|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Jul 24, 2019 13:07:44 GMT -8
This guy knows what is going on. A Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee ripped into Robert Mueller at Wednesday’s hearing, claiming that the special counsel violated Justice Department principles when he failed to decide if President Trump committed a crime without exonerating him. “Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” asked Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, a former federal prosecutor. “Where does that language come from, director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?” When Mueller didn’t respond, Ratcliffe asked the 74-year-old former special counsel to “give an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined.” “I cannot, but this is a unique situation —” Mueller said before he was interrupted by Ratcliffe. “Let’s just leave it at you can’t find it because — I’ll tell you why — it doesn’t exist,” said Ratcliffe. A “unique situation”...idiot, the law is specifically designed to avoid unique situations. The laws, policies, etc are designed so you, I...and yes, Donald Trump get treated the same. The difference is that Mueller and the deep state hate Trump because he’s not a politician and they’re more than willing to destroy him because he’s an outsider.
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Jul 24, 2019 13:12:47 GMT -8
Regarding the “1.1-1.2b cost to 40 states and DC”. Is that money the feds have to pay the states, or money the states will choose to pay if the feds cut this program? The article made it seem like it would be administrative costs to the states to comply with the removal of an automatic registration program TRO If the feds are forcing this on the states then they should pay these administrative costs. And while those costs cut into the savings, I still support cutting it. We have to start cutting the federal government and its departments/programs and get the debt down. If these costs are the result of a state providing this program on their own (as Cali and some other states have done with previous eliminated fed programs) then tough on them and the feds should let those states eat the costs.
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Jul 24, 2019 13:15:02 GMT -8
Oh please. It happens all the damn time where someone is not prosecuted because there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt at that time. To exonerate someone, legally (and Haywood, please let me know if I am off base), is to state conclusively they cannot be proven to have committed the crime. To say you cannot prove someone is innocent is not the same as saying you cannot prove someone to not be guilty (legally). It’s picking nits, and very careful words selected by Mr. Mueller, but being unable to prove someone is innocent is not the same as exonerating that person. Mr. Ratcliffe also selected his words very carefully (something I would expect from any former prosecutor) to imply something which is not there. TRO This is what made the report regarding obstruction of justice so questionable. It is not the job of the special counsel or a prosecutor to exonerate someone of a crime. Hell, even a jury doesn't exonerate someone of a crime. They find them not-guilty which does not necessarily mean innocent. The report should have simply stated that they are not charging Trump with obstruction of justice. Mueller, or the person who wrote the report, was trying to have it both ways with the we do not exonerate statement in the report. Based on what I have read today Mueller several times was unfamiliar with what was stated in the report so it leads to the belief that he wasn't heavily involved in writing it. I didn't watch the testimony but the one question I would want asked is when did Mueller come to the conclusion that there was no collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia? If he came to that conclusion prior to the 2018 elections and didn't state it publicly that, in and of itself, is in a way interfering with the election because it left out there the now blown apart claims of Trump colluding with Russia which played a major factor in the Dems taking the house back over. And the more I watched today it sure did seem like he/the people doing the report did interfere with the 2018 election
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Jul 24, 2019 13:17:15 GMT -8
Here is the headline: Black voters say they will remember Trump's racist tweets www.apnews.com/cdfdd19f44db4fb6b1ed9cbac9d5d287What the story does not bother to cover is that black voters were never going to vote for ANY GOP candidate anyway. This voting block is completely alreadt decided for the foreseeable future. Turnout could be in play but who they will vote for is not and it has been this way a very long time. So go ahead with your empty threats and vote exactly the way you were going to anyway. Your blind loyalty to a party that is selling you blame the other guy mentality is happy to keep you on the plantation. How has this blind loyalty been working for you the past few decades? The only winners are your so called leaders who do in fact make money as race hustlers. One thing I’ve learned here in the Deep South...there are some conservative black voters. Many of the Christian blacks, and there are a few here, are pro Trump. I think in the last election 5% or so of the black vote went for Trump...that must be these folks
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Jul 24, 2019 13:17:31 GMT -8
The yes or no aspect of the question and answer is refreshing, no long winded defection to the point of not even answering the question. If you cant find evidence to prosecute someone I completely understand that the person may still be guilty. I think it fair to simply say we don't have the required evidence to go forward with an indictment/prosecution. I dont know how you can ever clear someone from obstruction though because something could always come up later. In the case of a murder investigation you can clear someone through DNA or other method to 100% confirm no involvement and there is no way something will change that later. Another thing to consider. Trump was 100% cleared of collusion. Can you obstruct an investigation that was still 100% able to clear you? In my position of limited enlightenment on this specific matter, I do not think Mr. Trump obstructed justice however I do think he knowingly attempted to obstruct justice. It was only insubordination which kept Mr. Trump from doing so. TRO I assume you are talking about Trump reportedly telling one of his aides to fire Mueller and the aide didn't follow up on it? If that isn't it what are you referring to? Not arguing just wanting to know. Trump has been very public in firing people. When he fired Comey there was an official press release and a letter to Comey signed by Trump. So if he wanted to fire Mueller he wouldn't have just relied on one of his aides to deliver the message. The one area I thought Trump came dangerously close on obstruction was taking part in crafting the press release Don Jr. sent out regarding the meeting with the Russian attorney which contained false information.
