Trump the Autocrat.

[JimL]

Er, F2, the LA Times is extremely left leaning and Schiff is head cheerleader on the impeachment bandwagon. The article itself reads like a party PSA - and offers nothing new, substantive or compelling to anyone not already in the cheer section. So, what was the point?

You have a lot of excuses, Tea. Facts obviously will never change your mind, since the facts have already been spelled out right before your eyes. Sorry, but going to have to put you in the MM category of one whose ability to think clearly and objectively is blindly biased by their ideology and tribalism.

[Teallaura]

Three have also been suggestions that Mueller's report violated DOJ rules and possibly even the law by speculating about things for which there was no compelling evidence.

Yeah, I have issues with speculation on both sides. The report should speak for itself - and evidently, it can't.

[JimL]

You don't know what I'm doing, JimmyLou.



I don't give a flyin' flip what Trump wants me to do, JimmySue -- I'm my own man.

Well that's even worse, in that case you are as treasonous as the traitorous criminal that you are defending.

[Teallaura]

You have a lot of excuses, Tea. Facts obviously will never change your mind, since the facts have already been spelled out right before your eyes. Sorry, but going to have to put you in the MM category of one whose ability to think clearly and objectively is blindly biased by their ideology and tribalism.

Think what you like - but there are no such 'facts' - there is a lot of innuendo and speculation. You can't obstruct justice without at least causing something to happen - which is totally absent in everything I've seen thus far.

Also, be careful about accusing others of tribalism - that accusation is frequently mere projection.

[Cow Poke]

Well that's even worse, in that case you are as treasonous as the traitorous criminal that you are defending.

And you are as nutty as they come. Treason has an actual definition, JimmyMarie.

[Teallaura]

Well that's even worse, in that case you are as treasonous as the traitorous criminal that you are defending.

Oh please - there isn't any charge remotely close to treason. Yeah, I've seen you lob this one several times and they have all been nonsense. My favorite was when you accused him of treason for literally doing the job of president. This is just your hatred, not your brain, talking.

[JimL]

Yeah, I have issues with speculation on both sides. The report should speak for itself - and evidently, it can't.

Yeah, it does Tea, and so too did Mueller affirm it in testimony. I honestly hope you are talking out your backside simply as an uninformed partisan, because otherwise you have serious comprehension problems.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, it does Tea, and so too did Mueller affirm it in testimony. I honestly hope you are talking out your backside simply as an uninformed partisan, because otherwise you have serious comprehension problems.

Shouldn't you be running to tell the King, ChickenJimmy?

[Teallaura]

Yeah, it does Tea, and so too did Mueller affirm it in testimony. I honestly hope you are talking out your backside simply as an uninformed partisan, because otherwise you have serious comprehension problems.

Jim, from what I've seen, you haven't understood what half this thing is saying. You keep insisting there are charges where there are none; that Mueller was inhibited from making recommendations that other Special Prosecutors have made; that there is proof where there isn't even good evidence; the Trump did things where nothing actually transpired (saying stupid things isn't doing them) and that the Mueller testimony was going to 'show us' all your claims thus far are true - which it didn't even come close.

But the funny thing here is that you are taking issue with me taking issue with MM...

[RumTumTugger]

He did, but Moscow Mitch McConnell threatened to make a spectical of it, claiming it was just some sort of tactic on Obama's part in order to help the Democrats in the upcoming election. Moscow Mitch is at it again btw, refusing to bring to the floor for a vote two bills aimed at protecting the electoral process from outside interference. Now why on earth, do you think, that Moscow Mitch would want to not do anything to protect the election process from outside interference after what we know the Russians already accomplished and what we know they are even more capable of doing now?

This is why citations matter JimL here is Obama a video uploaded October 18, 2016 from CNN 2-3 weeks before the election when everyone thought Hillary was going to win denying the claim that there was any influence.

Unlike you I'm citing my source showing you that Obama denied the influence until you cite your source for your claim that he didn't' and did try to do something about it. I backed my claim it is up to you to back up yours.

[RumTumTugger]

He actually mocked the idea that anyone could interfere with the election.

Yep and my above post shows where he did it was uploaded from CNN on October 18, 2016

[JimL]

Jim, from what I've seen, you haven't understood what half this thing is saying. You keep insisting there are charges where there are none; that Mueller was inhibited from making recommendations that other Special Prosecutors have made; that there is proof where there isn't even good evidence; the Trump did things where nothing actually transpired (saying stupid things isn't doing them) and that the Mueller testimony was going to 'show us' all your claims thus far are true - which it didn't even come close.

But the funny thing here is that you are taking issue with me taking issue with MM...

Tea, are you under the impression that attempted obstruction of Justice isn't illegal because the attempt failed? Are you under the impression that the claim of ignorance of the law excuses the breaking of it? All of your other issues have been explained ad infinitum. Whether you agree with Muellers reasons for not determining, recommending, or charging is irrelevant. Those are his reasons and they have nothing at all to do with the with the actual evidence in the report itself. You're simply trying to justify a perspective that you either know to be false, or you don't understand the law.

[RumTumTugger]

Yeah, he was busy making his own deals with the Ruskies...

wasn't this during his first term when he was running for his second?

[Teallaura]

Tea, are you under the impression that attempted obstruction of Justice isn't illegal because the attempt failed? Are you under the impression that the claim of ignorance of the law excuses the breaking of it? All of your other issues have been explained ad infinitum. Whether you agree with Muellers reasons for not determining, recommending, or charging is irrelevant. Those are his reasons and they have nothing at all to do with the with the actual evidence in the report itself. You're simply trying to justify a perspective that you either know to be false, or you don't understand the law.

No, I think you have to actually make a substantive effort before a crime occurs. There has to be an actual crime - being talked out of committing one isn't itself a crime. Not even a little bit. And that's as close as it gets to actual obstruction. It's not at all surprising that Mueller failed to make a determination - what's surprising is that he was dumb enough to include the implication (and again, brings up the issue of who wrote this thing?).

[RumTumTugger]

Do you recall the reaction to Obama's election?

You really want to go there Jim B. Ok I guess you do.

I didn't see any destruction of property, calling those who voted for Obama bigots or folks trying to shut down the free speak of liberals did you? I thought not. I did not see was any Republican congresswoman or man calling for their constituents to get in the face of anyone who worked for Obama's administration when they were going about their day to day business business of just being to make their lives miserable and not be able to do things normal people could like shopping, going to a restaurant etc. did you I thought not. I saw the Republicans in office saying they were going to try and block any of Obama's policies they didn't think were good for America. What I did not see is the Republicans in congress promise to impeach Obama before he even got into office on a trumped up charge and neither did you.