Epic Fail: Comey, Mueller, Strzok, McCabe – Not A Few Good Men

 

A Few Good Men was an epic classic movie. Released in 1992, this dramatic story of a military court-martial legal proceeding was directed by Rob Reiner and starred Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. In the end, the good guy, Navy Lawyer Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) defeats the bad guy, Guantanamo Base Commander Marine Colonel Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson).  And in the story plot, it was Colonel Jessup who incriminated himself because in the words of Lt. Kaffee, I will “lead him right where he’s dying to go”. Oh, and one more thing, Colonel Jessup was actually guilty of the crime.

So … Columbo … why are you bringing up a 1992 movie in 2019, right?

I always say, what goes around comes around. Or was that Yogi Berra? Well, I don’t rightly know but what I do know is that some bad cops in the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DNI were 100% sure that Hillary Ramrod Clinton was going to be elected as POTUS in 2016 and that they were sure as heck Crossfire Hurricane going to do everything in their power to get in her good graces.

And so they concocted a plan. A conspiracy. This immoral outsider POTUS contender was not going to disrupt their cushy lives if they had anything to say about it! And they had a plan. An ingenious plan! They were Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee! President Trump was everything bad like that Colonel Jessup guy. And they were going to get him. Yes, yes, he wasn’t guilty of any crime of collusion with the Russians. Big deal. We know him. We’re going to shake him with a Special Counsel. We’ll put the screws to him, his associates and his family! And in the end, we’ll get him with Obstruction. He’ll incriminate himself, without any underlying crime at all!

From the movie …

I think he wants to say it. I think he’s pissed off that he’s gotta hide from this. I think he wants to say that he made a command decision and that’s the end of it. He eats breakfast 300 yards away from 400 Cubans that are trained to kill him. And nobody’s going to tell him how to run his unit, least of all the Harvard mouth in his faggoty white uniform. I need to shake him, put him on the defensive and lead him right where he’s dying to go.

So … fast forward to the upcoming release of this Mueller report. And the only thing these corrupt, immoral, crooked cops are saying is “obstruction, obstruction, obstruction”. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong answer!

Many times life does imitate art. Alas, for these poor chaps in the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DNI national security apparatus, not this time. President Donald Trump has not imitated Colonel Jessup on this. And by the way, I know Tom Cruise. And gentlemen … you are no Tom Cruise! Just sayin’ ….

So … in this real-life story, this movie’s court scene will end at the 1:33 mark. And President Trump exits the courtroom.

 

Unlike, Colonel Jessup, President Trump chose not to take the bait and chose not to fall into their obstruction trap. Any guesses why Mueller chose not to rule or charge on Obstruction?! If’n I was Comey, Strzok, Rice, Brennan, Clapper, I would be staining my drawers about now. These guys were sure that after two years of a Special Counsel witch hunt that President Trump would break and he’d commit Obstruction that Mueller could charge him with!

That’s it? That’s the plan?! And how are you going to do that?

I have no idea. I need my bat.

Unfortunately for Comey, Mueller, Strzok, McCabe, Ohr, Brennan, Clapper, Rice et. al. there is no magic bat. This is going to be an epic reversal.

Even Dana Milbank writing today at the Washington Compost (yeah, he’s in denial, but), “tis the season for treason!”

I’m sorry, your time’s run out! What do we have for the losers, Judge? Well, for our defendants, it’s a life time at exotic Fort Leavenworth! And, for defense counsel Kaffee, that’s right, it’s a court martial! Yes, Johnny! After falsely accusing a President of the United States of collusion with the Russians, Comey, Mueller, Stzok, McCabe, Ohr, Brennan, Clapper, Rice …… will …………..

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 118 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    You are moving the goal posts to satisfy yourself.

    I am not the person who caucused with donkeys to populate the House of Representatives with Democrats because I so intensely believed that the President of the US was “credibly” accused of collusion – while willfully ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary.

    Given what I have read so far of the Mueller Report, I made the absolute right decision to support Democrats for the House in 2018, and if I had it to do over again, I would have given more money to save our Republic. Trump clearly obstructed Justice, and must be held accountable. Any Republican who does not express revulsion at Trump’s Obstruction of Justice must be held accountable, and if that means that we lose the Senate, so be it.

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I note for the record that Article I of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment was for “Obstruction of Justice.”

    They were not debated, amended nor voted upon, merely being the recommendation of the House Judiciary committee. They were proposed to the House and never acted upon.

