LV426 is mentally retarded. One cannot argue with clueless idiots. One can only point at their lunacy and laugh at it.
"Did you actually totally exonerate the President? No."
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
LV426 is mentally retarded. One cannot argue with clueless idiots. One can only point at their lunacy and laugh at it.
Clearly there is not. Clearly you're an idiot who still believes in the HOAX.
Here is why you are wrong; there was never any criminal activity to warrant obstruction. It really is that simple. Barr has said, and even Mueller himself has said it. You have a serious mental disability to continue coming here and getting your ass kicked with the facts.
I don't think the following quotes can make it any clearer what a shitty lawyer you are:
Representative Doug Collins to Mueller: "at anytime during the investigation was your investigation curtailed, or stopped, or hindered?"
Muller: "no".
Mueller: “As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
Turner: “The report states, accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it does not exonerate him,” Turner said. “There’s no office of exoneration at the Attorney general’s office, no certificate at the bottom of his desk. Mr. Mueller, would you agree with me that the Attorney General does not have the power to exonerate?”
Mueller: “I’m not prepared to deal with a legal discussion in that arena.”
Turner: “In our criminal justice system, there is no power to exonerate,”
“The statement about exoneration is meaningless … it’s a meaningless word that has no legal meaning.”
Mueller Report; Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
Barr: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Lying again Jarod. There isnt a rule against it. Here let Ratcliff explain it to you.
RATCLIFFE:
OK. Well, I -- you can't -- time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at, you can't find it because -- I'll tell you why: It doesn't exist. The special counsel's job -- nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence, or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It not in any of the documents. It's not in your appointment order. It's not in the special counsel regulations. It's not in the OLC opinions. It's not in the Justice Manual. And it's not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together because, respectfully -- respectfully, Director, it was not the special counsel's job to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence or to exonerate him. Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it. Now, Director, the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can't find and you said doesn't exist anywhere in the department policies. And you used it to write a report. And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says, as you read this morning, it "authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel." That's the very first word of your report, right?
MUELLER:
That's correct.
RATCLIFFE:
Here's the problem, Director: The special counsel didn't do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume 2, with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination. So respectfully, Director, you didn't follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, "Write a confidential report about decisions reached." Nowhere in here does it say, "Write a report about decisions that weren't reached." You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that weren't reached, about potential crimes that weren't charged or decided. And respectfully -- respectfully, by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra-prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren't charged. So Americans need to know this, as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle, as they do dramatic readings from this report: that Volume 2 of this report was not authorized under the law to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department. And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary. I agree with the chairman this morning, when he said, "Donald Trump is not above the law." He's not. But he damn sure shouldn't be below the law, which is where Volume 2 of this report puts him.
NADLER:
The (inaudible) time has expired. The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson (ph) Lee.
Do you know what the burden of "reasonable doubt" is, and how that doesn't apply when it comes to impeachment?
What is the "reasonable doubt"?
SCHIFF: “Drumpf & his campaign welcomed & encouraged Russian interference?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
SCHIFF: “And then Drumpf & his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
The Attorney General; who, I might add, has a lot more intelligence and weight in this matter than some fake attorney on a political blog.
Barr: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
No, he didn't.
In fact, when Schiff got up there:
SCHIFF: “Drumpf & his campaign welcomed & encouraged Russian interference?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
SCHIFF: “And then Drumpf & his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
Stop lying when you say you watched the testimony. We know you didn't because while he was testifying, all your focus and attention was here, on JPP.
It is the reason, and Buck was dumb enough to walk into that.
BUCK: Was there sufficient evidence to convict president of Drumpf or anyone else of obstruction of justice?
MUELLER: We did not make that calculation.
BUCK: Why not?
MUELLER: Because of the OLC opinion that states the president can't be charged with a crime.
^^Moron on steroids alert.
Representative Doug Collins to Mueller: "at anytime during the investigation was your investigation curtailed, or stopped, or hindered?"
Muller: "no".
CASE CLOSED!
That is a curious phrase, "he shouldn't be below the law"...what does that mean?
That the President shouldn't be subject to the law? Is that what you're arguing and what you think your smoking gun is?
LIE and LAME. He is bound by rules of evidence. Mueller himself said they found no evidence of any crime. You can keep flailing and looking like an idiot if you want to. I can't stop you. But you haven't been right for two years and anyone with even half a brain would know when to STFU. But not you!
Mueller: “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said, and I quote, ‘you didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.'”
“That is not the correct way to say it,”
“As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
you are aware that no one involved has the POWER to exonerate, right?
feel stupid now?
There are only two things that ever exonerates anyone from anything- evidence or lack of evidence!
But, in the case of the Special Prosecution, the Special Prosecution lays out the evidence so effectively- even a 5th grader understands perfectly well that Donald Trump has been implicated in crimes, high crimes, and obstruction of justice!
Of course you idiots who are not even as smart as the common 5th grader will never understand or admit it!
"shouldn't be below the law"
Let's focus on this phrase that you actually bolded before...
What does it mean to be "below the law"?
What is it you're trying to argue here? That the President is above the law?
Let's focus on this phrase that you actually bolded before...
What does it mean to be "below the law"?
What is it you're trying to argue here? That the President is above the law?
Mueller Report; Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
Mueller Report; Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
By saying the President shouldn't be "below the law", are you arguing that the President is above the law?
You can only be above or below the law.
This thing you are quoting makes you look even stupider than before.
The meaning was clear to anyone with an IQ above 50 snowflake; that they are ignoring the law when it comes to Trump. I do wish you had a brain and weren't some wild eyed, low IQ, lying leftist nobody banging his fist on the table every damned day.
You really should kill yourself. Perhaps when Trump is re-elected it will drive you to suicide. One can hope.
You really fuckin' stepped in it here, and I don't think you even realized you did it.
You are simultaneously arguing the President is both above and below the law at the same time. How is that possible? You are either only above the law (which would make you a dictator if you're President) or below the law (which would make you no more privileged than any other person).
So explain the rationale here; how can Trump both be above and below the law at the same time?
SC's douchebag strategy here seems to be to flood the board with as much text as possible in the hopes no one will read it and he can force his point of view to be accepted.
But when you actually do read all of what he posted, the above sentence, that SC had bolded and made a note of before, actually undermines your entire argument and reveals the contradiction within it.
By quoting him here, what you're saying is that the President is both above and below the law. Which is not a legal standing that makes any sense. It also reveals what you think of the President's actual powers, that he can be above the law when it suits his needs, and below it when it suits your needs politically.
All this douchebag is saying is that he is confused on whether or not the President is subject to the rule of law.
Conservatives' ultimate argument seems to be that they think he's not.
You're too stupid to comprehend how moronic this is. We don't exonerate people you moron; we presume they are innocent. \
There is no OFFICE of EXONERATION.
You fucking idiot; there is no evidence of any crime or obstruction. Barr stated as much as has Mueller. It is apparent that a fifth grader is smarter than a whiny loser like you.
Let's be clear here; you have NEVER been right.....EVER. I have been right the WHOLE time about this entire affair. How brain dead does someone like you have to be to not comprehend the OBVIOUS?
I R O N Y!!!
^^GOING FULL RETARD!!