The Right Side of the News

This Ukraine thing is just the latest version of the failed Muelller report. He said and did nothing wrong. But let's see what the Democrats manipulate into a basis for impeachment. Ho Hum.

Then you lack all sense of morality and ethics.

"As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"; however, "it also does not exonerate him",[25][26] with investigators not confident of Trump's innocence.[27][28][29][30] The report describes ten episodes where Trump could have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected,[31][32] noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation".[33][34][35] The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice and take action accordingly,[18][36][37] referencing impeachment.[38][39]"
Mueller report - WikipediaI'm sorry, but you can't make this go away by saying "No it's not". "Volume II of the report addresses obstruction of justice. The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime,[17][18][19] abiding by an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president cannot stand trial,[20][21][22] fearing that charges would affect Trump's governing and preempt impeachment,[18][21][23] and feeling that it would be unfair to accuse Trump of a crime without charges or a trial.[20][21][24] "
Mueller report - WikipediaMueller couldn't charge Trump with a crime because he is President. That's the policy of his office.

No, it's not. But your reaction is both typical and highly predictable. I didn't post it specifically for you, but rather to share it with other normals.For that matter, I feel some idle curiosity about how many of those items you have even heard of. Everybody else has seen each of them play out in real time, but I very much doubt that you have since you restrict yourself to Fake News Network (and probably Fakes and Friends) and related radio traffic. They would never want to let you see what's actually been happening.

Our minister would tell us the story of a congregation member complaining to his minister that he keeps telling them the same sermons over and over again. His minister replied that he had to keep repeating them because the congregation still hasn't learned from them.We have to keep lecturing you because you never learn anything. If you were capable of learning, then we wouldn't need to try to teach you. But you keep proving to be incapable, so we have to keep trying.Then you declare definitely illegal things as not being illegal, thus demonstrating that you have no clue what you are babbling about. Such glaring errors must be corrected so that lurkers will not be deceived by your falsehoods and also so that you can learn -- which you have proven you are incapable of, so we have to keep correcting you over and over and over again. Then why change the subject like that? Percy was talking about impeachable offenses, not illegal offenses -- though several of them are illegal or else included illegal activities (eg, the mistress payoffs). So you completely ignore what Percy was actually talking about and tried to deflect and divert us away.What deception were you trying to practice and why? Which Trumps has aplenty. Just to get a very short list started: violations of several federal and state laws, countless counts of obstruction of justice, countless counts of obstruction of Congress, ignoring subpoenas (which I would assume is illegal, since it implies punishment if you do not comply), tax fraud, insurance fraud, possible money laundering.If that was what you were wanting to talk about, then why didn't you just say so up front? I think you're just trying to cover up here. Of course, since you are terrified of learning anything. Perfect example of the detrimental effects of creationist thought processes when applied to life.Remember that when you bury your head in the sand, you assume the perfect position for when Reality comes up to bite you.Edited by dwise1, : "countless counts"

Hi Taq Could Mueller as a prosecutor find the president guilty of obstructing justice? If he could then he could exonerate him. But a prosecutor can do neither. If he has enough evidence to prosecute then he brings charges. If there is not enough evidence to get a guilty verdict then he refuses to bring charges. Is there a law or rule that an independent prosecutor can not recommend a president be prosecuted for obstructing justice if he has the evidence to get a conviction?Mueller did not bring charges because he could not prove his case.God Bless,