    Article I passed the House Judiciary Committee 27-11, Article II passed 28-10, and Article III passed 21-17. Articles IV, V & VI did not receive majority votes. Articles I and II had substantial Republican support in the House Judiciary Committee. Nixon resigned before the House had the chance to impeach him. Goldwater said that Nixon had only a dozen votes in the Senate while he would have needed 34 votes to stop his removal from office.

    No one is above the law.

    No one is below it, either.

    • #61
  2. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    You are moving the goal posts to satisfy yourself.

    I am not the person who caucused with donkeys to populate the House of Representatives with Democrats because I so intensely believed that the President of the US was “credibly” accused of collusion – while willfully ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary.

    Given what I have read so far of the Mueller Report, I made the absolute right decision to support Democrats for the House in 2018, and if I had it to do over again, I would have given more money to save our Republic. Trump clearly obstructed Justice, and must be held accountable. Any Republican who does not express revulsion at Trump’s Obstruction of Justice must be held accountable, and if that means that we lose the Senate, so be it.

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I note for the record that Article I of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment was for “Obstruction of Justice.”

    They were not debated, amended nor voted upon, merely being the recommendation of the House Judiciary committee. They were proposed to the House and never acted upon.

    Article I passed the House Judiciary Committee 27-11, Article II passed 28-10, and Article III passed 21-17. Articles IV, V & VI did not receive majority votes. Articles I and II had substantial Republican support in the House Judiciary Committee. Nixon resigned before the House had the chance to impeach him. Goldwater said that Nixon had only a dozen votes in the Senate while he would have needed 34 votes to stop his removal from office.

    No one is above the law.

    No one is below it, either.

    Correction:  No Republican is above the law.  Democrats are often above the law, especially if their last name is Clinton or Kennedy.

    P.S.:  Gary, evidently you believe Trump has supernatural powers of hypnotism, to control the mind not only of Bill Barr, an old pro who can expect to be in Washington long after the Trump Presidency is a memory, but also Rod Rosenstein, who made the decision to appoint Mueller in the first place.  Supernatural mind control is the only possible explanation (within your worldview) for why both men absolve Trump of obstruction.

    • #62
  3. Lash LaRoche Inactive
    Lash LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    This is complete vindication for President Trump and epic humiliation for NeverTrump.

    • #63
  4. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Taras (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    You are moving the goal posts to satisfy yourself.

    I am not the person who caucused with donkeys to populate the House of Representatives with Democrats because I so intensely believed that the President of the US was “credibly” accused of collusion – while willfully ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary.

    Given what I have read so far of the Mueller Report, I made the absolute right decision to support Democrats for the House in 2018, and if I had it to do over again, I would have given more money to save our Republic. Trump clearly obstructed Justice, and must be held accountable. Any Republican who does not express revulsion at Trump’s Obstruction of Justice must be held accountable, and if that means that we lose the Senate, so be it.

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I note for the record that Article I of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment was for “Obstruction of Justice.”

    They were not debated, amended nor voted upon, merely being the recommendation of the House Judiciary committee. They were proposed to the House and never acted upon.

    Article I passed the House Judiciary Committee 27-11, Article II passed 28-10, and Article III passed 21-17. Articles IV, V & VI did not receive majority votes. Articles I and II had substantial Republican support in the House Judiciary Committee. Nixon resigned before the House had the chance to impeach him. Goldwater said that Nixon had only a dozen votes in the Senate while he would have needed 34 votes to stop his removal from office.

    No one is above the law.

    No one is below it, either.

    Correction: No Republican is above the law. Democrats are often above the law, especially if their last name is Clinton or Kennedy.

    P.S.: Gary, evidently you believe Trump has supernatural powers of hypnotism, to control the mind not only of Bill Barr, an old pro who can expect to be in Washington long after the Trump Presidency is a memory, but also Rod Rosenstein, who made the decision to appoint Mueller in the first place. Supernatural mind control is the only possible explanation (within your worldview) for why both men absolve Trump of obstruction.

    Lash LaRoche (View Comment):

    This is complete vindication for President Trump and epic humiliation for NeverTrump.

    So have either of you read the Mueller Report?  

    • #64
  5. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    You are moving the goal posts to satisfy yourself.

    I am not the person who caucused with donkeys to populate the House of Representatives with Democrats because I so intensely believed that the President of the US was “credibly” accused of collusion – while willfully ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary.

