The media's been breathlessly awaiting Trump's tweet in response to the Mueller Report/Lack of Indictments today -- obviously so they can accuse him of pettiness and spiking the football.


Trump doesn't need to Tweet. This comes from a supporter:

There is no tiring of the Schadenfreude of liberal angst..............

When asked for their reaction to the Mueller report,
Democrat-Liberal-Progressive-Socialist-RINO-Leftist Trump-haters had this to say:

When asked for their reaction to the Mueller report,
Democrat-Liberal-Progressive-Socialist-RINO-Leftist Trump-haters had this to say:

This vid always cheers me up. Someone gotta find that "dude" in 2020.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Read your posts, not mine. Saying he should not be prosecuted for a provable lie is exactly the same as saying you're okay with him lying.

They have the evidence he lied. It's in the public domain. Look it up, or is your Googler still on the fritz?

You're either for punishing perjury, or you're against it.  Can't be wishy-washy, "not necessarily, it depends, . blah blah blah."

I don't think prosecutors could make a strong enough case. A previous public statement would still be difficult show that he lied. All he has to do is say he changed his mind or that he was making a joke. There are just too many outs for him to claim that it would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied.

And no, my statement is not akin saying I am fine with his lying.

Say I suggest that we assign 100 officers to concentrate on people who throw their cigarette butts on the ground but you tell me that police have more important crimes to focus on, does that mean I can claim you are ok with people litter? Of course not.

New XO signed about Universities censoring conservatives.  Like how Ben Shapiro and his 5"6 135lbs person was denied the right to speak and police where there.

It's sad that we need a presidential order to enforce something that is already protected by law.


I did find on aspect interesting about that particular issue though. Some universities charged high fees claiming that it was needed to hire the extra police for security and in some instances extra police were needed for the violence that broke out. So it is a fair question of who has to absorb the extra cost when the university holds an event that is likely to bring in security concerns. Obviously it should not be used as an excuse to shut down conservative speakers but in the end someone ends up footing the thousands of dollars for the extra security and it is either the speaker, the students, or taxpayers.

I don't think prosecutors could make a strong enough case. A previous public statement would still be difficult show that he lied. All he has to do is say he changed his mind or that he was making a joke. There are just too many outs for him to claim that it would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied.

And no, my statement is not akin saying I am fine with his lying.

Say I suggest that we assign 100 officers to concentrate on people who throw their cigarette butts on the ground but you tell me that police have more important crimes to focus on, does that mean I can claim you are ok with people litter? Of course not.

You have evidence the DOJ needs to send 100 officers to indict Cohen for perjury?

If not, your point is moot.

The USAG will make that call. Your opinion has no bearing on his evaluation of the evidence.

Cohen's existing conviction for the exact same offense makes proving the new one much less difficult.

You have evidence the DOJ needs to send 100 officers to indict Cohen for perjury?

If not, your point is moot.

The USAG will make that call. Your opinion has no bearing on his evaluation of the evidence.

Cohen's existing conviction for the exact same offense makes proving the new one much less difficult.

So my opinion has no bearing but yours does?

It's sad that we need a presidential order to enforce something that is already protected by law.


I did find on aspect interesting about that particular issue though. Some universities charged high fees claiming that it was needed to hire the extra police for security and in some instances extra police were needed for the violence that broke out. So it is a fair question of who has to absorb the extra cost when the university holds an event that is likely to bring in security concerns. Obviously it should not be used as an excuse to shut down conservative speakers but in the end someone ends up footing the thousands of dollars for the extra security and it is either the speaker, the students, or taxpayers.

If liberals didnt show up to cause problems, security would not be needed. Majority of the vids on youtube support this. And we all know youtube scrubs vids. So thats how often it happens. They cant keep up.

But Shapiro was denied solely because of his views, not money or man power issues. "If u speak here, u will be arrested".

Milo showed up with the funds and was denied.

But what can u expect from states that also violate the 2a. Wish reciprocity was signed or passed. Same same.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If liberals didnt show up to cause problems, security would not be needed. Majority of the vids on youtube support this. And we all know youtube scrubs vids. So thats how often it happens. They cant keep up.

But Shapiro was denied solely because of his views, not money or man power issues. "If u speak here, u will be arrested".

Milo showed up with the funds and was denied.

