I have proof that the Muller report found no collusion

[Frannie]

GOP attorneys release a devastating video that lays out the case for Trump’s prosecution

So why no hearing?

No hearing? What the **** do you think that those committees in the house are doing right now?

I still haven’t seen anything on the internet?

TheProgressivePatriot yo, dude, where's this hearing you stated was ongoing on Saturday? I've still not seen one thread about it in here, nor have I seen any mention of it on the internet or tv since I got back to my primary house. Well?

Don McGahn, former White House counsel, defies House subpoena and skips hearing on Russia probe

Notes From the House Select Intelligence Hearing on Russia

Hearing on “Examining the Failures of the Trump Administration’s Inhumane Family Separation Policy”

The Administration’s War on a Merit Based Civil Service

Big whoop

Impeach everyone

 

[Crepitus]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

There is no such thing as an honest republican. That's why the Democrats will not impeach.

 

[Frannie]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

There is no such thing as an honest republican. That's why the Democrats will not impeach.

Take your Lithium

 

[Crepitus]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

There is no such thing as an honest republican. That's why the Democrats will not impeach.

Take your Lithium

Kindly go **** yourself, madam.

 

[jc456]

GOP attorneys release a devastating video that lays out the case for Trump’s prosecution

So why no hearing?

No hearing? What the **** do you think that those committees in the house are doing right now?

I still haven’t seen anything on the internet?

TheProgressivePatriot yo, dude, where's this hearing you stated was ongoing on Saturday? I've still not seen one thread about it in here, nor have I seen any mention of it on the internet or tv since I got back to my primary house. Well?

Don McGahn, former White House counsel, defies House subpoena and skips hearing on Russia probe

Notes From the House Select Intelligence Hearing on Russia

Hearing on “Examining the Failures of the Trump Administration’s Inhumane Family Separation Policy”

The Administration’s War on a Merit Based Civil Service

where's the one for impeachment?

 

[jc456]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

There is no such thing as an honest republican. That's why the Democrats will not impeach.

and you think there are demolosers who are honest?

 

[Frannie]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

There is no such thing as an honest republican. That's why the Democrats will not impeach.

Take your Lithium

Kindly go **** yourself, madam.

Oooh I love it when you talk dirty, it gets my nipples all tight and perky

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So why no hearing?

No hearing? What the **** do you think that those committees in the house are doing right now?

I still haven’t seen anything on the internet?

TheProgressivePatriot yo, dude, where's this hearing you stated was ongoing on Saturday? I've still not seen one thread about it in here, nor have I seen any mention of it on the internet or tv since I got back to my primary house. Well?

Don McGahn, former White House counsel, defies House subpoena and skips hearing on Russia probe

Notes From the House Select Intelligence Hearing on Russia

Hearing on “Examining the Failures of the Trump Administration’s Inhumane Family Separation Policy”

The Administration’s War on a Merit Based Civil Service

where's the one for impeachment?

I never said that they were holding impeachment hearings now. I responded to your false claim that there were no hearings at all taking place and I just proved you wrong. There investigations will lead to an impeachment inquiry His fat ass is toast

 

[jc456]

No hearing? What the **** do you think that those committees in the house are doing right now?

I still haven’t seen anything on the internet?

TheProgressivePatriot yo, dude, where's this hearing you stated was ongoing on Saturday? I've still not seen one thread about it in here, nor have I seen any mention of it on the internet or tv since I got back to my primary house. Well?

Don McGahn, former White House counsel, defies House subpoena and skips hearing on Russia probe

Notes From the House Select Intelligence Hearing on Russia

Hearing on “Examining the Failures of the Trump Administration’s Inhumane Family Separation Policy”

The Administration’s War on a Merit Based Civil Service

where's the one for impeachment?

I never said that they were holding impeachment hearings now. I responded to your false claim that there were no hearings at all taking place and I just proved you wrong. There investigations will lead to an impeachment inquiry His fat ass is toast

dude, it was the whole topic of conversation was impeachment hearings. now you're just lying again. it must truly suck to be a fking whiner liar such as yourself. never a good moment in life f or you

 

[Frannie]

No hearing? What the **** do you think that those committees in the house are doing right now?