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Jul 24, 2019 13:21:27 GMT -8
This guy knows what is going on. A Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee ripped into Robert Mueller at Wednesday’s hearing, claiming that the special counsel violated Justice Department principles when he failed to decide if President Trump committed a crime without exonerating him. “Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” asked Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, a former federal prosecutor. “Where does that language come from, director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?” When Mueller didn’t respond, Ratcliffe asked the 74-year-old former special counsel to “give an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined.” “I cannot, but this is a unique situation —” Mueller said before he was interrupted by Ratcliffe. “Let’s just leave it at you can’t find it because — I’ll tell you why — it doesn’t exist,” said Ratcliffe. Oh please. It happens all the damn time where someone is not prosecuted because there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt at that time. To exonerate someone, legally (and Haywood, please let me know if I am off base), is to state conclusively they cannot be proven to have committed the crime. To say you cannot prove someone is innocent is not the same as saying you cannot prove someone to not be guilty (legally). It’s picking nits, and very careful words selected by Mr. Mueller, but being unable to prove someone is innocent is not the same as exonerating that person. Mr. Ratcliffe also selected his words very carefully (something I would expect from any former prosecutor) to imply something which is not there. TRO I wonder if there are different standards for a special counsel investigation? Maybe thats what Ratcliffe was getting at? This was not a grand jury, court, etc...which is where the standards you mention are usually found.
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Jul 24, 2019 13:28:18 GMT -8
Here is the correction Mr. Mueller gave today: “I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.” If you spend that much time and money and your staff is filled with democrats, and you cant determine if a crime was committed is it not fair to presume one was not then committed? If not how can you presume one was committed? Agree. While I understand the specific wording of he wasn’t “exonerated”...if all those Trump hating dems couldn't/wouldn’t/didn’t prosecute him, thats good enough for me to say the whole thing was a deep state witch hunt.
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Jul 24, 2019 13:36:53 GMT -8
The DNC has been saying for months there was solid evidence for collusion. The DNC has said that Trump will block the Mueller report or the GOP will defund it. The DNC said we should all accept the findings of the Mueller report (before it came out). Now force their savior (Mueller) to testify and they get nothing. I am glad they did this because it will only hurt them. The GOP needs to use the credibility issue. Mueller findings and also the way the Judge was treated. The judge was found guilty with ZERO evidence by the DNC. That same DNC is now complaining Al Franken was forced out despite a picture showing what he did.The DNC is open border and anti cop. If the GOP cat figure out to use these very strong middle america issues to take back the house and re-elect Trump they are idiots. This should be a very easy election as the DNC is trying to hand it all over. They are actually that tone deaf.My wife and I were talking last night...that one picture of Al Franken is more actual evidence then all the testimony, investigations, etc produced against Justice Kavenaugh. Regarding the election...you’re right it should be easy. However, Trump being such an ass hat, narcissist...and having the impulse control of a 13 year old boy, combined with 90% or more of the media being alt-lefters and willing to lie to the public will make for a close election.
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 13:39:12 GMT -8
Ha Ha Ha!
Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe, a fierce critic of President Trump, said Wednesday that former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's House Judiciary Committee hearing was a "disaster" that set back impeachment efforts.
