A Constitutional Standoff?

[RetiredGySgt]

What hacking? How do we know there was a hacking when we only have the DNCs word it happened? They won't let anyone look at their server, including the FBI. No evidence, no crime.

Oh brother.

The mueller report confirms it. Let me guess….you only believe some of the Mueller findings, right?

You mean like how you only believe none of the Mueller findings? No collusion and No Obstruction is the findings.

Mueller did find 10 cases (documented) where OOJ was indicated.
The 10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

Mueller found 10 instances where OOJ was a POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION. Read your link: Trump MAY have . . . .

Big difference, Candydandy.

Mueller did find 10 cases (documented) where OOJ was indicated.

Wrong he did no such thing.

 

[candycorn]

Oh brother.

The mueller report confirms it. Let me guess….you only believe some of the Mueller findings, right?

You mean like how you only believe none of the Mueller findings? No collusion and No Obstruction is the findings.

Mueller did find 10 cases (documented) where OOJ was indicated.
The 10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

Mueller found 10 instances where OOJ was a POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION. Read your link: Trump MAY have . . . .

Big difference, Candydandy.

Mueller did find 10 cases (documented) where OOJ was indicated.

Wrong he did no such thing.

Perhaps you'll understand the English language someday.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You mean like how you only believe none of the Mueller findings? No collusion and No Obstruction is the findings.

Mueller did find 10 cases (documented) where OOJ was indicated.
The 10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

Mueller found 10 instances where OOJ was a POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION. Read your link: Trump MAY have . . . .

Big difference, Candydandy.

Mueller did find 10 cases (documented) where OOJ was indicated.

Wrong he did no such thing.

Perhaps you'll understand the English language someday.

You OBVIOUSLY don't.

 

[toobfreak]

Mueller did find 10 cases (documented) where OOJ was indicated.
The 10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

Mueller found 10 instances where OOJ was a POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION. Read your link: Trump MAY have . . . .

Big difference, Candydandy.

Mueller did find 10 cases (documented) where OOJ was indicated.

Wrong he did no such thing.

Perhaps you'll understand the English language someday.

You OBVIOUSLY don't.

WHAT a funny world we live in Sarge,

When Ken Starr investigated Billy Clinton, he CHARGED him with suborning perjury, he didn't just write a letter saying maybe he did it then referred it to the Republican Congress to decide.

Isn't that a bit like being investigated by the police then their saying they couldn't find a crime then referring it to the Mayor to figure it out?

 

[Baron]

Its up to the States to protect their elections systems and voter databases. They know that Russia, China, and NK are going to attack their systems. For 2020 every precinct and every candidate needs to know that their online assets are susceptible to cyber-attack. Even if Trump doesn't personally grab the bull by the horns, everyone knows that good Spyware is a better buy than fireworks. They also know to report anything suspicious to the FBI. No one can say they had no idea that the Russians or Chinese could do cyber-attacks. Its up to those responsible to harden their election systems.
5 ways the Trump administration could prepare to thwart 2020 election meddling

Good to see Obama has zero blame for the 2016 hacking then...

Obama and his administration have to be prosecuted and thrown in prison.

View attachment 259260

At best for life

 

[OldLady]

To hell with the Mueller Report--social media and the intelligence services are keeping an eye on things, even if the President is keeping his firmly shut.

What is more troubling to me are the remarks by Trump about Venezuela:

the two leaders pledged to embark on a new era of cooperation on issues from North Korea to Venezuela, where Mr. Trump said the Russian leader “is not looking at all to get involved, other than he’d like to see something positive happen.”...
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, to warn him that his country’s intervention in Venezuela was “destabilizing” for that country and for the United States-Russia relationship. Other officials portray Venezuela as a Cold War-like proxy battle between Washington and Moscow.
Trump Says He Discussed the ‘Russian Hoax’ in a Phone Call With Putin

Once again, just like with everything else where Russia oversteps its bounds, Trump is batting his eyes and saying "Putin says he's got nothing to do with it...." and apparently our Damned Jerk President believes him. Again.

 

[georgephillip]

Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index (Vol, I, P.1)

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.

By hacking DNC emails?

By hacking DNC emails?

Including hacking DNC emails:

2016 Democratic National Committee email leak - Wikipedia

"The emails leaked by Wikileaks, in two phases (the first on July 22, 2016 and the second on November 6, 2016),[16] revealed information about the DNC's interactions with the media, Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sanders' campaigns, and financial contributions.