I still haven’t seen anything on the internet?

TheProgressivePatriot yo, dude, where's this hearing you stated was ongoing on Saturday? I've still not seen one thread about it in here, nor have I seen any mention of it on the internet or tv since I got back to my primary house. Well?

Don McGahn, former White House counsel, defies House subpoena and skips hearing on Russia probe

Notes From the House Select Intelligence Hearing on Russia

Hearing on “Examining the Failures of the Trump Administration’s Inhumane Family Separation Policy”

The Administration’s War on a Merit Based Civil Service

where's the one for impeachment?

I never said that they were holding impeachment hearings now. I responded to your false claim that there were no hearings at all taking place and I just proved you wrong. There investigations will lead to an impeachment inquiry His fat ass is toast

If they had any balls they would be impeaching now

 

[AntonToo]

Try reading the Mueller report. You'll sound less stupid.

Mueller report - Department of Justice

So tell me, Lakhota, what SPECIFICALLY would you say is an Impeachable offense committed by President Trump? Here is a hint: Obstruction is not specific.

Thank you MarathonMike

Dear Lakhota
the problem with arguing about
* conflicts of interest and emoluments
* collusion and obstruction of justice
What we normally understand as common sense ETHICS that these terms SHOULD MEAN
is NOT the SAME as the LEGAL DEFINITIONS that require burden of proof to be met.

That's how politicians and lawyers wheedle around these "gray areas" by playing within the "letter of the law" and totally violating the SPIRIT of the laws.

The Legal System and burden of proof in pursuing FORMAL process is based on the LETTER (while people use the Media to argue against abuses by the SPIRIT of the laws)

What to you is "common sense" "obstruction of justice" is not necessarily
the actionable legal definition that constitutes a LITERAL violation.

Lakhota I'm as sorry as anyone outraged on BOTH sides
to see these abuses go unchecked because the legal system is so easily abused.

The best way I know to address this is NOT WAIT until after it becomes a legal issue, because the system is so monopolized by "legalese" and "legal interests"
that it does not work the way we want it to.

But to AGREE to work on PREVENTING ABUSES in the first place.

If we wait until "after the fact" then everyone makes a political battle out of it
and we will go in circles getting nowhere.

If we focus on prevention and correction, ON ALL SIDES,
not just for political convenience of one over the other,
then only the TRULY ETHICAL LEADERS will have any such
interest in cleaning up ALL CAMPS. Those will respond to our demands
to clean up corruption, if they are serious. We must agree to get politics
out of the process, if we want SINCERE people to help who aren't in it for politics.

President pressures FBI leadership to drop investigation into a guilty cabinet member.

In what world is that not an Obstruction of Justice by both letter and spirit of the law?

Dear antonio cc Lakhota
There has to be actions that are clearly OUTSIDE
normal executive authority to hire and fire at discretion.

Again, it's not about our common sense perception of this,
but what can be established and proven legally (including INTENT
which is hard to prove).

Another problem with Trump is that he mouths off all the time PERSONALLY.
Similar to when Madonna mouthed off about "thinking of blowing up the White House". She was found not to be a viable threat of actually doing that.
(Likewise with the PEOPLE pushed to resign or get fired, because of their
conflicted backgrounds; the history or APPEARANCE of political
conflicting and biased interests merely fueled the arguments
that the President had reason to remove them. That didn't help either.)

If there is room for doubt, the benefit goes in favor of the person
not the accuser that still retains burden of proof.

NOTE: If you ask me, where I also draw lines where others do not
1. I heard on the radio someone saying the President could instruct
lawyers to lie to the public through media if that serves the best interest of the country "as long as it's not under oath"
2. I disagree. I would AGREE that the President and these lawyers have free speech and can chose to omit and NOT share information. But if they are PRESENTING INFORMATION Publicly, I DO NOT AGREE they have any right to "lie" (omissions are allowed as long as there is not MISREPRESENTATION, FRAUD, or "LIES" going on).

Any jury would convict Trump on corrupt intent. It’s pretty damn clear cut case, because there are simply no not-corrupt motives that could possibly explain a president pressuring FBI director to drop investigation into a guilty man.

