Silly arguments being made by the right

Are you a prosecutor?

 

Anyone else whose constitutional rights you'd violate?

 

That was the point I made the other day. Don got his tax cut passed by a friendly Congress which gave the economy a temporary sugar high. A tax cut that has exacerbated the problem of deficit spending.

 

Income tax revenue continued to rise at the same rate. We simply spent more money.

 

No.

 

Then how do you know?

 

Do you think being a prosecutor requires special training?

 

Same way I know that horses don't climb trees.

 

So you don't actually know.

 

No more than I know horses don't climb trees. Prosecutors galore have said and done such since time immemorial. No prosecutor worth his salt ever ever exonerates a suspect or declares anyone innocent. Think about it.

 

Interesting….. as prosecutors either charge on the evidence they have….. or they drop the case for lack of evidence….
Please provide us with any other case that differs from that.

 

The Muller investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 Presidential election was such a “case”.

 

It was not. Mueller never said they found Trump innocent or exonerated. He worded a ton of bread crumbs to incentivize the easily duped that he might have exonerated him if only his doggie hadn't stop to take a crap, but he never did.

 

I'll add to your list basically anything involving immigration.

I recently saw an interview with Giuliani where he talked about immigrants needing a green card in order to vote in the general election . . . it is ILLEGAL for ANYONE with a green card to vote in the general election. If you have a green card, you aren't a citizen and you can't vote. Right after that I saw "Judge" Jeanine Pirro claim that there only two types of people in this country: citizens and illegal immigrants. Your average middle schooler is smarter than this. Anyone who has read the Constitution knows that this is bull ****. Anyone who knows what a visa is knows this is bull ****. Anyone who knows what a green card is knows this is bull ****. Yet she said it. And supposedly she used to be a judge. There is no excuse for her being this dumb.

 

I always thought it was more about not being able to indict a sitting president, and so leaving it to congress because that's the policy, knowing full well most republicans would never vote to convict a republican even if they were obviously guilty. Basically, evidence was gathered with no intention of even determining if it was enough to indict.

 

In the very least, the Trump campaign PLANNED to meet with the Russian government and INTENDED to meet with them for the purpose of getting their support for the election. The best argument you have is that the Russian's didn't show.

 

Actually, if accurate, a fair point.

 

It's all accurate. Green card holders are here legally and they aren't citizens. Visa holders are here legally and they aren't citizens. According to the Constitution, someone wishing to be a naturalized citizen has to live here for several years before becoming a citizen, so obviously there has to be a legal way to live here without being a citizen. It all goes to show that your average junior high kid knows more about this **** than Giuliani or Pirro does.

 

It isn't only that he does not know, he's wrong.

 

Mueller testified to congress (actually twice, the second time voluntarily to make sure it was clear) that the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion about indicting a sitting president had nothing to do with him not charging Trump.

 

That is likely inaccurate, but in any case neither illegal, untoward, nor improper.

 

He stated plainly he did not exonerate Trump (in refutation of Billy the Bagman) and that he could not indict him due to the OLC prohibition against indicting a sitting prez. However, Mueller's report provides ample evidence, in multiple instances, Trump obstructed the investigation. Everything you're written to the contrary is nonsensical spin.

 

I wasn't questioning the accuracy of the substance, but whether those two claimed otherwise.

 

Certainly untoward and improper. And if done with intent illegal as well.

 

Why do you keep writing demonstrable falsehoods you know I can show to be wrong?

Why Mueller said he couldn’t indict Trump, explained

He made clear during his afternoon testimony that because of the OLC opinion, his team did not even reach a conclusion about “whether the president committed a crime.” This point was a major clarification of an earlier exchange in which Mueller seemed to signal that he would have potentially charged the president, were it not for the OLC opinion.
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/24/20708...epartment-indictment-charge-sitting-president

Rod, you're ridiculous. I've lost count of how many times you're stated the opposite of the truth. Is your Google machine broken?