"It also includes personal information about the donors of the Democratic Party, including credit card and Social Security numbers, which could facilitate identity theft.[17][18]

"Earlier, in late June 2016, Guccifer 2.0 instructed reporters to visit the DCLeaks website for emails stolen from Democrats.[2]

"With the WikiLeaks disclosure of additional stolen emails beginning on July 22, 2016, more than 150,000 stolen emails from either personal Gmail addresses or via the DNC that were related to the Hillary Clinton 2016 Presidential campaign were published on the DCLeaks and WikiLeaks websites.

"On August 12, 2016, DCLeaks released information about more than 200 Democratic lawmakers, including their personal cellphone numbers.[19]

"The numerous prank calls that Hillary Clinton received from this disclosure along with the loss of her campaign's email security caused a very severe disruption of her campaign which subsequently changed their contact information on October 7, 2016, by calling each of her contacts one at a time.["

 

[georgephillip]

Good to see Obama has zero blame for the 2016 hacking then...

What hacking? How do we know there was a hacking when we only have the DNCs word it happened? They won't let anyone look at their server, including the FBI. No evidence, no crime.

Oh brother.

The mueller report confirms it. Let me guess….you only believe some of the Mueller findings, right?

You mean like how you only believe none of the Mueller findings? No collusion and No Obstruction is the findings.

Those were not his conclusions.

Yes they were HE STATED FOR THE RECORD he did not find Collusion and he stated FOR THE RECORD he did not find Obstruction.

Yes they were HE STATED FOR THE RECORD he did not find Collusion and he stated FOR THE RECORD he did not find Obstruction.

Mueller's Volume 2 conclusion makes no such claim regarding Trump's multiple obstruction of justice actions:

Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index (Vol. II, P. 182)

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

"The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

"At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state1.

"Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The President Is Not Above the Law

 

[kyzr]

What hacking? How do we know there was a hacking when we only have the DNCs word it happened? They won't let anyone look at their server, including the FBI. No evidence, no crime.

Oh brother.

The mueller report confirms it. Let me guess….you only believe some of the Mueller findings, right?

You mean like how you only believe none of the Mueller findings? No collusion and No Obstruction is the findings.

Those were not his conclusions.

Yes they were HE STATED FOR THE RECORD he did not find Collusion and he stated FOR THE RECORD he did not find Obstruction.

Yes they were HE STATED FOR THE RECORD he did not find Collusion and he stated FOR THE RECORD he did not find Obstruction.

Mueller's Volume 2 conclusion makes no such claim regarding Trump's multiple obstruction of justice actions:

Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index (Vol. II, P. 182)

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

"The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

"At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state1.

"Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The President Is Not Above the Law

From your post:
"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
1. Prosecutors do not "exonerate", they charge with crimes based on the evidence, or not. Mueller didn't.
2. The prosecutors did not charge Trump with a crime. Of the potential "obstruction" cases Barr did not see any obstruction. What Barr saw was illegal spying on the Trump campaign, an attempted coup by the deep state, misconduct by the top level of the FBI and DOJ, illegal FISA warrants, deliberate disruption of an elected president of the US, and Mueller's report that did not find any conspiracy.

 

[Moonglow]

So, Trump had an hour phone call with Putin. They discussed Venezuela, North Korea and of course, The Mueller Report. Nothing they both discussed that the Americans don't know already.

So, how is this now a Constitutional standoff?

View attachment 259250


View attachment 259253

I hope he used the cell phone because we shouldn't have to pay long distance for a one hour phone call..

 

[caddo kid]

So, Trump had an hour phone call with Putin. They discussed Venezuela, North Korea and of course, The Mueller Report. Nothing they both discussed that the Americans don't know already.

So, how is this now a Constitutional standoff?

View attachment 259250


View attachment 259253

Thread title = A Constitutional Standoff?

You ask = So, how is this now a Constitutional standoff?

I read the link & there is nothing in the article that could possibly relate to
(1) your thread title
(2) your question

Conclusion:
Your thread is a joke & 110% qualifies for THREAD FAIL

 

[Justin Richardson]

Thread title = A Constitutional Standoff?

You ask = So, how is this now a Constitutional standoff?

I read the link & there is nothing in the article that could possibly relate to
(1) your thread title
(2) your question

Conclusion:

First of all, it had everything to do with the Constitution. It is about how the Democrats and the ones on the left want to "hijack" it. It has been proven by many news sources and articles.
I chose the title regarding how the Democratic don't seem to care period. About the Gun Rights, Abortion, and even the President.
So, your comment doesn't even hold water. Nice try though.

 

[caddo kid]

Thread title = A Constitutional Standoff?

You ask = So, how is this now a Constitutional standoff?