And let’s not forget 10 other episodes that establish a pattern of obstruction for our swamp king POTUS.

 

[jc456]

Try reading the Mueller report. You'll sound less stupid.

Mueller report - Department of Justice

So tell me, Lakhota, what SPECIFICALLY would you say is an Impeachable offense committed by President Trump? Here is a hint: Obstruction is not specific.

Thank you MarathonMike

Dear Lakhota
the problem with arguing about
* conflicts of interest and emoluments
* collusion and obstruction of justice
What we normally understand as common sense ETHICS that these terms SHOULD MEAN
is NOT the SAME as the LEGAL DEFINITIONS that require burden of proof to be met.

That's how politicians and lawyers wheedle around these "gray areas" by playing within the "letter of the law" and totally violating the SPIRIT of the laws.

The Legal System and burden of proof in pursuing FORMAL process is based on the LETTER (while people use the Media to argue against abuses by the SPIRIT of the laws)

What to you is "common sense" "obstruction of justice" is not necessarily
the actionable legal definition that constitutes a LITERAL violation.

Lakhota I'm as sorry as anyone outraged on BOTH sides
to see these abuses go unchecked because the legal system is so easily abused.

The best way I know to address this is NOT WAIT until after it becomes a legal issue, because the system is so monopolized by "legalese" and "legal interests"
that it does not work the way we want it to.

But to AGREE to work on PREVENTING ABUSES in the first place.

If we wait until "after the fact" then everyone makes a political battle out of it
and we will go in circles getting nowhere.

If we focus on prevention and correction, ON ALL SIDES,
not just for political convenience of one over the other,
then only the TRULY ETHICAL LEADERS will have any such
interest in cleaning up ALL CAMPS. Those will respond to our demands
to clean up corruption, if they are serious. We must agree to get politics
out of the process, if we want SINCERE people to help who aren't in it for politics.

President pressures FBI leadership to drop investigation into a guilty cabinet member.

In what world is that not an Obstruction of Justice by both letter and spirit of the law?

Dear antonio cc Lakhota
There has to be actions that are clearly OUTSIDE
normal executive authority to hire and fire at discretion.

Again, it's not about our common sense perception of this,
but what can be established and proven legally (including INTENT
which is hard to prove).

Another problem with Trump is that he mouths off all the time PERSONALLY.
Similar to when Madonna mouthed off about "thinking of blowing up the White House". She was found not to be a viable threat of actually doing that.
(Likewise with the PEOPLE pushed to resign or get fired, because of their
conflicted backgrounds; the history or APPEARANCE of political
conflicting and biased interests merely fueled the arguments
that the President had reason to remove them. That didn't help either.)

If there is room for doubt, the benefit goes in favor of the person
not the accuser that still retains burden of proof.

NOTE: If you ask me, where I also draw lines where others do not
1. I heard on the radio someone saying the President could instruct
lawyers to lie to the public through media if that serves the best interest of the country "as long as it's not under oath"
2. I disagree. I would AGREE that the President and these lawyers have free speech and can chose to omit and NOT share information. But if they are PRESENTING INFORMATION Publicly, I DO NOT AGREE they have any right to "lie" (omissions are allowed as long as there is not MISREPRESENTATION, FRAUD, or "LIES" going on).

Any jury would convict Trump on corrupt motive, it’s pretty damn clear, because guess what there no not-corrupt motives that could possibly explain a president pressuring FBI director to drop investigation in a guilty man.

site precedence.

 

[SmokeALib]

Try reading the Mueller report. You'll sound less stupid.

Mueller report - Department of Justice

So tell me, Lakhota, what SPECIFICALLY would you say is an Impeachable offense committed by President Trump? Here is a hint: Obstruction is not specific.

Thank you MarathonMike

Dear Lakhota
the problem with arguing about
* conflicts of interest and emoluments
* collusion and obstruction of justice
What we normally understand as common sense ETHICS that these terms SHOULD MEAN
is NOT the SAME as the LEGAL DEFINITIONS that require burden of proof to be met.

That's how politicians and lawyers wheedle around these "gray areas" by playing within the "letter of the law" and totally violating the SPIRIT of the laws.