    Given what I have read so far of the Mueller Report, I made the absolute right decision to support Democrats for the House in 2018, and if I had it to do over again, I would have given more money to save our Republic. Trump clearly obstructed Justice, and must be held accountable. Any Republican who does not express revulsion at Trump’s Obstruction of Justice must be held accountable, and if that means that we lose the Senate, so be it.

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I note for the record that Article I of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment was for “Obstruction of Justice.”

    They were not debated, amended nor voted upon, merely being the recommendation of the House Judiciary committee. They were proposed to the House and never acted upon.

    Article I passed the House Judiciary Committee 27-11, Article II passed 28-10, and Article III passed 21-17. Articles IV, V & VI did not receive majority votes. Articles I and II had substantial Republican support in the House Judiciary Committee. Nixon resigned before the House had the chance to impeach him. Goldwater said that Nixon had only a dozen votes in the Senate while he would have needed 34 votes to stop his removal from office.

    No one is above the law.

    No one is below it, either.

    Correction: No Republican is above the law. Democrats are often above the law, especially if their last name is Clinton or Kennedy.

    P.S.: Gary, evidently you believe Trump has supernatural powers of hypnotism, to control the mind not only of Bill Barr, an old pro who can expect to be in Washington long after the Trump Presidency is a memory, but also Rod Rosenstein, who made the decision to appoint Mueller in the first place. Supernatural mind control is the only possible explanation (within your worldview) for why both men absolve Trump of obstruction.

    Lash LaRoche (View Comment):

    This is complete vindication for President Trump and epic humiliation for NeverTrump.

    So have either of you read the Mueller Report?

    My comment had nothing to do with the Mueller Report. I object to your question as irrelevant, Counselor 

    • #65
  6. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    You are moving the goal posts to satisfy yourself.

    I am not the person who caucused with donkeys to populate the House of Representatives with Democrats because I so intensely believed that the President of the US was “credibly” accused of collusion – while willfully ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary.

    Given what I have read so far of the Mueller Report, I made the absolute right decision to support Democrats for the House in 2018, and if I had it to do over again, I would have given more money to save our Republic. Trump clearly obstructed Justice, and must be held accountable. Any Republican who does not express revulsion at Trump’s Obstruction of Justice must be held accountable, and if that means that we lose the Senate, so be it.

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I note for the record that Article I of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment was for “Obstruction of Justice.”

    They were not debated, amended nor voted upon, merely being the recommendation of the House Judiciary committee. They were proposed to the House and never acted upon.

    Article I passed the House Judiciary Committee 27-11, Article II passed 28-10, and Article III passed 21-17. Articles IV, V & VI did not receive majority votes. Articles I and II had substantial Republican support in the House Judiciary Committee. Nixon resigned before the House had the chance to impeach him. Goldwater said that Nixon had only a dozen votes in the Senate while he would have needed 34 votes to stop his removal from office.

    No one is above the law.

    No one is below it, either.

    Correction: No Republican is above the law. Democrats are often above the law, especially if their last name is Clinton or Kennedy.

    P.S.: Gary, evidently you believe Trump has supernatural powers of hypnotism, to control the mind not only of Bill Barr, an old pro who can expect to be in Washington long after the Trump Presidency is a memory, but also Rod Rosenstein, who made the decision to appoint Mueller in the first place. Supernatural mind control is the only possible explanation (within your worldview) for why both men absolve Trump of obstruction.

    Lash LaRoche (View Comment):

    This is complete vindication for President Trump and epic humiliation for NeverTrump.

    So have either of you read the Mueller Report?

    My comment had nothing to do with the Mueller Report. I object to your question as irrelevant, Counselor

    If you are not willing to read the Mueller Report, we really have nothing to discuss.

    • #66
  7. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Why would I read the report?

    Do you think I’d slap my forehead and yell: it’s all clear now! Truly Trump must be impeached!

    That’s as likely as you reading the report and saying: what a fool I’ve been. 

     

    • #67
  8. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Why would I read the report?

    Perhaps to know what you are talking about?

    Do you think I’d slap my forehead and yell: it’s all clear now! Truly Trump must be impeached!

    Or maybe censured, or at least denounced and not be renominated?

    That’s as likely as you reading the report and saying: what a fool I’ve been.

    The truth will set you free.

     

    • #68
  9. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Why would I read the report?

    Perhaps to know what you are talking about?

    Do you think I’d slap my forehead and yell: it’s all clear now! Truly Trump must be impeached!

    Or maybe censured, or at least denounced and not be renominated?

