Forum Thread
(Wazee Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
63,996 messages
Updated 12/9/2019 9:51:35 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,014 messages
Updated 10/28/2019 11:39:26 PM
(Wazee Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
3,931 messages
Updated 12/5/2019 5:17:36 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,172 messages
Updated 12/9/2019 10:06:09 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,911 messages
Updated 11/14/2019 9:31:06 AM
Lakes Online Forum
77 messages
Updated 4/15/2019 10:08:33 AM
Wazee Lake Photo Gallery

    
Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/2/2019 8:20:01 AM

So now Democrats and the loony left have Barr Derangement Syndrome.  This is absolutely hilarious to watch as they turn the attention away from Trump collusion and obstruction.....of which there was none....and are foaming at the mouth about how Barr characterized the report in his memo.  Newsflash left wing nuts, you can read the report for yourself.  Why is this even an issue?  And Mueller's letter leaking is more deep state nonsense as he has stated that the crux of Barr's summary was accurate but he was concerned how the media would run with it.  These people are clearly deranged.  Can't wait to see what they come up with next.





Name:   phil - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/2/2019 8:32:45 AM

The best/worst part was K Harris thinking she had a gotcha with "did you review all the evidence?"  WTF was Mueller and his team for if not for that purpose?  And if he was to review two years of evidence they would be complaining it was taking to long to get the damn report out.





Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/2/2019 9:10:38 AM (updated 5/2/2019 9:11:18 AM)

What is even worse for these idiots is that they are breathlessly fixated on the 19-page summary that Mueller created that was in fact released with the entire report.  So the issue is that Mueller wanted it released earlier and Barry chose to wait two weeks so he could release it with full report.  These people are literally insane.

And you are right on that one of the other members of the Democrat POTUS clown car actually asked Barr if he had looked at all the evidence.  Well no, you moron.  That was the Special Prosecutor and his 19 Democrat lawyer's job.  And this person is a former prosecutor and that is supposed to be a gotcha question?!?!?  Does she think these highly partisan lawyers that all suffer from TDS missed something?!?!?  If so, what the heck did we get for two years of work and $32M?  And the sad part is I can see the stupid left wing nuts saying, "Yeah...you didn't even review all the evidence!  It's a cover up!"  This is why they can't be trusted with power.  They are just plain dumb.





Name:   Carlson - Email Member
Subject:   They are worried about what is to come
Date:   5/2/2019 8:46:54 PM

how it was all start?   Lol





Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   Bingo!
Date:   5/3/2019 3:04:13 PM

They are obviously trying to discredit Barr so when the sh!t hits the fan with the spying, FISA abuse and all sorts of illegalities by the Obama admin they can claim it is....wait for it.....a witch hunt!  What's the over-under on when they start using that term?  The sad news for them is that the IG report is going to be the equivalent of the Steele dossier with minor difference.....it will be true and correct and not made up stuff gathered illegally by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.





Name:   Carlson - Email Member
Subject:   Bingo!
Date:   5/3/2019 3:12:26 PM

Did you see that cnn?





Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   Bingo!
Date:   5/3/2019 3:26:37 PM

Don't watch cnnBS or any of the other Democrat media organizations masquerading as news outlets.





Name:   phil - Email Member
Subject:   Bingo!
Date:   5/3/2019 3:44:27 PM

No way I would bet against the Demonrat spin on Barr to attempt to keep him from investigating where/when all this started.. 

 

If is funny that after a few on this site claiming Russia Russia Russia and "wake up America " for multiple years it has gotten really quiet lately.  I am still shocked that one of the handfull has not been attempting to already try to convice us that Barr is a Russia asset, Mueller who was put into saint hood actually was a Trump loyalist and needs to be investigated etc and something about eschewing obfuscation.

 

 





Name:   johndoe - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/6/2019 2:04:09 PM





Name:   phil - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/6/2019 3:00:25 PM (updated 5/6/2019 3:01:08 PM)

Funny Mueller who is/was CURRENT and charged with making the case decided to decline.