The Legal System and burden of proof in pursuing FORMAL process is based on the LETTER (while people use the Media to argue against abuses by the SPIRIT of the laws)

What to you is "common sense" "obstruction of justice" is not necessarily
the actionable legal definition that constitutes a LITERAL violation.

Lakhota I'm as sorry as anyone outraged on BOTH sides
to see these abuses go unchecked because the legal system is so easily abused.

The best way I know to address this is NOT WAIT until after it becomes a legal issue, because the system is so monopolized by "legalese" and "legal interests"
that it does not work the way we want it to.

But to AGREE to work on PREVENTING ABUSES in the first place.

If we wait until "after the fact" then everyone makes a political battle out of it
and we will go in circles getting nowhere.

If we focus on prevention and correction, ON ALL SIDES,
not just for political convenience of one over the other,
then only the TRULY ETHICAL LEADERS will have any such
interest in cleaning up ALL CAMPS. Those will respond to our demands
to clean up corruption, if they are serious. We must agree to get politics
out of the process, if we want SINCERE people to help who aren't in it for politics.

President pressures FBI leadership to drop investigation into a guilty cabinet member.

In what world is that not an Obstruction of Justice by both letter and spirit of the law?

Dear antonio cc Lakhota
There has to be actions that are clearly OUTSIDE
normal executive authority to hire and fire at discretion.

Again, it's not about our common sense perception of this,
but what can be established and proven legally (including INTENT
which is hard to prove).

Another problem with Trump is that he mouths off all the time PERSONALLY.
Similar to when Madonna mouthed off about "thinking of blowing up the White House". She was found not to be a viable threat of actually doing that.
(Likewise with the PEOPLE pushed to resign or get fired, because of their
conflicted backgrounds; the history or APPEARANCE of political
conflicting and biased interests merely fueled the arguments
that the President had reason to remove them. That didn't help either.)

If there is room for doubt, the benefit goes in favor of the person
not the accuser that still retains burden of proof.

NOTE: If you ask me, where I also draw lines where others do not
1. I heard on the radio someone saying the President could instruct
lawyers to lie to the public through media if that serves the best interest of the country "as long as it's not under oath"
2. I disagree. I would AGREE that the President and these lawyers have free speech and can chose to omit and NOT share information. But if they are PRESENTING INFORMATION Publicly, I DO NOT AGREE they have any right to "lie" (omissions are allowed as long as there is not MISREPRESENTATION, FRAUD, or "LIES" going on).

Any jury would convict Trump on corrupt intent. It’s pretty damn clear cut case, because there are simply no not-corrupt motives that could possibly explain a president pressuring FBI director to drop investigation in a guilty man.

And let’s not forget 10 other episodes that establish a pattern for our swamp king POTUS.

The FBI conspired to oust Trump. I'm afraid you've been MSNBC'd.

 

[AntonToo]

So tell me, Lakhota, what SPECIFICALLY would you say is an Impeachable offense committed by President Trump? Here is a hint: Obstruction is not specific.

Thank you MarathonMike

Dear Lakhota
the problem with arguing about
* conflicts of interest and emoluments
* collusion and obstruction of justice
What we normally understand as common sense ETHICS that these terms SHOULD MEAN
is NOT the SAME as the LEGAL DEFINITIONS that require burden of proof to be met.

That's how politicians and lawyers wheedle around these "gray areas" by playing within the "letter of the law" and totally violating the SPIRIT of the laws.

The Legal System and burden of proof in pursuing FORMAL process is based on the LETTER (while people use the Media to argue against abuses by the SPIRIT of the laws)

What to you is "common sense" "obstruction of justice" is not necessarily
the actionable legal definition that constitutes a LITERAL violation.

Lakhota I'm as sorry as anyone outraged on BOTH sides
to see these abuses go unchecked because the legal system is so easily abused.

The best way I know to address this is NOT WAIT until after it becomes a legal issue, because the system is so monopolized by "legalese" and "legal interests"
that it does not work the way we want it to.

But to AGREE to work on PREVENTING ABUSES in the first place.

If we wait until "after the fact" then everyone makes a political battle out of it
and we will go in circles getting nowhere.

