Is It Really True That "No One Is Above The Law"?

[ Posted Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 17:09 UTC ]

While plenty of others have plenty of other things to say today about Robert Mueller's testimony in front of two House committees, what struck me the most was a rather large unanswered question. Indeed, it was hard to actually avoid thinking about the concept, because in the first hearing most of the Democrats finished their five minutes with some form of the following declaration: "No one is above the law," sometimes adding: "...not even a president" and sometimes just leaving it implied. But does this phrase have any real-world meaning or is it just so much sanctimonious nonsense?

There are two reasons I ask this rather fundamental question, one technical and one purely political. First, the technical legal problem, which was touched upon by one of the Democratic questioners in the second hearing, but was largely left unanswered by Mueller (and then the questioner either moved on or ran out of time). Since the Justice Department believes that no sitting president can be indicted, does that mean that all crimes with a statute of limitations shorter than the president's term in office can be freely committed if the president is not impeached?

The concept that a sitting president cannot be indicted is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution -- it is merely a Justice Department policy adopted in the Watergate era. In the Constitution's text itself is only the mention of how a president can be removed from office -- either by impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors," or by the Twenty-Fifth Amendment because of being either mentally or physically incapable of carrying out the duties of the office. But the Constitution is mum on indicting, charging, or trying a sitting president in an actual court of law for any crimes he or she may commit either before becoming president or during their term. So for a one-term president that would mean all crimes with a statute of limitations less than four years (as well as any crimes with longer statutes of limitations that run out during those four years) could be committed without any fear of consequences if the president's party is strong enough and backs him or her up in Congress. Hence, for some crimes, the president might indeed be considered "above the law."

The second reason is a much bigger one, and is far less technical because it is solely a political question. Let's say for the sake of argument that Trump is unquestionably guilty of some crime or crimes. Let's also posit that the next president is a Democrat (whether elected next year or in 2024, it doesn't matter for the sake of this argument). Would that incoming president really direct his attorney general to prosecute Donald Trump?

Incoming presidents would have two rather large arguments against doing so. The first is that they just took office and ran on their own agenda, which they would assumably be eager to see implemented. However, charging a former president would suck a lot of political oxygen from the room and leave a whole lot of bad feelings. The second argument is similar -- "We just don't do that in America." Charging a former president would seem awfully small politically, and charges of "that's what banana republics do" would certainly be tossed around. Either reason might be enough to convince a new president to "look forwards, not backwards." Since the spectacle of charging a former political rival would be such a dramatic thing, it would almost certainly impact the new president's ability to enact their agenda. So what is a new president to do?

This isn't all that theoretical of an argument. Of course, the classic case wasn't perfectly parallel, since when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, they were both members of the same political party. Partisanship didn't really enter into it, in other words. But there's an example a lot closer in time that might be more instructive.

When Barack Obama entered office, public opinion had shifted rather dramatically on the question of whether America should torture prisoners in the "war on terror." This was indeed done in our name under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who were backed up by a rather extraordinary opinion from their own Justice Department (the John Yoo memo), so as far as they were concerned it was all legal and proper. However, not everyone agreed, and by the time Obama was elected, so many people disagreed that the practice had already been halted and disavowed by the Bush administration. Which left Obama with the choice of what to do about it all.

He could have tried to indict Bush, Cheney, Yoo, and all the C.I.A. and other federal agents who actually conducted this torture. But he chose not to. He said at the time that he didn't want to put the individual agents in legal jeopardy for doing something they were told by the highest legal authorities was completely acceptable and completely legal to do. But by declining to hold anyone accountable, Obama effectively gave "the Nuremberg defense" ("I was only following orders") a moral standing it had never had previously (at least not since the Nazis were tried after World War II). And Obama let Cheney and Bush -- the ones giving those orders -- off the hook as well.

Was he right to do so? That is debatable, and was indeed hotly debated at the time. Obama was following Ford's lead in avoiding prolonging a national nightmare, and instead he turned his attention to moving forward rather than raking up the past in what many would have seen as nothing short of a political vendetta.

This is precisely the same quandary that will face any Democrat who succeeds Donald Trump. Say we get a President Warren or a President Biden (or whomever else) in 2021. Are they really going to make their first big political decision to go after their predecessor? Or will they, like Obama, be much more interested in moving forward and getting things done? It's easy to see why Obama decided not to rake over the crimes of the past administration, and the very same motivation will exist over what to do about Trump's possible crimes (past and present).

The only way a new president might be convinced to take Trump on in court is if a strong attorney general were appointed who took all the heat for doing so off of the new president. If the attorney general swore he or she were acting totally independently, then the president could possibly wash their hands of the matter politically. But that's pretty doubtful, in reality.

House Democrats can sanctimoniously now claim that "no one is above the law, not even the president," but the only real way to ensure that this is indeed going to be the case going forward would be if the Justice Department were directed to review their standing policy against indicting a sitting president. If that Watergate era opinion were to be reversed, then it would certainly give future prosecutors and Congresses a lot more options. As it stands, however, it means that an incoming president would have to decide almost immediately after taking office whether to launch a prosecution against an ex-president as one of their first political decisions -- which seems a rather farfetched scenario (as Obama actually proved).

Which leads me back to my original question. Have we indeed effectively placed the president of the United States "above the law" for all but obviously impeachable offenses?

-- Chris Weigant


Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant


138 Comments on “Is It Really True That "No One Is Above The Law"?”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    We have and that has to stop.

    First, that OLC memo needs to be challenged and Mueller should have challenged it.

    Second: this is a reason House needs to impeach now so that it isn't dumped on the next POTUS. I think it will be seen by history as an Obama failure that he "looked forward and not back" which, I think, simply set the table for Blotus to come in and get away with more. There has to be consequences.

    I think today went well, overall. Mueller was no dynamo but he conceded/agreed to a lot of things Ds wanted; the Rs looked like clowns, and the post-hearing press conference was very encouraging. I think House Ds know what their duty is, and are now trying to set the stage as best they can for the showdown.

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:


    Can somebody here remind me how many times y'all figure we have individually and collectively explained to the fake cop on the board how exoneration works and doesn't work? I'm thinking it's easily at least 50+ times due to the fact that every day is a new day for him wherein the same BS of his gets spewed back over and over even after being debunked by the rest of us repeatedly and due to his demonstrable ignorance and inability to maintain continuity of thought. Regardless, I hope the fake "occifer" can still see straight after the beating he took today.

    Months after the idiot POTUS claimed total exoneration and then right on cue the GOP spineless lawmakers, useful idiots, and bleating sheeple whined insistently and incessantly claiming repeatedly the "total exoneration" of the president, today Trump claims Mueller "never had the right to exonerate":

    Video evidence:

    Those banging noises you're hearing are the wheels on the bus going "pop, pop, pop" as Trump throws all the chumps underneath it... sung to the tune of "Wheels on the Bus." :)

  3. [3] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [2] Kick

    I'm thinking it's easily at least 50+ times due to the fact that every day is a new day for him...

    Need to pitch this to Netflix as "Bizarro Groundhog Day": No matter what we do, everyone in the world wakes up each day to find that Michale is exactly the same as the day before.

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Would that incoming president really direct his attorney general to prosecute Donald Trump?

    Great question, CW!

    Other thoughts to ponder:

    * If Trump were to be reelected, what would preclude the House and/or the Senate at that time from challenging the DOJ OLC opinion in a court of law, which would presumably eventually land in the SCOTUS? After all, the nonsense contained in the DOJ OLC opinion are nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution, and the SCOTUS has proven recently they most assuredly are not Trump's "rubber stamp" with the disposition of the citizenship question that will not be included on the 2020 census and with their overwhelmingly lopsided vote of 7-2 upholding the doctrine of "separate sovereigns."

    * Speaking of separate sovereigns, what would preclude the State of New York at any time from pursuing a case against the sitting President of the United States?

    Start spreading the news
    I'm leaving today
    I want to be a part of it
    New York, New York

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    Charles Brown, Esq.

    Need to pitch this to Netflix as "Bizarro Groundhog Day": No matter what we do, everyone in the world wakes up each day to find that Michale is exactly the same as the day before.

    It would never work, Charlie Brown!

    While I am duly impressed by your idea a whole lot, recall how the weatherman had the ability to "live and learn" and ultimately discover that knowledge can be a powerful and dangerous thing... while alas the fake cop has demonstrated no such similar aptitude, ability, or motivation to learn whatsoever. Be that as it may, I can introduce you to this guy with the perfect solution to the problem that this fool presents... oh, wait!

    Charles Brown, Esq.! So good to "see" you. I forgot that I invoked your name three times this morning because: We Love You, Charlie Brown! ;)


    I'm a ghost with the most, babe. Y'know, you look like somebody I can relate to. Maybe you could help me get out of here, you know, 'cause I gotta tell you: this dead thing is- [Picks up and eats a beetle from the ground] -it's just too creepy. See, here's my problem; I got these friends on the outside I said I'd meet, y'know, and but it's the kind of thing I have to be there in person, y'know, so I was just wondering could you help me get out of here? ~ Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    because in the first hearing most of the Democrats finished their five minutes with some form of the following declaration: "No one is above the law," sometimes adding: "...not even a president" and sometimes just leaving it implied. But does this phrase have any real-world meaning or is it just so much sanctimonious nonsense?

    Sanctimonious nonsense..

    Because it's clear that Democrats believe that hundreds of thousands of Crimmigrants are above the law...

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:


    Need to pitch this to Netflix as "Bizarro Groundhog Day": No matter what we do, everyone in the world wakes up each day to find that Michale is exactly the same as the day before.


    It's called CONSISTENCY...

    I am the same, regardless of whether it is GOP or Dumbocrat..