But what can u expect from states that also violate the 2a. Wish reciprocity was signed or passed. Same same.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I understand that, I just meant that it was a valid concern where the funds to provide security come from.

I understand that, I just meant that it was a valid concern where the funds to provide security come from.

Not paying indian teachers teaching 1 class of indian history $500k a year.

They got the money. Its just an excuse. Bet they make them dot all the "i's" also.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

So my opinion has no bearing but yours does?

Seems like my opinion follows the facts -- Cohen was IN FACT referred to the DOJ for several lies stated in the latest hearing.

If the DOJ comes back and mirrors your bullish .... I mean, opinions -- that it's not worth pursuing because of cost or too small of a lie --  I'll buy you an ice cream.

I understand that, I just meant that it was a valid concern where the funds to provide security come from.

They seem to have no problem finding funding to provide security for all other speakers. Take a look at the school's website of speaker events. They aren't cutting back on speakers due to security not getting paid.

It's a sham to shut down conservative speakers -- plain and simple.

So Maddow crying because Trump didnt collude with Russia.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

So Maddow crying because Trump didnt collude with Russia.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Between Trump's election, her Trump tax return "bombshell", and the Mueller investigation ending without impeachment, Madcow is having a bad couple of years.

And she's still got another 6 to go!   

I wonder if the suicide hotline is extra busy this weekend?   

here we go again: https://www.kitv.com/story/40185730/hirono-issues-mueller-report-statement

If I wanted to pay for drama I'd buy the National Enquirer. Get back to work Hirono. We have a popular tourist attraction that needs help.

here we go again: https://www.kitv.com/story/40185730/hirono-issues-mueller-report-statement

If I wanted to pay for drama I'd buy the National Enquirer. Get back to work Hirono. We have a popular tourist attraction that needs help.

Hirono is a Hawaiian version of a Maxine Waters.
Gives the rest of the country a good idea of just how
intelligent Hawaiian Democrat voters are.
Even the Wall street Journal is publishing articles
about the corruptness/ineptness of the Honolulu
Choo Choo.  At least CA democrats finally killed
their boondoggle train,  Oahu Democrats aren't that smart.
After all they elected the Cabal that runs and represents
this state.
If it could be done,  I'd take my island Hawaii and make
it the state of Hawaii, and let you other islands become
the state of Honolulu. It would be more accurate.

TDS still going strong.  Coworker said report now means nothing and is "inconclusive".  I told her, either he will be in cuffs or not.  Simple.

TDS still going strong.  Coworker said report now means nothing and is "inconclusive".  I told her, either he will be in cuffs or not.  Simple.

The prosecutor's job is to indict, or not indict. They are not supposed to leave doubt by insinuating there's evidence of a crime.

Mueller used the old smear tactic low-life prosecutor's use. After a jury returns a "not guilty", they stand in front of cameras lecturing how "Not guilty is not the same as 'innocent'".

That's AFTER the trial.

Trump hasn't been charged. He hasn't been tried. And he hasn't been adjudicated "Not Guilty", yet Mueller felt the need to state Trump was not exonerated?  That's not what a prosecutor does. That's what a trial does.

Trump's had no formal charges filed, no discovery, no chance to present a defense, etc.

Mueller was way out of line to put anything like "not exonerated" in his report. He did it to throw a bone to the never-Trumpers, which they have happily latched onto.

Mueller should have either indicted for obstruction, or just reported there was insufficient evidence to indict. Period. End of story.

I've seen comparisons to Mueller's stunt with Comey's press conference on Clinton's emails. Not even close IMO. Comey was not a special counsel. He'd already exonerated her before investigating or interviewing her. Comey was the FBI director -- the DOJ/USAG indicts, even though Lynch pretended to recuse herself.  Comey laid out the case proving Clinton broke laws, obstructed, and destroyed evidence, then declined to recommend charges. I see no parallel with Trump. We've seen no evidence of obstruction, and Mueller deferred to the AG to evaluated the situation. Barr and several other people/agencies decided no obstruction. Yet, that's not what the Trump-haters are taking away from  the letter.

Obstruction was the only crime Mueller could have hoped to prove, and Trump was too smart to step into that trap.  "Not exonerated" was Mueller's parting shot after failing to "GET TRUMP".