If we focus on prevention and correction, ON ALL SIDES,
not just for political convenience of one over the other,
then only the TRULY ETHICAL LEADERS will have any such
interest in cleaning up ALL CAMPS. Those will respond to our demands
to clean up corruption, if they are serious. We must agree to get politics
out of the process, if we want SINCERE people to help who aren't in it for politics.

President pressures FBI leadership to drop investigation into a guilty cabinet member.

In what world is that not an Obstruction of Justice by both letter and spirit of the law?

Dear antonio cc Lakhota
There has to be actions that are clearly OUTSIDE
normal executive authority to hire and fire at discretion.

Again, it's not about our common sense perception of this,
but what can be established and proven legally (including INTENT
which is hard to prove).

Another problem with Trump is that he mouths off all the time PERSONALLY.
Similar to when Madonna mouthed off about "thinking of blowing up the White House". She was found not to be a viable threat of actually doing that.
(Likewise with the PEOPLE pushed to resign or get fired, because of their
conflicted backgrounds; the history or APPEARANCE of political
conflicting and biased interests merely fueled the arguments
that the President had reason to remove them. That didn't help either.)

If there is room for doubt, the benefit goes in favor of the person
not the accuser that still retains burden of proof.

NOTE: If you ask me, where I also draw lines where others do not
1. I heard on the radio someone saying the President could instruct
lawyers to lie to the public through media if that serves the best interest of the country "as long as it's not under oath"
2. I disagree. I would AGREE that the President and these lawyers have free speech and can chose to omit and NOT share information. But if they are PRESENTING INFORMATION Publicly, I DO NOT AGREE they have any right to "lie" (omissions are allowed as long as there is not MISREPRESENTATION, FRAUD, or "LIES" going on).

Any jury would convict Trump on corrupt intent. It’s pretty damn clear cut case, because there are simply no not-corrupt motives that could possibly explain a president pressuring FBI director to drop investigation in a guilty man.

And let’s not forget 10 other episodes that establish a pattern for our swamp king POTUS.

The FBI conspired to oust Trump. I'm afraid you've been MSNBC'd.

You are seriously a ******* dupe if you think Rosenstein vaguely entertaining Constitutionally removing Trump (on the basis of incompetence, with the blessing of Trump’s VP) excuses ANY illegal conduct by Trump..

And isn’t that what you’d be saying now if Trump walked out and killed someone in broad daylight?

But they were after him!!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I still haven’t seen anything on the internet?

TheProgressivePatriot yo, dude, where's this hearing you stated was ongoing on Saturday? I've still not seen one thread about it in here, nor have I seen any mention of it on the internet or tv since I got back to my primary house. Well?

Don McGahn, former White House counsel, defies House subpoena and skips hearing on Russia probe

Notes From the House Select Intelligence Hearing on Russia

Hearing on “Examining the Failures of the Trump Administration’s Inhumane Family Separation Policy”

The Administration’s War on a Merit Based Civil Service

where's the one for impeachment?

I never said that they were holding impeachment hearings now. I responded to your false claim that there were no hearings at all taking place and I just proved you wrong. There investigations will lead to an impeachment inquiry His fat ass is toast

dude, it was the whole topic of conversation was impeachment hearings. now you're just lying again. it must truly suck to be a fking whiner liar such as yourself. never a good moment in life f or you

Give it a rest Popeye.You're embarrassing yourself. These hearings all have to do with possible impeachable offenses I didn't think that it was possible the you people are so ******* stupid that you actually believe that he not guilty of anything because the House has not started impeachment against him you. You are going to look damned foolish when they do.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I still haven’t seen anything on the internet?

TheProgressivePatriot yo, dude, where's this hearing you stated was ongoing on Saturday? I've still not seen one thread about it in here, nor have I seen any mention of it on the internet or tv since I got back to my primary house. Well?

Don McGahn, former White House counsel, defies House subpoena and skips hearing on Russia probe

Notes From the House Select Intelligence Hearing on Russia

Hearing on “Examining the Failures of the Trump Administration’s Inhumane Family Separation Policy”

The Administration’s War on a Merit Based Civil Service

where's the one for impeachment?

