Sunday, March 24, 2019

MUELLER: NO COLLUSION! AND TRUMP VINDICATED: CNN IS FAKE NEWS, A JOKE!



CNN COMPLETELY WRONG AS WELL AS THEIR DEMOCRAT SUPERIORS AND FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS!

CNN NEEDS TO FIRE EVERY REPORTER THERE, REORGANIZE AND ACTUALLY BECOME A NEWS OUTLET!

29 comments:

TJM said...

yes. All to assuage the Dems and the media (but I repeat myself) shock and hurt feelings that Greedy Grandma was rejected by the voters and to hobble the Trump presidency. I think a lot of Dems better lawyer up.

The Egyptian said...

Fr.
TJM

From your mouths to God's Ear
let the squealing begin, the sound of stuck pigs

https://youtu.be/gb3WHHZChxg?t=35

music to my ears

Anonymous said...

"Mr. Barr also said that Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice. Mr. Barr and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Trump committed that offense, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump."

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

LOL - I know you are despondent along with all of the loons in the faculty lounges. You can't obstruct justice when there is no underlying crime. Trump did not allow himself to be goaded into firing Mueller, so that dog won't hunt (Hey, I think Dan Rather would have said something folksy like that!).

Trump did magnificently since Mueller's legal team consisted mostly Dem party hacks, many of whom donated to Hildabeast. No conflict of interest there, right!!!!

Don't worry though, abortion is safe for now!!

Anonymous 2 said...

This is part of a comment I posted about an hour ago on an earlier thread:

This is part of a comment I posted about an hour ago on an earlier thread:

“. . . TJM should act as the lawyer he claims to be. . . .

The spin about the conclusions of the Mueller report has already begun—on both sides. And this, without paying careful attention to the language used in Attorney-General Barr’s letter to Congress and without having the full report available. We expect such nonsense from partisans on both sides and, dreadfully, from the media (CNN being among the worst for this) but we should not expect it from lawyers. No decent lawyer would participate in this spin. Let’s see what TJM does.”

Now we know—unsurprisingly, of course. And just as unsurprisingly the Trump team is already making false statements (i.e. lying?) about the Mueller report.




Anonymous said...


Anonymous @ 5:09

That could be the conclusion of just about any Special Counsel, any inquiry, any investigation or legal trial where a defendant was exonerated. Such and such was found innocent but there could be evidence of guilt out there somewhere even though the investigation was not able to find it. We know it's out there somewhere though.

Anonymous 2 said...

Father McDonald,

I hope you will forgive what may come across as a criticism. It is not intended as such but as a friendly cautionary note from a legal mind. Lawyers are trained to be experts in the use of language because they know that words really do matter.

Mueller did not find “no collusion” or “vindicate” Trump. And while I am no great fan of CNN, you might want to be careful in not unwittingly giving encouragement to those who view CNN and others outlets as the “enemy of the people.” These really are potentially dangerous times. So far the institutions (including the rule of law) are holding up under the assault of forces that seek to undermine them but they are under severe stress.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous at 6:28 p.m.:

A failure to find evidence that proves guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” (possible for a whole host of reasons, including non-cooperating witnesses) is not tantamount to a finding of “innocence.” Although it is consistent with innocence, it is not necessarily so and its meaning is quite different. Once again, the words really do matter.

The Egyptian said...

Anons
both of you
what is fun is watching heads explode across the media, 2 solid years of "the walls are closing in" "turning point" "Trump family in leg irons any day now" "the end of Trump"
as us Germans say, Schadenfreude, it is fun to see the wailing and gnashing of teeth

Anonymous said...

Egyptian.

There are 16 (sixteen) active investigations into Trump that are continuing at present.

The Whitewater investigation lasted 7.5 years. Iran-Contra was 6.5 years. The Michael Deaver perjury investigation, 3.2 years. Mueller should be praised for doing his work in so short a time span.

Anonymous 2 said...