“Much as I hate to say it, this morning’s hearing was a disaster," Tribe tweeted. "Far from breathing life into his damning report, the tired Robert Mueller sucked the life out of it. The effort to save democracy and the rule of law from this lawless president has been set back, not advanced.
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Jul 24, 2019 13:40:08 GMT -8
Oh please. It happens all the damn time where someone is not prosecuted because there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt at that time. To exonerate someone, legally (and Haywood, please let me know if I am off base), is to state conclusively they cannot be proven to have committed the crime. To say you cannot prove someone is innocent is not the same as saying you cannot prove someone to not be guilty (legally). It’s picking nits, and very careful words selected by Mr. Mueller, but being unable to prove someone is innocent is not the same as exonerating that person. Mr. Ratcliffe also selected his words very carefully (something I would expect from any former prosecutor) to imply something which is not there. TRO This is what made the report regarding obstruction of justice so questionable. It is not the job of the special counsel or a prosecutor to exonerate someone of a crime. Hell, even a jury doesn't exonerate someone of a crime. They find them not-guilty which does not necessarily mean innocent. The report should have simply stated that they are not charging Trump with obstruction of justice. Mueller, or the person who wrote the report, was trying to have it both ways with the we do not exonerate statement in the report. Based on what I have read today Mueller several times was unfamiliar with what was stated in the report so it leads to the belief that he wasn't heavily involved in writing it. I didn't watch the testimony but the one question I would want asked is when did Mueller come to the conclusion that there was no collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia? If he came to that conclusion prior to the 2018 elections and didn't state it publicly that, in and of itself, is in a way interfering with the election because it left out there the now blown apart claims of Trump colluding with Russia which played a major factor in the Dems taking the house back over. The entire investigation should have been stopped at that point...
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 13:41:19 GMT -8
The DNC has been saying for months there was solid evidence for collusion. The DNC has said that Trump will block the Mueller report or the GOP will defund it. The DNC said we should all accept the findings of the Mueller report (before it came out). Now force their savior (Mueller) to testify and they get nothing. I am glad they did this because it will only hurt them. The GOP needs to use the credibility issue. Mueller findings and also the way the Judge was treated. The judge was found guilty with ZERO evidence by the DNC. That same DNC is now complaining Al Franken was forced out despite a picture showing what he did.The DNC is open border and anti cop. If the GOP cat figure out to use these very strong middle america issues to take back the house and re-elect Trump they are idiots. This should be a very easy election as the DNC is trying to hand it all over. They are actually that tone deaf.My wife and I were talking last night...that one picture of Al Franken is more actual evidence then all the testimony, investigations, etc produced against Justice Kavenaugh. Regarding the election...you’re right it should be easy. However, Trump being such an ass hat, narcissist...and having the impulse control of a 13 year old boy, combined with 90% or more of the media being alt-lefters and willing to lie to the public will make for a close election. Lest anyone forget: On Thursday, Leeann Tweeden, a radio host and former model, came forward with the accusation that Senator Al Franken of Minnesota had kissed her against her will during a 2006 United Service Organizations trip to Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In a story posted to the website of Los Angeles’s KABC station, Tweeden shared her experience with Franken. She also shared that photo. “I couldn’t believe it,” she wrote. “He groped me, without my consent, while I was asleep.” I felt violated all over again. Embarrassed. Belittled. Humiliated. How dare anyone grab my breasts like this and think it’s funny? I told my husband everything that happened and showed him the picture. I wanted to shout my story to the world with a megaphone to anyone who would listen, but even as angry as I was, I was worried about the potential backlash and damage going public might have on my career as a broadcaster.
