Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
disgruntledemployee

The Next President is...

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, BFM this said:

The media is tracking this,they could make a whole lot of hay out of it if they want to.  Thankfully they didn’t see the negative Obama patches I’ve seen floating around.  The libs starting kicking out ROTC  programs from universities in the 90’s due to don’t ask don’t tell, of course the more liberal colleges obliged (I got caught in the middle of it, college I wanted to go to kicked ROTC out).  All that was left was ROTC detachments a conservative schools, 25 years later you get a lot of more conservative officers running your Air Force.  I’m not complaining, im in that group, but the “chickens” have definitely come home to roost.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, waveshaper said:

FYI; Mueller will be speaking live today at 11:00 AM ET.

Just watched it, can’t wait to watch the temper tantrums from the left!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said Russians were innocent until proven guilty but he could not prove the President was not guilty. Interesting difference of legal standard that does not exist but the liberals are going to go full retard babbling about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TreeA10 said:

He said ... he could not prove the President was not guilty. Interesting difference of legal standard that does not exist... 

Right? You really can’t prove the negative, which is why our legal system is set up to reasonably prove the positive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He said Russians were innocent until proven guilty but he could not prove the President was not guilty. Interesting difference of legal standard that does not exist but the liberals are going to go full retard babbling about it. 

That’s not at all what he said. He clearly implicated the Russians as behind election meddling. Don’t you think the “innocent until proven guilty” bit refers to the several indictments already brought forward in the criminal system?

You know what Mueller said about bringing criminal charges against a sitting president. Just because he can’t be indicted in a criminal court doesn’t mean an investigation has to turn a blind eye to evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s not at all what he said. He clearly implicated the Russians as behind election meddling. Don’t you think the “innocent until proven guilty” bit refers to the several indictments already brought forward in the criminal system?

You know what Mueller said about bringing criminal charges against a sitting president. Just because he can’t be indicted in a criminal court doesn’t mean an investigation has to turn a blind eye to evidence.

Remember a week before Barr’s statements when everybody in the media and all the former Obama appointees like Clapper were talking about impending charges against Kushner and others in Trump’s circle.... The Circle that would have built and maintained a criminal conspiracy that we were being promised.

That is why 65-70% of Americans don’t support impeachment. It’s got nothing to do with Trump is a terrible person. It’s because we were all sold BS about Russian manipulation and deals between Trump and the Kremlin for quid pro quo that turned out to be conspiracy vapor. Now that those are dead you want to sell us on obstruction which in any other world would have just been political defense but because Trump now it’s a crime worth of burning the house down. Sorry not buying it. The powers that wanted him out way overplayed a bad hand thinking in the end they would get away with the bluff.

Message to Democrats: “Beat him with a good candidate or settle in for 5 and a half more years of pulling your hair out screaming at the sky.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MechGov said:


That’s not at all what he said. He clearly implicated the Russians as behind election meddling. Don’t you think the “innocent until proven guilty” bit refers to the several indictments already brought forward in the criminal system?

You know what Mueller said about bringing criminal charges against a sitting president. Just because he can’t be indicted in a criminal court doesn’t mean an investigation has to turn a blind eye to evidence.

Which it didn't do.  Mueller - former head of the FBI and personal friend of fired Comey - and his team - literally lawyers who represented Hillary and/or her Foundation - didn't turn a blind eye toward anything Trump.  And found nothing to charge him with, DOJ finding about indicting a sitting president or not.  Not one charge was substantiated, only "not not substantiated."  Which means what, exactly?  Pretty sure that "innocent until proven guilty" is still a thing.

Mueller's endgame was to tee this up for the impeachment crowd.

Bring it.  I'll buy the beer.

 

I look forward to the investigations into the infamous Dossier, the Comey/McCabe?Ohr/Strzyk/Page/Clapper/and especially Brennan's roles in this "matter (see what I did there?", and the 300+ unmasking of AMCITs' communications in the closing days of the Obama Administration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

And found nothing to charge him with, DOJ finding about indicting a sitting president or not.

To be clear, it was Barr, not Mueller, who said that Mueller hadn’t found anything to charge him with, regardless of DOJ policy. Tell me if that matches Mueller’s opinion on the matter, verbatim from the statement he gave earlier this week:

“...we did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. The special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.

