Obama Implicated in the Witch Hunt

[Jerry Shugart]

You do realize that the Mueller report has far from exonerated Trump, right?

Do you yet realize that the Mueller report did in fact exonerate Trump in regard to the charges against him that he colluded with the Russians?

And are you not even aware that Attorney General William Barr and Rosenstein "have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

All you can do is to try to pour contempt on the Attorney General even though he his appointment was confimed by the Senate by a 54-45 vote.

Elections have consequences, as Obama reminded us many times. Or perhaps you have forgotten that the government of the USA is a democratic republic?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Except several well-documented cases where Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation. Each of those is a felony.

The fact of the matter is that the Mueller investigation was not obstructed so there was no obstruction of justice.

But you couldn't care less about the facts. The Dems know that they can't make a case against Trump for obstruction of justice and that is why they have put forward a so-called whistleblower to make false claims about Trump.

Now the Dems don't even want the so-called whistleblower to testify because he had no first hand knowledge and his sources don't want to be outed because they have no real evidence that Trump did anything wrong.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Do you yet realize that the Mueller report did in fact exonerate Trump in regard to the charges against him that he colluded with the Russians?

And are you not even aware that Attorney General William Barr and Rosenstein "have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

All you can do is to try to pour contempt on the Attorney General even though he his appointment was confimed by the Senate by a 54-45 vote.

Elections have consequences, as Obama reminded us many times. Or perhaps you have forgotten that the government of the USA is a democratic republic?

Um, no. He was not exonerated at all.

https://www.rferl.org/a/judge-order...complete-report-on-russia-probe/30237536.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50178197

Maybe you just want to write off this as a "witch hunt" as the current occupant of the WH tries to...

 

[jgarden]

LOL. Barack Obama is going to love this interview his former DIA James Clapper just gave to CNN about the Durham probe: “It’s frankly disconcerting to be investigated for having done... what we were told to do by the president of the United States.”

The Durham investigation now has evidence that implicates Obama in the witch hunt! Happy Halloween, Barack Hussein Obama! You should have known better than to trust a slime-ball like Clapper!

Birds of a feather flock together!

Trump assured the American public for 5 years that he had evidence that proved President Obama was not born in America - we're still waiting!

 

[Arthur Brain]

Trump assured the American public for 5 years that he had evidence that proved President Obama was not born in America - we're still waiting!

Along with his tax returns...

:rain:

 

[The Barbarian]

The fact of the matter is that the Mueller investigation was not obstructed so there was no obstruction of justice.

The fact of the matter is that it's a felony to even attempt obstructin. But you couldn't care less about the facts. The Dems know that Mueller's report makes a case against Trump for attempted obstruction of justice but Trump's attempt to get Ukraine to interfere in our elections is an entirely separate crime.

Now the Dems don't even want the so-called whistleblower to testify

In fact, after the committee sessions,the whistleblower will be at public hearings. Fox News's Judge Napolitano explains why:

because he had no first hand knowledge and his sources don't want to be outed because they have no real evidence that Trump did anything wrong.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Um, no. He was not exonerated at all.

I'll believe the conclusions of the Department of Justice instead of you.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The fact of the matter is that it's a felony to even attempt obstructin.

Do you really think that Trump thought that firing anyone would bring an end to the Witch Hunt?

Of course not so nothing he attempted to do was an effort to bring an end to the investigation concerning him and Russia.

I notice that the Democrats couldn't have cared less that crooked Hillary did in fact obstruct justice when she destroyed thousands upon thousands of her subpoenaed emails. You people are the biggest hypocrites who ever lived.

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you really think that Trump thought that firing anyone would bring an end to the Witch Hunt?

He thought that firing Mueller would put an end to the investigation. The one as you know, that took down several criminals in Trump's organization. Would you like to see that, again?

(deflection attempt)

Nice try. But you can't impeach Hillary Clinton. If you think there's sufficient evidence that she committed a crime,I suggest that you present it to Trump's Attorney General. Can you guess why he's not indicting her? It's not because he admires her or that his boss loves her.

As Fox commentator Judge Napolitano said, what Trump did are federal crimes. No maybe about it. We'll have to wait until he's not president, in order to bring him to justice.

Patience.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He thought that firing Mueller would put an end to the investigation.

That is ridiculous! The Dems control the House of Representatives and there was no way that they would let the Witch Hunt die. And Trump knew that. He wanted a fair investigation and that is why he wanted Mueller to be fired. Do you think that anyone who knew anything about who was managing the Mueller investigation, Andrew Weissmann, would even dream that Trump would get a fair hearing? Of course not!

And in the end it wasn't a fair hearing because the conclusion was that Trump wasn't exonerated. That is not the way that the American Justice system works but instead that is the tactics used by the Communists. When someone is brought up on charges he is not required to prove his innocence but instead the state must prove he is guilty. Since the Mueller investigation was not able to prove that Trump was guilty of anything they used the tactics favored by the Commies and assert that Trump didn't prove his innocence.