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Jul 24, 2019 13:45:18 GMT -8
This is what made the report regarding obstruction of justice so questionable. It is not the job of the special counsel or a prosecutor to exonerate someone of a crime. Hell, even a jury doesn't exonerate someone of a crime. They find them not-guilty which does not necessarily mean innocent. The report should have simply stated that they are not charging Trump with obstruction of justice. Mueller, or the person who wrote the report, was trying to have it both ways with the we do not exonerate statement in the report. Based on what I have read today Mueller several times was unfamiliar with what was stated in the report so it leads to the belief that he wasn't heavily involved in writing it. I didn't watch the testimony but the one question I would want asked is when did Mueller come to the conclusion that there was no collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia? If he came to that conclusion prior to the 2018 elections and didn't state it publicly that, in and of itself, is in a way interfering with the election because it left out there the now blown apart claims of Trump colluding with Russia which played a major factor in the Dems taking the house back over. And the more I watched today it sure did seem like he/the people doing the report did interfere with the 2018 election Agree 100%...anyone who doesn’t think the deep state is trying to commit a coup against Trump has their head very deep in the sand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 13:47:27 GMT -8
In my position of limited enlightenment on this specific matter, I do not think Mr. Trump obstructed justice however I do think he knowingly attempted to obstruct justice. It was only insubordination which kept Mr. Trump from doing so. TRO I assume you are talking about Trump reportedly telling one of his aides to fire Mueller and the aide didn't follow up on it? If that isn't it what are you referring to? Not arguing just wanting to know. Trump has been very public in firing people. When he fired Comey there was an official press release and a letter to Comey signed by Trump. So if he wanted to fire Mueller he wouldn't have just relied on one of his aides to deliver the message. The one area I thought Trump came dangerously close on obstruction was taking part in crafting the press release Don Jr. sent out regarding the meeting with the Russian attorney which contained false information. That is what I’m referring to. I agree there’s something a bit odd about it but he probably got some advice that a public firing of Mr. Mueller would guarantee his downfall. I wasn’t aware of the Don Jr thing until now. I suppose it is a question whether it knowingly contained false information. TRO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 13:52:51 GMT -8
This is what made the report regarding obstruction of justice so questionable. It is not the job of the special counsel or a prosecutor to exonerate someone of a crime. Hell, even a jury doesn't exonerate someone of a crime. They find them not-guilty which does not necessarily mean innocent. The report should have simply stated that they are not charging Trump with obstruction of justice. Mueller, or the person who wrote the report, was trying to have it both ways with the we do not exonerate statement in the report. Based on what I have read today Mueller several times was unfamiliar with what was stated in the report so it leads to the belief that he wasn't heavily involved in writing it. I didn't watch the testimony but the one question I would want asked is when did Mueller come to the conclusion that there was no collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia? If he came to that conclusion prior to the 2018 elections and didn't state it publicly that, in and of itself, is in a way interfering with the election because it left out there the now blown apart claims of Trump colluding with Russia which played a major factor in the Dems taking the house back over. The entire investigation should have been stopped at that point... I agree with the caveat that if evidence of another crime was found the investigation should continue. If that happened and the other crime did not involve the USAG the investigation should be reviewed for impartiality by and transfer to the USAG office. TRO
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 13:53:27 GMT -8
It is hard to believe Trump would have been so stupid to collude with the Russians given the extent that the NSA listens in on everything. Trump may be arrogant enough to think he is beyond their ability to get him but that is a pretty big bet to make. I do think Trump knew at least some aspects of what Cohen was doing on but was smart enough to have sufficient distance and deniability.
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 13:55:39 GMT -8
This coward POS needs to go to jail now:
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Jul 24, 2019 14:11:28 GMT -8
Robert Mueller told lawmakers on Wednesday that Russian interference in US political campaigns continues unabated to this day — and will likely continue through the 2020 election.
GOP Texas Rep. Will Hurd had asked: “Did you think that this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest they’ll try to do this again?” during a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee.
“It wasn’t a single attempt. They’re doing it as we sit here and they expect to do it during the next campaign,” he said.
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Jul 24, 2019 14:14:19 GMT -8
It is hard to believe Trump would have been so stupid to collude with the Russians given the extent that the NSA listens in on everything. Trump may be arrogant enough to think he is beyond their ability to get him but that is a pretty big bet to make. I do think Trump knew at least some aspects of what Cohen was doing on but was smart enough to have sufficient distance and deniability. I wonder how much the Obama administration knew about this. Hell the NSA listens to everything going on in this Country. It would be logical to think Obama at least knew what was going on
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 14:22:16 GMT -8
So now Israel is Nazi Germany:
The Michigan congresswoman was speaking against a House resolution passed Wednesday that opposes the movement because it “does not favor a two-state solution and that seeks to exclude the State of Israel and the Israeli people from the economic, cultural, and academic life of the rest of the world,” the text of HR 246 states.
Tlaib started by saying she would not allow Congress to attack the right to “boycott the racist policies of the government and state of Israel.”
