Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

The Trump Administration's War With Reality

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: The Trump Administration's War With Reality
Post by gcomeau   » Fri May 03, 2019 11:26 am

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2364
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

smr wrote:Now, if i said the same statement with these changes what would be your response?
SMR says: FYI I have been critical of US Liberal/Progressive murder idiocy for my entire adult life, long before the current pathologically lying witch loving began running things in the Demoncrats.


Ummm.... so you're asking me what if you told me you had been an ignorant anti liberal conservative your entire life?

Yeah, pretty sure I would buy that. Why the hell wouldn't I?

What possible point do you think you were trying to make with this?
Top
Re: The Trump Administration's War With Reality
Post by smr   » Sat May 04, 2019 1:18 am

smr
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1469
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:18 pm

Breaking News:

Fact 1: Trump cleared of Russian Collusion (Conspiracy) Charges.

Fact 2: Trump cleared of Obstruction Charges!


End result: Demoncrats have to Impeach Trump in the House in order to prosecute Trump in Senate! Remember it is Trump's Turn to call, raise, or fold his poler cards. The Demoncrats have nothing higher than a 10 in their hand. Trump has just raised the ante and bet the 2020 election on his cards. The Demoncrats have no idea on who is being investigated and if they are going to jail. What do you do: call, raise, or fold?

Witch Hunt is over and the real hunt for the wicked witch of the NorthEast may Commence! Remember Gcomeau, trust the plan of the Demoncrats because they would never lie or dupe you. :shock:
Top
Re: The Trump Administration's War With Reality
Post by The E   » Sat May 04, 2019 2:08 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 12:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

smr wrote:Fact 2: Trump cleared of Obstruction Charges!


No.

Mueller Report, Volume 2, Page 2:
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

(Emphasis mine)
Learn to read, smr.
Top
Re: The Trump Administration's War With Reality
Post by Joat42   » Sat May 04, 2019 6:09 am

Joat42
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:01 am
Location: Sweden

I find it funny that some people need to nitpick on specific words trying to defend their position instead of being offended and outraged about what has happened and what is still happening to some degree.

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top
Re: The Trump Administration's War With Reality
Post by smr   » Sat May 04, 2019 9:24 am

smr
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1469
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:18 pm

Joat42 wrote:I find it funny that some people need to nitpick on specific words trying to defend their position instead of being offended and outraged about what has happened and what is still happening to some degree.


Spin Joat42!

Fact 1 and 2 are indisputable. Those are the facts legally speaking. Bearing those 2 facts in mind, the Demoncrats have 2 choices to either Impeach or move on. These 2 facts have nothing to do with one's observations, bias, or beliefs of individuals about Trump and the Mueler Report. The only other option is to try and challenge in the Courts and that will more and likely take years. The Mueller Report is closed and done. Why do you see the NYT starting to focus on Spygate? The Sharks in the MSM smell blood in the water and it's not Trump's.

Is their another path? If so, put out the path or scenario.

Continuing the Poker Theme, Trump's hold cards are 2 Kings and the Demoncrats hold cards are a 10 and a 7 offsuit. Hey Demoncrats call, fold, or raise? Got to love Texas Hold'Em.
Top
Re: The Trump Administration's War With Reality
Post by gcomeau   » Mon May 06, 2019 10:15 am

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2364
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

smr wrote:
Joat42 wrote:I find it funny that some people need to nitpick on specific words trying to defend their position instead of being offended and outraged about what has happened and what is still happening to some degree.


Spin Joat42!

Fact 1 and 2 are indisputable. Those are the facts legally speaking.


No, "Fact 1 and 2" are the furthest thing from facts. They are in fact lies.

One more time: Barr. Lied.

The report does not clear Trump on either Collusion OR Obstruction.

For Collusion the report detailed HUNDREDS of contacts between the campaign and the Russians, it laid out page after page after page of collusive behavior. Then it made a very narrow finding that the evidence did not rise to a level sufficient to prosecute for a specific act of conspiracy that involved a stated cooperation agreement between the Russians and the Campaign which was all Mueller had been given jurisdiction to look at which is WORLDS AWAY from "clearing Trump of Collusion".

On Obstruction Mueller flat out laid out a case for charging Trump. He said in black and white that if he could have cleared Trump on Obstruction he would have but the evidence would not allow him to clear Trump.

He also said in plain language that DOJ guidelines would not allow him to indict a sitting president, but Congress could impeach him or he could be charged after he left office.

I mean FFS, if you can't be bothered to read the report while making pronouncements about what is in it can you AT THE VERY FUCKING LEAST read the summaries?

Here, I'll post the Obstruction volume summary here for you if that makes it easier, and I'll even explain what it freaking means (bolding mine)

Mueller wrote:INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME II

This report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), which states that, "[a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he ... shall provide the Attorney
General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel] reached."