You and your crew are now employing the tactics employed by the Commies and you are speeding toward socialism as fast as you can go!

May the LORD have mercy on the USA because with your bunch we are going to need it.

 

[The Barbarian]

This was funny for a while, Jerry, but now it's just sad. But this misconception was worth debunking:

And in the end it wasn't a fair hearing because the conclusion was that Trump wasn't exonerated.

Quite properly so, since the Justice Department has ruled that a sitting president can't be indicted. That being so, Mueller couldn't indict Trump, only note that he was no exonerated.

That is not the way that the American Justice system works but instead that is the tactics used by the Communists.

Its the way American justice works. Investigations are like grand jury deliberations. They aren't public, and they don't decide innocence or guilt. They only decide if there's sufficient evidence to indict.

When someone is brought up on charges he is not required to prove his innocence but instead the state must prove he is guilty.

That will have to wait until Trump is no longer president. Or when he faces the senate in trial. Then, as you say, the state will have to demonstrate his guilt. As Judge Napolitano has pointed out, that is already a documented fact. But it's looking increasingly likely that the Senate (and later, a jury) will have to decide that.

Patience.

 

[jgarden]

LOL. Barack Obama is going to love this interview his former DIA James Clapper just gave to CNN about the Durham probe: “It’s frankly disconcerting to be investigated for having done... what we were told to do by the president of the United States.”​

https://www.zerohedge.com/political...ence-clapper-allegedly-issued-kill-shot-order​

The Durham investigation now has evidence that implicates Obama in the witch hunt! Happy Halloween, Barack Hussein Obama! You should have known better than to trust a slime-ball like Clapper!

Birds of a feather flock together!

Obama Implicated in the Witch Hunt

What Trump and his surrogates like "Jerry Shugart" in their infinite wisdom fail to recognize is that in their rush to use the Department of Justice to extract their personal revenge, they are merely setting the stage for the next Democratic president to investigate "The Donald," his family and his associates once he leaves office!

Instead of receiving the accolades of an adoring crowd at Sunday's Game 5 of the World Series for the "termination" of ISIS leader "al-Baghdadi" that he announced earlier that morning, Trump was greeted by loud booing and chants of "lock him up!"

If that's the kind of reception Trump receives on what should have been a political "victory lap," it appears that the American public may have already concluded as to who are the real "slime balls" in American politics, and their verdict doesn't appear to favor this President and his associates!

 

[Rusha]

Obama Implicated in the Witch Hunt
What Trump and surrogates like "Jerry Shugart" fail to comprehend that in their rush to use the Department of Justice to extract their revenge, they are merely setting the stage for the next Democratic president to investigate "The Donald," his family and his associates!

That will be awesome. :cloud9:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This was funny for a while, Jerry, but now it's just sad. But this misconception was worth debunking:

So you actually think that a defendant in a criminal case must prove his innocence? Please read the following:

BURDEN OF PROOF,
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, REASONABLE DOUBT

Under our constitutions, all defendants in criminal cases are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt is entirely on the State. The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. The defendant enters this courtroom as an innocent person, and you must consider him to be an innocent person until the State convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of every element of the alleged offense. If, after all the evidence and arguments, you have a reasonable doubt as to defendant's having committed any one or more of the elements of the offense, then you must find him not guilty.

A "reasonable doubt" is just what the words would ordinarily imply. The use of the word "reasonable" means simply that the doubt must be reasonable rather than unreasonable; it must be a doubt based on reason. It is not a frivolous or fanciful doubt, nor is it one that can easily be explained away. Rather, it is such a doubt based upon reason as remains after consideration of all the evidence that the State has offered against it. The test you must use is this: If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the State has proved any one or more of the elements of the crime charged, you must find the defendant not guilty. However, if you find that the State has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.​

https://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/misc/misc-1.htm​

The Democrats prefer the Communism system of judgment where the defendant has to prove his innocence. And that fact was obvious in the confirmation of Brett Cavanaugh hearing because the Democrats denied that he deserved a presumption of innocence because according to them we must believe the accuser, no matter how flimsy that testimony might be.

You are a communist at heart and your efforts to defend those who are traitors to the USA provides even more proof of that. You and your ilk are determined to give the government more and more power until the average citizen no longer has any rights. That is why you support those who are pushing as hard as they can for socialism.

 

[jgarden]

So you actually think that a defendant in a criminal case must prove his innocence? Please read the following:

BURDEN OF PROOF,
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, REASONABLE DOUBT

Under our constitutions, all defendants in criminal cases are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt is entirely on the State. The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. The defendant enters this courtroom as an innocent person, and you must consider him to be an innocent person until the State convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of every element of the alleged offense. If, after all the evidence and arguments, you have a reasonable doubt as to defendant's having committed any one or more of the elements of the offense, then you must find him not guilty.