    Unlike ya'all who totally base EVERYTHING you do, say or think on Party slavery...

    In other words, ya'all's entire existence is based totally on Party ideology and slavery...

    But, I have to concede.. Ya'all are totally consistent on one point..

    Ya'all consistently make everything about me personally.. Thereby proving beyond ANY doubt that I have free rent space inside ya'all's heads.. :D

    If I wasn't under ya'all's skin so much, ya'all would just ignore me..

    But ya'all can't...

    I find that so frakin' hilarious!! :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which leads me back to my original question. Have we indeed effectively placed the president of the United States "above the law" for all but obviously impeachable offenses?

    The President has ALWAYS been above the law..

    Anyone who says otherwise is a sanctimonious ignoramus..

    But there is a far easier way to indicate Democrats believe people are above the law..

    The Democrat treatment of crimmigrants...

    Democrats believe THEY are all above the law..

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller deflected questions 198 times. We tracked when he did it.
    The former special counsel testified in front of two House committees.

    Mueller was in WAY over his head...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller’s testimony equals end of any Trump impeachment talk

    Dumbocrats shot their wad.. If they continue pushing for impeachment now, they will be the laughing stock of the country... :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Among his talents, Donald Trump has a special gift for driving his detractors so crazy that they do really stupid stuff. The decision by Democrats to force Robert Mueller to testify before Congress is Exhibit A.

    Bumblin’ Bob was a train wreck of epic proportions. The fallout is immediate, starting with this: impeachment is no longer an option.

    It had a slim chance before Wednesday’s painful slog and no chance after it.

    Mueller was that bad, seemingly hard of hearing, often confused and contradicted himself several times.

    The Dems’ fantasy of having him breathe life into his report backfired.

    It's hard to take Democrats seriously after Bumblin' Bob's stunningly bad performance...

    Hell, even PAULA concedes that Mueller was in way over his head..

    It's clear from Mueller's senile performance that he was nothing but patsy in the probe. He was a puppet whose strings were pulled by Hillary sycophants who actually ran the investigation..

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    His dismal performance killed any possibility that his 450-page tome could serve as a road map for overturning the 2016 election and driving Trump from office.

    Although Mueller’s general demeanor was disturbing, it was also instructive. He did not project the mental and physical vigor of someone capable of leading the complex two-year probe into Russian meddling, possible Trump collusion and obstruction of justice.

    More likely, the 74-year old former FBI director was something of a figure-head for an investigation that was carried out by the team of zealots he ­assembled.

    That is not an incidental issue. As Andy McCarthy at National Review has written, and as Trump has repeatedly charged, the prosecutors were ­primarily people who had donated to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats or who otherwise made known their support for her.

    Exactly.. This wasn't a bi-partisan investigation.. This was nothing more than an attempted soft coup orchestrated by the very people who supported to LUSER of a candidate, Hillary Clinton...

    It's no coincidence that EVERY SINGLE member of the "Mueller" team was a Hillary sycophant and Trump/America hater...

    Given his brain-addled and befuddled state it's obvious to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together that Mueller wasn't calling the shots... If Mueller had actually been in charge, he would have realized the need to show a balanced team of investigators to prove that the probe wasn't a witch hunt..

    Yea, the FACTS clearly show that Mueller was nothing but the figurehead, designed to give the witch hunt legitimacy...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps Mueller’s detachment explains his failure to remedy these obvious conflicts of interest that undercut his credibility from the moment they became known.

    Oddly, Mueller removed agent Peter Strzok because his bias against Trump became public, but apparently had no concerns about public reports showing that chief prosecutor Andrew ­Weissman and others were in Clinton’s camp.

    Mueller’s detachment may also explain the bizarre standard his team created, where Trump’s presumption of innocence was shredded because they could not find sufficient evidence to “exonerate” him. Several Republicans pointed out that prosecutors either file charges or don’t, but have never imposed the impossible standard of exoneration.

    Those flaws are among many that undercut the report, including the fact that much of it reads as if it were written by Trump-hating reporters from The New York Times.

    More facts that indicate Mueller was a patsy...

    Prosecutors charge people.. Period.. They don't hold press conferences and they don't issue reports that trash Americans that aren't charged...

    It's clear from the FACTS that Mueller wasn't calling the shots....

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    As one GOP member noted, the report cites nearly 200 articles and broadcasts, giving the impression that the media set the probers’ agenda. At the very least, Mueller’s team and the media were joined at the hip from the get-go.


    Stammering, stuttering Mueller accused of being ‘lost’ during testimony

    Because of its pro-Clinton bias, the probe was the evil twin of the initial FBI investigation it inherited. Recall that the crooked James Comey relied heavily on the infamous Steele dossier, which Clinton’s team funded.

    So from start to finish, Trump was targeted by partisan law enforcement officials who had no business being on the case. And yet, despite a probe that ran a combined three years, involved hundreds of witnesses, thousands of subpoenas and surveillance on Trump associates and maybe the president himself, investigators could find nothing — nothing! — worthy of a criminal charge.

    Let that sink into ya'all's Party enslaved brain...

    Tens of millions of dollars.. A set of probes that lasted over THREE YEARS!!!

    Unlimited access to ANYTHING and ANYONE....

    Total carte blanche on the entire process..


    A team of political sycophants with a downright HYSTERICAL *need* to find SOMETHING... ANYTHING to use against President Trump...

    All of this..

    And they couldn't find a single definitive act to remove President Trump from office...

    NOT... A... SINGLE.... ACT....

    They couldn't even find ANYTHING to hang a definitive charge on...

    Considering the forces arrayed against the President, total and complete exoneration is a subtle way of putting it..

    President Trump is completely innocent of all accusations..

    And THAT just drives ya'all batshit crazy.. :D

    And, by extension, me pointing out these facts day in and day out ALSO drives ya'all batshit crazy...

    Which is why ya'all simply CAN'T ignore me and must try and make EVERY comment section about me..

    Y'all lost.. Ya'all continue to lose... :D

    And ya'all can't handle me pointing it out day after day.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    That can only help the president in his re-election campaign. While there is a long way to go, the cloud of possible impeachment, which existed since Mueller was appointed, finally has been lifted.

    There are two other major developments growing out of the hearing.

    First, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now has the responsibility to get her party back to its job of governing. She gave the impeachment caucus and its fanatical leaders, Reps. Jerry ­Nadler and Adam Schiff, time to gin up public support, but they have gotten nowhere because the facts were not as they promised.

    Pelosi must have been shaking her head and wondering, "Why oh why did I let them go thru with this!! This is pathetic.."</B.

    Dumbocrats just made Pelosi's job a lot easier though..

    It's clear that there is absolutely and positively NOTHING to support impeachment...

    Pelosi SHOULD have no problem getting her sheep back into line...

    I say SHOULD because there will be those hysterical malcontents who can't accept that President Trump has been completely and utterly exonerated....

    Time will tell if Pelosi is up to the challenge...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Pelosi is as smart and practical as her supporters say, she will make it clear that the hearing was the end of the Mueller era. If, on the other hand, she hesitates and lets the wing nuts chase their fantasies, she will recklessly waste the next year and increase the chances the GOP will retake the House in 2020.

    I think it's a forgone conclusion that the GOP will take back the House in 2020...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    The other development is that Washington’s focus now shifts to the two investigations into the investigators. The first to drop will be the review of the surveillance warrants obtained against Carter Page, which is being carried out by the Inspector General in the Justice Department.

    The chief questions center on what Comey and others told the secret court’s judges about the Steele Dossier. Did they disclose it was paid for by Democrats?

    Did they concede that Steele said he was motivated to make sure Trump did not become president? And did the judges know the allegations were unverified before granting four warrants?

    Now we get to the fun part.. :D

    All the malfeasance and incompetence and coup-y parts of the investigation is going to come out..

    Heads are going to roll on Horowitz's report..

    DUMBOCRAT heads....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ultimate probe, though, is the one Attorney General Bill Barr launched. He said he was appalled at FBI bias against Trump and that he wants to get his hands around the origins and scope of the initial scrutiny.

    “The use of foreign-intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed,” Barr told CBS in May.

    He also warned of the dangers of weaponizing law enforcement against political opponents, saying “the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him” is a real threat to our nation.

    There is no known deadline for Barr’s report, but my guess is that he will work relatively fast, certainly faster than the special counsel. And because Mueller’s day in the spotlight turned out to be a dud, Barr’s findings have the potential to be the real bombshell.

    I hope AG Barr's security detail is hand-picked by Barr....

    It would be totally in keeping with the Democrat Party to "Seth Rich" or "Vince Foster" AG Barr to stop him from investigating...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news..

    Jeffrey Epstein Visited Clinton White House Multiple Times in Early ’90s

    One has to wonder if Epstein brought any of his "Lolitas" for him and Bubba Clinton to share..

    Of course, we won't hear any condemnation from anyone here...

    Funny how that is, eh? :eyeroll:

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Optics' of Mueller hearings were a 'disaster' for Democrats, NBC's Chuck Todd admits

    Hell, even Trump/America Hater Extraordinaire Chuck Todd concedes that the Mueller hearing as a "disaster" for Dims...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    The comments from the host of "Meet the Press" came after NBC "Today" co-host Savannah Guthrie said Democrats hoped to use Mueller's testimony as a way to "capture and captivate Americans' attention and focus them on the issues here."

    "If that was the goal, it's a complete failure on that front," Todd responded. He added that the "optics" of the testimony were a "disaster" because Mueller seemed "uncomfortable" during appearances before the House Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee.

    Of course Mueller was "uncomfortable"..

    He was going to have to fake like he was actually in charge of the investigation...

