Impeachment is looking more likely now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime,” Mr. Mueller said, “we would have said so.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you receive word of a code red situation again Jeff?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you mean indict?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but that’s not how it works. they aren’t charged with proving innocence. he is already presumed innocent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you think if Mueller found absolutely no evidence that Trump obstructed the investigation he would not have said that? Because that was not the statement he made and that I quoted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If they had evidence that he clearly did commit a crime, they could have, and should have, said so. The notion that a sitting President cannot be indicted, does not prevent saying that he clearly committed a crime.

Not saying one or the other is implying that the evidence is not sufficient to convict. Ergo, Barr made the correct call in regards to the investigation.

Congress can impeach even if the investigation concludes that the evidence is not sufficient to indict. That's a separate issue.

The same reasoning can be applied to the first part of the investigation--conspiracy. If the evidence clearly proved that he conspired with Russia, they should have said so even if the President could not be indicted. Otherwise, there would be no point to the investigation.

Mueller and his team clearly avoided making a conclusion re obstruction. The point of investigating was to make a conclusion, not to waffle. Barr cleaned up the mess that Mueller made re obstruction.

The question is why did Mueller avoid the obvious conclusion. Claiming that it would not be fair to charge Trump if he could not be indicted is nonsense. It is just as unfair to leave it hanging with the strong odor of implying that Trump is guilty as it is to say that Trump is actually guilty.

And, again, the same reasoning goes to the conspiracy aspect. If there was evidence that Trump clearly conspired, there would have been the same unnecessary "dilemma"--implying rather than stating. That makes the whole process an exercise in futility that should not have been allowed to waste our time and money.

Mueller should have concluded one way or the other. The fact that he didn't implies something more sinister, in my opinion, than Trump trying to stop an attempt to destroy him when he knew that he didn't conspire with the Russians. Maybe Barr's investigation can uncover why Mueller waffled, or even why there was an investigation without evidence that a crime was committed in the first place.

Keep grasping at straws.
Trump received and benefited from Russian help.
Mueller laid out ten ways Trump obstructed the investigation of Russian interference with our elections.
Luckily for him we are not at war with them or in addition to being guilty of obstruction, he would also be charged with treason.
Just like Bannon said, he is a two bit con man, money laundering cheat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank you for exposing him PeteF.
Obviously you and Bannon have him all figured out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did not grasp at straws. I stated some facts that you cannot refute. And I reviewed the "ten ways." They are flimsy and can easily be interpreted in other ways than obstruction. Which is why Mueller could not conclude that Trump obstructed. And the necessity of proving criminal intent is a burden that the prosecution could not meet since there was no underlying crime being covered up. It can obviously be concluded that Trump was trying to stop or mitigate what he, probably rightly, thought was an attempt to destroy him by trying to make it look like he was conspiring when he knew he wasn't. His intent, it can obviously be seen, not as an attempt to cover up actual conspiracy, but to stop the attempt to falsely destroy him.

If it’s ok with you for trump to seek and welcome help from Russia........
Must be a deep state plot to discredit the stable genius
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it's OK with you to frame someone for a conspiracy that didn't exist . . . . .must be a deep state plot.

Pretty amazing isn't it.

From the Mueller report:

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

"The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

From Mueller yesterday:

"It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

"When (Mueller chooses his words very carefully, notice he did not say If) a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable."

Testimonials for the choice of Robert Mueller

"Robert Mueller is superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity" – Newt Gingrich, May 18, 2017.

"I have a lot of confidence in Bob Mueller. I think it was a good choice" – Mitch McConnell, June 13, 2017.

"Robert Mueller is highly regarded by Republicans and Democrats" – John McCain, June 13, 2017.

"I have a lot of confidence in Bob Mueller. This is someone who will go to where the truth leads him" – Condoleezza Rice, June 28, 2017.

From the infamous Rudy spoken a year ago:
Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday claimed to CNN that special counsel Robert Mueller’s team told President Trump’s lawyers that they cannot indict a sitting president. “All they get to do is write a report,” Giuliani, who currently serves as a Trump lawyer, told CNN reporter Dana Bash. “They can’t indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us.”

Now we get to watch them spin................................

Mueller report--no conspiracy--bam--amazing isn't it?

I watch you keep spinning. If they had had confidence that the president clearly did commit a crime, they would have said so. There is nothing, no law, no tradition, that would have prevented them from saying so. In fact, the purpose of the investigation was exactly to say so if the evidence clearly led to that conclusion. The purpose of a prosecutorial investigation is to convict, not to exonerate. The American way, the American tradition, is that there is firstly a presumption of innocence. If conviction cannot be had, the presumption of innocence stands.

We are now, according to your spin, supposed to assume guilt and innocence must be proved.

No, you are incorrect, the enabling legislation and DOJ rules calls out what is required and Mueller clearly lays out what he believed he could and could not do in the report.

What we are to do at this point is really simple, the House investigates and if needed impeaches the President.

Meanwhile Trump continues to obstruct the investigation, and it is justifiable in your mind because he's mad.

Others think he is covering things up.

Pay attention to Muellers closing statement:
"I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American."

You are arguing with someone convinced Trump did no wrong and Barr is doing a bang up job, it’s pointless. He either didn’t watch mueller’s news conference or as I suspect it’s “don’t confuse me with facts my mind is made up”.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mueller report - Obstruction - Bam - amazing isn't it.

And the Republicans don't care that he was willing to accept Russian help to get elected.

Do you need help? I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about getting the spelling right as auto fill st times goes to fast. But I don’t worry because I know that if I get a word wrong there will be a small minding petty person ready to prove how sharp they are.🤮
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mueller said specifically they wouldn't say so without an indictment as the accused would have no legal process to show otherwise.

Mueller essentially said we would have but we couldn't. Congress, you're up.

did the mueller report say there was criminal obstruction? or did it say that they couldn’t say that there was no criminal obstruction?

those are two very different things.

for two years, we were promised indictments on conspiracy/collusion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

where did he say that?

i thought he said, we can’t conclude there wasn’t a crime, and even if there was we can’t indict a sitting president, so congress you’re up.

he’s going to get impeached.

will be nice to get back to governing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On obstruction he didn't say they couldn't conclude there was a crime, he said they decided not to make a judgement because of the DoJ guidelines which allow investigation and the preservation of evidence but not indictment of the President.

The case for obstruction is all there, it's why nearly a thousand former prosecutors have signed the letter stating just that.

...he might not be able to indict but he could certainly come to a conclusion or a judgment based on his exhaustive investigation and evidence as to whether Trump committed any crimes...that he's engaged is this sophistry is a reflection of his failure and frustrations and he's probably getting a lot of heat from the media and democrats who are similarly frustrated...sore loser democrats are really embarrassing themselves...can't wait for the impeachment and I'm begging the dems to subpoena Mueller to testify....he should answer a few questions...if there really is a case for obstruction then fire away...this should be really entertaining