You quote the weasel words from the report about how it couldn't exonerate Trump although it found no crime to charge him with, but as ICANT points out all the investigation could do is find or not find a chargeable crime. It found none. In any normal context that means he was exonerated by the investigation.One of the biggest weasely things that was done was Mueller's claiming to Barr that there was absolutely no effect on the report due to the rule that you can't prosecute a sitting President, and then contradicting that later when he needed an explanation for bringing no criminal charges although insinuating Trump had done criminal things.If a crime had been committed the whole point of the investigation was to discover it and identify it. The reason no crime was reported was that there was no crime, no crime of collusion or conspiracy with Russians to influence the election and no crime of obstruction of justice either. But the political concern was to insinuate that there was nevertheless. Without a clear identification of a crime or clear conclusion that no crime was found there was no reason at all for the investigation. You can't find no chargeable crime and yet insinuate that one existed anyway. You either find a crime or you don't. And truth be told there was no reason for the investigation, it was all a fishing expedition that caught nothing and was in itself a violation of the whole legal apparatus involved in having such an investigation in the first place.It was a political fraud that unfortunately convinced many people through verbal trickery, innuendo and insinuation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Taq quoted the Mueller Report with passages that answer your questions. I recommend that you read those quoted passages. But Mueller could do neither, though not for want of evidence.To your first point, Mueller could not indict the President because of the OLC memo setting the policy that a sitting President could not be indicted. To your second point, Mueller did not indict the President not for lack of evidence, but rather because of the OLC memo setting the policy that a sitting President could not be indicted.In other words, because of that OLC memo, indicting the President was above Mueller's pay-grade.As for exonerating the President, Mueller could not do that, but not for the reason you give (ie, that a prosecutor is not the one to find anyone guilty of any crime because that is not his job so he does not have the authority).Mueller could have exonerated Trump on the basis of saying that the evidence shows that Trump did nothing wrong. However, he could not do that and he explicitly stated that he could not do that (and Barr directly quoted Mueller to that effect).In the meantime, Barr's DOJ continues to block the full Mueller Report from Congress whose committees have urgent need to see that full report. Read the passage that Taq quoted from the Mueller Report. Programmers have an acronym that they hurl at lazy programmers: RTFM (Read The --- Manual!), since expanded to the Internet with STFW (Search The --- Web!). Taq provided that passage to you, which you are fully capable of reading for yourself. What more could I possibly contribute by providing the exact same passage to you again? If you couldn't be bothered to read it the first time, why should I expect you to read it the second time? Mueller explained why he could not bring charges against Trump. He did bring charges against many other people, many of the ones in this country having been convicted (the Russians have so far escaped conviction, but cannot enter this country).Again, Mueller's inability to indict Trump and his reluctance to bring charges against are given in the quotes provided by Taq. I recommend that you read them.

Your latest senseless screed reminds of a remark made by Bruce Banner about Loki. So to borrow and paraphrase:

quote:

---

Faith's brain is a bag full of cats. You can smell crazy on her.

---

Keep your head buried in the sand and keep your body optimally positioned to receive the inevitable bite of Reality.

The extreme aggressive absolute absence of substance in your post is remarkable as is the personal attack.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Remarkble defense of the weasel words there. Since I've already addressed it I'll leave it for now unless I get further inspiration.

The absolute craziness of your post would take the better part of an hour to parse and respond to. But to what avail? You refuse to read any response. You refuse to learn anything. You refuse to face reality. The paraphrase of Bruce Banner is extremely apt. Clearly your brain is a bag of cats (and that is putting it extremely nicely) and the stench of crazzy about you is overwhelming.In addition, you continue to repeat complete falsehoods despite your having been educated on the fact that they are false. That tells us that you are deliberately spreading falsehoods, which means that you are deliberately lyyng -- gee, in Christian doctrine, isn't that a sin? Oh! Your defense is that you deliberately chose to not read the multitude of messages that attempted to alleviate you of your abject ignurunce? Well that is your own fecking fault and only serves to condemn you all the more.Really, Faith. Why do you hate America so much?Edited by dwise1, : added italics where appropriate: as in "extremely nicely"

I'm watching the 3-hour delay of MSNBC for the West Coast. Their breaking news is that the whistleblower report has been declassified and is scheduled to be released with "minimal redactions".  ABE:
Link to NBC report: Whistleblower complaint against Trump declassified, could be released ThursdayEdited by dwise1, : ABE

Let's see, what's that, the third or fourth post tonight that is nothing but personal attack?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You persistently ignore reality and spew out bullshirt liies. That is indeed crazzy and is indefensibly so.If you were to conduct yourself in a sane manner, then you would not have the stench of crazzy on you. But despite all the chances we give you to conduct yourself in a sane manner, you persistently cannot do so. It is what it is.Conduct yourself in a sane manner and you will be treated accordingly. Persist in following the path of crazzy and the stench of crazzy will persist on you.It is what it is. No amount of Sharpie markups will change Reality.