Predictions for mueller's testimony

[Jhhnn]

Now, if you could read what you just posted (granted, understanding words is very important here), you would accept that you have been very wrong up to this point and everyone else is correct.

Or he could just listen to a couple of minutes of sworn testimony-

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mueller-testimony-exoneration_n_5d38621be4b0419fd33617c3

Trump will obviously be indicted as soon as he's no longer President, rightfully so.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I agree. They are the masters of propaganda. Democrats can't stay on message nearly as well and it hurts their overall messaging. Right wing media also are the masters of keeping it simple for the less intelligent in their camp.

There is two reasons for this: One the right wing propaganda machine is mostly all owned by one person. Two the right wing propaganda machine injects messages into the Democrats messaging apparatus with the intention of causing chaos.
It is an actual propaganda machine. A literal info war. Any good propaganda machine always attacks both sides of the issue. Get your message across while at the same time muddling their message with planted stories.

 

[Jhhnn]

There is two reasons for this: One the right wing propaganda machine is mostly all owned by one person. Two the right wing propaganda machine injects messages into the Democrats messaging apparatus with the intention of causing chaos.
It is an actual propaganda machine. A literal info war. Any good propaganda machine always attacks both sides of the issue. Get your message across while at the same time muddling their message with planted stories.

Both sides & concern trolling? Couldn't be!

 

[dank69]

People should really start being accountable for the lies they continually post here ad nauseam...

Repeatedly telling the same lies should make your text from now on be in Pink, like the color a bitch would post with...
If that doesn't work, ban.

People don't have a right to post here nor continually post lies. Demonstrable ingenuosity shouldn't go unfettered here...

I lobbied for a forum rule against intentional posting of misinformation way back when we were discussing the rules we wanted to see in place for this forum, but people thought it would be too hard to enforce. I get that a lot of things are subjective, but sometimes there are just clear cut examples that should be subject to infraction.

 

[dank69]

Both sides & concern trolling? Couldn't be!

I don't think that was an example of bothsides.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't think that was an example of bothsides.

I think he meant that "both sides" and "concern trolling" are two of the popular methods they use to muddle the Democratic messages.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think he meant that "both sides" and "concern trolling" are two of the popular methods they use to muddle the Democratic messages.

Thank you.

 

[nakedfrog]

With some people like SlowSpyder it's easy to tell he knows he's lying but with people like brandonbull it's harder. I'm genuinely unsure if he's a liar or if he's just super indoctrinated by right wing propaganda.

I'm pretty confident that in his case it's the latter.

 

[thilanliyan]

The report or the SC was never tasked to exonerate/not exonerate anyone. Mueller was tasked to investigate and provide back a determination/recommendation. Report: "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

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....

SNIP.

The snippet you quoted is exactly why they are not giving a recommendation on indictment.

And "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" means that the report doesn't conclude he committed a crime, but not because he is completely innocent, otherwise why say "it also does not exonerate him"? It's because the report is not meant to pass judgement one way or the other. The wording is a bit vague there, but the intent is borne out in the numerous examples of criminal behaviour in the report.

 

[umbrella39]

I lobbied for a forum rule against intentional posting of misinformation way back when we were discussing the rules we wanted to see in place for this forum, but people thought it would be too hard to enforce. I get that a lot of things are subjective, but sometimes there are just clear cut examples that should be subject to infraction.

100% There are some things that are subjective, like OPINIONS. These should never in any way, shape, or form be scrutinized....

But FACTS are not and should not be given a free pass to be continually shit up and when the user is repeated called out for their wanton lies just continues to repeat and stop their feet... We are 99% of the time not dealing with semantics.... just plain old deliberate lying to bolster "your side"...

 

[brandonbull]

It’s things like this that make me lean towards Team Brainwashed. Why else would he quote a section of the report that explicitly destroys his argument? I feel like someone must have told him it supported his position.

Robert Mueller destroyed your arguments about obstruction, and collusion. That sections states that it is not proper to make guilt, innocence or exoneration conclusions.

We can banter forever about this but the Mueller testimony was a disaster for the Dems and even hardcore Liberals say that. The house is moving on to finding something else as justification for impeachment. I told you morons that the Mueller investigation was going to end poorly for the Dems and it did. Now that AG Barr, IG Horowitz and other DOJ officials are starting their investigations, it's really going to be a rough patch for the Libtards.

 

[dank69]

Robert Mueller destroyed your arguments about obstruction, and collusion. That sections states that it is not proper to make guilt, innocence or exoneration conclusions.

