Hall of Fame Member
- Jun 5, 2005
Don't think Mueller walked back anything........ as that would be allover the media.Give 'er Good luck after especially after Mueller walked back much of his speech now
Don't think Mueller walked back anything........ as that would be allover the media.
Trump went on another psychotic rant directing his toxicity at Mueller now.........with a series of lies...........as usual.
Trump does not seem to comprehend what Mueller said. and just goes into his vile knee jerk reactions. Too dumb to even be amusing anymore.
Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice and Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsel's Office, released the following statement:
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.
Wow, maybe that's why they call it a Justice Department policy instead of a Constitutional provision.Now this
The Justice Department policy Robert Mueller cited in his speech isn't actually in the Constitution
Impeach for what you dolt?Impeach or suffer the consequences.
Ah, another Constitutional scholar! So, do tell us, Professor, where this basic tenet is found in the Constitution.One of the basic tenets of the American Constitution is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
You're a f*cking lawyer, you should understand the basic concept of innocent until proven guilty. But here, since you asked. Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments.Ah, another Constitutional scholar! So, do tell us, Professor, where this basic tenet is found in the Constitution.
(That should keep him busy for a while. It ain't there.)
It's not really interesting, but rather amusing, to see yet another Rump-hole of the Bailey practicing law without the benefit of knowing the first thing about it.But it's interesting to see a so-called "lawyer" argue with someone about the concept of innocent until proven guilty. I take it you were never a defense lawyer. :lol: