Putting an end to an ubiquitous meme from Trump loyalists

We don't know, do we? Perhaps there were sealed indictments, but Jan 6 caused the DOJ to pause, and set a new course, why fish for tuna when marlin are showing up on the radar?

Your theory stopping theory is not even a theory.

 

The OP started with the Hillary nonsense... try and keep up
""Donnie J entered in to a conspiracy with Russians to obtain dirt on Hillary he was told was in the possession of the Russian government."" "dirt on Hillary" from the Papadopoulos spying operation overseas by foreign government agents to affect our election were her emails.... were would the Russians get her emails... from an unauthorized unsecure server she had.
The simple fact we had our own president Obama and Biden knowingly participating in an attempted coup to overthrow a duly elected president makes us a communist country. That does not happen in the US until they tried it... and now we have a Congress who is now openly investigating crimes... which is the job of the executive branch .... but you can't argue with what Zoe Lofgren..

“We’re not an arm of the Department of Justice,” Lofgren told NBC’s “Meet The Press.” “We’re a legislative committee. The DOJ have subpoena power. They could subpoena Ms. Hutchinson. I’m surprised they had not done so.”
“I was surprised that the prosecutors were surprised,” Lofgren continued. “What are they doing over there? They have a much greater opportunity to enforce their subpoenas than our legislative committee does.”

 

So to cover for your fantasy claim of why nobody was ever indicted 3 years prior to Jan 6, you now claim they all just decided to pause those indictments that they never did because of Jan 6?

Thats quite a convenient imagination you have. lol

 

You need to go stock up on tinfoil.


Do do do ... do - do do do ... do!!!!

 

Usual height. Six feet.

 

Not a single anti-Trumper testified? Not one?
"Friendly" but with nothing good to say about Trump. But none were cross examined.

 

ALL of these people worked for the Trump administration.

This is a congressional investigation, NOT a court of law. What part of that is escaping your reasoning? This should be self-evident if you actually watched any of it. They are asking specific questions about specific incidents. This is not another roundtable to praise the orange one.

From the very beginning of this investigation, Trump has been invited to attend. Why hasn't he taken up the Committee's offer?

 

That does not mean they were Trump friendly.

Right. No reason to be fair since it is not really a trial.

 

One simple fact seems to continually elude the democrats. They claim they want to get the facts. You don't get the facts without cross examination. You only get one side of the story.

 

They questioned more than 1000 people... are you saying we have seen testimony of 1000 people ? Or are they going to hide the exculpatory stuff from the publics eyes?

They have 140,000 documents... have we seen them...

The real question is will we EVER see ALL those testimonies or ALL those document... or do they disappear forever?

https://january6th.house.gov/about

 

I'm pretty certain they were. That was a unique feature this administration used, a lot! For Chrissake! They replaced the head of the DOJ to put their Trump friendly stooge!

How can you be so wilfully ignorant of this?

And again, you avoided my question...what is stopping Trump from speaking to them?

 

Again I ask.... as this committee and Pelosi just make up their own rules....
is ALL the testimonies, interviews, documents available for discovery by the Trump team IF it goes to court? Will there be a little childish hide and seek game played , which is typical of Pelosi, between the legislative branch and the executive branch that would "obstruct" Trump's team from given a fair shot at defense...

But again you can't argue with Zoe.... she admits they are chasing down criminal issue that should be the job of the executive branch... but my answer to you Zoe because you are not smart enough to figure it out... Hutchinson is a 2nd and 3rd hand witness which is not allowed in the courts, only in your little fake illegit committee..

“We’re not an arm of the Department of Justice,” Lofgren told NBC’s “Meet The Press.” “We’re a legislative committee. The DOJ have subpoena power. They could subpoena Ms. Hutchinson. I’m surprised they had not done so.”
“I was surprised that the prosecutors were surprised,” Lofgren continued. “What are they doing over there? They have a much greater opportunity to enforce their subpoenas than our legislative committee does.”

 

To only be questioned by a hostile interrogator?

 

You want someone on trumps side to testify, you can't get better than the man himself.

 

Now THAT is comedy!

 

And the committee's history of altering evidence... Cheney already cut off his "peacefully and patriotically" out of his speech

https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1359544190074519558

 

This fake illegit illegal committee is not worthy of Trump's testimony... with their history of manipulation and altering evidence they don't deserve the opportunity to change and edit what he says.

 

Squid

 

No, it's not.

Your strawman is silly, certainly.

It's a hearing, no one's liberty is at stake. It's a journey, a journey of testimony from many people so that, when all is said and done, the committee
can write a report to congress, and in that report, there is enough testimony, evidence of every kind, such that a reasonable and fair proximation what happened be told, and policy recommendations, reviews, etc., be made. If the DOJ want's to take up any part if it, it may do just that, and there, your point will be a point.

This is what Mueller stated in the opening statement

We did not address “collusion,” which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.

Mueller is speaking as a judge, or a lawyer speaks (because he is a lawyer), with articulate precision. That statement does not state that Trump did not engage in a conspiracy, it only states that they couldn't find enough evidence to justify an indictment. On top of this, they made the determination that the investigation would not even consider the criminality of Presidential acts, and that was because of the OLC memo, though they did make criminal referrals on others. The distinction is important.