We can banter forever about this but the Mueller testimony was a disaster for the Dems and even hardcore Liberals say that. The house is moving on to finding something else as justification for impeachment. I told you morons that the Mueller investigation was going to end poorly for the Dems and it did. Now that AG Barr, IG Horowitz and other DOJ officials are starting their investigations, it's really going to be a rough patch for the Libtards.

Your lies aside, I look forward to your investigations into things that have already been investigated three times or more. I'm sure this time will be the one where you uncover something.

 

[fskimospy]

Robert Mueller destroyed your arguments about obstruction, and collusion.

It's weird that you keep saying this considering Robert Mueller provided large quantities of evidence showing both obstruction and collusion.

That sections states that it is not proper to make guilt, innocence or exoneration conclusions.[/quote]

It says because he cannot indict Trump he will not make a conclusion as to his guilt. Therefore the purpose of the report is to simply lay down the evidence. As I already showed you the evidence establishes the necessary elements for at least four felony counts, probably more like six. After all, Nixon couldn't be indicted either but Congress was ready to remove him from office for precisely the same reasons.

We can banter forever about this but the Mueller testimony was a disaster for the Dems and even hardcore Liberals say that. The house is moving on to finding something else as justification for impeachment. I told you morons that the Mueller investigation was going to end poorly for the Dems and it did. Now that AG Barr, IG Horowitz and other DOJ officials are starting their investigations, it's really going to be a rough patch for the Libtards.

There's no need to banter either way. I keep asking you a simple question that you refuse to answer. How do you feel about the fact that Donald Trump ordered his staff to falsify documents in order to mislead investigators in a criminal investigation? Should he be prosecuted for this?

 

[fskimospy]

Your lies aside, I look forward to your investigations into things that have already been investigated three times or more. I'm sure this time will be the one where you uncover something.

It's some pretty amazing bizarro-logic where he believes the report that uncovered lots of criminal activity didn't uncover anything but new investigations into conduct that's already been investigated with no findings repeatedly is SURE to turn up something.

 

[brandonbull]

It’s things like this that make me lean towards Team Brainwashed. Why else would he quote a section of the report that explicitly destroys his argument? I feel like someone must have told him it supported his position.

I can provide that if that will make you slept better at night. Sounds like someone doesn't like facts and actual report contents and not some lame attempt to connect the dots for obstruction.

 

[brandonbull]

It's weird that you keep saying this considering Robert Mueller provided large quantities of evidence showing both obstruction and collusion.

That sections states that it is not proper to make guilt, innocence or exoneration conclusions.

It says because he cannot indict Trump he will not make a conclusion as to his guilt. Therefore the purpose of the report is to simply lay down the evidence. As I already showed you the evidence establishes the necessary elements for at least four felony counts, probably more like six. After all, Nixon couldn't be indicted either but Congress was ready to remove him from office for precisely the same reasons.



There's no need to banter either way. I keep asking you a simple question that you refuse to answer. How do you feel about the fact that Donald Trump ordered his staff to falsify documents in order to mislead investigators in a criminal investigation? Should he be prosecuted for this?[/QUOTE]

And I keep telling you that is based on news articles and you have no real proof. How many times can "lack of evidence" be communicated to you before it sinks in.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Once again leftists faced with reality that clearly is at odds with their views will pretend they are still correct. It is absolutely amazing to me, clearly 100% off the mark but still arguing that they're right. Emotional thinkers.

 

[zinfamous]

And I keep telling you that is based on news articles and you have no real proof. How many times can "lack of evidence" be communicated to you before it sinks in.

again you're lying, because this is not based on news articles. It is exactly based on the report, word for word. You don't accept this because you clearly refuse to read it.

The interesting thing here, is that your argument is so clearly based on Trump's words and Barr's words about the report, and obviously whatever cancer dribbled out of Hannity's mouth. Yes, we all know it, because we know exactly what message you are pushing. You are lying about other people using "news articles" to say what the report says, when no one is doing that, yet all you do is use exactly news reports and the interpretations of known, repeat liars with a clear vested interest in lying about it as "your honest account."

this is exactly what you are doing. Serious question: do you think we are as dumb as you are?

 

[brandonbull]

It's weird that you keep saying this considering Robert Mueller provided large quantities of evidence showing both obstruction and collusion.

That sections states that it is not proper to make guilt, innocence or exoneration conclusions.

It says because he cannot indict Trump he will not make a conclusion as to his guilt. Therefore the purpose of the report is to simply lay down the evidence. As I already showed you the evidence establishes the necessary elements for at least four felony counts, probably more like six. After all, Nixon couldn't be indicted either but Congress was ready to remove him from office for precisely the same reasons.