 

 





Name:   johndoe - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/6/2019 3:11:48 PM

Funny how someone who hasn't read Mueller's report can pretend to know what's in it. Mueller specifically stated that the only reason he did not indict was the DOJ position that a sitting President cannot be indicted. Had you read even the summaries in the report, you'd know that, and you wouldn't be spewing ignorant lies....





Name:   phil - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/6/2019 3:18:25 PM (updated 5/6/2019 4:31:32 PM)

Actually I did read the report - and regardless of his summeries he did not indict.  Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or impeached by congress - not the kangacourt of JaneDough or public opinion.

 

Rules / laws are put in place - if you do not like the rules / laws please have them changed.  Idiots like yourself keep moving that goal post because you did not get what you wanted.

 

"while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

So maybe if we just kept digging for another 2 years and another 30 million dollars then maybe, just maybe you could find the evidence you want to find.

 

I find it difficult to to imagine that in your mind 400+ pages that could in your words be shortened to "DOJ Policy does not allow it, so we took two years to write this sentence" and miss the whole "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" from vol II summary(pg 218 in the PDF if you are interested, right under the section that states conclusions, below Constitutional defenses - like he can fire Comey under the section titled "constitutional defenses", but that it could be "corruptly" with a demanding standard, and "The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."  I guess they can take what is in the report and head down impeachment lane if congress feels that he acted against the law. But so far Pelosi has decided against taking that step.

 





Name:   johndoe - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/6/2019 4:22:03 PM

You wrote:

"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or impeached by congress - not the kangacourt of JaneDough or public opinion."

First, that is definitely NOT the standard you applied when you referred to our past President and Secretary of State. So you prove yourself an abject hypocrite within the space of three posts in a single thread. Irony is so ironic....

Second, as to the phrase that follows "or" in the above: your wife is right when she tells you you're premature.





Name:   phil - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/6/2019 4:38:53 PM (updated 5/6/2019 5:15:15 PM)

At best you can make a joke because you know you have about as much evidence as Mueller.

 

And that is not evidence  - that is just my opinion that those two are guilty of attempting to overthrow an election, just as you are allowed your "opinion" that Mueller has the goods on Trump and if only they had more time and resources.  The difference is that now there are more investigations starting on where this "Russia" collusion started and the image may be more correct then you care to admit.

 

If only Comey, Clapper, Mueller, Pelosi, Nadler, Schift, CIA, FBI + others could have done their job correctly and found that 'evidence"

 

Mueller specifically stated that the only reason he did not indict was the DOJ position that a sitting President cannot be indicted  - please provide the page # of the report that "specifically states" thisi n the summeries.  even better please excerpt the passage you reference.

 

But if you want to go down those roads with jokes - I am sorry your mother missed her planned parenthood appointment.

 





Name:   johndoe - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/10/2019 8:56:38 AM

Image may contain: text





Name:   phil - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/10/2019 11:27:13 AM (updated 5/10/2019 11:28:15 AM)

Still waiting on you to provide the page # / paragraph that you want us to read.  Excerpts for all on here would be awesome.

 

You made the claim I have not read it, please prove you have.

 





Name:   johndoe - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/10/2019 1:50:33 PM (updated 5/10/2019 1:51:11 PM)

Volume 2, Page 1, in the executive summary:

"The Office of Legal Counsel has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions...."  "this Office accepted OLC's  legal conclusion....:"

Volume 2, Page 2, in the executiive summary:

"...we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the President commited crimes."

 

IOW, the decision was made in advance not to make a decision on indictment.  Had you read the report as you claimed, and had a grownup explain all the big words to you, you would know this. You're welcome. You can download a copy of the report here: Mueller report. Now, don't be telling any more lies....





Name:   phil - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/10/2019 2:09:32 PM (updated 5/10/2019 2:33:02 PM)

Here I copied page 1 and 2 for you - highlighting your cherries for you and highlighted some additional passages you really need to read and understand those big words.  