I never said that they were holding impeachment hearings now. I responded to your false claim that there were no hearings at all taking place and I just proved you wrong. There investigations will lead to an impeachment inquiry His fat ass is toast

If they had any balls they would be impeaching now

Thank you for clearly demonstration that you don't understand squat about the politics of impeachment and what is behind the debate in the house as to how to proceed.

 

[jc456]

TheProgressivePatriot yo, dude, where's this hearing you stated was ongoing on Saturday? I've still not seen one thread about it in here, nor have I seen any mention of it on the internet or tv since I got back to my primary house. Well?

Don McGahn, former White House counsel, defies House subpoena and skips hearing on Russia probe

Notes From the House Select Intelligence Hearing on Russia

Hearing on “Examining the Failures of the Trump Administration’s Inhumane Family Separation Policy”

The Administration’s War on a Merit Based Civil Service

where's the one for impeachment?

I never said that they were holding impeachment hearings now. I responded to your false claim that there were no hearings at all taking place and I just proved you wrong. There investigations will lead to an impeachment inquiry His fat ass is toast

dude, it was the whole topic of conversation was impeachment hearings. now you're just lying again. it must truly suck to be a fking whiner liar such as yourself. never a good moment in life f or you

Give it a rest Popeye.You're embarrassing yourself. These hearings all have to do with possible impeachable offenses I didn't think that it was possible the you people are so ******* stupid that you actually believe that he not guilty of anything because the House has not started impeachment against him you. You are going to look damned foolish when they do.

hahahahahahahaha what was the purpose of mueller then? hmmmm, two other congressional investigation.

 

[jc456]

TheProgressivePatriot yo, dude, where's this hearing you stated was ongoing on Saturday? I've still not seen one thread about it in here, nor have I seen any mention of it on the internet or tv since I got back to my primary house. Well?

Don McGahn, former White House counsel, defies House subpoena and skips hearing on Russia probe

Notes From the House Select Intelligence Hearing on Russia

Hearing on “Examining the Failures of the Trump Administration’s Inhumane Family Separation Policy”

The Administration’s War on a Merit Based Civil Service

where's the one for impeachment?

I never said that they were holding impeachment hearings now. I responded to your false claim that there were no hearings at all taking place and I just proved you wrong. There investigations will lead to an impeachment inquiry His fat ass is toast

If they had any balls they would be impeaching now

Thank you for clearly demonstration that you don't understand squat about the politics of impeachment and what is behind the debate in the house as to how to proceed.

 

[Camp]

So tell me, Lakhota, what SPECIFICALLY would you say is an Impeachable offense committed by President Trump? Here is a hint: Obstruction is not specific.

Thank you MarathonMike

Dear Lakhota
the problem with arguing about
* conflicts of interest and emoluments
* collusion and obstruction of justice
What we normally understand as common sense ETHICS that these terms SHOULD MEAN
is NOT the SAME as the LEGAL DEFINITIONS that require burden of proof to be met.

That's how politicians and lawyers wheedle around these "gray areas" by playing within the "letter of the law" and totally violating the SPIRIT of the laws.

The Legal System and burden of proof in pursuing FORMAL process is based on the LETTER (while people use the Media to argue against abuses by the SPIRIT of the laws)

What to you is "common sense" "obstruction of justice" is not necessarily
the actionable legal definition that constitutes a LITERAL violation.

Lakhota I'm as sorry as anyone outraged on BOTH sides
to see these abuses go unchecked because the legal system is so easily abused.

The best way I know to address this is NOT WAIT until after it becomes a legal issue, because the system is so monopolized by "legalese" and "legal interests"
that it does not work the way we want it to.

But to AGREE to work on PREVENTING ABUSES in the first place.

If we wait until "after the fact" then everyone makes a political battle out of it
and we will go in circles getting nowhere.

If we focus on prevention and correction, ON ALL SIDES,
not just for political convenience of one over the other,
then only the TRULY ETHICAL LEADERS will have any such
interest in cleaning up ALL CAMPS. Those will respond to our demands
to clean up corruption, if they are serious. We must agree to get politics
out of the process, if we want SINCERE people to help who aren't in it for politics.