    That’s as likely as you reading the report and saying: what a fool I’ve been.

    The truth will set you free.

     

    Gary, the lengths to which you will go to avoid addressing my point are rather telling.

    Here it is again:

    No one alive has done more harm to Trump than Rod Rosenstein, who made the decision to appoint Mueller in the first place.  Yet, he absolves Trump of obstruction.

    How do you explain that?

    • #69
  10. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Taras (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Why would I read the report?

    Perhaps to know what you are talking about?

    Do you think I’d slap my forehead and yell: it’s all clear now! Truly Trump must be impeached!

    Or maybe censured, or at least denounced and not be renominated?

    That’s as likely as you reading the report and saying: what a fool I’ve been.

    The truth will set you free.

    Gary, the lengths to which you will go to avoid addressing my point are rather telling.

    Here it is again:

    No one alive has done more harm to Trump than Rod Rosenstein, who made the decision to appoint Mueller in the first place. Yet, he absolves Trump of obstruction.

    How do you explain that?

    He doesn’t. He can’t. Rod Rosenstein launched the Mueller investigation and at its conclusion he stood behind AG Barr at the press conference, giving his full joint concurrence to AG Barr’s statement that they … together … “concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

    Mueller did not make “a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding the allegation [of obstruction].” He punted. But … he ended his report by “recount[ing] ten episodes involving the president and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense.”

    Okay, then. AG Barr and Deputy AG Rosenstein reviewed these ten “episodes” and jointly concluded that this evidence is not sufficient. Period. They are the ones, not amateurs here, who have all the legal authority to conclude this. Even Mueller himself has conceded such authority to them. War’s over, man. Barr dropped the big one.

    Here is an article which reviews each of these ten episodes that Mueller pathetically adds to the end of the report of his two-year investigation. A farce indeed. This analysis proves to any objective observer that Mueller’s investigation was a total farce. Rod Rosenstein will be the first witness for the defense, if only but to save his arse.

    @garyrobbins has no interest in this truth. Orange man bad. Ad infinitum.

    Anti-Truthers gonna ‘truth’. Like the Geico commercials, it’s what they do.

    • #70
  11. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    The Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal, no Trump apologists by any stretch of the imagination, write today …

    Obstruction of Nothing …

    Mueller ruled that there was no collusion. He deferred the ruling on obstruction to the DOJ and the Attorney General of the United States of America. AG Barr and DAG Rosenstein together concluded that there were no sufficient grounds for an obstruction charge.

    Case closed. No matter how many ‘truthers’ may never believe it.

    0bama’s long form had substantively more “holes” in it than this.

    This is exoneration. This is vindication.

    Let’s Get Ready To RUUUUUMMMMMBBBLLLLLEEE!

    • #71
  12. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Why would I read the report?

    Perhaps to know what you are talking about?

    Do you think I’d slap my forehead and yell: it’s all clear now! Truly Trump must be impeached!

    Or maybe censured, or at least denounced and not be renominated?

    That’s as likely as you reading the report and saying: what a fool I’ve been.

    The truth will set you free.

     

    “You can’t handle the Truth”. Col.Gary.

    • #72
  13. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Why would I read the report?

    Perhaps to know what you are talking about?

    Do you think I’d slap my forehead and yell: it’s all clear now! Truly Trump must be impeached!

    Or maybe censured, or at least denounced and not be renominated?

    That’s as likely as you reading the report and saying: what a fool I’ve been.

    The truth will set you free.

    “You can’t handle the Truth”. Col.Gary.

    And in the end, Colonel Nathan Jessup was arrested and removed from his office.

    • #73
  14. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Why would I read the report?

    Perhaps to know what you are talking about?

    Do you think I’d slap my forehead and yell: it’s all clear now! Truly Trump must be impeached!

    Or maybe censured, or at least denounced and not be renominated?

    That’s as likely as you reading the report and saying: what a fool I’ve been.

    The truth will set you free.

    The TRUTH is, Mueller having all the underlying documents of how the DOJ/FBI/IC investigation originated and proceeded, had all the evidence he needed to conclude the investigation of Trump/Russia collusion by late summer of 2017 that there was no Trump/Russia criminal conspiracies committed by Trump or Trump associates.

    Why did Mueller go to Rosenstein and get another scope memo in August 2017.   If Mueller knew of the Obama DOJ/FBI/IC corrupt origins of the Trump/Russia collusion narrative and investigation, why would Mueller want to spend the next two years yanking our chain chasing an obstruction of justice case which he knew there was no predicate crime.

