Clearly…
It’s like you took logic, tied it to a railroad and watched a train run over it while you giggles…
See…you dont even rate.
2 Likes
People think that the big events for Republicans are things like Ronald Reagan and the Christian Right and now Donald Trump.
That’s totally wrong. The two big events were the Civil Rights Act, when tons of voters poured into the Republican party, and Rush Limbaugh starting republican political talk radio, which he has dominated and others have copied.
Rush, specifically, has helped the republican party like no other American.
2 Likes
One could suggest that but it wouldn’t work. There was absolutely nothing preventing Mueller from stating that he believed that Trump had committed a crime, if he believed that, except his own policy. He could even have recommended an impeachment.
And he stated that he would have stated if he were convinced that Trump had not committed a crime, so he must concur that if, as Barr concluded, you think Trump did not commit a crime then it is ok to say so.
Where Dems (willingly) make a mistake is believing that saying that you are not certain that obstruction did not occur is the same thing as saying you are convinced that it did occur. If you are convinced that it did occur, you just say it instead of all that hogwash about being fair.
If the two are the same thing, then one is not more fair than the other, is it?
Another Bullwinkle cartoon.
Or is this one
I’m not that old sorry
Yep, I’ve been telling people for centuries. Rush lives in my backyard. My neighbors have rainbow flags on the Priuses (Priusi?)
Yep.
You don’t give yourself enough credit. You get old very quickly.
1 Like
Of course there is no conflict. The only conflict occurs when one misinterprets Mueller’s statement that he did not determine whether or not Trump committed illegal obstruction to mean the same thing as Mueller determined that Trump committed illegal obstruction but that he could not indict. That is the irreconcilable misinterpretation.
True I will but I’m not dirt old…
So wrong. "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted”
For example, if John is on the witness stand and says “Mary said that she was afraid.” Mary is the declarant, not John.
All of Barr’s testimony of what Muller said is hearsay
It’s really easy people.
Allam
Im sure you believe that LOL
“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so,” and they did not.
Saying you are not convinced that someone did not commit a crime is not the same thing as saying that you have evidence that someone did commit a crime or even that you believe someone committed a crime. The first part, that Mueller is not convinced that Trump did not commit a crime, I agree with…he is not convinced. The rest of it…he simply did not say but some have finished his sentence to say that for him. “Mueller splainin” I guess.
He deferred to Congress. You know this. Youre playing.
Good lord. He was a witness to the account. That’s not hearsay.
[quote=“biggestal99, post:1089, topic:191097, full:true”]
So wrong. "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted”
For example, if John is on the witness stand and says “Mary said that she was afraid.” Mary is the declarant, not John.
All of Barr’s testimony of what Muller said is hearsay
It’s really easy people.
Allam
[/quote
It is really simple. Hearsay is an evidentiary rule used in court cases. There is no court case involved here. In any case, the following statement should clear things up.:
“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements,” a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said."
He mentioned that Congress has authority under the Constitution to make such determinations. He is correct.
Mueller was writing a report to Barr, head of the DOJ. Mueller has no authority to determine what determinations Barr can or cannot make, nor does he have authority to grant power to Congress. In fact, it would have been in Barr’s power to not give the report to Congress at all.
The report was not written to Congress.
Sure. You run with that.
By that definition you could commit a crime and tell everyone about it and none of their statements could be used against you, because they just heard you make the statement.
That’s not hearsay, and that’s not how it works.
Then who was? There was a claim… just trying to find out the evidence around it.
“Your is” what? “Our is not” what? That does not cover it.