People get away with crimes, all the time. Just because you weren't indicted, doesn't mean you didn't do it. Yes, the law presumes innocence, but that doesn't mean you actually are innocent. for the sake of erring on the side of liberty, we err on the side of liberty, that's all it means.

The "Law" presumes innocence. It must do that to minimize the possibility of convicting innocent people, so if the law errs, it errs on the side of liberty. That being said, that doesn't mean that sometimes innocent people get convicted, but to err or the side of liberty minimizes that prospect. On the flip side, it doesn't mean that guilty always get convicted.

Based on all I've seen, read, heard about Trump, I feel justified in holding an opinion that he is a criminal.

Sometimes when I say that is my opinion, my detractors assert, 'well, you must hold him innocent until proven guilty'. Yes, in a court of law, that's true, but it is not true in the court of public opinion. We see he's involved in shady ****, we can have an opinion about that, that is our right.

During the course of our investigation, Mueller team charged more than 30 defendants with committing federal crimes, including 12 officers of the Russian military. Seven defendants were convicted or pled guilty.

What are the odds Trump committed a crime? Hmmm? How do you live a shady life without having committed a crime yourself?

Well, let's take a look at what Mueller said when the question was put to him:

During his Wednesday testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, special counsel Robert Mueller told Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., that a president could be charged with a crime after leaving office.

Buck asked Mueller about the practices of his special counsel's office and their decision not to charge President Donald Trump with the crime of obstruction of justice.

"Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?" Ken Buck, R-Colo asked.

Mueller responded, "yes."

Buck asked again,

"You could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office,"

Mueller, "Yes".

History is replete with new facts turning up about older cases. Your statement is false.

Trump has a history of unethical behavior. It's not a stretch to believe that Trump is a criminal. He has associated with criminals.

He paid $25,000,000 to thousands of persons who were screwed out of millions from a fake university.

He was listed as co-conspirator on a felony campaign finance conviction.

His charity was forced to close because of 'illegal activity' and Trump was fined $2,000,000

Trump engaged in bank and insurance fraud and tax schemes as he reaped millions from his father.

Trump built a Golf Resort, which is failing, in Aberdeenshire Scotland, with promises of jobs, tax wealth, and the like, all of which did not come to fruition, but destroyed protected lands there.

Trump bankrupted the Taj Majat twice and left scores of investors holding the bag.

Trump as screwed a lot of people and has gotten away with it. He could be characterized as a vulture capitalist.

He's also a despicable human being. he fornicated with a pornstar and a playmate just after his newly wed wife gave birth.

25 women have accused him of sexual misconduct. it's one thing to have a couple of people accuse you because you are a celebrity, but when 25 women, both republicans an democrats, accuse you, it is only logical you are not being nice to women, sexually.

This is the man republicans believe should be president, they don't care. once upon a time, they did, but now, they don't.

For some reason, they believe the cesspool is a cool place to hangout, and I don't know why. ANd don't give me any crap about Hunter and Biden, or Hillary..

Hunter has held no office, so he is of no interest, and there is NO evidence of Joe doing anything wrong, none. Hillary's trangressions do not come anywhere close to Trump's. I know the right likes to do a whatabout, but the whatabout it's of a comparable magnitude, no where near it, and that is the big difference.


And, of late, methinks the crows are finally coming home to roost.

 

You're not interested in the truth. You'd toss the baby out with the bathwater if the baby cast Trump in a bad light.

One little screw up, for which was fixed and apologized, and you're ready to damn the whole thing.

I repeat, you are not interested in the truth or facts. You'll believe anything Trump says even if the facts of his despicable behavior is put in front of your face.

You repeat, over and over, the Trump thought - terminating cliché you know the one, 'fake' this, 'fake' that, completely oblivious to the master faker of them all, Donald Trump. The man is a phony from top to bottom.

ANd you can't see it.

Here is your master faker, when he 'identified as a democrat'



Why did he say that? Because, at the time, he was on Celebrity Apprentice.

See? Celebs are mostly dems, so he's a dem to be cool with them.

He's whatever his crowd will buy at the time the man's an empty suit.

A fake. A con man.

Get it?

No, I guess you don't.

He kicked his cerebral palsy stricken toddler nephew off the family health care plan because his niece pissed him off, so he takes it out on a sick child
That is the real Donald Trump, a pathetic, despicable human being who
deserves to be put away for the rest of his life.

 

It was a 'perhaps'

Who the **** knows.

You don't, nor do I.

BTW, that is a plausible possibility, given the slow, methodic, turn over every stone possible kind of guy Garland is.

 

Given the current state of Democrat forecast over 6 years on thousands of felony criminal claims vs indictments on Trump with a batting average of 0/20,000, i think I'll just go with Occams Razor on this one instead of a Democrat plausible possibility as thus far not one single indictment prediction has come to fruition.

 

Those are not facts. Try again.

 

I don't care whether he testifies. However, if I was him, I would only do it under favorable circumstances.