ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

rojimboo wrote:

NO ONE PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW

ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR, asked if Mueller intended for Congress, not the attorney general, to decide whether Trump obstructed justice: “Well, special counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress. I hope that was not his view. … I didn’t talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision.”

THE FACTS: Mueller’s report actually does indicate that Congress could make that determination.

The report states that no person is above the law, including the president, and that the Constitution “does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice.”

In his four-page memo last month, Barr said while Mueller left open the question of whether Trump broke the law and obstructed the investigation, Barr was ultimately deciding as attorney general that the evidence developed by Mueller was “not sufficient” to establish, for the purposes of prosecution, that Trump obstructed justice.

But the special counsel’s report specifies that Congress can also render a judgment on that question.

It says: “The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

This isn't a simple case of black and white.

Barr's remarks ("leave the decision to Congress") could be interpreted two ways: either that Mueller did not direct Congress to impeach, or that Mueller did not say Congress should impeach. If the latter, Barr is accurate: Mueller did not direct Congress to consider impeachment.

Mueller's words in the report ("accords with our constitutional system") could be interpreted two ways: at a minimum, that Congress can impeach over obstruction of justice, or that Congress should impeach over obstruction of justice. My opinion, having read the report, is that Mueller wants to see a successful impeachment of Trump but doesn't want an impeachment that doesn't result in conviction by the Senate, and thus he wants to stay in that gray area between "could" and "should," leaving the decision to those who better know if the political climate makes the attempt worth the risk.

Mueller's words, therefore, imply to me that the evidence for obstruction is very borderline. He thinks, in essence, that it's enough to convince Congressional Democrats of impeachable offense, but insufficient to persuade Congressional Republicans. While you could partially look at that as an indictment (figuratively) of Congressional Republicans, it's also at least partially an indictment of what Mueller considers to be the facts establishing obstruction. Mueller believes the facts to be substantial enough to persuade some, but not substantial enough to overcome a typical degree of partisan bias. That's not what I'd consider overwhelming evidence… which is why he ultimately concludes that there isn't sufficient evidence to support the position that the President committed a crime.

Overall I think the report is better described as "neutral" than "condemning," but it's certainly more "condemning" on obstruction than it is "exonerating." "Implicating" is a good word for it; it implies impeachability without explicitly recommending impeachment. I would have probably gone with "implicating" in that silly poll of rojimbo's.

Obstruction lol. Trump can fire any of his subordinates he wants to for any reason. Not to mention he didnt fire meuller and offered unprecedented documents other presidents claimed executive privilege on hardly an "obstructionist" move even.

Good luck with your fishing expedition hard lefties. Most Americans moved on from this farce.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention
https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/bio/1925-geneva-protocol/

You can find all of the UN conventions yourself though.

They don't really declare a state non-sovereign but i imagine an autoritarian dictatership playing bully with neighbouring country's using chemical weapons and murdering ethnic groups falls under the "maybe not recognized as sovereign" group.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : did you even read the link you posted? I'm honestly curious.

Yes did you? Only people say it legal are politicians. All legal scholars and international bodies ruled it illegal and a war of aggression.

And like I said didnt even meet basic of just war theory which is attack only if you are attacked. The "preemptive" war doctrine was first time is US history used and we been in a lot of wars.

BTW that just war theory exists for a reason besides sounds fair. It exists because you can never win hearts and minds of population you launched an war of aggression onto. Fools errand

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Steele got his information from Russians. That's why I said by proxy. The rest of your post is off-topic. If you think that using publicly (!) leaked dirt to slam your opponent is somehow cooperation, then indirectly buying dirt (paying Steele to gather Russian disinfo) surely must be cooperation to. Explain how it's not.

Sorry Xav, you've gone off the deep end there. I'd throw you life line but you're drowning yourself.

Now that you've tapped out, looks like I gotta rek rojimboo a couple of times. Welcome back my dude.

Who gave the globalist cabal the order to use "Easter worshippers" instead of Christians? Nobody says that lmao.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Who gave the globalist cabal the order to use "Easter worshippers" instead of Christians? Nobody says that lmao.

Christians worshiping on Easter were attacked in Sri Lanka. I'm sure this was mentioned on social media somewhere? Perhaps you should try to also supplement your social media time with some real news time?

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

Can some Trump supporter spend some time defending his/her faith in Trump?

I wanted to ask, what has Trump done for you that you benefitted somehow? I'm assuming you would be an average American.

I am asking because apparently people have a tough time answering that question

https://trofire.com/2019/04/20/trump-hasnt-done-a-single-thing-to-help-average-americans/

Thats easy - low taxes, low regs, more originalist SC justices who will follow US constitution. The greatest document in the history of man - to the degree it's followed!

I dont really care for his flamboyant style or racist tendencies and woulda preferred Cruz but he's a million times better on policy I care about than any Dem is IMO

How much less taxes are you paying % wise due to Trump?

How has low regulation affected you positively?

How have the appointees to the Supreme Court affected you personally positively?

"

Xavderion wrote:

Now that you've tapped out, looks like I gotta rek rojimboo a couple of times. Welcome back my dude.

Thank you!

ANd you're welcome to try. And fail.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Who gave the globalist cabal the order to use "Easter worshippers" instead of Christians? Nobody says that lmao.

Spoiler

Note to self: remember to wish Halloween worshippers a happy Satan this year.

I was going to use a different religious group for this joke at first, but I was worried they might be too vindictive.