USA News and Poland - Part 1

Nonsense.

This sums it well. From dailymail.com:

Amazing! An investigation is supposed to find evidence of guilt, not proof of innocence. After all this time we finally discover Mueller is a complete legal idiot!!!

I didn't write it but I wish I did. It proves that, even with 25 lawyers in support, the chief lawyer can be a legal moron and a political tool.

We can't because none of those countries that we have saved over the years with American blood have the balls to pay us back and come to our defense if we were getting decimated like they were in a time of need.

We have no choice but to take care of ourselves without relying on someone else to wipe it for us.
Pride of America.

I suspect - very well paid legal idiot.

Too soft and weak to be a real d*ck, but dumb enough to act as dildo.

Why would we come to your defence? The world would be a better place without those leeches.

Clearly, whoever wrote that article is a political hack, or did not spend the ten minutes necessary to listen to Bob Mueller's press conference.

Mueller explained, that from the very beginning of the investigation him and his team came to the conclusion that it is impossible to indict a sitting US president, because under long-standing DoJ policy this would be considered unconstitutional. Therefore, questions regarding the president's innocence/guilt cannot be handled within the confines of the criminal justice system. Basta! Presumptions of innocence or guilt are thrown out the window here, and do not matter, and that headline therefore is bullshit. There is only one institution outside of the criminal justice system that can tackle these types of issues, and that is the Congress.

At the same time, Mueller did offer that the option of declaring the president innocent WAS on the table (at least as a courtesy they could provide, to clear the president's good name). However, Mueller and his team WERE NOT able to provide that assurance. That's it. If someone in Congress wants to pick this up and run with it they can(Dem House leadership does not want to start impeachment proceedings, but more extreme rank and file members do). This would be ill-advised however, and would do great damage to the country.

Mueller is not a "legal idiot". He has run the Federal Bureau of Investigation for longer than anyone, save J. Edgar Hoover, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. He was appointed to this investigation (his appointment pleasing both sides of the aisle), and did not volunteer for it. He was appointed because of his reputation as a consummate professional and patriot who has shed his blood for the country.

He kept silent for the entire duration of the investigation and for a month after its conclusion. His press conference lasted 10 minutes and he took no questions. He has refused to come to Congress to testify, saying he cannot say anything beyond that which is already written in his report. This is not the behavior of a political operative producing "tailored" legal conclusions (for that go to Comey).

I still have that distraught anorexic picture of Ms. Trollet some place.


Actually he works a full time job that pays well over the minimum wage that you get paid for for showing up part time.


That was already done and he just moved to another town with his karta nauczyciela like the priest do when they get caught.
Poland really does need to relax their laws to be able to do thorough personal back ground checks for such jobs.

I still dont think it would be legal to video children in Poland without parental permission. And when they do find out, could be consequences for this predator.


Karma will catch up to him, If some kids father doesnt find him first.


That conference was a clown show, he looks beat up and tired. The Dems are going to really pay the price at the ballot box if they continue down the road with these bogus partisan investigations. I haven't seen a Dem yet, that I will vote for next election.

We disagree. Prosecutors and police NEVER declare anybody innocent. Even juries return either guilty or not guilty. NEVER: innocent.

Their sole mission is to collect evidence of guilt. Period. Either they have it to proceed or they don't. If they don't, they have no right to announce: We are unable to declare Bobko to be innocent of child molestation. You would sh** a brick if such announcement was made about you by the cops or the local DA where you live.


Only God can. I will go slow now: it is impossible to prove the negative. It is impossible to prove that you DID NOT do something. Unless you have a perfect alibi: at the time of the alleged offense, you were in prison. That's the only proof that you didn't do it personally. Even being in prison does not prove that you didn't conspire.

That last appearance by the a-hole was a classic of taking a s*** and not flushing the toilet to spite the host. He added nothing to the report but still threw some mud at Trump because he could.

