londonfog
Well-Known Member
you are and let me just ignore you now. Why waste time
It's Mueller Time
- Thread starter Herb & Suds
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Why not stay banned?
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
Because he has no self respect, honor or dignity and he's morally bankrupt.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
No wonder he loves trump and jizzes on pictures of trump
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
You were born as the grand finale in one. No wonder.
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
You still upset?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
don't forget to wish him namaste, you phony bitch
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
What does Dershowitz say:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445983-dershowitz-shame-on-robert-mueller-for-exceeding-his-role
The statement by special counsel Robert Mueller in a Wednesday press conference that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said that” is worse than the statement made by then FBI Director James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. Comey declared in a July 2016 press conference that “although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information.”
Comey was universally criticized for going beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Clinton. Mueller, however, did even more. He went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Democrats in Congress who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump. By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings. Obstruction of justice is a “high crime and misdemeanor” which, under the Constitution, authorizes impeachment and removal of the president.
Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.
Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor, and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.
Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.
That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence, and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment.
No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other. I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. His new book is “The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump.” You can follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445983-dershowitz-shame-on-robert-mueller-for-exceeding-his-role
The statement by special counsel Robert Mueller in a Wednesday press conference that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said that” is worse than the statement made by then FBI Director James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. Comey declared in a July 2016 press conference that “although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information.”
Comey was universally criticized for going beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Clinton. Mueller, however, did even more. He went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Democrats in Congress who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump. By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings. Obstruction of justice is a “high crime and misdemeanor” which, under the Constitution, authorizes impeachment and removal of the president.
Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.
Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor, and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.
Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.
That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence, and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment.
No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other. I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. His new book is “The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump.” You can follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
dershowitz is a pedophile you phony sack of shit
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
A pedo as well as s confirmed Trump sucker from Day 1. Bughumper has zero clue. But it’s totally obvious that the fuck is a troll. One that doesn’t know when to submerge.
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
Dervoshitz wrote a book about not impeaching the bastard before the Mueller Report came out. No wonder Bughumper likes him.
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
But Buggy didn’t vote for him supposedly. Probably went with writing in Vermin Supreme or the Libertarian candidate since Putin wasn’t on the ballot.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yeah, he likes to tell that lie a lot. but we all saw him celebrate alongside white supremacists on election night and praise him after he called neo-nazis very fine people and said jews were doing hate crimes to themselves to make him look bad
hotrodharley
Well-Known Member
I once worked at the Texas state prison that housed the criminally insane as well as any other person needing medical care. I’m very familiar with the thought patterns of some of the guys as many freely shared.
“I was never at that 7-11. Especially with a gun.”
“Nope wasn’t me. I can’t drive, mister, so it couldn’t have been me.”
“How come nobody goes after that other guy? I didn’t do anything”. (Despite surveillance video and pics showing otherwise).
Expert liars until the lie runs its course.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i don't think buggy qualifies. he's a terrible liar. he's so bad at it
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Senate does not impeach, genius. Senate decides how to punish an impeached president. Impeachment power belongs to the house.
If there's one fucking thing Trump supporters have in common, it's that they always have an opinion about things they don't understand.
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
im pretty sure the senate holds impeachment trial. Something about 2/3 needed to convict. Good luck with that!
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Unapologetically stupid Trump supporter is trolling the thread about Mueller. Has he ever contributed to the forum with anything other than unapologetically stupid trolling?
If not, it's time to ban.
If not, it's time to ban.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You weren't so sure in your previous comment. It is clear that you thought that the senate has power of impeachment.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Mueller provided everything a court needs in order to convict individual 1 for obstruction of justice. It's an open and shut, slam dunk case. He obstructed justice. However, in order to indict a sitting president, the house must impeach. The speaker of the house has chosen not to impeach because such an indictment will be served to a biased body, the GOP controlled senate.
TRUMP WANTS TO BE IMPEACHED so that he can escape punishment for his crimes. If the house does not impeach, any court in the country can try him and he will be easily convicted once he is out of the oval office. He will go to prison.
TRUMP WANTS TO BE IMPEACHED so that he can escape punishment for his crimes. If the house does not impeach, any court in the country can try him and he will be easily convicted once he is out of the oval office. He will go to prison.