The department's written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you.

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion said that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. So that was justice department policy, those were the principles under which we operated and from them, we concluded we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

Full transcript

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I speak for a lot of people when I say I sure wish even half this level of scrutiny would have been levied on the previous President when he was candidate and then during 8 years in office.

Bill Ayers, IRS targeting, Fast and Furious, pallets of cash sent to Iran, Hillary selling uranium, unconstitutional Obamacare changes, etc etc. Those are just a few off the top of my head. The disparity is disgusting and it should enrage any American citizen. I’m all for holding leadership accountable, but accountability should be equitable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MooseAg03 said:

I know I speak for a lot of people when I say I sure wish even half this level of scrutiny would have been levied on the previous President when he was candidate and then during 8 years in office.

Bill Ayers, IRS targeting, Fast and Furious, pallets of cash sent to Iran, Hillary selling uranium, unconstitutional Obamacare changes, etc etc. Those are just a few off the top of my head. The disparity is disgusting and it should enrage any American citizen. I’m all for holding leadership accountable, but accountability should be equitable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What exactly are Unconstitutional Obamacare changes? The Republicans via Gingrich & Co. had impeachment proceeds over ing an intern.  I’d rather spend tax payer money to see if a president/candidate conspired with a foreign entity via an investigation than towards to see if a president got his dick wet.

And If Brick wants to refer to Mueller as just a “friend of Comey” you can add in all the years of service he’s provided this country as a Marine, Ranger, in Vietnam who was awarded the Bronze Star with Valor and Purple Heart to a U.S Attorney and FBI Director. That man has done more for this country in a few years than most of us will do in our lives. Regardless of how you feel about the investigation, he did what he was appointed to do and deserves our respect.

Edited by Sua Sponte
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

What exactly are Unconstitutional Obamacare changes?

Employee reporting delay, Medicare advantage, conscience mandate, premium assistance credits, disregarding statutory fpl floor, employer sponsored credit extension, delayed auto enrollment, tax credits for illegal immigrants, closing the high risk pool, and 32 other ‘fixes’ that were unilaterally implemented in direct contravention of the law that was passed by Congress (the legislative branch). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, HU&W said:

Employee reporting delay, Medicare advantage, conscience mandate, premium assistance credits, disregarding statutory fpl floor, employer sponsored credit extension, delayed auto enrollment, tax credits for illegal immigrants, closing the high risk pool, and 32 other ‘fixes’ that were unilaterally implemented in direct contravention of the law that was passed by Congress (the legislative branch). 

Well, surely one would sue and preserve those unconstitutional changes to file a writ of certiorari to have the SCOTUS rule on the law like they did in King v. BurwellHalbig v. Burwell, etc? Also, the list you made is a little misleading. There are plenty of states (Minnesota, Washington, Wyoming, etc) that still have high risk pools. It's a state-by-state issue due to funding. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

What exactly are Unconstitutional Obamacare changes? The Republicans via Gingrich & Co. had impeachment proceeds over ing an intern.  I’d rather spend tax payer money to see if a president/candidate conspired with a foreign entity via an investigation than towards to see if a president got his dick wet.

And If Brick wants to refer to Mueller as just a “friend of Comey” you can add in all the years of service he’s provided this country as a Marine, Ranger, in Vietnam who was awarded the Bronze Star with Valor and Purple Heart to a U.S Attorney and FBI Director. That man has done more for this country in a few years than most of us will do in our lives. Regardless of how you feel about the investigation, he did what he was appointed to do and deserves our respect.

Mueller served the country well in previous guises although Steven Hatfill might feel otherwise.  That service does not negate the facts of his selection of his team - his deputy not only contributed to Hillary's campaign - not illegal or necessarily disqualifying - but attended her victory party in New York, an invitation only event (Wah wah…).  Weissman also has a history of playing fast and loose with prosecutorial standards with numerous subsequent overturns of his convictions because of his methods.

Numerous of Mueller's other subordinates were literally employed by the Clintons and/or their foundation.  Nor in his investigation, did he look at the sources of the charges - the dossier, the unmaskings of US citizens' communications, etc.  Hmmm, "go investigate the President but don't take a hard look at the things that make us think you should investigate."  Bold move to do so without checking the veracity of the claims it seems to me.