That is EXACTLY what Mueller's game plan was/is.
Leave a trail of bread crumbs for Congress to follow because he doesn't have any authority to charge Trump.
I am beginning to wonder if the Opposition Party will start doing Do Overs of the Do Overs.
When are they going to start charging Crooked Hillary and Obama of their sins of treason is my question ?

That was the lamest excuse this clown could offer.

No, under the DoJ rules, he could not charge. I got it. But he already collected the evidence. If he didn't not, why claim the rule? Duh!

So, Mr Hack, if you have the evidence, you should have included it in YOUR report and let the DoJ do with it what the rules allow. Duh! Again.

Instead, he did the same bs as his buddy, Comey, did with Hillary when he announced that the case is not prosecutable. It was not YOUR decision, a-hole!

You, Comey, were a cop. Cops report, not decide if to prosecute!

Splitting hairs here, man. I think it's most expedient to quote from the conference transcript here directly, to avoid multiple posts. I don't believe this should violate forum rules against excessive quoting since this is a primary source:


Here are the rules the investigation was guided by:

If you (editorial) can't, then keep your f***king mouth shut.

Back to my example:

We concluded that we would not reach a determination, one way or the other, about whether Bobko raped the 10-year-old girl we found dead last night.

Legally and logically, the same exact s***. And guess what, you couldn't even sue them for defamation!!! because that statement does not accuse you of anything.

That's how the power of implication in the hands of a political hack works. To make my point, notice the highlighting. Do you realize how many shallow a-holes will read only the highlighted stuff or the headlines and skip the rest?

Excellent post Rich.
More of this kind of stuff please!
Less of the negative stuff..... :-)

@Rich Mazur

Look, the reason for the press conference (or in other words, Mueller not keeping his mouth shut) seems fairly obvious. Mueller was being assailed from both sides since the publication of the report in April - by Republicans for being politically biased and unduly dragging out the investigation, and by Democrats for dereliction of duty through not following the proverbial breadcrumb trail to its logical end. His explanation addresses both criticisms.

Hopefully you notice from my posts I try not to get entangled in any partisan debates (and when I do, it's usually in a historic context). I started writing about Mueller a few posts above, because I was irked by him being called a "legal idiot" and somehow morally compromised. The man has done nothing to show that he is anything but honorable.

Edit: What does the power of implication and what the most shallow among us might think, have to do with Mueller? Don't box bureaucrats into a political framework. Speaking in a plain way accessible to the least common denominator is not his job. His position, is not an elected one, while he reports to peers that are by any measure at the top of their profession.


Why do you feel the need to post these disgusting things, about a woman, no less? I don't agree with all of Rich Mazur's Conservative viewpoints, however one can still feel in his writing that he is a decent, thinking person from a good family (somewhere I read his father was an academician). No cursing, no personal attacks, and reasoned counter arguments. With your behavior you take away any desire to read anything you write, or to engage with you in debate.

I am wondering what relevance his comment about me has to this thread and why it hasn't been removed, but I already know the answer to that one.

Correct.
And something that most people on this forum somehow miss.

He's an obsessed toad. Imagine being so obsessed with a forum that you feel the need to circulate false pictures of someone.

I actually like those who disagree with me more. They keep me on my toes and my adrenaline flowing, which, God knows, I can use at my age more than ever.

I am a conservative but not because I set out to be one. It's being factual and logical that inevitably leads to conservatism. As they say, if by 40 you are not a conservative, you have no brain. As always, "you" was editorial.

As far as Mueller, my opinion of the guy would have been different had he picked them 50/50 instead all lawyers being rabid Trump-hating democrats.
I think we can now file this exchange in the cold case drawer.

Other that than, I appreciate your kind comments.

Dear Dems, Why don't you put forth the evidence of obstruction of justice in the form of a draft of impeachment and put it all out for the public to judge?

Is it because there isn't any crime and you just want more fake investigations?