    He couldn't have been comfortable trying to propagate that bullshit lie...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jeremy Bash, who served in the Defense Department and CIA during former President Obama's administration, blasted Mueller's testimony as "boring" and called the 74-year-old former FBI director "ineffective" in defending his work on the two-year-long Russia investigation.

    "I fear that this hearing set back efforts to hold the president accountable," Bash said after Mueller's testimony on Wednesday.

    These are Democrat sycophants who are saying how bad Mueller was...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., similarly blasted Mueller as "not a very good witness" and argued that Democrats "have to be disappointed" with his seemingly tepid defense of his investigative team and their work on the Russia probe. McCaskill added that Democrats failed to bring the Russia issue "to life," noting that they framed the hearing as something more than it turned out to be.

    In other words, Democrats spared no expense in turning the Mueller 'book' into a Made For TV Movie..

    And the movie bombed..

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this would happen!!???

    Oh.. wait.. :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:


    I gotta ask.. You were one of the one's pushing for this "movie" to be released..

    What's yer take on it?? Should Democrats have left well enough alone???

    I am sincerely curious...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:


    You were one of the ones spewing "Wait til the Mueller hearings!!! THEN we will finally nail Trump to the wall!!!"

    Are you FINALLY coming around to the FACT that the coup has failed??

    Are you FINALLY conceding that you will NOT remove freely, fairly, legally and duly elected President Donald Trump??

    Do you concede???

    Ten thousand quatloos says you won't... :D

    There will ALWAYS be another "Wait til...!!!!" to hang your feeble Trump/America hating hat on...

    It's gonna be fun to see which one you pick next.. :D

    Don't keep me in suspense.. :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore blasts 'lame Dems' after 'frail old' Mueller testifies; says 'Trump must be gloating in ecstasy'

    Even fat-boy Dumbocrat Michael Moore (the ONLY Democrat to accurately predict the Donald Trump presidency) says that Dumbocrats are lame, putting the patsy up on the stand.. :D

    President Trump threw a YYUUUUUGGGEEEEE PARTY in the White House to celebrate the Dumbocrat "Mueller Movie"..

    It was THAT good.. For President Trump and the GOP.. :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liberal activist and filmmaker Michael Moore delivered a scathing review of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's testimony on Wednesday, suggesting Democrats should reconsider why they trusted him in the first place.

    "A frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions," Moore tweeted, apparently in reference to Mueller.

    "I said it in 2017 and Mueller confirmed it today -- All you pundits and moderates and lame Dems who told the public to put their faith in the esteemed Robert Mueller -- just STFU from now on."


    Yunno, Michael Moore shouldn't keep it all in.. He should say how he REALLY feels.. :D

    It's perfectly obvious to anyone NOT enslaved by Party ideology that Mueller was a complete and utter disaster for the Democrat Party...

    Given the FACTS, there simply can be no other logical or rational explanation...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:
  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moore was just one of many media figures to pan Mueller's performance and suggest it did not give Democrats enough to further any potential impeachment push.

    While Democrats were hoping for a memorable hearing performance that might offer clear-cut testimony on crimes by the president, the result of hours of grueling testimony -- like the report itself -- was more ambiguous.

    Apparently, Michael Moore is not the only celebrity Democrat who thought Mueller stunk..

    As I pointed out above, even our own esteemed Paula, who swallows ANYTHING the Dumbocrats spew out, said that Mueller was a failure...

    THAT really says something..

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump must be gloating in ecstasy. Not because of the failure that is Robert Mueller — his Report is still a damning document of crimes by Trump—but because Trump understands the power of the visual, and he understands that the Dems aren’t street fighters and that’s why he’ll win
    -Michael Moore

    Yep.. Moore has President Trump pegged.

    And President Trump WILL win..

    Because Democrats don't have facts and don't have reality behind them..

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald J. Trump
    Even Michael Moore agrees that the Dems and Mueller blew it!

    Michael Moore
    A frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions...I said it in 2017 and Mueller confirmed it today — All you pundits and moderates and lame Dems who told the public to put their faith in the esteemed Robert Mueller — just STFU from now on

    5:33 PM - Jul 24, 2019

    And President Trump gloats..

    Oh how President Trump is gloating.. :D

    Ya'all can try to pretend that Mueller was a saving grace... By all means, continue ya'all's delusion if that's what ya have to do to remain sane...

    But the facts and the reality clearly show what's what..

    Democrats lost and lost BIG-TIME... :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mark Levin thanks Democrats for Mueller hearing, claims they 'impeached' themselves

    Yes, they did.. They did indeed.. :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's hearing was a gift to America from the Democratic Party, according to Mark Levin.

    During Wednesday's "Hannity," Levin thanked the Democrats, claiming they had "impeached themselves" with Mueller's hearings.

    "I'd like to thank the Democrats, because they've really revealed themselves as the clowns they truly are," he said.

    "They've impeached themselves today and forevermore."

    Yep.. In spades...

    This couldn't have gone worse for the Democrats if President Trump had planned it himself.. :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of Mueller, the "Life, Liberty & Levin" host claimed the ex-FBI Director was both in "no condition to testify" and in "no condition to be a special counsel."

    "Rod Rosenstein should never have offered him a job," he said.

    The Trump/America haters needed a brain-addled Republican to be the figure-head... to be the patsy for the team of America hating Hillary sycophants to nullify a free, fair and legal Presidential Election..

    Given Mueller's reputation on the anthrax investigation, Mueller fit the bill perfectly...

    Yet, even with all the money, all the time, all the resources and ALL the motivation possible..

    The Hillary sycophants couldn't find a single definitive crime...

    NOT... A.... SINGLE.... CRIME....

    ... worthy of removing President Trump..


    If THAT doesn't prove the utter incompetence of the Hillary crowd, NOTHING will.... :D

    Today.... is a GOOD day... :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lindsey Graham: After Mueller hearings, Trump 'stronger today than any time in his presidency'

    Yep... Thanx to the inept Keystone Cop-ish actions of the Democrats, President Trump is sitting pretty.. :D

    Democrats have increased the chances of President Trump's re-election a thousand-fold... :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's see if I can hit 50 before I have to leave for my shop... :D

    As an aside to CW...

    If Democrats continue on this course, I predict I will be in rare form for the upcoming fund-raiser... :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump emerged victorious following former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's appearances Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee, according to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

    "Donald Trump is stronger today than any time in his presidency," Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday night on "Hannity."

    Anti-Trump figures had "used" Mueller in hopes of advancing their agenda, Graham said, adding that "the hatred for Trump knows no bounds."

    As a result of Mueller's appearances before the two House panels, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee were now unlikely to demand that Mueller testify before them, Graham predicted.

    Yea, Democrats can't be THAT stoopid!!!! :D

    Can they??? :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller is a patriot who served America for decades domestically and abroad, but he did not perform well at his pair of hearings before House committees, Graham claimed.

    "I've been asked for three months, 'Why don't you want to call Mueller?'," he said. "I bet you nobody will ask me that tomorrow. A letter was sent to me by every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate."

    Graham said it was clear that Mueller, the 74-year-old former FBI director, was not "in charge" of the Russia investigation.

    Host Sean Hannity suggested the true leader of the probe might have been Andrew Weissmann, a longtime prosecutor and Mueller deputy.

    I agree that Mueller is a patriot..

    But Mueller allowed himself to be used as a patsy for an attempted coup..

    Mueller has forever tarnished his reputation beyond salvation...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course making the septuagenarian consummate career prosecutor testify in a show trial was a waste of time

    But I am guessing that Democrats didn't even CONCEIVE of how badly it would blow back on them..

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just minutes into questioning former special counsel Robert Mueller, House Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made their exasperation apparent.

    Mueller was repeatedly asking members of Congress to reiterate questions and revisit specific portions of the 448-page report. Lines of questioning were repeatedly stymied by his refusal to address vast swaths of topics still under ongoing review by the Department of Justice.

    And this ought to shock absolutely no one. Outside of the depths of the Swamp, the question of President Trump's relationship with Russia is a closed case, and the obstruction question, punted by Mueller, has hence been rendered nearly irrelevant to public opinion. But Democrats hoping to revitalize the Mueller report by making Mueller himself testify didn't just miss the country's overwhelming indifference to the Russia question. They forgot that bringing a 74-year-old consummate career prosecutor to a show trial for political points would actually be extremely boring.

    As I said at the time the Mueller released his report that totally exonerated President Trump..

    Democrats would do well to leave this alone and move on..

    But, fortunately for President Trump and this country, Democrats chose to ignore that sage and prescient advice and dig themselves deeper into their hole..

    And now, President Trump and this country, are much MUCH better off for it.. :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller spent two years and more than 400 pages saying his piece. After the report's release, he explicitly told the public, "Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report." He made it abundantly clear that he would become no one's political pawn and any congressional hearing would prove utterly redundant.

    Yet Democrats demanded their show trial anyways. Of course it's a dud.

    I mean, seriously..

    What did Dumbocrats expect???

    The American people made their decision on the Mueller report...

    "Ho hum... Nothing to see here.. Let's move on.."
    -The American People

    Did Dumbocrats expect that a direct, a word for word, adaptation to a Made For Prime Time Movie would be any different!??

    Of course they did.. Because they are blinded by their hatred of President Trump and the country...

    Morons... :eyeroll:

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Beltway politicos minds have been made up on the Trump-Russia question since the summer of 2017, and the rest of the country has ceased caring. For the love of God, let Mueller and the American people move on from these inane theatrics.

    Democrats want their coup.. Democrats NEED their coup...

    Do you think this dull and utterly BAD (for them) performance will sway them from stepping in it time and time again???