A "reasonable doubt" is just what the words would ordinarily imply. The use of the word "reasonable" means simply that the doubt must be reasonable rather than unreasonable; it must be a doubt based on reason. It is not a frivolous or fanciful doubt, nor is it one that can easily be explained away. Rather, it is such a doubt based upon reason as remains after consideration of all the evidence that the State has offered against it. The test you must use is this: If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the State has proved any one or more of the elements of the crime charged, you must find the defendant not guilty. However, if you find that the State has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.​

https://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/misc/misc-1.htm​

The Democrats prefer the Communism system of judgment where the defendant has to prove his innocence. And that fact was obvious in the confirmation of Brett Cavanaugh hearing because the Democrats denied that he deserved a presumption of innocence because according to them we must believe the accuser, no matter how flimsy that testimony might be.

You are a communist at heart and your efforts to defend those who are traitors to the USA provides even more proof of that. You and your ilk are determined to give the government more and more power until the average citizen no longer has any rights. That is why you support those who are pushing as hard as they can for socialism.

Obama Implicated in the Witch Hunt

20 years ago a younger Lindsey Graham asserted during the Clinton Impeachment that being accused of a criminal act was not even a constitutional prerequisite for Congress to proceed with the impeachment of a President

According to Graham, if Congress were to conclude that soliciting "dirt" from a foreign power on one's political opponents constituted "out of bounds" behaviour, it would be fulfilling its constitutional mandate by "cleansing" the office and restoring its "honor and integrity!"

"The trial (in the Senate) is not an actual criminal proceeding and more closely resembles a civil service termination appeal in terms of the contemplated deprivation. Therefore, the removed official may still be liable to criminal prosecution under a subsequent criminal proceeding. The President may not grant a pardon in the impeachment case, but may in any resulting Federal criminal case."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

If "Jerry Shugart" had done his due diligence, he would be aware that even where a criminal act is concerned, the act of impeachment only refers to the removal of an individual from public office - the actual determination concerning punishment for the crime itself would be addressed by another trial at a later date - held before the courts, not Congress!

 

[ok doser]

If Congress concludes that soliciting "dirt" from a foreign power on one's political opponents constitutes "out of bounds" behaviour...

... they'll lose the 2020 election :banana:

 

[The Barbarian]

So you actually think that a defendant in a criminal case must prove his innocence?

Seeing as I just told you otherwise, it's hard to figure why you're pretending that I do. As you learned, when and if Trump is brought to trial (in criminal court or in impeachment), then the prosecution will have to prove he is guilty; he won't have to prove he's innocent.

In an impeachment inquiry or a grand jury investigation, there is no trial, and no one has to prove anything. At that point, the authorities only have to determine if there's sufficient evidence of guilt to warrant a trail.

That's how the founders set it up. It's the way justice works in American law.

Why you find that so objectionable, I don't know, but there certainly are nations that don't provide that kind of justice. Wouldn't it be easier on your blood pressure to find one of them?




Please read the following:

BURDEN OF PROOF,
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, REASONABLE DOUBT

Under our constitutions, all defendants in criminal cases are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt is entirely on the State. The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. The defendant enters this courtroom as an innocent person, and you must consider him to be an innocent person until the State convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of every element of the alleged offense. If, after all the evidence and arguments, you have a reasonable doubt as to defendant's having committed any one or more of the elements of the offense, then you must find him not guilty.

A "reasonable doubt" is just what the words would ordinarily imply. The use of the word "reasonable" means simply that the doubt must be reasonable rather than unreasonable; it must be a doubt based on reason. It is not a frivolous or fanciful doubt, nor is it one that can easily be explained away. Rather, it is such a doubt based upon reason as remains after consideration of all the evidence that the State has offered against it. The test you must use is this: If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the State has proved any one or more of the elements of the crime charged, you must find the defendant not guilty. However, if you find that the State has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.​

https://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/misc/misc-1.htm​

The Democrats prefer the Communism system of judgment where the defendant has to prove his innocence. And that fact was obvious in the confirmation of Brett Cavanaugh hearing because the Democrats denied that he deserved a presumption of innocence because according to them we must believe the accuser, no matter how flimsy that testimony might be.

You are a communist at heart and your efforts to defend those who are traitors to the USA provides even more proof of that. You and your ilk are determined to give the government more and more power until the average citizen no longer has any rights. That is why you support those who are pushing as hard as they can for socialism.[/QUOTE]

 

[jgarden]

... they'll lose the 2020 election :banana:

When the polls of The Donald's "enablers" at FOXNEWS show that the majority of Americans support this President's impeachment and removal from office, even the "alternative" facts in Trumpworld are less than encouraging!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

When the polls of The Donald's "enablers" at FOXNEWS show that the majority of Americans support this President's impeachment and removal from office, even the "alternative" facts in Trumpworld are less than encouraging!

All the polls predicted that crooked Hillary would win but that didn't happen.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If "Jerry Shugart" had done his due diligence, he would be aware that even where a criminal act is concerned, the act of impeachment only refers to the removal of an individual from public office - the actual determination concerning punishment for the crime itself would be addressed by another trial at a later date - held before the courts, not Congress!

You are wrong because being impeached does not result in a removal from public service. Bill Clinton was found guilty for perjury and impeached but he remained President.