    The Special Counsel obstruction of justice investigation for a crime Mueller had every reason to know was predicated in it’s own corruption, is in itself a SCANDAL.

    The fact the Mueller Special Counsel never uncovered or referred to the DOJ/FBI/IC malfeasance anywhere in the 400 plus page report is the SCANDAL.

    • #74
  15. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Given what I have read so far of the Mueller Report, I made the absolute right decision to support Democrats for the House in 2018,

    What does AA say about using someone else to justify your bad behavior? Asking for a friend.

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    and if I had it to do over again, I would have given more money to save our Republic.

    This is called doubling down. Since you already spent ~5:1 in favor of the Democrats, do you really believe 10-100:1 would make any difference?

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Trump clearly obstructed Justice, and must be held accountable.

    There was no underlying crime. All you have are 10 instances of an innocent, frustrated man railing against the injustice being done to him. Eminently reasonable . To quote your new favorite celebrity lawyer, “If it doesn’t fit you must acquit.”

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Any Republican who does not express revulsion at Trump’s Obstruction of Justice must be held accountable, and if that means that we lose the Senate, so be it.

    Shorter Gary, “Purge them, Purge them, Puuuuuurge them”

    or alternatively,

    “Off with their heads”

    or even

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nc7AjLhETw

    • #75
  16. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    What is and what isn’t in the Mueller Report.

     

    • #76
  17. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    @blueyeti why aren’t my youtube links bringing up the pictures?

    • #77
  18. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    And in the end, Colonel Nathan Jessup was arrested and removed from his office.

    Well, he was arrested – we don’t know how his court martial came out.

    But don’t worry. No one is asking that any Ricochetti be banned as result of Collusion Truthing.

    Man, maybe I need to rename that Collusion/Obstruction Truthing.

    • #78
  19. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Instugator (View Comment):
    No one is asking that any Ricochetti be banned as result of Collusion Truthing.

    But it is nothing more than kooky conspiracy theory, and that is against the Code of Conduct.

    • #79
  20. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    made the absolute right decision to support Democrats for the House in 2018, and if I had it to do over again, I would have given more money to save our Republic.

    Say the man who sites the Democrat take over of the House as proof of Trump being a problem. No conflict of interest there. 

    Of course, I am not a lawyer, so I don’t guess I can weigh in on what is an is not obstruction of justice. 

    However, a man who was actually an assistant AG for these United States, Andrew McCharthy does not think there was obstruction. 

    https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/mueller-completely-dropped-the-ball-with-obstruction-punt/

    This is unbecoming behavior for a prosecutor and an outrageous shifting of the burden of proof: The constitutional right of every American to force the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to have to prove his or her own innocence.

    This is exactly why prosecutors should never speak publicly about the evidence uncovered in an investigation of someone who isn’t charged. The obligation of the prosecutor is to render a judgment about whether there is enough proof to charge a crime. If there is, the prosecutor indicts; if there is not, the prosecutor remains silent.

    If special counsel Mueller believed there was an obstruction offense, he should have had the courage of his convictions and recommended charging the president. Since he wasn’t convinced there was enough evidence to charge, he should have said he wasn’t recommending charges. Period.

    So, Gary, I am going to go with the fact that Mueller refused to charge Trump. Mueller who conducted the investigation. I am going to go with McCarthy who in no way can anyone call biased for Trump. I am not going to go with you, because you are clearly anti-Trump. In no way shape or form can anyone call you an objective observer. (I might argue there is ample evidence to say Mueller was anti-Trump, making his non-charges even more powerful, but let’s let that slide and assume he is Mr. Objective). 

    Basically, you are saying that you know better than Mueller, better than Barr, better than Rosenstin, better than McCarthy. 

    I disagree. 

     

    • #80
  21. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    And in the end, Colonel Nathan Jessup was arrested and removed from his office.

    Well, he was arrested – we don’t know how his court martial came out.

    But don’t worry. No one is asking that any Ricochetti be banned as result of Collusion Truthing.

    Man, maybe I need to rename that Collusion/Obstruction Truthing.

    AND … as the OP points out … Jessup was guilty of the underlying crime. Even ‘sir’ Robert Mueller has determined that there was no underlying crime of which the President was guilty. Mueller and the goons knew this and proceeded to try to bait the President into an obstruction crime for over two years. EPIC FAIL.

