Reply With Quote
AG Barr: “Thanks to the special counsel's investigation, we now know that Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign."
And the feckless, chicken Dems cave on queue
House majority leader dismisses impeachment talk after Mueller report
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) doesn't feel any differently about impeachment in light of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report.
Hoyer told CNN's Dana Bash on Thursday that "based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point."
The top Democrat had in January called impeachment talk a "distraction" but said that "we'll have to see what the Mueller report says," per The Hill.
Now that the report is out, Hoyer still feels these issues should be
litigated at the ballot box in 2020 rather than through the impeachment process,
telling CNN, "Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgement." Hoyer previously made this argument in March and told Fox News that
impeachment is an "extraordinarily all-consuming process."what else ya got to do? all your legislation will DIE in the Senate
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has similarly said that
impeaching Trump is "just not worth it,"
per The Washington Post,
but she has yet to make a similar statement since the release of Mueller's report.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/83618...mueller-reportk
Hoyer hasn't even seen the redacted , yet, and he caves
What's Hoyer gonna do after he and his Dem/RNC ilk subvert Bernie yet again, handing re-election to Trash?
all these Dems to
AG Barr: “Thanks to the special counsel's investigation, we now know that Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign."
Reporter: why did you say it was an unprecedented situation?
Barr: is there a precedent for it?
Reporter: well no
Barr: okay so unprecedented is an accurate description, isn't it?
Reporter: ...yeah
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.AG Barr: “Thanks to the special counsel's investigation, we now know that Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign."
Hooray, I guess?
Trash's campaign mgr giving Russians voter data for 4 key states, 3 of which gave Trash the EC by 80K votes, and DJTJr, Manafort, etc, meeting with Russians to obtain dirt on Hillary, then Trash LYING in writing about the meeting:
how are these, at least, not coordination/conspiring?
shocked to see this on CNN
Because Mueller said so.
"So that's the bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the special counsel confirmed -- the Trump campaign nor any other Americans colluded," with the Russians."
: )
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Hooray, I guess?
Trumps written answers;
”i dont recall”
37 times
lololol
"Right from the beginning, there's no hesitation, one of the great memories of all time."
Nunes on the warpath
Clinton 39 times
Comey 245 times
You're reeling.
Unable to conclude does not mean there wasn't obstruction...also does not exonarate him
Explain this then TSA.
I know some have pointed this out to you already but you keep glossing over it for some odd reason.
Let's leave you with one last line:
"..Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of powers of office.."
That no one is above the law thingy.
A great brain, the best brain, filled with all the best words."Right from the beginning, there's no hesitation, one of the great memories of all time."
Resistance Reck still wants to believe
Resistance Reck still wants to believe
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mueller-r...172422827.html
“This is the end of my presidency. I'm ed.”
If you think congress has a better chance of establishing obstruction than Mueller and his entire team and all their resources you are stupider than I thought.You're reeling.
Unable to conclude does not mean there wasn't obstruction...also does not exonarate him
Explain this then TSA.
I know some have pointed this out to you already but you keep glossing over it for some odd reason.
Let's leave you with one last line:
"..Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of powers of office.."
That no one is above the law thingy.
Not sure about the perjury part since the FBI used "believes" but once Trump declassifies all the FISA apps the FBI is going to be thoroughly embarrassed.
Here’s the most crucial paragraph from the Mueller report
Mueller:
"Under applicable Supreme Court precedent,
the Cons ution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers.
The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source.
We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President’s ability to fulfill his cons utional mission.
The term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard.
It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else,
inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.
A preclusion of “corrupt” official action does not diminish the President’s ability to exercise Article II powers.
For example, the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment.
To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law.
It also aligns with the President’s cons utional duty to faithfully execute the laws.
Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified,
inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chili his performance of his cons utionally assigned duties.
The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our cons utional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/her...e+Raw+Story%29
"Legally, a decision not to prosecute on the basis that no crimes were committed is an exoneration. Why? Because of the presumption of innocence. Trump doesn’t have to be PROVEN innocent. He IS innocent until proven guilty."
-Herr D'Souza
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