I am still amazed by the lack of innocent until proven guilty.  We could not find that smoking gun, but damnit if we just had more time, money and resources we could have found something.

 

 

 

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern."6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
* * *
This report on our investigation consists of four parts. Section I provides an overview of obstruction-of-justice principles and summarizes certain investigatory and evidentiary considerations. Section II sets forth the factual results of our obstruction investigation and analyzes the evidence. Section III addresses statutory and constitutional defenses. Section IV states our conclusion.





Name:   johndoe - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/10/2019 3:09:23 PM (updated 5/10/2019 3:11:29 PM)

You missed highlighting this in the passage you quote, just as you've self-servingly missed Mueller's obvious conclusions.

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. "

I'm a grownup, so I'll translate into philspeak: we did not establish the innocence of the President.

So, claims by Individual 1 and his mouthpiece Bill Barr that the report "completely exonerates" him are nothing but baldfaced lies.

 

Oh, and here are some more choice passages from Mueller:

"while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office."

"Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."

Tell me exactly why, other than to prosecute Individual 1 after he leaves office, would there be any need to preserve evidence.

And further tell me why Individual 1 is so obsessed with preventing Mueller, Don McGahn, et at, from testifying if Mueller's investigation "completely exonerates" him.

We both know you know the answers to the above. And we both know you will not be truthful in any answers you might try to offer....





Name:   phil - Email Member
Subject:   TDS has morphed into BDS
Date:   5/10/2019 3:33:28 PM (updated 5/10/2019 3:50:23 PM)

 

You missed highlighting this in the passage you quote, just as you've self-servingly missed Mueller's obvious conclusions.

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. "  ITS NOT HIS JOB TO CLEAR HIM, IT IS HIS JOB TO ESTABLISH GUILT  What part of this is so hard for you to understand?

I'm a grownup, so I'll translate into philspeak: we did not establish the innocence of the President.  Let me transate into stupid so you can understand -  did not realize that it was the job of the prosecutor to establish innocence - that is completly against civil rights, due process and basically everything in America. It his his damn job to establish GUILT.  Is this concept hard for you?

So, claims by Individual 1 and his mouthpiece Bill Barr that the report "completely exonerates" him are nothing but baldfaced lies. IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH GUILT, IN THE USA YOU ARE INNOCENT until proven guilty. 

 

Oh, and here are some more choice passages from Mueller:

"while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.AND THEY CAN TAKE HIM TO COURT IN ABOUT 6 YEARS IF THEY THINK THEY CAN PROSECUTE(which I bet they will not), OR THEY CAN IMPEACH TODAY!!!!! ( FYI PELOSI CAN START PROCEEDINGS ANY TIME SHE WANTS, which will guarantee the 2nd term.

"Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."

Tell me exactly why, other than to prosecute Individual 1 after he leaves office, would there be any need to preserve evidence.  I agree that evidence needs to be preserved - but do you have any problems with Hillary deleteing emails under subponea, taking hammers to phones?  I am going to guess you did not have a problem with the bleachbit preservation of records and her use of unsecure email system to avoid FOIA and records requirements.  

And further tell me why Individual 1 is so obsessed with preventing Mueller, Don McGahn, et at, from testifying if Mueller's investigation "completely exonerates" him.  The better question may be now that Mueller Gate / Steele Gate is starting to come apart lets us borrow a favorite Democrat line as of late "What do they have to hide by an having a investigation.:

We both know you know the answers to the above. And we both know you will not be truthful in any answers you might try to offer....

 

And we both know that you are more full of it then the Thanksgiving Goose as well as how you will not be truthful in any answers you might try to offer.







Quick Links
Wazee Lake News
Wazee Lake Photos
Wazee Lake Videos

About Us
Contact Us
Site Map
Search Site
Advertise With Us
   
Wazee.LakesOnline.com
THE WAZEE LAKE WEBSITE

Copyright 2019, Lakes Online
Privacy    |    Legal