You know some of the best comedy shows are on MSNBC lately. One of the stars is this hilarious little boy named Racheal Maddow.

To these idiots, firing Comey was obstruction of justice. What they forget is that the president can fire anyone because it's Tuesday or because he doesn't like how they walk. So what they need is "corrupt intentions". The problem with that bs is that to get them, they would have to drill Trumps head. Not an easy task considering that the guy is still alive.

All boring stuff,.
I am waiting until about the end of summer when Crooked Hillary gets charged with treason along with several other felonies with Sessions, Comey, Lynch,and the rest of them Commies.

Poor Crooked Hillary is getting as nervous as a pregnant fox in a forest fire about right now.
She is the one that colluded to throw the 2016 elections and there is tons of evidence of that.
When they put her in an orange jump suit her minions will still think she won.

Try venturing outside of opinion news websites or Fox/CNN/MSNBC every now and then, or you'll still be waiting for Hillary to get indicted in 2035 (if you and she are still around at that point). Some good sources you could peruse, for a start, are AP and Thomson/Reuters. Neither of these are by any means infallible, but you'll get much more of a chance to form your own opinions, rather than receiving them fully-digested out of some hack's colon.

Personally, I haven't turned on cable news or bought a newspaper in close to 20 years, and have yet to meet someone for whom those are primary sources of information that was more knowledgeable than myself in regards to current events.

They will not do any such thing - as exciting that vision may be to you and me.
Add them up: an old woman, ex-SoS, ex-candidate, the American Queen, ex-presidents' wife, and the big one: no jury would ever convict her. No way, no how.

The DoJ knows. Case closed.

The Trump-hating "press" even managed to weaponize the word enough. As in: Mueller does not have enough evidence to charge collusion...knowing bloody well that Mueller has none. Implication: Mueller has some.

These are the mind games those bastards play with us. The problem: two thirds buy this crap the way the press wh**res intended.

Hey, did you guys hear about Mueller backtracking his statements? Of course not the media mob is trying to bury it.

redstate.com/bonchie/2019/05/30/mueller-backtracks-presser-tries-clarify-matters-joint-statement-bill-barr/
conservativeangle.com/mueller-mayhem-mueller-backtracks-releases-joint-statement-with-barr-says-no-conflict/
ussanews.com/News1/2019/05/30/doj-muellers-office-release-joint-statement-about-special-counsels-comments/

"No Conflict"

Even funnier, Trump hating New York Times bans its reporters from fake news media CNN, MSNBC...lol
foxnews.com/entertainment/nyt-bans-reporters-maddow-lemon-cnn-msnbc-report

Quoting from dailymail.com:

Mueller said it just right. When innuendo is your primary weapon clarity was the last thing you want.


I want apologize for what I wrote a while ago. It should have been:

It proves that, even with 18 lawyers in support, the chief lawyer can be a legal moron and a political tool.


I knew it smelled bad the minute he delivered that confusing, non-lawyer crap.
I hereby declare myself a genius again.

Please remind us who appointed Mueller and what party affiliation they both have...

A quote from the first link in #627 above:

Mueller used that open-ended language on purpose. The guy is not a moron. He had to have known exactly how his words would be taken by the press and Democrats.

I called Mueller a moron and a tool. Of the two, moron is more complimentary.

@TheOther
Mueller belonged to the same party McCain did. And Romney.

Better yet, remind us of who Mueller appointed. LOL
Former F.B.I. director Mueller hates Trump and appointed people that worked for Obama and Crooked Hillary to investigate Trump.
In fact one of them was a former attorney for Crooked Hillary.
Mueller's entire investigating team was made up of Democrats which any sane person would call "stacking the deck".
And to take it a step further the appointment of Robert Mueller violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

... and McConnell, Ryan, Graham, Hatch, and all the other nut jobs: RepubliCons.


Oh my, a member of the Republican Party hates his own president? Tsk, tsk.