Unamerican Secret Trial presided by Democrat Adam Schiff

[Maximus1]

This is a waste of time. Virtually impossible to have a much stronger case of abuse of power.
Trump’s defenses last "hours “before debunked. You happen to seize on a old debunked one.
If you assume the quid pro quo was solely to investigate the 2016 conspiracy theory (which it wasn’t), the result is the same. Someone came up with that clever BS and in hours it was clear the quid pro quo was personal to Trump anyway.
Of course besides admissions and confessions, we have a gaggle of independant witnesses. We know THE MONEY WAS WITHHELD until the UKRAINE president " boxed himself in” on Biden. Just depends on which mountain of evidence we discuss.
"He could have challenged the opinion"you say, when challenging it was not his job. Supporting the AG his boss was his job and his boss was clear. And is clear with this new matter. “Mueller didnt challenge” of course is the easy answer here when it wasn’t his place as a subordinate. But let me truly explode this naked hope of an argument. MUELLERS REPORT WAS DRAFTED FOR BARR ONLY. BARR was legally the only man contemplated by the law to say anything publically. So your point is what, a tree we legally would not hear should have fallen in the Forrest? Lol
You mentioned Clinton. I am not going to bother finding out why. I will simply accept that you couldn’t address what I said and used failsafe/ Clinton function.
None of foreign aid policy extorts a foreign leader for personal benefit. As Trump did.
Finally, Mueller disputed claims that his report somehow said no obstruction. A fraud made upon the American people.

 

[Maximus1]

I am sorry, I cannot dignify your post with a response. I saw the OJ trial, I understand jury nullification better than most.
First! We do not have a transcript. We have a hypnotic form of fraud that keeps repeating that, when it is far from true.
We have a summary which after Barrs report, is most likely self serving. If a real transcript exists, the public has not seen it yet.
Collusion is not a legal term. It did not appear in the Mueller report except with an explanation why it does not appear.
The reason for Dems to do this is they were forced to.
There is a clear abuse of power and violation of election law. We just got past Russia and I two weeks, Trump decided that he will do it again. If they ignore it they violate their own oaths.
Clinton server is nuttier than Pizzagate. Unless they have people like you, and desire to lift Putin sanctions.

 

[JonNC]

The object of the sentence was “approach”. There was not an decision made on the basis of the evidence to decline prosecution, there was an approach that avoided of the very question - just an investigation to gather the facts.

If there was not a decision to proceed with an indictment, it was a decision not to.
There was not evidence to proceed.

It really isn’t that hard to understand what Mueller is clearly saying.

Correct. “ We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.”
Declination. Pure and simple.

No. It leaves that for Congress to evaluate.

Because he doesn’t say a Trump used his power corruptly.
Declination.

The reason that he is being investigated is for the recognized abuse of power.

Imagined, no, wished for abuse of power. There has been no abuse of power.

 

[JonNC]

This is a waste of time. Virtually impossible to have a much stronger case of abuse of power.

Except there isn’t an abuse of power, except perhaps by some in the intel community, perhaps the Obama administration, Biden, and Schiff.

If you assume the quid pro quo was solely to investigate the 2016 conspiracy theory (which it wasn’t), the result is the same.

The Schiff-intel collusion Democrat whistleblower targeted the Biden situation. There was no quid pro quo.

We know THE MONEY WAS WITHHELD until the UKRAINE president " boxed himself in” on Biden.

lol. Talk about BS. That is so far from the facts it is hilarious. The money was withheld because Ukraine had been a long time corrupt government. I commend Trump for his reluctance to watch more US tax dollars disappear into a foreign corrupt money pit.

You mentioned Clinton. I am not going to bother finding out why. I will simply accept that you couldn’t address what I said and used failsafe/ Clinton function.

I know that you want to avoid the real corruption, the real collusion. I understand.

There is a clear abuse of power and violation of election law. We just got past Russia and I two weeks, Trump decided that he will do it again. If they ignore it they violate their own oaths.

The clear abuse of power may have been Biden, then the Democrat senators who issued a quid pro quo last year. But the greatest abuse of power was by the intel community during the last election.

 

[JonNC]

I am sorry, I cannot dignify your post with a response.

Your response was about 4 paragraphs.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Nope you are absolutely incorrect

 

[dvdjs]

There was not evidence to proceed.

That notion is not in the report.
What I discussed above was.
Can we really not agree to inform discussion of the Mueller report to what is actually in the report?

Correct. “ We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.”

That was an a priori decision, not. declination for lack of evidievce. Crystal clear from the report.

There has been no abuse of power.

That is what is being investigated, and it is for Congress to decide the case.
Why are you interested in pre-judging before you have the facts?

 

[JonNC]

That notion is not in the report.

Then there was evidence to proceed, but Mueller chose not to proceed. That’s incompetence. Right? He didn’t even he would have had it not been for the OLC opinion.
What’s not in the report is evidence of a crime.

Can we really not agree to inform discussion of the Mueller report to what is actually in the report?

Don’t expect me to access your incorrect spin.

That was an a priori decision, not. declination for lack of evidievce. Crystal clear from the report.

A decision to not indict is declination. These are the two choices of a prosecutor.

That is what is being investigated, and it is for Congress to decide the case.

Yes, and thank goodness Barr appointed Durham to do just that.

Why are you interested in pre-judging before you have the facts?

I’m not. I’ll wait and see what Durham says. What I won’t do is spin it like progressives do the Mueller report.

 

[dvdjs]

Then there was evidence to proceed…

That notion is not in the report.

Don’t expect me to access your incorrect spin.

It is not spin to stick to what is in the report. Going beyond it, that is where the spin begins.

A decision to not indict is declination.

We’ve through this before. Indicting or declination do not entail all the possibilities.

Yes, and thank goodness

I am glad that you are on board with the Congressional inquiry

I’m not. I’ll wait and see what Durham says.

Durham has no say on the Congressional impeachment inquiry.

 

[JonNC]

That notion is not in the report.

Exactly. There was no evidence to proceed.

It is not spin to stick to what is in the report. Going beyond it, that is where the spin begins.

And the report did not include indictment or recommendation of prosecution. Hence, declination.

Durham has no say on the Congressional impeachment inquiry.

Durham is the one doing the actual investigation. Schiff and a Pelosi are running a dog and pony show.

 

[dvdjs]

There was no evidence to proceed.

Again, that is not in the report.

declination.

That is not a fair interpretation of what is actually in the report.

Durham is the one doing the actual investigation

Durham is doing an investigation. Schiff is conducting the impeachment inquiry.

Of course you know all of this.
We’ll see how it all turns out.

 

[JonNC]

Again, that is not in the report.

Then he should have indicted. He had an obligation to indict if there was evidence of criminal behavior.

That is not a fair interpretation of what is actually in the report.

Without an indictment, it is the only fair interpretation.

We’ll see how it all turns out.

Indeed we shall.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

@dvdjs already quoted this to you a while back. Was there something that you didn’t understand?

“We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes,” the report said. Because Justice Department policy holds that a sitting president can’t be subject to trial, an accusation of criminal conduct would put a president in limbo, under a cloud, but unable to clear himself, he wrote.

 

[dvdjs]

Then he should have indicted

He did what he did. I think it is likely that he did it without consultation about what you think he should have done.

Without an indictment, it is the only fair interpretation.

Nope. Please consider reading the report.

 

[Maximus1]

OK you got me. I get it now. That was a funny funny post. Good job.
Trump will be impeached within 60-90 days. Thereafter that will be his historical status for a century.
That is one of the most satisfying events of justice ever. I just want to relish the days.

 

[JonNC]

We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes,”

I understand it quite well. He didn’t commit crimes.

 

[JonNC]

He did what he did. I think it is likely that he did it without consultation about what you think he should have done.

It has nothing to do with what I think he should do. Prosecutors have two choices: indict or decline to indict. He chose not to indict.

Nope. Please consider reading the report.

I didn’t find an indictment in the report. Please point it out to me.
If there is none there, then he declined to indict.

 

[dvdjs]

It has nothing to do with what I think he should do.

You are the one saying he shoudda.

I didn’t find an indictment in the report.

That is not relevant to what had been being discussed.
You know better,

I understand it quite well. He didn’t commit crimes.

No, perhaps you don’t

 

[JonNC]

OK you got me. I get it now. That was a funny funny post. Good job.
Trump will be impeached within 60-90 days. Thereafter that will be his historical status for a century.
That is one of the most satisfying events of justice ever. I just want to relish the days.

He will he impeached by a corrupt Democrat leadership in conjunction with corrupt individuals in the intel community.
The impeachment of Clinton was stupid. This one will be deeply destructive to the republic.
But that has been the “resist” goal since November 2016.

 

[dvdjs]

This one will be deeply destructive to the republic.

Failing to impeach Trump will be destructive to the Republic.
His abuse of power cannot go without sanction.