    • #81
  22. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Why would I read the report?

    Perhaps to know what you are talking about?

    Do you think I’d slap my forehead and yell: it’s all clear now! Truly Trump must be impeached!

    Or maybe censured, or at least denounced and not be renominated?

    That’s as likely as you reading the report and saying: what a fool I’ve been.

    The truth will set you free.

    I do know what I’m talking about.

    Every citizen is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. No citizen is to be accused without probable cause

    You say the president is not above the law; I say he’s not below it. He still has the same rights as every other American.

    PS “free” from what exactly?

    • #82
  23. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Annefy (View Comment):
    PS “free” from what exactly?

    Narrator: He doesn’t know

    • #83
  24. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Given what I have read so far of the Mueller Report, I made the absolute right decision to support Democrats for the House in 2018,

    What does AA say about using someone else to justify your bad behavior? Asking for a friend.

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    and if I had it to do over again, I would have given more money to save our Republic.

    This is called doubling down. Since you already spent ~5:1 in favor of the Democrats, do you really believe 10-100:1 would make any difference?

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Trump clearly obstructed Justice, and must be held accountable.

    There was no underlying crime. All you have are 10 instances of an innocent, frustrated man railing against the injustice being done to him. Eminently reasonable . To quote your new favorite celebrity lawyer, “If it doesn’t fit you must acquit.”

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Any Republican who does not express revulsion at Trump’s Obstruction of Justice must be held accountable, and if that means that we lose the Senate, so be it.

    Shorter Gary, “Purge them, Purge them, Puuuuuurge them”

    or alternatively,

    “Off with their heads”

    or even

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nc7AjLhETw

    That is a funny YouTube item.  Wrong, but funny.

    • #84
  25. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    made the absolute right decision to support Democrats for the House in 2018, and if I had it to do over again, I would have given more money to save our Republic.

    Say the man who sites the Democrat take over of the House as proof of Trump being a problem. No conflict of interest there.

    Of course, I am not a lawyer, so I don’t guess I can weigh in on what is an is not obstruction of justice.

    However, a man who was actually an assistant AG for these United States, Andrew McCharthy does not think there was obstruction.

    https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/mueller-completely-dropped-the-ball-with-obstruction-punt/

    This is unbecoming behavior for a prosecutor and an outrageous shifting of the burden of proof: The constitutional right of every American to force the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to have to prove his or her own innocence.

    This is exactly why prosecutors should never speak publicly about the evidence uncovered in an investigation of someone who isn’t charged. The obligation of the prosecutor is to render a judgment about whether there is enough proof to charge a crime. If there is, the prosecutor indicts; if there is not, the prosecutor remains silent.

    If special counsel Mueller believed there was an obstruction offense, he should have had the courage of his convictions and recommended charging the president. Since he wasn’t convinced there was enough evidence to charge, he should have said he wasn’t recommending charges. Period.

    So, Gary, I am going to go with the fact that Mueller refused to charge Trump. Mueller who conducted the investigation. I am going to go with McCarthy who in no way can anyone call biased for Trump. I am not going to go with you, because you are clearly anti-Trump. In no way shape or form can anyone call you an objective observer. (I might argue there is ample evidence to say Mueller was anti-Trump, making his non-charges even more powerful, but let’s let that slide and assume he is Mr. Objective).

    Basically, you are saying that you know better than Mueller, better than Barr, better than Rosenstin, better than McCarthy.

    I disagree.

     

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    And in the end, Colonel Nathan Jessup was arrested and removed from his office.

    Well, he was arrested – we don’t know how his court martial came out.

    But don’t worry. No one is asking that any Ricochetti be banned as result of Collusion Truthing.

    Man, maybe I need to rename that Collusion/Obstruction Truthing.

    AND … as the OP points out … Jessup was guilty of the underlying crime. Even ‘sir’ Robert Mueller has determined that there was no underlying crime of which the President was guilty. Mueller and the goons knew this and proceeded to try to bait the President into an obstruction crime for over two years. EPIC FAIL.

    Hi Bryan and Columbo, 

    Have you read the doggone report?

    Gary

    • #85
  26. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    That is a funny YouTube item. Wrong, but funny.

    I know, right – the “Hitler finds out…” meme is totally wrong. But awesome and in a right sort of way.

    I mean seriously, you want Oprah to run too, right?

    • #86
  27. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hi Bryan and Columbo, 

    Have you read the doggone report?

    Gary

    Narrator: Even if they did, they didn’t need to. No Collusion and No Obstruction. 

