15
   

Mueller: No further indictments

 
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Mar, 2019 01:24 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
Your are judged by the company you keep.

Obama wasn't, (Bill Aryes, Peter Said, Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Frank Marshall) why should Trump be any different?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Mar, 2019 03:15 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
You seem to have a problem understanding written information. Nowhere did I say your hero Trump was convicted of a crime. What I said is he is a crook who hasent been convicted of a crime because he is a multimillionaire who can pay lawyers to keep his crooked a$$ out of jail. But that may change now that the New York prosecutors are looking into his past deals. And the fact that so many of his friends and companions have been sent to jail tells me he is also a crook. Your are judged by the company you keep.

Again, you keep bringing up the Mueller convictions as evidence that president Trump committed some crime at some time. Tell me which of those convictions is in any way suggestive that the president was involved in criminal activity. Either some of those convictions are suggestive of criminal activity on president Trump's part or they aren't. If you think that even one of them is, quote the details here and now or stop the coy, dishonest suggestions that they imply some guilt on his part.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 12:15 am
@Brandon9000,
Republicans have a horror of facts. One would think they are allergic to truthful facts. Yet they swallow Trumps "facts" like they were candy.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 02:28 am
@coldjoint,
Quote:
As far as the DOJ it will now be run like it supposed to, and persecution is not one of its functions.

Prosecution of frauds and tax cheats will continue. Investigations will be carried out. Criminals will be indicted, tried, and sentenced. If you're saying that the DOJ will no longer prosecute lawbreakers and pursue corruption then that is decidedly not the way it's "supposed to be run". The law's the law; Trump and his minions are just as much subject to the law as any other citizens and corporations and don't get a "pass".
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 04:26 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Republicans have a horror of facts. One would think they are allergic to truthful facts. Yet they swallow Trumps "facts" like they were candy.


This is a truly curious concentration of contradictions and non sequiturs. What is a "truthful fact"?
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 08:01 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
Republicans have a horror of facts. One would think they are allergic to truthful facts. Yet they swallow Trumps "facts" like they were candy.

Name calling is the lowest form of debate and irrelevant.

When asked repeatedly to cite just one Mueller conviction which suggests that president Trump may have committed any crime, you can not. If there is such a conviction among the Mueller prosecutions, why can you not cite it?

I'm asking again, which of Mueller's conviction implies even slightly that the president may have committed a crime?
Region Philbis
 
  3  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 11:30 am
Albert Peterson wrote:
Here is some truth :
Mueller has farmed out federal indictments to:

1) the SDNY, in Manhattan,
2) the EDNY, in Brooklyn,
3) the EDVA in Virginia,
4) the U.S. Attorney’s office in LA,
5) the U.S. Attorney’s office in DC,
6) the DOJ National Security Division,
7) the DOJ Criminal Division.

Those who are familiar with Mueller’s investigation understand that “no more indictments from Mueller” doesn’t mean “no more indictments.”

It means every single one of Mueller’s existing indictments resides in a “presidential pardon proof” prosecutorial district.

Recall how Mueller handed off the Cohen case to the U.S. Attorneys’ office for the SDNY, who sent Cohen to prison.

Meanwhile, the investigation has led to 199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and five prison sentences.

The string of crimes that have already been unearthed is staggering and unprecedented in our nation’s history...and Congress, the SDNY, EDNY, EDVA, the U.S. Attorney’s office in LA, the U.S. Attorney’s office in DC, the DOJ National Security Division, and the DOJ Criminal Division...will likely uncover much more...

In other words, the people on Team Trump who are naïvely celebrating right now are merely suffering from a lack of understanding about the rule of law and how federal and state prosecutions work.

It’s bizarre to see naïve under-informed #Foxwashed consumers spiking the ball before making it to the end zone, tho I must admit it’s also quite funny!
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 11:31 am
@Region Philbis,
Quote:
1) the SDNY, in Manhattan,
2) the EDNY, in Brooklyn,
3) the EDVA in Virginia,
4) the U.S. Attorney’s office in LA,
5) the U.S. Attorney’s office in DC,
6) the DOJ National Security Division,
7) the DOJ Criminal Division.

Seven examples of bias and desperation. Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 11:48 am
@georgeob1,
I was sure you wouldent know what a fact was. Your a conservative republican.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 11:53 am
@Brandon9000,
Wait till the report is released. Something that will never happen if it contains anything Trump dont like. But Miller sent a bunch of trumpies to jail with more to follow. And some really bad news, the grand jury is still in session per a federal judge.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 11:54 am
https://grrrgraphics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/loser_gallery-1024x708.jpg
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 12:00 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

I was sure you wouldent know what a fact was. Your a conservative republican.

