"Did you actually totally exonerate the President? No."

[Southern Chicken]

That is a curious phrase, "he shouldn't be below the law"...what does that mean?

That the President shouldn't be subject to the law? Is that what you're arguing and what you think your smoking gun is?

It is a policy that governs the OLC when they are employees and not the law. Law vs policy, the law wins. Policy could be challenged if the intent was for criminal behavior. MUELLER didn't challenge the policy. HE HAD THE LEGAL authority to challenge it. To my knowledge there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a sitting president from being indicted. There is nothing in Supreme Court opinions that prevents a sitting president from being indicted. If it is then provide a source. All we have is Department of Justice policy based largely on concerns over separation of powers.

 

[Truth Detector]

You really fuckin' stepped in it here, and I don't think you even realized you did it.

^^This from a moron who bought into the whole Russia HOAX story and still hammers his fist on the table demanding that the evidence is there. STFU you lunatic.

 

[Southern Chicken]

You really fuckin' stepped in it here, and I don't think you even realized you did it.

You are simultaneously arguing the President is both above and below the law at the same time. How is that possible? You are either only above the law (which would make you a dictator if you're President) or below the law (which would make you no more privileged than any other person).

So explain the rationale here; how can Trump both be above and below the law at the same time?

THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF MUELLER TESTIMONY, stupid!

 

[Truth Detector]

SC's douchebag strategy here seems to be to flood the board with as much text as possible in the hopes no one will read it and he can force his point of view to be accepted.

WOW!! Now there's some irony from a lying lunatic douchebag that does nothing BUT flood the board with as much BULLSHIT text as possible in the hopes no one will read it and he can force his point of view to be accepted.

 

[Southern Chicken]

You really fuckin' stepped in it here, and I don't think you even realized you did it.

You are simultaneously arguing the President is both above and below the law at the same time. How is that possible? You are either only above the law (which would make you a dictator if you're President) or below the law (which would make you no more privileged than any other person).

So explain the rationale here; how can Trump both be above and below the law at the same time?

Here read the transcript.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...rt-mueller-house-committee-testimony-n1033216

 

[PoliticallyMotivated]

Mueller Report; Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

Robert Mueller, and more importantly Weissmann, have never been in the "exoneration" business ... Mueller, & Weissmann, are in the business of malicious prosecution. Here's the latest example: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/do...ing-on-tapes-of-talks-with-trump-aide-sources How prophetic Jim Comey's words must seem to him thismorning. "Lordy I hope there are tapes". Yes Mr former director there are. Tapes you withheld from FISA. Tapes Mueller, withheld from Papadopoulos defense attorney and the federal judge. Tapes that expose your malfeasance ... praise the Lord there ARE tapes Jim!

 

[Truth Detector]

Robert Mueller, and more importantly Weissmann, have never been in the "exoneration" business ... Mueller, & Weissmann, are in the business of malicious prosecution. Here's the latest example: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/do...ing-on-tapes-of-talks-with-trump-aide-sources How prophetic Jim Comey's words must seem to him thismorning. "Lordy I hope there are tapes". Yes Mr former director there are. Tapes you withheld from FISA. Tapes Mueller, withheld from Papadopoulos defense attorney and the federal judge. Tapes that expose your malfeasance ... praise the Lord there ARE tapes Jim!

Spot on.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Let's focus on this phrase that you actually bolded before...

What does it mean to be "below the law"?

What is it you're trying to argue here? That the President is above the law?

IT IS A QUOTE FROM THE MUELLER hearing. The one you claimed to have watched. Here read the transcript.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...imony-n1033216

 

[Southern Chicken]

By saying the President shouldn't be "below the law", are you arguing that the President is above the law?

You can only be above or below the law.

This thing you are quoting makes you look even stupider than before.

IT IS A QUOTE FROM THE MUELLER hearing. The one you claimed to have watched, stupid. Here read the transcript.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...imony-n1033216

 

[LV426]

It is a policy that governs the OLC when they are employees and not the law.

What is the policy?