    • #87
  28. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    And in the end, Colonel Nathan Jessup was arrested and removed from his office.

    Well, he was arrested – we don’t know how his court martial came out.

    But don’t worry. No one is asking that any Ricochetti be banned as result of Collusion Truthing.

    Man, maybe I need to rename that Collusion/Obstruction Truthing.

    AND … as the OP points out … Jessup was guilty of the underlying crime. Even ‘sir’ Robert Mueller has determined that there was no underlying crime of which the President was guilty. Mueller and the goons knew this and proceeded to try to bait the President into an obstruction crime for over two years. EPIC FAIL.

    Hi Bryan and Columbo,

    Have you read the doggone report?

    Gary

    I have.  Have you read the Jan 2017 CIA/FBI report, the unredacted portions of the FISA warrants, the Page-Strozek texts, the released intelligence committee testimony transcripts of Papadopolous, Baker and others, and other relevant documents?  I have, so I actually have some context to evaluate what I’m reading in the Weissman Report – I have some knowledge of what’s been left out; I carefully look at the adjectives and adverbs being used to imply things that simply aren’t there.  You seem to have some totemic faith that whatever Weissman writes is the full truth, rather than an essay by an ethically challenged individual and Democrat partisan  who is desperately seeking to imply something that he can not prove; the reality is he came up empty.  As Glenn Reynolds wrote, AG Barr is the only adult in the room.

    I hope you fully support an investigation into those at DOJ and the FBI regarding their actions since the Clinton email investigation began in 2015.  The real long-term danger to our democracy is if those who pulled this off walk away without any consequences.  If so, it will just enhance the future boldness of those who think like them.

    • #88
  29. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    made the absolute right decision to support Democrats for the House in 2018, and if I had it to do over again, I would have given more money to save our Republic.

    Say the man who sites the Democrat take over of the House as proof of Trump being a problem. No conflict of interest there.

    Of course, I am not a lawyer, so I don’t guess I can weigh in on what is an is not obstruction of justice.

    However, a man who was actually an assistant AG for these United States, Andrew McCharthy does not think there was obstruction.

    https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/mueller-completely-dropped-the-ball-with-obstruction-punt/

    This is unbecoming behavior for a prosecutor and an outrageous shifting of the burden of proof: The constitutional right of every American to force the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to have to prove his or her own innocence.

    This is exactly why prosecutors should never speak publicly about the evidence uncovered in an investigation of someone who isn’t charged. The obligation of the prosecutor is to render a judgment about whether there is enough proof to charge a crime. If there is, the prosecutor indicts; if there is not, the prosecutor remains silent.

    If special counsel Mueller believed there was an obstruction offense, he should have had the courage of his convictions and recommended charging the president. Since he wasn’t convinced there was enough evidence to charge, he should have said he wasn’t recommending charges. Period.

    So, Gary, I am going to go with the fact that Mueller refused to charge Trump. Mueller who conducted the investigation. I am going to go with McCarthy who in no way can anyone call biased for Trump. I am not going to go with you, because you are clearly anti-Trump. In no way shape or form can anyone call you an objective observer. (I might argue there is ample evidence to say Mueller was anti-Trump, making his non-charges even more powerful, but let’s let that slide and assume he is Mr. Objective).

    Basically, you are saying that you know better than Mueller, better than Barr, better than Rosenstin, better than McCarthy.

    I disagree.

     

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    And in the end, Colonel Nathan Jessup was arrested and removed from his office.

    Well, he was arrested – we don’t know how his court martial came out.

    But don’t worry. No one is asking that any Ricochetti be banned as result of Collusion Truthing.

    Man, maybe I need to rename that Collusion/Obstruction Truthing.

    AND … as the OP points out … Jessup was guilty of the underlying crime. Even ‘sir’ Robert Mueller has determined that there was no underlying crime of which the President was guilty. Mueller and the goons knew this and proceeded to try to bait the President into an obstruction crime for over two years. EPIC FAIL.

    Hi Bryan and Columbo,

    Have you read the doggone report?

    Gary

    No. I don’t have too. See, you have read it, and the people it cited, they have read it too. So, whom am I to believe? You, who are clearly biased, or the unbiased people, one of whom has far, far more experience in Washington Law than you do?

    It is really simple, Gary. I rely on experts in their fields to get analysis of information in areas I am not an expert. I don’t have time to study every last thing in the world, so I do the best I can. 