There's no need to banter either way. I keep asking you a simple question that you refuse to answer. How do you feel about the fact that Donald Trump ordered his staff to falsify documents in order to mislead investigators in a criminal investigation? Should he be prosecuted for this?[/QUOTE]

It's weird where people claim obstruction because they feel that Trump couldn't legally fire Mueller. He could and didn't. Just like that example the other obstruction examples, their evidence is mostly based on news articles and hearsay. If it wasn't, Mueller would have said that there was sufficient evidence for for obstruction. Keep going but the people that assembled the report disagree with your findings.

 

[zinfamous]

It's weird where people claim obstruction because they feel that Trump couldn't legally fire Mueller. He could and didn't. Just like that example the other obstruction examples, their evidence is mostly based on news articles and hearsay. If it wasn't, Mueller would have said that there was sufficient evidence for for obstruction. Keep going but the people that assembled the report disagree with your findings.

No, it never was. Why do you keep saying this? It's an abject, easily proven lie. Why do you keep pushing this outright lie? Why do you do this?

Read the report, quisling.

 

[fskimospy]

It's weird where people claim obstruction because they feel that Trump couldn't legally fire Mueller. He could and didn't.

Who ever said Trump couldn’t legally fire Mueller? That’s 100% irrelevant. A CEO of a company can legally shred documents. If he is shredding documents to cover up a crime that is felony obstruction of justice.

Just like that example the other obstruction examples, their evidence is mostly based on news articles and hearsay.

You have already been corrected on this multiple times and continue to repeat the same falsehoods. The charge of ordering his staff to fabricate documents is based on eyewitness testimony from the staff member ordered to fabricate the documents.

If it wasn't, Mueller would have said that there was sufficient evidence for for obstruction.

This is false as expressly stated in the Mueller report. In fact, you even quoted it! They decided at the outset they would not say if there was sufficient evidence for any crime.

From the report:

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct

I hope you are mature enough to acknowledge your error and to stop repeating false statements.

Keep going but the people that assembled the report disagree with your findings.

No they don’t, haha. They disagree with you.

 

[fskimospy]

And I keep telling you that is based on news articles and you have no real proof. How many times can "lack of evidence" be communicated to you before it sinks in.

How many times do you need to be told that’s not based on news articles before it sinks in.

So once again, now that you are aware that the charge of Trump ordering his staff to fabricate documents is based on eyewitness testimony what do you think? Should he be prosecuted?

 

[hal2kilo]

Your lies aside, I look forward to your investigations into things that have already been investigated three times or more. I'm sure this time will be the one where you uncover something.

Be as valuable the congresses endless Bengazi investigations were. See you actually need hard facts to really investigate something.

 

[Jhhnn]

Robert Mueller destroyed your arguments about obstruction, and collusion. That sections states that it is not proper to make guilt, innocence or exoneration conclusions.

We can banter forever about this but the Mueller testimony was a disaster for the Dems and even hardcore Liberals say that. The house is moving on to finding something else as justification for impeachment. I told you morons that the Mueller investigation was going to end poorly for the Dems and it did. Now that AG Barr, IG Horowitz and other DOJ officials are starting their investigations, it's really going to be a rough patch for the Libtards.

For a person who obviously didn't read the report or even be troubled to watch the 2 minute vid I linked above, you do claim to know a whole lot you can't possibly know unless you're taking somebody else's word on the matter. Probably several somebodies at Fox, Breitbart & the nether reaches of alt-right propagandizing.

But do continue to deny & deflect, keep telling the big lie.

 

[UNCjigga]

Robert Mueller destroyed your arguments about obstruction, and collusion.

Mueller clearly stated at the opening of his House Judiciary testimony that he never even considered the question of collusion within his investigation. He was trying to determine whether the evidence rose to the level of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia that could merit criminal charges.

Mueller's opening statement: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller said. But: “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.” Suffice it to say, the evidence uncovered by Mueller's team demonstrated plenty of contacts that could be described as "collusion" but there was no criminal violation, merely a moral/ethical one.

That sections states that it is not proper to make guilt, innocence or exoneration conclusions.

I'll need to find the right quote from Wednesday, but I believe there was an exchange between Mueller and a member of the Judiciary Cmte. where Mueller pretty much said they decided not to charge the President on day 1 of the investigation--i.e. regardless of whatever evidence was uncovered (even if they did prove conspiracy.)