• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Robert Mullah disappoints Leftists again.

zimmer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
For the TDS Leftists...

Is the job of the FBI or Robert Mullah to exonerate?

No. it’s to press charges or not. Mullah didn’t, and when asked if he would by Barr... THREE TIMES...

Barr, in his testimony to the Senate panel, said that the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion came up in his March 5 meeting with Mueller: "Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying, but-for the OLC opinion, he would've found obstruction,"...

Access Denied

Zimmer note: Access not denied. Dive in Leftists... and learn.
Click to expand...

It’s fun watching Leftists lose their minds. Two-years of Leftists being misinformed, and now this A-bomb from Mullah.

ROTFLOL.

Now to declassify all the gunk, and rifle a few A-bomb styled torpedos into the Corrupt Leftist Cabal... the party and their Propagandists.
 
zimmer said:
For the TDS Leftists...

Is the job of the FBI or Robert Mullah to exonerate?

No. it’s to press charges or not. Mullah didn’t, and when asked if he would by Barr... THREE TIMES...



It’s fun watching Leftists lose their minds. Two-years of Leftists being misinformed, and now this A-bomb from Mullah.

ROTFLOL.

Now to declassify all the gunk, and rifle a few A-bomb styled torpedos into the Corrupt Leftist Cabal... the party and their Propagandists.
Click to expand...

Fun to watch the RW melt down and run from what he actually said, which was damning.

"If we had confidence that (Trump) did not commit a crime, we would’ve said so...Under longstanding DOJ policy, a POTUS cannot be charged w/a federal crime while he's in office. Charging (Trump) w/a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

Game. Set. Match.
 
Stop the "Mullah" nonsense. You sound just like a liberal.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Fun to watch the RW melt down and run from what he actually said, which was damning.

"If we had confidence that (Trump) did not commit a crime, we would’ve said so...Under longstanding DOJ policy, a POTUS cannot be charged w/a federal crime while he's in office. Charging (Trump) w/a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...

Basically, he was telling the Dems that yeah, they can run with his stuff, but it will all be political...not judicial.

I really do wish the Dems would run with it. Impeach now.
 
zimmer said:
For the TDS Leftists...

Is the job of the FBI or Robert Mullah to exonerate?

No. it’s to press charges or not. Mullah didn’t, and when asked if he would by Barr... THREE TIMES...



It’s fun watching Leftists lose their minds. Two-years of Leftists being misinformed, and now this A-bomb from Mullah.

ROTFLOL.

Now to declassify all the gunk, and rifle a few A-bomb styled torpedos into the Corrupt Leftist Cabal... the party and their Propagandists.
Click to expand...

You sound more hysterical than the "TDS Leftists."
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Fun to watch the RW melt down and run from what he actually said, which was damning.

"If we had confidence that (Trump) did not commit a crime, we would’ve said so...Under longstanding DOJ policy, a POTUS cannot be charged w/a federal crime while he's in office. Charging (Trump) w/a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...

I'm confused -- what was the point of the investigation then? If there could be nothing done if he did commit a crime, why were they trying to find a crime? And if they did find evidence of a crime, but can't indict him while he's President - is Mueller holding back evidence for when Trump's NOT president anymore?
 
Mycroft said:
Basically, he was telling the Dems that yeah, they can run with his stuff, but it will all be political...not judicial.

I really do wish the Dems would run with it. Impeach now.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm pretty sure they're getting very close.

Mueller's statement was essentially about violation of the most critical duty a POTUS has: to take strive to faithfullly execute the laws.

This is about fitness for office and impeachment. That's why he wrote it like he wrote it and he expects Congress to run with it, given the ample evidence he provided for them.
 
zimmer said:
For the TDS Leftists...

Is the job of the FBI or Robert Mullah to exonerate?

No. it’s to press charges or not. Mullah didn’t, and when asked if he would by Barr... THREE TIMES...



It’s fun watching Leftists lose their minds. Two-years of Leftists being misinformed, and now this A-bomb from Mullah.

ROTFLOL.

Now to declassify all the gunk, and rifle a few A-bomb styled torpedos into the Corrupt Leftist Cabal... the party and their Propagandists.
Click to expand...

This is dumb. Stop.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Oh, I'm pretty sure they're getting very close.

Mueller's statement was essentially about violation of the most critical duty a POTUS has: to take strive to faithfullly execute the laws.

This is about fitness for office and impeachment. That's why he wrote it like he wrote it and he expects Congress to run with it, given the ample evidence he provided for them.
Click to expand...

But based on what? What evidence is there for impeachment? Is he holding back evidence?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Oh, I'm pretty sure they're getting very close.

Mueller's statement was essentially about violation of the most critical duty a POTUS has: to take strive to faithfullly execute the laws.

This is about fitness for office and impeachment. That's why he wrote it like he wrote it and he expects Congress to run with it, given the ample evidence he provided for them.
Click to expand...

You are aware that they will fail, right?

Or, maybe you hope the Dems fail? Nancy will lose her Speakership if she impeaches.
 
Josie said:
I'm confused -- what was the point of the investigation then? If there could be nothing done if he did commit a crime, why were they trying to find a crime? And if they did find evidence of a crime, but can't indict him while he's President - is Mueller holding back evidence for when Trump's NOT president anymore?
Click to expand...

He gave all the evidence that was necessary to congress in the report. His statements are pretty much, "And now over to you, Nancy".
 
Mycroft said:
You are aware that they will fail, right?

Or, maybe you hope the Dems fail? Nancy will lose her Speakership if she impeaches.
Click to expand...