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Robert Mueller’s Testimony A Complete Disaster For Democrats

    The only question that remains is will Democrats LEARN from this disaster...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not only was Mueller often flustered and unprepared to talk about his own report—we now have wonder to what extent he was even involved in the day-to-day work of the investigation—but he was needlessly evasive. In the end, he seriously undermined the central case for impeachment of President Donald Trump.

    The often-distracted Mueller didn’t seem to know much about anything. The very first Republican to question him, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Rep. Doug Collins, forced Mueller to correct his own opening statement. In it, the former FBI director had asserted that the independent counsel “did not address collusion, which is not a legal term.”

    Stressing the difference between the criminal conspiracy and the colloquial “collusion” is a popular way of obscuring the fact that the central conspiracy pushed by Democrats, one that plunged the nation into two years of hysterics and fantasy, had been debunked by Mueller. Moreover, as Collins pointed out, Mueller’s own report stated that “collusion” and criminal conspiracy were basically “synonymous.”

    “[C]ollusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute,” Mueller’s report states on page 180 of the second volume.

    When asked to explain this contradiction, Mueller stammered on for a few minutes before saying he would “leave it with the report.” Collins pointed out that, yes, the report stated that the terms “collusion” and “conspiracy” were synonymous, Mueller was forced to admit, “Yes.”

    So much for the oft-used evasion that "No one is TALKING about collusion!!!"

    According to the Mueller report, collusion = conspiracy and conspiracy = collusion...

    It just keeps getting worse and worse for ya'all's positions, eh?? :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    It didn’t get better from there. Mueller didn’t know where some of the most infamous quotes in his own report had emanated—for example, Donald Trump’s “This is the end of my presidency. I’m f**ked” exclamation upon learning about the appointment of a special counsel. He claimed to be unfamiliar with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, the Clinton—and DNC—funded contractors who originated and then propelled the Trump-Russian collusion conspiracy theory.

    Perhaps Mueller’s ignorance shouldn’t be surprising, since his independent counsel apparently expended zero effort into ascertaining the reliability of the evidence that helped launch the investigation.

    It's painfully clear that Mueller wasn't running things..

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    And though there was nothing to stop him, Mueller refused to talk about a number of inconvenient aspects of his own report. He declined, for instance, to testify about the letter he sent Bill Barr, intrinsically connected to the veracity of the report. He refused to talk about Joseph Mifsud, the supposed impetus for his own investigation. He refused to discuss the Steele dossier, which not only turned out to be most effective tool of Russian interference in the 2016 election, but was used in multiple FISA applications targeting at least one individual.

    In the end, even Russian election interference, the ostensible purpose of the entire project, was outside Mueller’s expertise. When Rep. Greg Steube asked him if there was any evidence that a single American had changed their vote because of Russian meddling (the answer, incidentally, is no), Mueller responded that it was “beyond his purview.”

    WOW... So, actual Russian Interference in our election was "beyond" Mueller's purview???

    One is left to wonder if Mueller's only 'purview' was what the America Hating Hillary Sycophants TOLD Mueller his 'purview' was... :eyeroll:

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    By making Mueller look like a mere figurehead unfamiliar with his own report, Republicans were able to highlight the bias and conflict of interest that plagued an investigation that was not only initiated by a Democratic administration spying on the Republican opposition during an election year, but led by prosecutors who had relationships with opposition Democrats.

    And THERE it is.. In black and white.. Well, black and eggshell white..

    America hating Hillary sycophants were clearly in charge...

    There goal was to remove a freely, fairly, legally and duly elected President Of The United States...

    No other logical or rational conclusion fits the facts..

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller admitted during his testimony that a one-time attorney of a Hillary Clinton aide who had destroyed evidence by smashing the former top diplomat’s Blackberry e-mail devices was in charge of “day-to-day oversight” of his investigation. Others donated to her presidential campaign and even attended her election night party.

    Surely there were better people available to lead a non-partisan criminal inquiry into the president.

    I believe Liz mentioned how Hillary sycophants had a tendency to destroy evidence that didn't support their agenda..

    Apparently, such tactics were also used by Hillary's "Mueller" team as well.. :eyeroll:

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats, in turn, spent their time trying to force Mueller to dramatize the op-ed section of his report on potential obstruction of justice. Their case basically boiled down to the charge of Trump privately discussing shutting down the independent counsel. Mueller had stuffed the report with numerous examples of Trump, frustrated by false claims that he was seditious candidate who had stolen the presidency, giving into his own worst inclinations. Trump’s attempts—and we don’t know really know how serious he was—were shut down by his lawyers.

    More importantly, when Rep. John Ratcliffe asked Mueller whether his investigation been curtailed, stopped, or hindered at any time, Mueller answered, “No.”

    “If you were a casual viewer and were asked, ‘What did the president do wrong here?’ it wouldn’t be easy to answer that question,” CNN’s Jeffery Toobin conceded at one point during the testimony.

    Basically, President Trump is guilty of "thought crimes".... He thought about shutting Mueller down but never did...

    There goes the Obstruction charge out the window..

    Bye bye Charge... We won't be seeing you again... :D


    Hell, even CNN conceded that Mueller and the Democrats are frak'ed... :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yet every liberal outlet went with the only helpful Mueller quote they could find, which was his contention that investigation did “not exonerate” Trump on obstruction. The president is, of course, wrong to claim he was fully exonerated, but it’s also an absurd standard that seems to have been invented solely for Republicans. Prosecutors only have the authority to charge, not to “exonerate” their targets.

    Ratcliffe, in fact, asked Mueller if he could cite a single example besides Donald Trump where the DOJ “determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined.” Mueller responded: “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”

    Prosecutors, by definition, do not "exonerate" people... They simply provide FACTS to support CHARGING people..

    Simply by virtue of President Trump not being charged...

    THAT is exoneration...

    Whether you people like it or not..

    President Trump is COMPLETELY exonerated of the accusations against him..

    President Trump is COMPLETELY innocent of all the accusations against him..

    And that just drives ya'all bat-shit crazy... :D

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    After lecturing everyone about how justice must be meted out equally to all Americans, we now hear that rules are malleable if we’re talking about Donald Trump. As Ratcliffe also pointed out, Trump should not be above the law, but he should not be below it, either.

    Under the Constitution, congressional Democrats are free to impeach the president for any reasons they like—and voters are free to judge the president’s actions and vote for someone else. But the Mueller investigation was unable, despite its best efforts, to indict a single person for conspiracy connected to Trump 2016 campaign, much less the president himself. Mueller admitted under oath that his investigation into that matter was unhindered.

    Democrats seem unable to come to terms with these inconvenient facts. And Mueller’s presence didn’t help their cause.

    And there you have it...

    The Great Democrat Coup of 2016 has failed...

    Ya'all lost... Time to lick your wounds and go home... :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK... I have a lot more facts to bring to the forum, but I am gonna take a break.. :D

    We can always talk about ya'all's obsessive nature with regards to me personally, if ya wish...

    Maybe another yahoo would like to make a real life threat again???

    Well, let's see how it goes, eh? :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jeffrey Epstein Found Injured in NYC Jail Cell After Possible Suicide Attempt: Sources
    Epstein was found semi-conscious with marks on his neck, sources said and investigators are trying to piece together exactly what happened

    Looks like someone tried to "Seth Rich" or "Vince Foster" Jeffery Epstein...

    Whatta crazy world we live in...

  54. [54] 
    TheStig wrote:


    It's 48 today and counting. Never reply to him directly. Reference him sparingly. It will drive him crazier.

    It could be worse. If you need proof, look at the comments on YouTube....quickly, then avert your eyes before your retinas burn. 98% of the comments on YT apparently come from 8 year old boys.

    If you must read his pirate posts, here is some appropriate theme music:

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's 48 today and counting. Never reply to him directly. Reference him sparingly. It will drive him crazier.

    Actually, the opposite is true..

    It PROVES you can't ignore me and are providing me ever-expanding room in your head.. :D


    Face reality, monkey boy.. You simply CAN'T ignore me..

    Yer PWN'ed!! :D

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:


    Apparently, your memo to all to ignore me is failing miserably.. :D

    - Claire Dearing, JURASSIC WORLD


  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You can't win!! I have god on my side!!!"
    -Max Von Sydow, NEEDFUL THINGS


  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Column: Democrats suffer anxiety attacks over Robert Mueller testimony, and blame him rather than themselves

    Of course.. In their deluded world (and ya'all's apparently) everyone else is wrong and they (and ya'all) are right... ????

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    There must have been a point in the Robert Mueller hearings when the big thinkers of CNN and MSNBC curled up on the floor in fetal positions and began breathing into brown paper bags, trying to remain calm.

    Breathe. Collusion. Breathe. “Did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.” Breathe. Ted Lieu? Breathe.

    Those paper bags popped in and out, out and in, when Democratic media wizard David Axelrod and Harvard Law’s Laurence Tribe pronounced the Mueller hearings an unmitigated disaster for their side.

    Yep.. Yep.. It's not just ME saying that this was a disaster for Dumbocrats.. Die Hard Party Slave Democrats are saying the Mueller hearings were a disaster..

    No matter WHERE you turn, this was an unmitigated disaster... a catastrophic debacle for Democrats..

    There simply is NO DENYING these facts...

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Donald Trump puffed himself up to crow.

    “The Democrats had nothing,” the president said after Mueller’s testimony. “And now they have less than nothing".

    Once again, Mr President I have to point out how wrong you were...

    Patriotic Americans are NOT tired of winning..

    ESPECIALLY if we can see Dumbocrats LOSE in such a spectacular manner!!! :D

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Much as I hate to say it, this morning’s hearing was a disaster. Far from breathing life into his damning report, the tired Robert Mueller sucked the life out of it. The effort to save democracy and the rule of law from this lawless president has been set back, not advanced.”
    -Laurence Tribe

    These are DEMOCRATS saying this..