    I am going to go with the professional take of Andrew McCarthy, who has been an assistant AG. You are a divorce lawyer in AZ. He is better placed as an expert than you are. 

    You might dismiss me forever if I don’t say I read it. That is fine. I’d like to ask though: What if I said “Yes, Gary, I read it, and I don’t think it shows obstruction.”? Then what Gary? 

     

    • #89
  30. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    made the absolute right decision to support Democrats for the House in 2018, and if I had it to do over again, I would have given more money to save our Republic.

    Say the man who sites the Democrat take over of the House as proof of Trump being a problem. No conflict of interest there.

    Of course, I am not a lawyer, so I don’t guess I can weigh in on what is an is not obstruction of justice.

    However, a man who was actually an assistant AG for these United States, Andrew McCharthy does not think there was obstruction.

    https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/mueller-completely-dropped-the-ball-with-obstruction-punt/

    This is unbecoming behavior for a prosecutor and an outrageous shifting of the burden of proof: The constitutional right of every American to force the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to have to prove his or her own innocence.

    This is exactly why prosecutors should never speak publicly about the evidence uncovered in an investigation of someone who isn’t charged. The obligation of the prosecutor is to render a judgment about whether there is enough proof to charge a crime. If there is, the prosecutor indicts; if there is not, the prosecutor remains silent.

    If special counsel Mueller believed there was an obstruction offense, he should have had the courage of his convictions and recommended charging the president. Since he wasn’t convinced there was enough evidence to charge, he should have said he wasn’t recommending charges. Period.

    So, Gary, I am going to go with the fact that Mueller refused to charge Trump. Mueller who conducted the investigation. I am going to go with McCarthy who in no way can anyone call biased for Trump. I am not going to go with you, because you are clearly anti-Trump. In no way shape or form can anyone call you an objective observer. (I might argue there is ample evidence to say Mueller was anti-Trump, making his non-charges even more powerful, but let’s let that slide and assume he is Mr. Objective).

    Basically, you are saying that you know better than Mueller, better than Barr, better than Rosenstin, better than McCarthy.

    I disagree.

     

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    And in the end, Colonel Nathan Jessup was arrested and removed from his office.

    Well, he was arrested – we don’t know how his court martial came out.

    But don’t worry. No one is asking that any Ricochetti be banned as result of Collusion Truthing.

    Man, maybe I need to rename that Collusion/Obstruction Truthing.

    AND … as the OP points out … Jessup was guilty of the underlying crime. Even ‘sir’ Robert Mueller has determined that there was no underlying crime of which the President was guilty. Mueller and the goons knew this and proceeded to try to bait the President into an obstruction crime for over two years. EPIC FAIL.

    Hi Bryan and Columbo,

    Have you read the doggone report?

    Gary

    No. I don’t have too. See, you have read it, and the people it cited, they have read it too. So, whom am I to believe? You, who are clearly biased, or the unbiased people, one of whom has far, far more experience in Washington Law than you do?

    It is really simple, Gary. I rely on experts in their fields to get analysis of information in areas I am not an expert. I don’t have time to study every last thing in the world, so I do the best I can.

    I am going to go with the professional take of Andrew McCarthy, who has been an assistant AG. You are a divorce lawyer in AZ. He is better placed as an expert than you are.

    You might dismiss me forever if I don’t say I read it. That is fine. I’d like to ask though: What if I said “Yes, Gary, I read it, and I don’t think it shows obstruction.”? Then what Gary?

    I think that my point of view is best shown by the following posts:  https://thebulwark.com/trump-sits-on-a-throne-of-lies/https://thebulwark.com/six-preliminary-takeaways-from-the-mueller-report/https://thebulwark.com/portrait-of-the-president-as-a-gangster/https://thebulwark.com/a-deeply-disturbing-account-of-a-reckless-presidency/.

    I have gotten permission to reprint posts from the Bulwark in the past; but the Mods have asked that I not do so, so I will comply with that.

    I also agree with the Washington Post editorial https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-mueller-report-is-the-opposite-of-exoneration/2019/04/18/d0550172-6219-11e9-bfad-36a7eb36cb60_story.html?utm_term=.bb3fe4d3830d, and the column by Mr. Kellyanne Conway, George Conway.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-conway-trump-is-a-cancer-on-the-presidency-congress-should-remove-him/2019/04/18/e75a13d8-6220-11e9-bfad-36a7eb36cb60_story.html?utm_term=.2b6d4837c583

     

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.