The appearance of justice is just as important for an informed citizenry to accept a legal system as fair-ish as the pursuit of justice.  With his personal selections of his subordinates, Mueller disregarded that appearance.

If the same sort of team had been raised against Obama, or more specifically, YOU for something, would you be ok with the seemingly inherent bias of such a team?  

Prior service by anyone is not carte blanche for subsequent shenanigans.

 

One assumes you are ok with the investigation into the investigation?  Should the actions of Comey/Brennan/Clapper/Powers/et al be looked at or were they the a bit suspect in their actions?  Investigations are good, no?  If there's nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.  At least that's what I've told over and over for the past two years by Congress/Media/liberals (but that's redundant).

And if they did nothing wrong, then the investigation(s) will so find and show the original investigation into Trumpworld was on the up and up.

Edited by brickhistory
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the the Deputy AG was the final authority for said team when hey were hired (since Mueller worked directly for Rosenstein) and could ultimately voir dire (challenge) anyone off the team. If you’ve ever stepped foot in a criminal court room, you would know that you can challenge for cause any attorney, and even the judge, on the record for bias. Any member of Congress could’ve raised the issue as well. Your argument is moot. 

“One would you assume you are...” Pretty bold statement, I for one could care less because I’m neither left or right. I however don’t use confirmation bias and tin foil hat theories to construct some alternate theory of things. “Fast band loose with prosecutional standards” that’s also a pretty bold statement since the prosecutor is the arguably most powerful person in the court room and has very wide latitude on how to conduct their duties. If one was playing “fast and loose” which violated rights of the accused or ethical standards, then there’s a state bar to have a complaint file upon an attorney. 

You don’t really know what he looked at completely because you saw a redacted report, like everyone else but people that needed to know. There were pages that were almost fully redcacted, so to claim something like that is hyperbole. 

At the end of the day I would like this country to move on. Mueller did his job that he was assigned to do. He didn’t find Russian interference on Trump’s part and for those that did, they’re either in prison, awaiting trial, or already got out. He couldn’t make a determination, much like a hung jury, beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed obstruction. But even if he had, the DOJ policy, not a law, states they weren’t going to charge him as a sitting president anyway. I do have a feeling that the states that have brought charges against Trump e.g. New York, will have a different conclusion and there will be a penalty landscape for him to trek across, but I feel they’ll wait for him to leave office before that happens baring any statue of limitation issues they might run into.

I think the Dems wanting to shake the proverbial tree for fruit to fall down from this makes them look flat out silly and desperate. They’re so fractured, Trump will most likely win reelection in 2020. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

 If you’ve ever stepped foot in a criminal court room, you would know that...

Go with experience 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

 

Go with experience 

Bachelors in Political Science. Oh, the other thing? Be over 20 years so you can retire if you’re court martialed.

 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Bachelors in Political Science. Oh, the other thing? Be over 20 years so you can retire if you’re court martialed.

 

No, I was more referring to your vast knowledge of the courtroom. Or, more likely, lack thereof. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

No, I was more referring to your vast knowledge of the courtroom. Or, more likely, lack thereof. 

Where’d you go to law school? I’m going to one in the east coast myself.

Edited by Sua Sponte
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Where’d you go to law school? I’m going to one in the west coast myself.

I haven’t, but I recognize an overinflated self importance based on surface level knowledge when I see it. Let me know when you’ve passed the bar and actually argued something in a criminal court, I’ll take your boasting more seriously. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

I haven’t 

Copy, only thing relevant in your response.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Copy, only thing relevant in your response.

Nah, but good try. You’re like a UPT student claiming to be an expert in Air Force aviation. Spelling voir dire doesn’t make you special; set foot in the court room for real before you put people down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Nah, but good try. You’re like a UPT student claiming to be an expert in Air Force aviation. Spelling voir dire doesn’t make you special; set foot in the court room for real before you put people down. 

You mean like your peanut gallery input you provided? Remember, I’ve stepped foot in a courtroom a few times. Not that you’d know anything of what happened to me other than hearsay. 

And we were talking about the president, government, things I studied and have a degree in. You on the other hand decided to take a personal shot because you really didn’t have anything constructive to provide to the debate.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have no dog in the fight but having a BA in poly sci isn't a "credibility credential" i'd be throwing around lol

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...