    What makes ALL these Democrats wrong and ya'all right???

    {{{ccchhhiirrrrrpppppp}}} {{{ccchhhirrrrppppp}}}

    Yea.. That's what I thought... :eyeroll:

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's see what the NY TIMES had to say about Mueller's performance..

    So what happens when liberal Democrats who despise Trump are mugged by the reality that when it comes to the Mueller report, there is no there there?

    Breathe. Breathe. Stay calm. Breathe.

    Mueller seemed lost in his testimony, seemingly unsure of just what was in his own vaunted report about Trump and that mythic conspiracy with Russians.

    Mueller seemed confused, asking committee members to restate their questions so that he might grasp them.

    “Mr. Mueller spoke haltingly as he testified,” sniffed The New York Times, “blunting attacks on him by Republicans but also limiting Democrats’ efforts to elevate his words and raising questions about his acuity.”

    Ouch. His acuity?

    :D Once again, I point out.. These are dyed in the wool, Trump and American hating Democrats who are saying this about Mueller and his testimony...

    It's pretty bad when your water carriers are telling you you are all wet and washed up...

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    He wasn’t confident in his knowledge of his own report, which was clearly staff-driven, not Mueller-driven, and having his lawyer sworn in, sitting next to him, ready to help, said as much.

    Republicans pounced. Democrats flailed. Privately, those Democrats on the Judiciary and Intelligence committees should be flailing in range of their chairmen, Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff, who wanted these hearings just for the sound bites they might provide.

    Mueller and the Democrats were the losers in all this.

    Republicans ruled.. Democrats drooled....

    "A Serpent guard, a Horus guard and a Setesh guard meet on a neutral planet. It is a tense moment. The Serpent guard's eyes glow. The Horus guard's beak glistens. The Setesh guard's nose...drips."
    -Jaffa Joke


    Damn, it's a good day today!!! :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    This was a Robert Mueller who seemed too old, who couldn’t remember the name of the president who appointed him as U.S. attorney years ago, the Mueller who couldn’t give Democrats the dramatic sound bites they so desperately wanted.

    And so Democrats like Axelrod and Tribe trashed him.

    The left’s anxiety attacks are their own affair. It’s what happens when people insist on clinging to a fantasy, that Mueller would appear and make their dreams a reality.

    Mueller had warned them he wouldn’t perform for them. He told them he’d stay with what was in the report, but the Democrats trotted him out anyway, and they cranked up their organ music as if he were their monkey and told him to dance.

    And he wouldn’t.

    Is that Mueller’s fault? No, it’s their fault.

    Mueller warned the Democrats what would happen..

    *I* warned the Democrats what would happen...

    Democrats did it anyways...

    They have no one to blame for this debacle but themselves...

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrats said Americans didn’t read the Mueller report, they wanted Mueller to give them the movie. But it wasn’t “Seven Days in May.” It was more like “Pee-wee’s Big Adventure.”


    "It's funny because it's true.."
    -Homer Simpson

    The Mueller report made it clear that there wasn’t enough to prove a conspiracy with the Russians. And without a crime, all the Democrats have is their hurt feelings. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knows it.

    And what is so damn hilarious is that it's DUMBOCRATS who are the instruments of their own embarrassment.. NO ONE had a hand in making this happen, except the Dumbocrats..

    They simply HAD to know what would happen.. Mueller explicitly WARNED them what would happen..

    Mueller channeled his inner Bruce Banner and said to the Dumbocrats, "Don't make me testify.. You won't like it when I testify.."

    But Democrats are so crazed by their Hyper Hysterical President Trump Derangement Syndrome that they threw all caution to the wind and said "BRING IT!!!"

    And Mueller brought his F- game..

    As Trump puffed his chest in victory, the Democrats lined up and tried to spin again Wednesday evening, but they were exhausted, and it was over.

    President Trump and the American people CLEARLY won this battle... Of that there is absolutely NO DOUBT..

    Ya'all's silence confirms this..

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I am sure that Dumbocrats will continue to prosecute the war, even though they were humiliatingly defeated in the battle...

    They’ll keep beating their Russian horse. But Trump and the Republicans will now move to the next phase of the story. Attorney General William Barr and FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz are investigating the federal investigators who started it all.

    “I believe what you’re going to find out, you are going to find out a lot of things that were done very wrong,” Trump said. “That’s something you haven’t been writing about. And that has to do with the other side, with this thing called ‘investigate the investigators.’ Let’s see what happens. That’s going to be very interesting.”

    It will be. And that’s what elections are for.

    And Democrats keeping stacking the chips in President Trump's favor... :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    And even MORE bad news for Dumbocrats.. :D

    Once A Democratic Bastion, Minnesota Trends Red Heading Into 2020

    When it comes to elections, swing states are always crucial, but in 2020, this blue state could be turning red for Trump.

    The HITS just keep on coming.. :D

  68. [68] 
    lharvey16 wrote:

    Kick (2)

    Well said. Fortunately my scroll wheel still works.

    CW very worthwhile read as always. Thanks again. Keep up the good work.

    Remember the noise the idiotic troll inflicts is just radio static. Remember transistor radios?

    “You are to listen to the cursed radio music of life and to reverence the spirit behind it and to laugh at its distortions.”
    ? Hermann Hesse, Steppenwolf

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember the noise the idiotic troll inflicts is just radio static. Remember transistor radios?

    And more proof that I am in EVERYONE'S head...

    People simply CAN'T stop talking about me..


    Neil, you really have to put out a more forceful memo....

    People are just ignoring YOU and not me!! hehehehehehehehe

    Howz THAT for irony.. :D

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    With Trump trailing most of the Democratic candidates in the Rust Belt by double digits in recent polling, liberals seem gleeful about their chances of victory in 2020. But this optimism assumes Trump cannot expand the electoral map elsewhere.

    Minnesota Isn’t Feeling Blue

    In fact, he can. Thanks to the success of Trump’s policies and other fortuitous developments, several other blue-trending states are certain to be in play in 2020.

    Of these, none is more important than Minnesota. Its 10 electoral votes alone could offset a possible Rust Belt loss. The mainstream media has barely covered Trump’s remarkable gains in Minnesota, a state that historically is the bluest of the blue.

    How blue? Even during the Reagan landslide victories of 1980 and 1984, the Gopher State remained a bastion of New Deal liberalism and economic populism. In fact, the last time the GOP captured Minnesota was during Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign in 1972, nearly a half-century ago.

    Yet Trump, with his own brand of populism, nearly captured the state in 2016. He carried 78 of the state’s 87 counties, double the number carried by President Barack Obama in 2012. Overall, the margin between Trump and Hillary Clinton was a mere 1.5 percent — just 44,000 votes — the weakest Democratic tilt in decades.

    More ways that Democrats are going to lose in 2020.. :D

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does a Guilty Conscience Explain Mueller's Fumbling Testimony? (UPDATED)

    Best theory I have heard to date.. :D

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    It may be that Robert Mueller being — to be polite — a bit past it accounts for his surprisingly befuddled demeanor and seeming unfamiliarity with his own report at Wednesday's hearings. The imputation that Mueller does little or none of his own writing — many credibly believe Andrew Weissman and/or his cohorts are the true authors of the report — may also be an explanation for this behavior. On multiple occasions when questioned about his own text Mueller had a blank expression or looked over to his last-minute sidekick Aaron Zebley for answers that should have been obvious. (Zebley's presence was itself a sign of nervous desperation.)

    Simply more facts to support the theory that Mueller was just a patsy...

    Mueller reminds me of Sir Ben Kingsley's portrayal of THE MANDARIN in IRON MAN III...

    Just a facade.. A front man who is nothing but a befuddled septuagenarian whose senility addled brain simply can't process....

    While I feel sorry for Mueller, such sympathy is off-set but the fact that his Trump hatred led him to be willingly used...

    Mueller chose the path he was on..

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    He has a guilty conscience.

    He should. And not just because Peter Strzok texted to his paramour what feels like decades ago that there was "no there there." Anyone with an IQ in the proverbial triple digits has known that for a long time. (How distant it seems, months, years, that Dianne Feinstein was asked about the collusion/conspiracy— pick one — and admitted there was none.)

    Mueller, unless he was living on Pluto, knew this. And somewhere, deep down, a part of him, an increasingly significant part, I suspect, must have realized what he was doing was wrong. (Besides his demeanor, this may also explain why he gave up on interviewing Trump.)

    Anyone who is NOT a slave of Party dogma and who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together knew that Russia Collusion was a delusion from day one...

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller was correct in asserting his investigation wasn't a "witch hunt." It was far worse. It was part of a treasonous and/or seditious (depending on your definitions) attempt to prevent a man from winning the presidency and then, once he had done so, to sabotage and unseat him.

    As we are now learning, the involvement in this — the real conspiracy — went up to the highest reaches of the previous administration, beginning when they were still in office. And once Trump was in office, the efforts were redoubled.

    Yep... It was an illegal attempt to thwart the free, fair and legal election of a United States President..

    Once THAT failed, it morphed into a coup...

    An attempt to remove a freely, fairly, legally and duly elected President and nullify the free, fair and legal election that put him in office..

    There is simply no other way to come to any other conclusion...

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Com'on lharvey16.. Try and keep up!!

    "What'sa matter?? Got no SCROTE!!"
    -Leslie "Spike" O'Malley, BACK TO THE FUTURE II

    Oh, shit.. '16' That must be your age..

    OK, OK.. That explains a lot..