I read the link & there is nothing in the article that could possibly relate to
(1) your thread title
(2) your question

Conclusion:

First of all, it had everything to do with the Constitution. It is about how the Democrats and the ones on the left want to "hijack" it. It has been proven by many news sources and articles.
I chose the title regarding how the Democratic don't seem to care period. About the Gun Rights, Abortion, and even the President.
So, your comment doesn't even hold water. Nice try though.

well, the article is about a phone call between The Giant Orange Anus & The Giant Red Anus discussing different items of interest.

If you believe ANY of that involves a 'constitutional standoff' then I guess there is no fucking hope for your delusional ass.

But good luck wit dat ........

 

[caddo kid]

Its up to the States to protect their elections systems and voter databases. They know that Russia, China, and NK are going to attack their systems. For 2020 every precinct and every candidate needs to know that their online assets are susceptible to cyber-attack. Even if Trump doesn't personally grab the bull by the horns, everyone knows that good Spyware is a better buy than fireworks. They also know to report anything suspicious to the FBI. No one can say they had no idea that the Russians or Chinese could do cyber-attacks. Its up to those responsible to harden their election systems.
5 ways the Trump administration could prepare to thwart 2020 election meddling

Good to see Obama has zero blame for the 2016 hacking then...

No charges yet, but he hasn't been completely exonerated.

There is no such thing as "exonerated". Trump is innocent until proven guilty. OTOH, there will be some deep state folks wearing orange jump suits soon.

So look, another dumbass commenting on a report that you did NOT READ. LOFL ............

Volume II
IV. Conclusion
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, Trump had an hour phone call with Putin. They discussed Venezuela, North Korea and of course, The Mueller Report. Nothing they both discussed that the Americans don't know already.

So, how is this now a Constitutional standoff?

View attachment 259250


View attachment 259253

You took Trump's words as the Truth? Silly Rabbit, dirty trix ain't limited to Nixon.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What hacking? How do we know there was a hacking when we only have the DNCs word it happened? They won't let anyone look at their server, including the FBI. No evidence, no crime.

Oh brother.

The mueller report confirms it. Let me guess….you only believe some of the Mueller findings, right?

You mean like how you only believe none of the Mueller findings? No collusion and No Obstruction is the findings.

Mueller did find 10 cases (documented) where OOJ was indicated.
The 10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

Mueller found 10 instances where OOJ was a POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION. Read your link: Trump MAY have . . . .

Big difference, Candydandy.

Mueller did find 10 cases (documented) where OOJ was indicated.

Liar. We can read, unlike the typical TDS-suffering libtard!

 

[OldLady]

So, Trump had an hour phone call with Putin. They discussed Venezuela, North Korea and of course, The Mueller Report. Nothing they both discussed that the Americans don't know already.

So, how is this now a Constitutional standoff?

View attachment 259250


View attachment 259253

Thread title = A Constitutional Standoff?

You ask = So, how is this now a Constitutional standoff?

I read the link & there is nothing in the article that could possibly relate to
(1) your thread title
(2) your question

Conclusion:
Your thread is a joke & 110% qualifies for THREAD FAIL

I figured the CNN video captions it; I never watch vids here.

 

[OldLady]

Thread title = A Constitutional Standoff?

You ask = So, how is this now a Constitutional standoff?

I read the link & there is nothing in the article that could possibly relate to
(1) your thread title
(2) your question

Conclusion:

First of all, it had everything to do with the Constitution. It is about how the Democrats and the ones on the left want to "hijack" it. It has been proven by many news sources and articles.
I chose the title regarding how the Democratic don't seem to care period. About the Gun Rights, Abortion, and even the President.
So, your comment doesn't even hold water. Nice try though.

I gotta say, that's the most piss poor excuse for a phony title that I've heard yet.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No

 

[toomuchtime_]

Its up to the States to protect their elections systems and voter databases. They know that Russia, China, and NK are going to attack their systems. For 2020 every precinct and every candidate needs to know that their online assets are susceptible to cyber-attack. Even if Trump doesn't personally grab the bull by the horns, everyone knows that good Spyware is a better buy than fireworks. They also know to report anything suspicious to the FBI. No one can say they had no idea that the Russians or Chinese could do cyber-attacks. Its up to those responsible to harden their election systems.
5 ways the Trump administration could prepare to thwart 2020 election meddling

Good to see Obama has zero blame for the 2016 hacking then...

No charges yet, but he hasn't been completely exonerated.

There is no such thing as "exonerated". Trump is innocent until proven guilty. OTOH, there will be some deep state folks wearing orange jump suits soon.

So look, another dumbass commenting on a report that you did NOT READ. LOFL ............

Volume II
IV. Conclusion
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Which is a bizarre thing to say since it never the job of a prosecutor to prove a person did not commit a crime, so it is never the job of a prosecutor to "exonerate" anyone. Clearly, Mueller had a political agenda when he wrote that.