President pressures FBI leadership to drop investigation into a guilty cabinet member.

In what world is that not an Obstruction of Justice by both letter and spirit of the law?

Dear antonio cc Lakhota
There has to be actions that are clearly OUTSIDE
normal executive authority to hire and fire at discretion.

Again, it's not about our common sense perception of this,
but what can be established and proven legally (including INTENT
which is hard to prove).

Another problem with Trump is that he mouths off all the time PERSONALLY.
Similar to when Madonna mouthed off about "thinking of blowing up the White House". She was found not to be a viable threat of actually doing that.
(Likewise with the PEOPLE pushed to resign or get fired, because of their
conflicted backgrounds; the history or APPEARANCE of political
conflicting and biased interests merely fueled the arguments
that the President had reason to remove them. That didn't help either.)

If there is room for doubt, the benefit goes in favor of the person
not the accuser that still retains burden of proof.

NOTE: If you ask me, where I also draw lines where others do not
1. I heard on the radio someone saying the President could instruct
lawyers to lie to the public through media if that serves the best interest of the country "as long as it's not under oath"
2. I disagree. I would AGREE that the President and these lawyers have free speech and can chose to omit and NOT share information. But if they are PRESENTING INFORMATION Publicly, I DO NOT AGREE they have any right to "lie" (omissions are allowed as long as there is not MISREPRESENTATION, FRAUD, or "LIES" going on).

Any jury would convict Trump on corrupt intent. It’s pretty damn clear cut case, because there are simply no not-corrupt motives that could possibly explain a president pressuring FBI director to drop investigation in a guilty man.

And let’s not forget 10 other episodes that establish a pattern for our swamp king POTUS.

The FBI conspired to oust Trump. I'm afraid you've been MSNBC'd.

No, they didn't. You are just echoing a Trump lie and goofy conspiracy theory and no matter how many times you repeat it, it will always be false and a goofy conspiracy theory.

 

[francoHFW]

QUOTE="The Original Tree, post: 22473702, member: 60550"]So anyone with a brain can see that Mueller and his team WERE NEVER HIRED TO GET TO THE TRUTH.

They completely avoided all Russian Connections that went through Podesta, Obama, Clinton, and The Russian Dossier.

The Mueller Team was formed as Political Assassins to destroy The President.

They failed because its extremely hard to frame an innocent man that has the resources and will to fight you.

ahh shit tree, you did it again....EXACTLY^^^^^^

If you want to run an HONEST INVESTIGATION

Why did half of Moscow Mueller's Team have to get fired for Bias and Misconduct and are under criminal investigation?

Why did the other half have shady histories, such as Working Directly for The Clintons, being engaged in Prosecutorial Misconduct; Having Obvious Conflicts of Interest?

These people were put in the team because they were shady, because they were biased, because they had conflicts of interest. There was not ONE UPSTANDING PERSON of CHARACTER AMONG THEM.

Even Preet Bahara was a Vocal Trump Hater who was hired by Mueller immediately after Trump Fired him for misconduct in the New York Office. Scally wags and Ambulance Chasers and Dirty Lawyers, every single one.

An Honest Investigation had no chance of railroading The President, and an Honest Investigation would have investigated The Origin and Financing and Propagation of The Dirty Russian Dossier.

The Evidence is Right in Front of Everyone's Face.

This was a Political Assassination that failed

This was a Political COUP that failed.

why were there no GOP prosecutors hired? you and I and 63 million knew this was a hoax. it is still a hoax and still active. fk them. come and get me you bunch of fks!!! i'm right here. you don't have the balls.

Pure garbage propaganda all of it, brainwashed functional moron.

Kinda cowardly of you to not answer his question.

Why did Mueller hire people that have a history of lying in court, tampering with witness statements, Manufacturing Evidence, Putting Innocent men in jail they knew were innocent?

Why did half of Mueller's team have to be fired for bias and corruption and are now under criminal investigation for things they said and did during the Fake Russia Investigation?

Why aren't you engaging in honest discussion about any of this?[/QUOTE]
Too bad nothing you say is true, brainwashed functional moron.