You're saying the policy against indicting a sitting President means the President is above the law so long as he's President?

That seems to be what you're arguing here.

 

[LV426]

Law vs policy, the law wins. Policy could be challenged if the intent was for criminal behavior. MUELLER didn't challenge the policy. HE HAD THE LEGAL authority to challenge it.

His directive wasn't to do that, though, in the legislation that established the SC.

So you're just inventing legal standards here to explain why you think the President is above the law.

 

[LV426]

To my knowledge there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a sitting president from being indicted. There is nothing in Supreme Court opinions that prevents a sitting president from being indicted. If it is then provide a source. All we have is Department of Justice policy based largely on concerns over separation of powers.

OK, but what does that have to do with this?

The argument you're making is that the President both is and isn't subject to the law; and that is conflicting.

Either the President is, or isn't. What Mueller said was that the OLC guidelines prevented him from making that judgment, and the SC legislation limited the scope of what he could and couldn't investigate.

He literally said that once Trump is not President, he can be charged.

 

[LV426]

THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF MUELLER TESTIMONY, stupid!

It's a quote from a Republican who was questioning Mueller.

It's not what Mueller said.

It's what some Republican said.

So, again, the Republican said he thinks Trump is both above and below the law. That's what those words mean when arranged in the way they are in the quote.

 

[LV426]

THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF MUELLER TESTIMONY, stupid!

A direct quote from a Republican who was questioning Mueller, not a quote from Mueller himself.

So, how does that answer you gave explain why that Conservative thinks Trump isn't "below the law"?

By saying Trump isn't "below the law", he's saying Trump is above the law.

Do you think that Trump is above the law?

 

[LV426]

Here read the transcript.]

The quote is from a Republican, not from Mueller.

It's the Republican who said he didn't think the President was "below the law".

So why do you think pointing me toward the transcript offers any explanation for that curious sentence of "he shouldn't be below the law"?

 

[Southern Chicken]

What is the policy?

You're saying the policy against indicting a sitting President means the President is above the law so long as he's President?

That seems to be what you're arguing here.

NO, I am saying the opposite. OLC opinion is a policy governing DOJ employees. It isnt the LAW. Mueller had the legal power to challenge the policy for criminal behavior. HE DIDNT! He was commission to submit a report to traditional prosecution or declination decision. There isn't anything in the Constitution that prevents indicting a sitting president. There isnt a Supreme court opinion that prevents it. If so, please provide the source.

 

[LV426]

IT IS A QUOTE FROM THE MUELLER hearing.

Yeah, a quote by a Republican.

It was the Republican who said "he shouldn't be below the law". Mueller didn't say that, your Republican buddy did.

So by that Republican saying he didn't think Trump should be "below the law", he is saying he thinks Trump is above the law. You can either be below or above the law. You can't be both. So, you all seem to think Trump is above the law. That's why you're dangerous.

 

[LV426]

IT IS A QUOTE FROM THE MUELLER hearing.

A quote from whom?

From a Republican.

So...the quote you think absolves the President and explains why he wasn't charged is the determination of a Republican who thinks the President is above the law.

That is your defense here.

It's weak.

 

[Southern Chicken]

The quote is from a Republican, not from Mueller.

It's the Republican who said he didn't think the President was "below the law".

So why do you think pointing me toward the transcript offers any explanation for that curious sentence of "he shouldn't be below the law"?

I quoted the exchange for context and provided you with a link.

 

[LV426]

NO, I am saying the opposite. OLC opinion is a policy governing DOJ employees. It isnt the LAW. Mueller had the legal power to challenge the policy for criminal behavior. HE DIDNT!

He didn't because, as he said, the OLC guidelines said he cannot indict a sitting President.

You are talking in circles here.

You keep saying half of the truth, but not the full truth. And then you try to represent a quote from a Republican as a quote or determination of Mueller, but that's not what happened in what you quoted.

In what you quoted, the Republican argues that because of OLC guidelines, Trump should not be "below the law". It's literally in the quote you copied.

So if you think Trump shouldn't be "below the law", that means you think Trump is above it.