“The right to boycott is deeply rooted in the fabric of our country,” Tlaib said. “What was the Boston Tea Party but a boycott? Where would we be now without the boycott led by civil rights activists in the 1950s and ’60s, like the Montgomery bus boycott and the United Farm Workers grape boycott?”
She continued that some of the country’s “most important advances in racial equality and equity and workers’ rights” have been achieved through constitutional, collective action.
“Americans boycotted Nazi Germany in response to the dehumanization, imprisonment and genocide of Jewish people,” Tlaib said.
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 14:23:29 GMT -8
Robert Mueller told lawmakers on Wednesday that Russian interference in US political campaigns continues unabated to this day — and will likely continue through the 2020 election. GOP Texas Rep. Will Hurd had asked: “Did you think that this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest they’ll try to do this again?” during a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee. “It wasn’t a single attempt. They’re doing it as we sit here and they expect to do it during the next campaign,” he said. Did anyone ask how many times and to what extent the US has interfered with other countries elections?
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 14:27:11 GMT -8
The so called community strikes again: Rapper Taymore “Tay-K” McIntyre was sentenced Tuesday to 55 years in prison for his role in the 2016 shooting death of a Texas man during a robbery gone wrong. McIntyre, who was just 16 at the time, was tried as an adult. He was convicted Friday of murder and was sentenced to 55 years in addition to a $10,000 fine for charges related to the death of 21-year-old Ethan Walker. He was also found guilty on three counts of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 30 years in prison for one charge and an additional 13 years each for the two remaining charges, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported. These sentences are set to run concurrently with his murder sentence. Prosecutors said that McIntyre, now 19, was the mastermind behind the robbery, organizing it and recruiting the man who ultimately shot and killed Walker. During the trial, prosecutors attempted to shed light on McIntyre’s violent tendencies, pointing to two separate incidents he is wanted in that allegedly occurred while he fled from authorities in the Walker case. According to the Star-Telegram, McIntyre cut his ankle monitor while on house arrest and fled to Elizabethtown, New Jersey where his record label was said to be based out of. He reportedly was involved in Arlington robbery that left one person severely injured in May 2017. He also faces a capital murder charge in San Antonio for the fatal April 2017 shooting of a photographer. McIntyre became known for his 2017 single "The Race" which appeared on Billboard's Hot 100. According to Rolling Stone Magazine, it was based off his escape from house arrest. He was arrested by U.S. Marshals the day after the video for the song was released.
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Jul 24, 2019 14:39:14 GMT -8
Robert Mueller told lawmakers on Wednesday that Russian interference in US political campaigns continues unabated to this day — and will likely continue through the 2020 election. GOP Texas Rep. Will Hurd had asked: “Did you think that this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest they’ll try to do this again?” during a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee. “It wasn’t a single attempt. They’re doing it as we sit here and they expect to do it during the next campaign,” he said. Did anyone ask how many times and to what extent the US has interfered with other countries elections? Oh we don't want to comment about that. Cough (Chile) Cough
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 14:50:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 15:04:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 15:59:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 16:10:41 GMT -8
Please Hollywood keep up the good work:
/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1154044513872015361&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs.yimg.com%2Faaq%2Fyc%2Fhtml%2Fembed-iframe-min.2d7457d4.html
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 24, 2019 16:30:15 GMT -8
Some things never change:
In 1911, Booker T. Washington wrote:
There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Jul 25, 2019 8:14:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Jul 25, 2019 8:16:49 GMT -8
It is hard to believe Trump would have been so stupid to collude with the Russians given the extent that the NSA listens in on everything. Trump may be arrogant enough to think he is beyond their ability to get him but that is a pretty big bet to make. I do think Trump knew at least some aspects of what Cohen was doing on but was smart enough to have sufficient distance and deniability. I wonder how much the Obama administration knew about this. Hell the NSA listens to everything going on in this Country. It would be logical to think Obama at least knew what was going on The Democrats want everyone to ignore the fact that all of this happened under Obama. Hell, Joe Biden was recently quoted saying that the Russians wouldn't dare try and do something like this when Obama was in office. Naturally the person doing the interview didn't point out to him that when all this happened Obama was the President.
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Jul 25, 2019 8:18:37 GMT -8
|
|