No, impeachment hearings wouldn't 'fail'. They would include hours and hours of testimony attesting to the crimes that twump committed and those he ordered his underlings to commit, thus exposing them to the US electorate in an up close and personal way, since hardly anyone has read the report.

The senate is utterly irrelevant to that.
 
Josie said:
But based on what? What evidence is there for impeachment? Is he holding back evidence?
Click to expand...

Sigh. So you haven't actually read the report? The report clearly shows multiple instance of criminal obstruction on the part the POTUS, amongst other things.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Sigh. So you haven't actually read the report? The report clearly shows multiple instance of criminal obstruction on the part the POTUS, amongst other things.
Click to expand...

No, I read it, but it's also been awhile. In between then and now I've had my mind on other things.

Tanngrisnir said:
He gave all the evidence that was necessary to congress in the report. His statements are pretty much, "And now over to you, Nancy".
Click to expand...

I see. So the investigation was never about finding a crime, but finding a way to impeach Trump.

It will be interesting, that's for sure. Do you think the Dems will go ahead with it? Should they?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Oh, I'm pretty sure they're getting very close.

Mueller's statement was essentially about violation of the most critical duty a POTUS has: to take strive to faithfullly execute the laws.

This is about fitness for office and impeachment. That's why he wrote it like he wrote it and he expects Congress to run with it, given the ample evidence he provided for them.
Click to expand...

and when Durham comes out with his indictments and proves it was a complete frame up job...dems know what's coming down the pike.
 
Josie said:
I see. So the investigation was never about finding a crime, but finding a way to impeach Trump.

It will be interesting, that's for sure. Do you think the Dems will go ahead with it? Should they?
Click to expand...

No, it was about investigating Russian interference into our elections and it turned up evidence of actual crimes on the part of twump. It was never about 'finding a way to impeach him'.

Yes, I think the dems will go ahead with it and, yes, I think they should.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Fun to watch the RW melt down and run from what he actually said, which was damning.

"If we had confidence that (Trump) did not commit a crime, we would’ve said so...Under longstanding DOJ policy, a POTUS cannot be charged w/a federal crime while he's in office. Charging (Trump) w/a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...
Does mueller believe Trump acted alone?
Because nobody was charged with a conspiracy crime and what was the point of investigating obstruction allegations if they predetermined that it was something they would not be able to charge?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Tanngrisnir said:
No, impeachment hearings wouldn't 'fail'. They would include hours and hours of testimony attesting to the crimes that twump committed and those he ordered his underlings to commit, thus exposing them to the US electorate in an up close and personal way, since hardly anyone has read the report.

The senate is utterly irrelevant to that.
Click to expand...

So...there you go. I just wish Nancy was as honest about this as you are.

It's all about making Trump look bad. It's all about the electorate. It's all about 2020.

The thing is, though, nothing the Dems can reveal in impeachment proceedings is new. The media has already splashed the whole thing to the public. I mean, seriously, do you really think people who haven't been paying attention already are going to pay more attention just because the media reports on the House repeating stuff we already know?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, it was about investigating Russian interference into our elections and it turned up evidence of actual crimes on the part of twump.
Click to expand...

Oh, c'mon. The whole thing was spurred by the fake Trump/Russia video. It had everything to do with getting Trump. One of Mueller's major findings was that Trump nor anyone in his administration - nor any American - worked with the Russians to interfere with the election.

It was never about 'finding a way to impeach him'.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Everything is about politics. Do you remember how everyone went completely insane on election night? They've been looking for anything to use to impeach him. Just like the Republicans back in the 90s against Bill Clinton. If you think politics had nothing to do with it then you're just being naive.

Yes, I think the dems will go ahead with it and, yes, I think they should.
Click to expand...

I think they should too if there's sufficient proof that Trump committed a crime. If it's just politics then they're just digging their own graves.
 
Josie said:
I'm confused -- what was the point of the investigation then? If there could be nothing done if he did commit a crime, why were they trying to find a crime? And if they did find evidence of a crime, but can't indict him while he's President - is Mueller holding back evidence for when Trump's NOT president anymore?
Click to expand...

Josie, like some of us have been saying since day one, the point of the investigation was to find something, anything, the Resistance could use to get rid of Trump. The fact that Mueller dedicated 200 pages of his report to something he expressly stated he couldn't and shouldn't do anything about is nothing but confirmation that the whole thing was a political hit job.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, impeachment hearings wouldn't 'fail'. They would include hours and hours of testimony attesting to the crimes that twump committed and those he ordered his underlings to commit, thus exposing them to the US electorate in an up close and personal way, since hardly anyone has read the report.

The senate is utterly irrelevant to that.
Click to expand...

better check again...house votes on Impeachment Senate tries the accused. Graham has already said if House impeaches he could just send the case forward without any trial in Senate and have a vote it's over. no long trial.
 
Mycroft said:
So...there you go. I just wish Nancy was as honest about this as you are.

It's all about making Trump look bad. It's all about the electorate. It's all about 2020.

The thing is, though, nothing the Dems can reveal in impeachment proceedings is new. The media has already splashed the whole thing to the public. I mean, seriously, do you really think people who haven't been paying attention already are going to pay more attention just because the media reports on the House repeating stuff we already know?
Click to expand...

No, it's all about holding twump accountable for the innumerable impeachable offenses he's committed.

And the information doesn't have to be 'new'. It just has to get exposure, which for the most part it hasn't yet had.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Fun to watch the RW melt down and run from what he actually said, which was damning.

"If we had confidence that (Trump) did not commit a crime, we would’ve said so...Under longstanding DOJ policy, a POTUS cannot be charged w/a federal crime while he's in office. Charging (Trump) w/a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...
Yup. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom