Vic: Your honor my client is innocent !
Judge: Why is that?
Vic: Cause I said so !
Case closed.
Random Politics & Religion #37: W/ Bubba The Love Sponge
|
Forum » Everything Else »
Politics and Religion
»
Random Politics & Religion #37: w/ Bubba the Love Sponge
Random Politics & Religion #37: w/ Bubba the Love Sponge
Left logic:
Wanting to do something that is within your legal rights? Proven obstruction. Using BleachBit to wipe hard drives and destroying cell phones with hammers so that the FBI can't obtain the information on them? Make that woman President!
[+]
Viciouss said: » Siren.Mosin said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » evidence of collusion 'collusion' isn't really a crime, nor a thing. they would have had to have found clear evidence of treason or campaign finance violations, which it would appear he didn't. I don't know that it's fair to even really say he 'punted'. I think he gathered all the facts, there wasn't a good case for treason nor campaign finance violations, so there were no charges to be brought up nor any reason to ask congress to impeach. all the mueller report really proved is that Trump tried to obstruct justice a couple times, but people wouldn't follow through, so it never happened. I'm not for prosecuting people for crimes they wanted to commit... Hell, I'd be serving 90 life sentences right now. Yeah, Mueller didn't know if a President could actually be charged for obstruction, he proved that Trump obstructed a few times, but his staff defied him, so Mueller left it for Congress to decide. Which, he was put there to decide, he had the obstruction charge, he just didn't pull the trigger for some reason. None of this ***is true. Not one bit. Mueller didnt prove Trump obstructed justice, this was because Trump didnt obstruct justice. If Trump had fired Mueller, that would not have been obstruction of justice. Trump has every right to fire Mueller, he's Mueller boss’s boss. Lefties are so desperate now, they continue to just making ***up and hope the establishment media supports their big lie. Gobbels level ***right here.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Left logic: Wanting to do something that is within your legal rights? Proven obstruction. Using BleachBit to wipe hard drives and destroying cell phones with hammers so that the FBI can't obtain the information on them? Make that woman President!
[+]
Yeah no way Trump obstructed justice. Every time I look at him with my "Trump can do no wrong" glasses on he just creates justice.
[+]
fonewear said: » Vic you are looking for a crime that isn't there. Just because you want Trump to be finished doesn't make it so. Actually I am just looking for Riftborn Boulders for 4k or less. Preferably less. Speaking of that, it doesn't take that long to level a mule. FONE.
[+]
Nausi said: » Viciouss said: » Siren.Mosin said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » evidence of collusion 'collusion' isn't really a crime, nor a thing. they would have had to have found clear evidence of treason or campaign finance violations, which it would appear he didn't. I don't know that it's fair to even really say he 'punted'. I think he gathered all the facts, there wasn't a good case for treason nor campaign finance violations, so there were no charges to be brought up nor any reason to ask congress to impeach. all the mueller report really proved is that Trump tried to obstruct justice a couple times, but people wouldn't follow through, so it never happened. I'm not for prosecuting people for crimes they wanted to commit... Hell, I'd be serving 90 life sentences right now. Yeah, Mueller didn't know if a President could actually be charged for obstruction, he proved that Trump obstructed a few times, but his staff defied him, so Mueller left it for Congress to decide. Which, he was put there to decide, he had the obstruction charge, he just didn't pull the trigger for some reason. None of this ***is true. Not one bit. Mueller didnt prove Trump obstructed justice, this was because Trump didnt obstruct justice. If Trump had fired Mueller, that would not have been obstruction of justice. Trump has every right to fire Mueller, he's Mueller boss’s boss. Lefties are so desperate now, they continue to just making ***up and hope the establishment media supports their big lie. Gobbels level ***right here. Always funny to watch you spin. Trump never had the right to fire the man investigating him, that's why when he gave the order, it was completely ignored, as were many of his orders during the last few years. People just let him rant and rave and go back to doing their jobs as best they can. Maybe Nixon would have fared better if his people had just ignored his orders to commit crimes.
I was under the impression he had the right but he was smart enough to know how bad it would have looked?
Also the Mueller Report is purposely non-conclusive mainly because the approached it from the standpoint that Trump could not be trialed, that he was not guilty and that even the assumption of Guilt would hurt his ability to Govern.
[+]
Viciouss said: » Trump never had the right to fire the man investigating him, that's why when he gave the order, it was completely ignored, as were many of his orders during the last few years. People just let him rant and rave and go back to doing their jobs as best they can. Maybe Nixon would have fared better if his people had just ignored his orders to commit crimes. B) Even if he was, he still has the right to fire Mueller. The investigation still continues if mueller is fired.
[+]
eliroo said: » I was under the impression he had the right but he was smart enough to know how bad it would have looked? Clearly he wasn't smart enough, because he gave the order to remove Mueller, and his people, who were smart enough to remember what happened to Nixon when he removed the man investigating him (both AG's refused so he fired them and went down anyway) ignored the directions. Everyone in the WH except for Trump knew that Mueller couldn't be fired. I do, however, believe that anyone who thinks the report absolved Trump of any guilt is just as ignorant as one who thinks it proves he is guilty. There is something to be said about an investigation where the only potential outcome would be exoneration, ends in an inconclusive outcome.
Similar to Hilary, I expect this whole thing to lead to inconclusive results and just create more fractures between the political parties.
[+]
Viciouss said: » eliroo said: » I was under the impression he had the right but he was smart enough to know how bad it would have looked? Clearly he wasn't smart enough, because he gave the order to remove Mueller, and his people, who were smart enough to remember what happened to Nixon when he removed the man investigating him (both AG's refused so he fired them and went down anyway) ignored the directions. Everyone in the WH except for Trump knew that Mueller couldn't be fired. Well he was smart enough to have someone else do it at the very least. Not smart enough to just not suggest it. His defense for wanting to do it, is somewhat valid except the facts that: 1. Mueller already set out to make sure the investigation didn't bring into question his ability to lead. 2. Trying to fire Mueller actually brings that question into the spotlight more. Regardless that action doesn't prove anything without testimonial proof explaining an alternative motive given by Trump.
[+]
In positive news, Stephen Moore and his radical views is not going to be serving on the Fed board, which Jerome Powell seems to be ruling with an iron fist despite Trump's tantrums and fake blame game.
eliroo said: » Viciouss said: » eliroo said: » I was under the impression he had the right but he was smart enough to know how bad it would have looked? Clearly he wasn't smart enough, because he gave the order to remove Mueller, and his people, who were smart enough to remember what happened to Nixon when he removed the man investigating him (both AG's refused so he fired them and went down anyway) ignored the directions. Everyone in the WH except for Trump knew that Mueller couldn't be fired. Well he was smart enough to have someone else do it at the very least. Only because he could not do it himself. Mueller didn't work for Trump therefore Trump could not fire him directly, something that we know Trump was frustrated with because of course he would have had he the power to. Libs talk about bringing decency back to government
also libs: Lets put a chicken in Barrs seat and take pictures of it and post on social media. These *** are making this to easy...
[+]
Viciouss said: » Maybe Nixon would have fared better if his people had just ignored his orders to commit crimes. Nixon was a badass, and would have had people that didn't listen to him killed.
[+]
Odin.Slore said: » Libs talk about bringing decency back to government when they're the ones who destroyed it with the PC police and identity politics. funny stuff.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Siren.Mosin said: » all the mueller report really proved is that Trump tried to obstruct justice a couple times, but people wouldn't follow through, so it never happened. Actually, it didn't even prove that. Trump had the legal right to fire Mueller if he wanted to. The investigation would have continued even if he did. Obstructing justice is really hard to prove, just look at Hillary if we want an example. The requirements are rather high and not just doing something that some person doesn't like. President Trump can fire anyone on his senior staff with the only reason being that he didn't have faith in them. That is not obstructive justice because as others have said, any investigation would just continued forth with a different boss. No evidence was destroyed, no witness's were prevented form testifying. Now we can discuss the optics all day long, but the legalities are rather solid on this.
[+]
Cnn poll: 70% of americans want an investigation into the illegal spying on the trump campaign.
Dems are toast.
[+]
[+]
Asura.Saevel said: » Now we can discuss the optics all day long, but the legalities are rather solid on this. I'd argue that if the legalities were solid then Trump would already be Exonerated, so its probably a little more confusing than what a couple of people on FFXIAH can parse out.
[+]
eliroo said: » Asura.Saevel said: » Now we can discuss the optics all day long, but the legalities are rather solid on this. I'd argue that if the legalities were solid then Trump would already be Exonerated, so its probably a little more confusing than what a couple of people on FFXIAH can parse out. Except a prosecutor's job isn't to exonerate. For the life of me I can't figure out why people think it is.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Except a prosecutor's job isn't to exonerate. For the life of me I can't figure out why people think it is. That has nothing to do with the point being made here and sounds eerily similar to arguments Hilary supporters were making during the election cycle. The decision was made, and you are correct that, in this country, innocence isn't proven only guilt is. But that isn't the point being made here. If the legalities were solid then his peers and congress would express their exoneration rather than deny it. Why would Barr, himself, specifically avoid exonerating Trump in public if it was as solid you say it is.
[+]
eliroo said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Except a prosecutor's job isn't to exonerate. For the life of me I can't figure out why people think it is. That has nothing to do with the point being made here and sounds eerily similar to arguments Hilary supporters were making during the election cycle. The decision was made, and you are correct that, in this country, innocence isn't proven only guilt is. But that isn't the point being made here. If the legalities were solid then his peers and congress would express their exoneration rather than deny it. Why would Barr, himself, specifically avoid exonerating Trump in public if it was as solid you say it is. You're right that the issue is nuanced, but there is still a point being missed here with your usage of the word. In some uses, exoneration is a way of saying someone is 100% innocent (which is rarely the case in situations where the law is subject to interpretation). In other uses, merely declining to prosecute is an exoneration of sorts due to nature of our justice system. It is completely irrelevant if Barr, Congress, or whomever else chooses to "exonerate" Trump. Either it's prosecutable or it's not, and so far it looks like it's not. Exoneration is a byproduct of choosing to do nothing.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » eliroo said: » Asura.Saevel said: » Now we can discuss the optics all day long, but the legalities are rather solid on this. I'd argue that if the legalities were solid then Trump would already be Exonerated, so its probably a little more confusing than what a couple of people on FFXIAH can parse out. Except a prosecutor's job isn't to exonerate. For the life of me I can't figure out why people think it is. Because Democrats told them to think that. I'm serious that is the reason, they are indeed faithful follows of the One True Faith. Mueller didn't find any proof for obstruction of justice and didn't want to say that so just punted to the DoJ. The DoJ then said not sufficient evidence. "Not sufficient evidence" is the highest possible exoneration from a government prosecution / investigation agency. It's the job of a judge or jury to say anything more. Of course the Democrats fashion themselves as both Judge and Jury in this case.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Either it's prosecutable or it's not, and so far it looks like it's not. Exoneration is a byproduct of choosing to do nothing. Wasn't this the line of reasoning the Democrats used in 2016 about Hillary illegally storing classified material on her personal servers?
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Except a prosecutor's job isn't to exonerate. For the life of me I can't figure out why people think it is. yeah just ask Bill Cosby about that one. Asura.Saevel said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Either it's prosecutable or it's not, and so far it looks like it's not. Exoneration is a byproduct of choosing to do nothing. Wasn't this the line of reasoning the Democrats used in 2016 about Hillary illegally storing classified material on her personal servers? I see your point, and that's why it falls in the later category of what "exoneration" is, because Heaven knows she wasn't 100% innocent. The difference there is that the Comey was on Clinton's side when he "exonerated" her, and Mueller did everything he could to bring Trump down but had to punt to the AG for "exoneration" because he couldn't bring himself to do it for political reasons.
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.