    Yer dismissed.. :D Run along and play now.. :D

  76. [76] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    The noise-to-signal ratio isn't very good lately.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another noteworthy dishonest facet of the Mueller report and his testimony is the insistence that the Russians interfered to help Trump. This exhibits a (deliberate?) lack of knowledge on how Russian/Soviet disinfo operates. They aim to confuse, not to favor. Indeed, conveniently left out of the report and Wednesday's testimony was Rosenstein's saying precisely that when he announced the indictment of the Russian hackers. He emphasized they intended to create dissension, not choose one candidate over the other. They clearly succeeded in their true intention and then some, thanks to the like of Adam Schiff. Moreover, why would the Russians even have thought they could get Trump elected? That would have been a waste of time to any competent KGB/FSB officer. They read the same polls we did.

    Yep, exactly.. Anyone who has even the SLIGHTEST expertise in intelligence operations (such as your's truly) knows that Russians SOLE goal is to sow dissension and create chaos...

    That is why Russian operatives were sent to Bernie Sanders rallies AND to Hillary Clinton rallies...

    The goal was to create chaos... Like the author notes, there is simply NO WAY that Russians could know that Trump would win the election..

    They simply created the impression they were backing the least likely candidate to win so that, when he lost (as was expected) it would weaken President Hillary Clinton...

    As an aside, you can't imagine how bad I shudder'ed when I typed out "President Hillary Clinton".. Even the THOUGHT of that sends shivers down my spine.....

    Anyways, anyone who is NOT a Party slave and has more than a couple brain cells to rub together KNOWS that Russians were backing Trump to win.. They were as surprised as anyone else (sans me, of course) when President Trump won...

    So, as usual, the Dumbocrat narrative is simply nothing but bullshit..

    A FACT that was made clear AGAIN by the Mueller testimony...

    You people lost... It's time you accept this reality..

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chalk another mark up for one who can't follow Neil's memo... :D

    The noise-to-signal ratio isn't very good lately.

    You know where the door is, sunshine.. Don't let it hit ya on yer ass on the way out.. :D

    On the other hand, the signal-to-noise ratio is excellent...

    VERY Strong and powerful signal.. IE all the FACTS of how badly the Dumbocrats messed up..

    VERY little whiney and crying noise.. All of ya'all who can't handle the fact that ya'all lost..

    AGAIN... :D

    Keep it coming, sugar.. :D I love a captive audience.. :D

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Analysis: Mueller speaks, but 2020 voters may have final say

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert Mueller’s testimony sent the clearest signal yet that impeachment may be slipping out of reach for Democrats and that the ultimate verdict on President Donald Trump will be rendered by voters in the 2020 election.


    The ONLY reason Democrats are so hysterical about Mueller is because they KNOW that they will be slaughtered at the ballot box...

    But it's becoming painfully obvious to ANYONE who is not a Party slave, that the American people are sick and tired of the Dumbocrat antics and bullshit..

    I said at the beginning when Mueller released his report..

    Due to the fact that Mueller had completely and utterly exonerated President Trump, the confidence that Democrats have in beating President Trump at the ballot box will be indicated by how hysterically and desperately they pursue Mueller and his report..

    Such hysteria and desperation culminated in the senior moment Mueller had at his hearings..

    Democrats must resign themselves to the fact that they are NOT going to be able to nullify a free, fair and legal election and are NOT going to be able to remove the freely, fairly, legally and duly elected President Trump..

    And, since Democrats KNOW they can't beat President Trump at the ballot box.....

    Their BEST course of action would be to start planning for 2024...

    But, as we saw with the Mueller Senility Fest... Demcorats are their own worst enemies...

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    The former special counsel was always going to be a reluctant witness who wanted his report to speak for itself. Democrats knew what they would encounter even if they were hoping for a Mueller of a different vintage, from his time leading the FBI after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

    Instead, they saw a less forceful public presence, hard of hearing at times, hesitant to answer many of the questions, but one still skilled enough in the ways of Washington to not read his report in a way that Democrats could exploit.

    When Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., asked if Mueller would read a certain section from the report, Mueller turned the tables: “I’m happy to have you read it.”

    As senile as Mueller was, he wasn't totally helpless.. As evidenced by the little jab and twist Mueller did with the Democrats..

    Hehehehehe THAT was funny... :D

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy,” Mueller said. “The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. ... This deserves the attention of every American.”

    And *WHO* was POTUS during this "most serious" attempt by Russia to interfere in our Elections??

    Barack Obama....

    WHICH President waited MONTHS before responding to this "most serious" actions by Russia because he didn't want to mess up Hillary's chances to win???

    Barack Obama....

    And WHICH President promised fealty and "flexibility" to Russia's Putin in trade for space to win the 2012 election??

    Barack Obama....

    In ya'all's search for the President who caused most, if not all of the problems....

    You need only look to the Democrat President who gave JIMMY CARTER a good name..

    Barack Hussein Obama

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    History repeats itself...

    Savior no more? Distraught Dems turn on Mueller after stumbling hearing

    Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's mythic profile -- built over a period of two years by Trump detractors hoping his investigation and later his testimony would pave the way for the president's removal from office -- took a hit Wednesday as the veteran lawman was seen stumbling through questions and at times unclear about the contents of his own report.

    Now, some of President Trump’s biggest critics are turning their ire toward the legend himself, panning his performance at this high-stakes forum, even though Mueller repeatedly made clear he did not wish to testify in the first place.

    EXACTLY as I predicted..

    Mueller is now the scapegoat for the bumbling and incompetent Dumbocrat Party...

    Gods, I hate it when I am right all the time...

    Doesn't give any of ya'all a fighting chance.... :D

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gods, I hate it when I am right all the time...

    Doesn't give any of ya'all a fighting chance.... :D

    As evidenced by how ya'all can't address ANY of the facts or the issues or reality.. How ya'all insist on making things about me personally..

    If ya'all had any facts on your side, you wouldn't have to always make it about me personally.. :D

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin: Between Trump and Mueller, It Looks Like POTUS Is Winning

    Even CNN is acknowledging President Trump is winning...

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that though President Donald Trump and Special Counsel Robert Mueller are similar in background, they are wildly different in demeanor — and it looks like Trump is winning between the two of them.

    “Look at who’s winning now, it certainly seems like Donald Trump is winning between the two of them,” said Toobin on CNN’s The Lead.

    You cannot deny reality, people....

    It always comes around and bites ya on the ass...

  86. [86] 
    Paula wrote:

    The Comrade Michale blocker is really nice gang! From my perspective there 8 posts here today. Anyway, for the sentients among us, some tidbits:

    Also, in the "that's...hmmm" news - Jeffrey Epstein found in fetal position with marks on neck, moved to suicide watch though assault hasn't been ruled out.

    Puerto Rico Gov to resign.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Comrade Michale blocker is really nice gang! From my perspective there 8 posts here today. Anyway, for the sentients among us, some tidbits:

    Yes it's always nice to stick yer heads in the sand and ignore reality..

    As an added bonus, you get to open up your computer to a multitude of virusii and hacking..

    All because ya can't handle the facts and reality.. :D

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    As an added bonus, you get to open up your computer to a multitude of virusii and hacking..

    Oh?? You didn't know??

    ChazzBrown runs an Internet Marketing agency.. He tools around the Internet, jumps in to forums like this one and cons people into installing scripts and such on their computers..

    These script scoop up all the browser history of the target computer and sends it to his company.. They sift thru the info and collate it, catalog it and then sell it to corporations..

    Yea, it's a pretty scwhweet scam.. And all he does is play off the ignorance of people like ya'all..

    Any of ya'all that installed that script, yer computer and all the data on it is a wide open book to an Internet Marketing scam... :D


    Hay, Chazz.. Since I provided all the incentive, don'tcha think I should get a piece of the action?? :D

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, in the "that's...hmmm" news - Jeffrey Epstein found in fetal position with marks on neck, moved to suicide watch though assault hasn't been ruled out.

    Yea, I already posted that.. Jeeze, yer slow this morning..

    Anti-psychotics wearing ya down?? :eyeroll:

    Puerto Rico Gov to resign.

    Yep.. Covered that.. YESTERDAY....

    Time to change the batteries, Paula.. Yer slackin'.. :D

  90. [90] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:


    For Gawdsake, give 'em a break here and have a little mercy on these poor bastards. You're WAY past Schadenfreude, well into sadism.

    Surely God will punish you for rejoicing in the self-inflicted misery of your fellow Weigantians.

  91. [91] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [90] - don't worry, we scroll past all the comments because we've learned that they are just right wing nut job drivel - it is more embarrassing for you because he "speaks" for your side.

    This is what America is becoming - a bunch of ignorant loud mouths trying to drown out the decent sensible Americans - but we are not only sensible and decent, we are the majority as we prove convincingly in 2018 when we woke up to the fact that there were more RWNJs who had learned to mark an "X" than anybody suspected.

    We won't let them get within cheating distance in elections again.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    For Gawdsake, give 'em a break here and have a little mercy on these poor bastards. You're WAY past Schadenfreude, well into sadism.

    I know, I know.. But considering the abuse I have had to endure.... Well paybacks are definitely a MoFo!! :D

    Surely God will punish you for rejoicing in the self-inflicted misery of your fellow Weigantians.

    "Most likely.. Bet it's something nice though.."


  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS [90] - don't worry, we scroll past all the comments because we've learned that they are just right wing nut job drivel -

    Yea.. SURE you do, Neil..

    That is why you scour my every word, hoping for SOMETHING you can contest...

    Funny thing is, your call for people to ignore me??

    They ignored YOU and not me!! :D

    Howz THAT for poetic justice... :D

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    For Gawdsake, give 'em a break here and have a little mercy on these poor bastards. You're WAY past Schadenfreude, well into sadism.

