Mueller Report Imminent

#6,604
#6,604
JCP201 said:
I have to turn off the news, now. I can't stand any of them. If a Democrat president was the subject of this exact same investigation, Democrat and Republican argument would reverse. We all know it's true.
Click to expand...

Stop watching cable news , they promote this crap as much as they can .
 
#6,605
#6,605
JCP201 said:
I have to turn off the news, now. I can't stand any of them. If a Democrat president was the subject of this exact same investigation, Democrat and Republican argument would reverse. We all know it's true.
Click to expand...
Talking heads are irrelevant. Pay attention to what the actual representatives say, analyze it yourself, develop your opinion and vote accordingly.
 
#6,606
#6,606
utvols88 said:
Talking heads are irrelevant. Pay attention to what the actual representatives say, analyze it yourself, develop your opinion and vote accordingly.
Click to expand...
There is no talking heads-- The representatives are talking and that is why I said what I just did. Reverse it to a Democrat, and everyone in Congress (and Senate) would change their opinion. It is nauseating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, SpaceCoastVol and RikidyBones
#6,607
#6,607
JCP201 said:
I have to turn off the news, now. I can't stand any of them. If a Democrat president was the subject of this exact same investigation, Democrat and Republican argument would reverse. We all know it's true.
Click to expand...

You are correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCP201
#6,608
#6,608
JCP201 said:
There is no talking heads-- The representatives are talking and that is why I said what I just did. Reverse it to a Democrat, and everyone in Congress (and Senate) would change their opinion. It is nauseating.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree with that. Americans must vote the people who flip based on party out of office if they want the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCP201
#6,609
#6,609
RockyTop85 said:
If there was some illegality involved in the genesis of the investigation, it should be turned over to prosecutors who should do what prosecutors do: determine whether prosecution of the offense would serve the public interest.

That doesn’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Click to expand...
It actually would because this isn’t even really an investigation. It was political research and the Dems used circular intelligence reporting, a big no no, to spy on Trump and justify this nonsense in an effort to remove Trump from office. The whole foundation was based on lies that were known to be lies so you can’t obstruct something that isn’t remotely legitimate. I’m glad to see you are fair about the upcoming charges. It likely won’t reach Clinton and Obama but Comey, Page, Strzok, and others are probably in big trouble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#6,610
#6,610
RockyTop85 said:
That’s exactly the conclusion that he reached in the collusion section, right?

Why wouldn’t he just state the same conclusion in Volume II, if that’s what he decided?

Also, which elements of the offense do you think could not be proven?
Click to expand...


It doesn’t matter to me. I’m not an attorney and if you would like to discuss the finer points of building reactor cooling pump seals with me I will oblige. I’ve been told for two years that Bob is of the highest legal minds and carries the utmost integrity. So why couldn’t Bob make a decision on obstruction? You and 400-9000 prosecutors say different? Why didn’t Bob make the ultimate decision he was paid to make? Once again he had no issue with prosecuting a bunch of side players in the investigation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#6,613
#6,613
Barr has been voted as being held in contempt.

This will get thrown out the moment it hits the court. This committee has been an embarrassment as a beacon of political theater for both Republicans and Democrats rather than a real oversight committee
 
#6,614
#6,614
utvols88 said:
Barr has been voted as being held in contempt.

This will get thrown out the moment it hits the court. This committee has been an embarrassment as a beacon of political theater for both Republicans and Democrats rather than a real oversight committee
Click to expand...

"House leaders will now decide whether to take up the contempt citation on the House floor for a final vote. If approved, the measure would be referred to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia -- who could choose not to act. House Democrats could also pursue a lawsuit."

Jessie K. Liu - Wikipedia

Liu worked for the transition team of President-elect Donald Trump, and in 2017 became deputy general counsel at the United States Department of the Treasury.[6] In June 2017, President Trump nominated Liu to become the next United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, which is the country's largest U.S. Attorney's office, with more than 300 prosecutors.[6] Liu was confirmed by the Senate by voice vote in September 2017.[2][7]


Gee, wonder how this is going to play out?
 
#6,620
#6,620
nuclearjunky said:
It doesn’t matter to me. I’m not an attorney and if you would like to discuss the finer points of building reactor cooling pump seals with me I will oblige. I’ve been told for two years that Bob is of the highest legal minds and carries the utmost integrity. So why couldn’t Bob make a decision on obstruction? You and 400-9000 prosecutors say different? Why didn’t Bob make the ultimate decision he was paid to make? Once again he had no issue with prosecuting a bunch of side players in the investigation?
Click to expand...

No special legal training required.

You say his failure to reach a conclusion implies that he actually reached a conclusion, but the same conclusion you say he reached was actually announced with respect to a different issue. So there’s nothing stopping him from announcing that conclusion.

It tends to rule out the conclusion you say he reached.

That’s not law. That’s logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nuclearjunky
#6,621
#6,621
RockyTop85 said:
No special legal training required.

You say his failure to reach a conclusion implies that he actually reached a conclusion, but the same conclusion you say he reached was actually announced with respect to a different issue. So there’s nothing stopping him from announcing that conclusion.

It tends to rule out the conclusion you say he reached.

That’s not law. That’s logic.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
 
#6,623
#6,623
aria_c16531020190508120100.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, 82_VOL_83, ajvol01 and 6 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top