Beginning in 2017, the President of the United States took a variety of actions towards the ongoing FBI investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters that raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice. The Order appointing the Special Counsel gave this Office jurisdiction to investigate matters that arose directly from the FBI's Russia investigation, including whether the President had obstructed justice in connection with Russia-related investigations. The Special Counsel's jurisdiction also covered potentially obstructive acts related to the Special Counsel's investigation itself. This Volume of our report
summarizes our obstruction-of-justice investigation of the President.

We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2


Translation into even more simple terms for smr: "The DOJ says WE ARE NOT ALLOWED to indict a sitting president no matter what we find because that would cause serious problems for that president's ability to do their job".


Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.
3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary
materials were available.


Translation into even more simple terms for smr:: If he did commit crimes it is important for the integrity of the justice system and the entire principle of the rule of law that we know what happened so he can be held accountable.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern."6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.


Translation into even more simple terms for smr: BECAUSE they are not allowed to indict him, if they explicitly charged in this document that he had committed a crime he would not get to defend himself in court. That would also make it hard for the president to do his job. So even if they find he committed a crime THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SAY THAT EXPLICITLY. They're just going to lay out the evidence and then submit the report.

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him


Translation into even more simple terms for smr: They may not be allowed to say "the president did commit obstruction of Justice" but they ARE allowed to say "the president did NOT commit obstruction of justice." And if there was any way to CLEAR him on obstruction they WOULD say that.

They looked at what he did and THEY CANNOT CLEAR HIM.

Guess what option that leaves even if they don't think they're allowed to say it smr?

What's going to be interesting to see is if Barr pissed Mueller off badly enough by lying about his report and misleading the public that Mueller will consent to answer this question when he's called to testify:

"If Trump was NOT a sitting president would you have indicted?"

He may still decline to answer it thinking DOJ rules don't allow him to say even outside the official report. But if he DOES answer it anyone who has read that report knows what the answer is going to be.

And there is a reason THIS is contained in the closing section of the Obstruction volume:

A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office. Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law. Indeed, the Impeachment Judgment Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in addressing an official's conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment. See U.S. CONST. ART. l, § 3, cl. 7. Impeachment is also a drastic and rarely invoked remedy, and Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment, rather than making criminal law applicable to a former President, as OLC has recognized. A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment.").



Translation into even more simple terms for smr: "Hey Congress, I may not be allowed to indict him while he's in office, but you can impeach him and/or throw him in prison for all of this after he is OUT of office."
Top
Re: The Trump Administration's War With Reality
Post by smr   » Mon May 06, 2019 2:03 pm

smr
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1469
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:18 pm

Who is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the land...William Barr. So, this will go to court and eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. Good luck on that. I know you will have Congress impeach him...good luck because the Senate has to Convict Barr. It is what it is...deal with results. You were duped by the Demoncrats and still are being duped because their appealing to you emotions rather than you logic. It's all optics! I had to deal with Hilary getting off.
Top
Re: The Trump Administration's War With Reality
Post by gcomeau   » Mon May 06, 2019 2:35 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2364
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

smr wrote:Who is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the land...William Barr.


Who doesn't get to decide if Trump committed impeachable offenses?

William Barr.

So, this will go to court and eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. Good luck on that. I know you will have Congress impeach him...good luck because the Senate has to Convict Barr. It is what it is...deal with results. You were duped by the Demoncrats and still are being duped because their appealing to you emotions rather than you logic.


THE REPORT SAYS HE DID IT YOU FREAKING NUMBSKULL. That is not "appealing to emotions". That is black and white facts.

What would be appealing to emotions would be if I, say, kept manipulating some gullible idiot into refusing to read the facts and also not care what those facts were because I had convinced them that all that mattered was if they felt good about how their party could "win" by controlling the Senate and refusing to hold their guy accountable no matter what he did in a gross dereliction of their duty to the country and their oath of office.

It's all optics! I had to deal with Hilary getting off.


Yeah, after like 12 REPUBLICAN led investigations found exactly zero things to charge her with even though they were in charge of both houses of Congress.

Not after the investigations produced a 400 page accounting of all the crimes and misconduct she committed then Democrats went "HAHA we control the Senate and we'll never vote against her and we also appointed a stooge to the Attorney General's office whose sole job is making sure charges are never pressed against our side so suck it!"


See the difference?

You are literally cheerleading for the erosion of the rule of law in the United States.
Top
Re: The Trump Administration's War With Reality
Post by smr   » Tue May 07, 2019 5:15 pm

smr
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1469
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:18 pm

House is Inept!

The Intelligence Community is throwing the Demoncrats under the Trump Train!

The Media is even jumping ship!

The Vaulted Unity of the Demoncrats is failing!

The Russian Collusion Hoax is dead and buried.

I know your living avatar (HRC) is going to save the day and run for President!
Top
Re: The Trump Administration's War With Reality
Post by gcomeau   » Tue May 07, 2019 6:10 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2364
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

I swear I'm starting to think smr is a bot that was written by a mentally unbalanced coder...
Top

Return to Politics