    Ya gotta admit.. It was momentously stoopid for Democrats to put Mueller on the stand.. Schiff-head and Nadler just HAD to know that Mueller was nothing but the figurehead.. A patsy...

    They simply HAD to know what an abysmal job he would do...

    Gotta wonder what was going thru their minds..

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi warns Dems: Don’t trash colleagues who won’t back impeachment

    Looks like Democrat Civil War is back on!! :D

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aww right, people.. It's poker night so you get to have the next 13 hours Michale Free...

    Try not to miss me too much... I look forward to reading about how ya'all can't live without me.. :D

    And, oh yea.. Quit sending all the hate mail to CW... If you want me gone, get rid of me yerself!!!

    Badgering him about it simply ain't fair to him...

    Hasta Lasagna, don't get any on ya... :D

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [90]

    Your liability-with-a-keyboard is acting up again, can you get him under control please?

  98. [98] 
    neilm wrote:

    We have created a culture of invulnerability for executives and the powerful in this country that we need to rethink.

    Even when one gets caught red-handed, like Bernie Madoff, they think they can petition the President for a pardon or exoneration.

    This is non-partisan in my view - until the most powerful people in the World fear the American justice system again, we are going to decline as a nation.

    We know we can do it - look at what we did to FIFA a few years ago, and the stark contrast with the Banking crisis where nobody was charged with anything.

    Time to step up. The DOJ should be the most feared entity on the planet for criminals.

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Is It Really True That "No One Is Above The Law"?

    In the United States of America? Yes, sir, it is really true, and it's not even a close call. To understand the verity of this fact, one need only have the ability to grasp the "big picture" and have a rudimentary understanding of the laws of the United States wherein our Constitution is our supreme law and the United States Code is our law.

    The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    ~ Article I, Section 2, United States Constitution


    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    ~ Article I, Section 3, United States Constitution
    [emphasis mine]


    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. ~

    Article II, Section 4, United States Constitution

    While there certainly is a different process by which our President, Vice President, and "all civil Officers of the United States" are held to account under our laws, when the supreme law of our United States of America:

    * Specifically provides a Section stating that you shall be removed from Office and setting forth the particular process of your removal in multiple other sections contained therein


    * Specifically provides a Section further stating that a "Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law"


    You are therefore most definitely and most decidedly not "above the law."


    New Topic

    Is Queen Elizabeth II above the law?

    Bloody well right! ;)

  100. [100] 
    Kick wrote:


    It's 48 today and counting.

    I would wager the ignoramus believes you counted his posts when you simply performed subtraction.

    Heh. :)

  101. [101] 
    Kick wrote:


    From my perspective there 8 posts here today.

    Yes! Quite enough already of the entirely unnecessary plagiarism and nicked and lifted entire articles of other people that has been transferred to this website.

    I've just collapsed it into about a dozen comments now that I've invoked "HIDDEN" and relegated it to its proper place of invisibility. Be gone! And so it is.

    I love you, Charlie Brown! XOXOXOX :)

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:


    Awesome post. Perfectly stated. :)

  103. [103] 
    Kick wrote:


    This! All of it.

    Time to step up. The DOJ should be the most feared entity on the planet for criminals.

    Parts of the DOJ are working still and still working. :)

  104. [104] 
    Paula wrote:

    Great piece:

    The GOP mistake? Not raising one word of concern about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    Not a word about the fact that the Kremlin wanted Trump to win, set out to make that happen. Not one word about the fact that Trump and his team eagerly embraced their help. Not one word asking about the sensitive campaign strategy materials that Trump’s campaign chairman, now a convicted felon, shared with a Russian oligarch. Not one question designed to pursue all the lying, denying and hiding the facts of Russian interference in our democracy.

    On top of that testimony, Mueller revealed that “currently” there are “many elements” of the FBI looking into how Trump’s first national security director, now a confessed felon, created ongoing dangers to our national security because he was secretly a well-paid foreign agent working in the Trump White House.

    All this and more that Mueller testified about show that Donald Trump and his team are not loyal Americans. Now add in that Trump says he would accept future help from the Kremlin (and other foreign interests), and that Senator McConnell will do nothing to protect the integrity of our elections.

    All of this screams one word: disloyalty.

  105. [105] 
    Paula wrote:

    [101] Kick: you're enjoyment of life will go UP!

  106. [106] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Paula [104}

    No in reality it screams at a bare minimum, TWO words. Along with "disloyalty", comeS HYPOCRISY!!

    While it has not previously entered the discussion of "Russian interferance in our election" (it's very interesting and illustrative that we use that word (election) in the singular), the truth of the matter of "interferance in foreign elections", is that ABSOLUTELY NOBODY, NOWHERE AND AT NO TIME even begins to approach the level of interfering in foreign elections that WE, the good old USA, have perpetrated for YEARS AND YEARS!

  107. [107] 
    Paula wrote:

    [106] Stuck-being-a-conservative-when-they're-all-either-cowards-or-traitors:

    Yep, USA has interfered in other elections (like deposing an elected President in Iran). I think that's wrong. I also think it's wrong for Russia or Saudi Arabia, etc. to interfere in ours. I think it's multiple levels of WORSE for our own elected leaders to allow foreign interference; to take advantage of it; and/or to refuse to take measure to stop it.

  108. [108] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [106]

    Re: your argument "we did it, so we shouldn't protect ourselves when it is done to us" a bit dumb?

    We pay more for our Defense than the next 5-10 combined - why? Why bother if your response to a missile hitting Idaho Falls is "we'll we dropped a missile on Iraq once, so why are we complaining?"

    Get a grip.

  109. [109] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:


    When I read my [106], I do not find anything even close to what you claim to have found therein.

    My point was not that "we shouldn't protect ourselves", but rather that we shouldn't get all "hollier than thou" over it!

  110. [110] 
    Kick wrote:


    Kick: you're enjoyment of life will go UP!

    Ha! *smile* "I am" definitely enjoyment of life and getting higher.

    *big grin* :)

  111. [111] 
    Kick wrote:

    [109] Stuck-being-a-conservative-when-they're-all-either-cowards-or-traitors:

    You should get used to idea that on this very forum there are commenters who have excellent if not total recall, continuity of thought, and the ability to pick up on a conversation we've had before from multiple years ago. Seriously, let that "sink in."

    When I read my [106], I do not find anything even close to what you claim to have found therein.

    He didn't. He simply utilized all that stuff to which I "clued you in" above, noticed you were taking a familiar path, and decided to throw up a roadblock. It was an effing masterclass... but you weren't keen enough to catch it. Pity. :)

    My point was not that "we shouldn't protect ourselves", but rather that we shouldn't get all "hollier than thou" over it!

    Been there, done that! Although we absolutely and without question already realize you haven't got a snowball's chance in Hell of doing it: Try not sounding like a broken record and try to keep up! :)

  112. [112] 
    Kick wrote:

    Why do all the trolls on this forum have to be of the "idiot" and/or "fraud" variety?

    It's freaking not fair!

    Whine over... Time for wine! :)

  113. [113] 
    nypoet22 wrote:


  114. [114] 
    nypoet22 wrote:


  115. [115] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:


    "Continuity of thought" is only a virtue when the thoughts comport to reality, something yours rarely do.

  116. [116] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [101] Kick

    Be gone! And so it is.

    Except for testing I never use 'hidden' myself, but it's been at Homeland Insecurity Level RED lately, so I'm glad I allowed for that :) .

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki

    "Continuity of thought" is only a virtue when the thoughts comport to reality, something yours rarely do.

    Said the old charlatan who's been busted multiple times for his pathetic attempts at lecturing the entire group wherein he lies on a routine basis!

    It must be tough for you now that senility and CRS disease has taken hold. As I have said many times: Your initials perfectly suit you. :) *laughs*

  118. [118] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Sorry that it's taken a few days for me to post, but frankly, I've been in shock - not over Mueller's testimony, but over the reaction to it: I honestly never expected the GOP to simply deny what was happening right in front of their eyes.

    Sure, there were some that seemed shocked that a 75 year old man could look his age, or that he wasn't 'compelling' enough for the audience. I mostly heard idiots claim that this would be 'the movie'.

    None of that mattered. Mueller said plainly that the President was a crook, that Russia played a big role in his election, and that almost everyone pretty much lied about it, at least until they were caught.

    As one wag put it, take just the first 5 minutes of the Mueller-Schiff exchange, and change the president's name to Obama, and the GOP would have impeachment charges on him by sundown.

    But Fox News was all high fives and slaps on the back. Huh?? Well it was simple: they'd pulled off a conspiracy switcheroo - just as Mueller was (carefully) describing his report, the Republicans had inserted their own conspiracies, which they saw as a win and match.

    Never in my life have two political parties had such varying views of the same event. Of course the democrats put no stock at all into Hannity's theories, and the GOP doesn't hear Mueller at all, much less read him.

    Again, we're left with the plain fact that the only way to wipe the board clean is to vote these guys out - all the way out. The Democrats can do it, I truly hope so.

  119. [119] 
    Kick wrote:

    Charles Brown, Esq.

    Except for testing I never use 'hidden' myself, but it's been at Homeland Insecurity Level RED lately, so I'm glad I allowed for that :)

    Me too, Chuck! You've henceforth captured and shall always and forever therefore command an EXPANDED place in my heart that shall never be HIDDEN or become COLLAPSED.

    While one might choose to just scroll through the vast majority of bullshit, with all the expanded pilfering, plagiarism, propaganda, and needless flooding of the zone from the stench hole, the HIDDEN feature allows for a much more rapid focus toward the relevant comments and the simultaneous annihilation of all the idiotic distracting bollocks into complete and total nothingness.

    Weigantia: Love It or Leave It!