Well, Republican, anyway.

Most Republicans these days are authoritarian boot-lickers. And/or were using "conservative" as a code word for "racist."
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 12:02 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
And/or were using "conservative" as a code word for "racist."

Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 12:10 pm
@Region Philbis,
Quote:
In other words, the people on Team Trump who are naïvely celebrating right now are merely suffering from a lack of understanding about the rule of law and how federal and state prosecutions work.
I'd argue this presumption is doubtful. Certainly his legal people will not think this so nor Trump nor family (and surely more broadly than just those few).

The overall Trump and right wing media story since the summary was published is that the investigation proved Trump innocent of any crime or wrong-doing and was an invalid stunt perpetrated by Obama/Clinton people who make up the "deep state" to overturn the election. This story is pounded out every hour on all the leading right wing media outlets along with all related statements from the WH.

Some of this can be attributed to Trump's predictable behavior of vengeful attacks on any criticism. Also, it follows the standard right wing axiom, "Never defend, always attack".

But the more salient motive here, I'm sure, is to set up his base to reject ANY future criminal finding from ANY jurisdiction. And, a more frightening possibility, to provide Trump and Republicans with a rationale for refusal to accept a negative outcome in 2020. If Trump's legal people have informed him of serious legal jeopardy once he's out of office, the behavior of this guy, a sociopath, is not easily predictable.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 12:36 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

I was sure you wouldent know what a fact was. Your a conservative republican.


Instead use 'wouldn't, 'fact is' and 'you're'
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 12:45 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Some of this can be attributed to Trump's predictable behavior of vengeful attacks on any criticism. Also, it follows the standard right wing axiom, "Never defend, always attack".


Your characterization of Trump's response to intense and vitriolic criticism is accurate. However, I'm not persuaded the use of "any" was correct.

With respect to the contemporary behavior of politicians in this country, it appears very clear to me that "standard axiom" you cited above applies far, far more to left wing Democrats than any other group. Certainly the relentless and unfounded Democrat accusations of illegal "collusion" on Trump's part, coupled with their vacuous defense of real crimes on the part of the Clintons attests to this point.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 02:29 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
However, I'm not persuaded the use of "any" was correct.
You could have this right but I'm not aware of any instances where it has been admitted that anything other than total exoneration is the case. Certainly not by Trump or the WH or Giuliani or Fox - unless you know of some such instance
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 03:07 pm
@blatham,
I'm not sure what you mean by "total exoneration". However the fact is that the rather exhaustive Mueller investigation did not establish probable cause for either criminal collusion/coordination with Russians, or for obstruction of justice. Under our legal system (and that of Canada) that is, most certainly, exoneration in the legal sense.

Under the rules applicable to the investigation itself, any effort to do or probe beyond such legal issues would be outside the scope and power of both the Special Prosecutor, and indeed those of the whole Justice department. Thus, anything beyond such legal exoneration, would also be beyond their authorized powers. In short, what I suspect you may mean by "total exonerati0n, is an outcome that was never a possibility in this investigation, and to suggest otherwise is simply contrary to the facts.

These legal provisions are fundamental to our law and constitution, which prohibit star chambers, and establish that under the law one is innocent until proven guilty by established legal procedures. Ongoing efforts by some to subvert these provisions are dangerous to us all.

Everyone is, of course, free to make whatever judgments they like about the extra legal aspects of these matters, but efforts to cloud the applicable legal distinctions here are positively deceptive.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 03:21 pm
@georgeob1,
Missed the important part but was able to correct my English. Very asstute George. You and c j are two of a kind. Geniuses in your own minds.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 03:47 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Wait till the report is released. Something that will never happen if it contains anything Trump dont like. But Miller sent a bunch of trumpies to jail with more to follow. And some really bad news, the grand jury is still in session per a federal judge.

Translation: contrary to your initial claim, you cannot cite anything in any of the Mueller convictions which even suggests that Trump committed a crime.

One other thing you might want to think about. If a team of prosecutors with an unlimited budget wants to convict you of a crime, they can find one that will stick. For a simple example, they can interrogate you about a set of events again and again and if there is the tiniest deviation in your accounts from one telling to the next, as there would eventually be with any real person, they can use that "perjury," plus the threat of a heavy sentence and exhausting your resources to make you plead to a lesser (false) crime. You might want to ask yourself how long you could survive an attempt by a team of government attorneys to find something to pin on you. I am sure that some of the Mueller convictions are perfectly valid and legitimate (although unrelated to president Trump), but I strongly suspect that some are nothing more than the bullying of innocent people who couldn't stand up to the pressure.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/10/2021 at 04:50:56