    And for those hypocrites who won't practice that which they preach, we have ways of making them disappear, regardless.

  120. [120] 
    Kick wrote:

    ^^ EDIT ^^

    Charles Brown, Esq.

  121. [121] 
    Kick wrote:


    Very well said, sir. :)

  122. [122] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I take a day off from the world and come back to this?!? Geez....

    CW -

    Trump is going to face charges when he leaves office — there is no doubt about that! Trump has already been acknowledged by a federal court as being “unindicted co-conspirator #1”. Trump’s long-time accountant, Allen Weisselberg, made a deal with the FBI to avoid being indicted.... which means he had something of bigger value to offer investigators. To date, Weisselberg hasn’t been involved as a witness in any of the cases the Fed’s have prosecuted, which means he hasn’t earned his get-out-of-jail card yet. Not to mention the 14 investigations that were borne out of the Mueller investigation that are still on-going. (Here’s the one that must make Trump go bonkers — because Trump is sooooo compromised, he will be the subject of an on-going counter-intelligence investigation until the day he dies!)

    Trump’s crimes are vast and numerous and are not limited to Federal jurisdiction. New York State will be quick to indict Trump and family the first chance they get. Tax evasion and money laundering crimes occurred well before Trump chose to run for office. Trump should not be allowed to get away with it as that further sends the message that the wealthy in this country do not face the same justice system that the rest of us do.

    Trump chose to work with a foreign government to win the election. Trump has furthered his business while in office. Trump has violated the emoluments clause. He asked Russia to help find Hillary’s emails in a news conference for all the world to witness and they tried to hack her server a few hours later. He told Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. He kidnapped children away from their parents and deported the parents without bothering to try to reunite them — creating an untold number of orphans. The Mueller report outlined over 12 instances that would have resulted in Trump being indicted on obstruction charges if he weren’t the president. Mueller also stated that Trump lied to investigators in his written responses to their questions, which is also a crime.

    Trump’s criminal history is so vast that it will hopefully result in laws requiring all federal candidates be vetted by law enforcement prior to being allowed on the ballot in an effort to prevent politicians that are compromised and subject to being blackmailed from ever being placed in such great positions of power.

    Bottom line: Trump and others will face justice or else the rule of law will be rendered meaningless in this country. Trump has flaunted his lawlessness for everyone to see, and he must be made an example of for future generations to learn from.

  123. [123] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula [104]

    Spot on! Great article!

    Kick [99]

    100% correct. I’d also like to point out that the Office of the Vice President has the ability and is authorized to take over the presidency when the president is unable to carry out his duties. Indictment on felony charges should be viewed the same as being put under anesthesia. If and only when the President comes out of it with a clean bill of health can he resume his presidency.

    In no other federal job does the administrative hearing occur before a criminal prosecution is allowed! Guilty verdicts make for easy administrative hearings.

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:


    Trump is going to face charges when he leaves office — there is no doubt about that!

    Funny.. That's EXACTLY what ya'all said about Bush...

    You were wrong then, you'll be wrong again... :D

    As usual...

  125. [125] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW said:

    Charging a former president would seem awfully small politically, and charges of "that's what banana republics do" would certainly be tossed around.

    Sealed indictments that were filed during the accused’s presidency would make that argument moot! These aren’t charges being created out of thin air to get revenge over personal vendettas; they are the result of overwhelming evidence collected that warrant indictment on felony charges! Charging someone would not be a political action; NOT charging them would be a political action! Finding reasons to not charge someone that the evidence supports their being charged is always politically motivated.

  126. [126] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:


    Funny.. That's EXACTLY what ya'all said about Bush...

    You were wrong then, you'll be wrong again... :D

    Prove it! Show all of us where I said that? Can’t do it? That must mean that you were lying once again! Face it, you are not to be believed. Nothing you say can be trusted as being true. You don’t keep your word, you disrespect and hurl insults at everyone on here that disagrees with you, and are constantly dishonest on here.

    Tootsie roll, Troll!

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sealed indictments that were filed during the accused’s presidency would make that argument moot!

    And who is going to issue the sealed indictments??

    President Trump's AG??


    Prove it! Show all of us where I said that?

    I don't have to... You and I and everyone here ALL know that ya'all DID say that.. :D

    Nothing you say can be trusted as being true.

    Says the guy who cannot refute a SINGLE fact I put down.. :D

    You don’t keep your word, you disrespect and hurl insults at everyone on here that disagrees with you, and are constantly dishonest on here.

    Says the guy who constantly insults people that disagree with you and don't have an honest bone in your body... :D

    Face reality, Russ.. You are ALWAYS wrong.. You have NEVER been right about ANY of your predictions.

    And THAT is why you get pissed.. Because yer always wrong.. :D

  128. [128] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen Your [122]

    It's absolutely true that Trump is by your definition 'guilty' of each and ever sin and transgression that you have itemized, and likely many others.

    The absolutely fascinating aspect of all his 'sinning' for you, Kick, etc., is that those multiple 'sins and transgressions' only became worthy of mention, much less prosecution, on the exact moment when Trump was declaredd the winner of the 2016 election.

    Had Hillary won the election, not a single one of those multiple 'sins and transgressions' would have ever crossed your lips (or your keyboard)!

  129. [129] 
    Paula wrote:

    [128] Stuck-repeating-Comrade-Michale-tropes:

    "Had Hillary won the election, not a single one of those multiple 'sins and transgressions' would have ever crossed your lips (or your keyboard)!"


  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:


    "Had Hillary won the election, not a single one of those multiple 'sins and transgressions' would have ever crossed your lips (or your keyboard)!"

    Dead on balls accurate...

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula wrote:
    [128] Stuck-repeating-Comrade-Michale-tropes:

    I thought you were ignoring me, Paula??


    I appreciate all the room I have in your head.. Since you have such a pea-sized brain, I can expand quite bit.. :D

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    The absolutely fascinating aspect of all his 'sinning' for you, Kick, etc., is that those multiple 'sins and transgressions' only became worthy of mention, much less prosecution, on the exact moment when Trump was declaredd the winner of the 2016 election.

    And ANOTHER dead on ballz accurate statement.. :D

  133. [133] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Paula [129]

    Now that the Russians are in control of the U.S. electoral process, please restrict yourself to the Russian translation response to accurate posts, as in "Bullski Shitski"!

  134. [134] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:


    The absolutely fascinating aspect of all his 'sinning' for you, Kick, etc., is that those multiple 'sins and transgressions' only became worthy of mention, much less prosecution, on the exact moment when Trump was declaredd the winner of the 2016 election.

    No shit, Sherlock! Up until that time, Trump played no part in my life and had zero influence in most aspects of my life. That changed when the con man “won” the election! Guess what? The police rarely just start investigations on people out of the blue! It takes doing something that draws attention to your actions to get them to start investigations. You know, like members of your campaign bragging to foreign diplomats that Russia is helping your candidate dig up trash on your opponent! Or the candidate lying about no one in the campaign talking with the Russians when there are intelligence recordings proving you are compromised!

    Trump has been able to get away with his financial crimes because he never gave the government a reason to look closely at his business deals. He also had enough money and aggressive lawyers/fixers that could shut down people who tried to call attention to Trump’s sins. The government didn’t go after him because he was never anything more than a family owned business that was only successful at failing! He wasn’t running a major corporation, didn’t have to answer to stock holders, and was broke.

    Had Hillary won the election, not a single one of those multiple 'sins and transgressions' would have ever crossed your lips (or your keyboard)!

    No, had Hillary won, Trump would be sharing a cell with Michael Cohen right now. He lied to investigators, broke campaign finance laws, and he cannot explain where millions of dollars in donations to his campaign ended up. He’d be in prison, and it would be long overdue!

    Now the questions really should be: “Why are you willing to have a criminal in the White House? Why are you willing to look the other way when it comes to his criminal behavior?”

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Why are you willing to have a criminal in the White House? Why are you willing to look the other way when it comes to his criminal behavior?”

    Why not, tool.. YOU were willing to look the other way if Hillary would have won the election..

  136. [136] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:


    So would you have been so interested in Bill Clinton’s sex life if he hadn’t been president? Is it just your hobby or have your doctors given your obsession into strangers lives a name?

    This is a go-to deflection device used by Idiots. You are parroting idiots who make such ridiculous statements because they think they can shift focus this way...but it fails miserably when you think about it for longer than a second! Why would anyone care about the personal lives of these people if they were NOT politicians whose job it was to represent us?!?

  137. [137] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki

    The absolutely fascinating aspect of all his 'sinning' for you, Kick, etc., is that those multiple 'sins and transgressions' only became worthy of mention, much less prosecution, on the exact moment when Trump was declaredd the winner of the 2016 election.

    What's really beyond fascinating is how positively bereft of brain cells you'd have to be to make a claim like that on a forum with years of archives that are easily searchable in which there are months and months of comments containing exactly what you're claiming doesn't exist!

    Had Hillary won the election, not a single one of those multiple 'sins and transgressions' would have ever crossed your lips (or your keyboard)!

    Does it surprise anyone at all that the senile old man who's already confessed to being a hunter and pecker on his keyboard would be airhead enough to claim to know what everyone else is doing on theirs? He barely knows what he's doing on his own! *laughs*

    Please feel free to keep supplying the proof that you couldn't connect the dots if there were two in totality. This demonstrable stupidity of yours is exactly what I'm talking about when I refer to our "idiot trolls."

    You could save yourself some serious time here by simply changing your moniker to "Stupid" because you've got a great head start on that name anyway, and I was merciful enough to show you how to spell it!

  138. [138] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen [136}

    What the hell makes you think I AM "interested in Bill Clinton's sex life??"

Comments for this article are closed.