Dear Egyptian,

It is much too premature to gloat. Trump’s greatest legal jeopardy probably never was the Russian collusion allegation, if only because of the difficulties in obtaining the necessary evidence. He has much, much more to be concerned about than this as the various other investigations into his conduct and financial dealings continue to move forward. Here is an overview:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/after-mueller-ongoing-investigations-trump/585376/

Of course, some of this is partisan. But some of it isn’t and the way the rule of law is supposed to operate (and the way I am sure you would want it to operate if there were similar concerns about a Democratic President). One of the biggest red flags for me from the beginning was Trump’s unwillingness to release his tax returns. One has to ask oneself why. The audit excuse is and always was bogus:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-irs-audit-experts-219889



Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. Even the matters of Russia collusion and obstruction are far from over. For a proper accounting and upholding of rule of law values on these matters we need to see the entire Mueller report as appropriately redacted to protect legitimate (not partisan) interests. We should not really care whether or not Trump is exonerated. We_should_care about the truth, whatever it turns out to be. This is our responsibility as Catholics committed to truth and as Americans concerned to restore the integrity of, and trust in, our political system, which is currently probably more broken and corrupted than at any time in the last three decades.

For those who have not yet read it, here is the text of Attorney-General Barr’s letter:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-the-mueller-report-findings-barrs-letter-to-congress




Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Just after the story broke I went to to the local ABC News website to get the fuller story. The headline on the website read: "Attorney general's letter on the Mueller reports no conclusion."

It honestly said that! They did not specify in the headline there was no conclusion only regarding the issue of obstruction of justice.

I was appalled at the misleading headline. So many people only read the big print. How many people now believe Mueller was unable to reach a conclusion about whether Trump colluded with the Russians to effect the election?

How is this sort of thing defensible in any way? (I believe the headline is changed now, but still...)

God bless.
Bee

Dan said...

Ridiculous. OF COURSE team Mueller is going to say that this expensive investigation leading no where doesn't "exonerate." Because, you know there MIGHT be evidence SOMEWHERE out there. It would be embarrassing to say anything else.

OF COURSE Trump side will say report exonerates him. The other side spent months and millions looking for something.

A2/Bean your fine legal mind knows that sometimes people are just innocent....

Get over Hillary.

Gene said...

Anon 2, I'll just bet, if the "justice system" harassed, falsely accused, and libeled a client of your's in such a way and for so long, it would have you no longer speaking with a British accent but ranting in profane Ga. redneck and filing motions at light speed LOL!.

TJM said...

Anonymous2,

When you attain Alan Dershowitz' professional status, maybe we would listen to you and your faculty lounge rantings. Here's Alan:

Alan M. Dershowitz, the attorney and Harvard Law professor emeritus, slammed Robert Mueller on Sunday, saying the special counsel engaged in a “cop out” by stating that his report neither exonerated President Trump nor concluded he'd committed a crime related to obstruction of justice.

Dershowitz said Mueller seemed to try having it both ways. “It sounds like a law-school exam,” he said, adding that the report sounded wishy-washy. “Shame on Mueller.”

Epic fail. A mind is a terrible thing to waste!

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

You have become comedy gold, a "legal mind," really? You lost that long ago hanging around left-wing law schools and faculty lounges. You are just another left-wing ideologue masquerading as a law professor.

Dan said...

TJM - you're right he's 'comedy gold.' Especially when he posts under other pseudonyms besides Anonymous 2 attempting to support and praise HIMSELF. It's hilarious.

Keep your eyes open. He's bound to do it again soon.

TJM said...

Gene,

So Anon 2 has a phony British accent? Figures. I had a phony baloney uncle who had one too. When angry, he reverted to being a Michigander!

Anonymous said...

For the remainder of Lent I would recommend abstaining from political “discussions”, particularly on a religious blog. Spleen-venting must surely qualify as a venial sin? At the very least, a sin against charity?

Dan said...

Anonymous, that is great advice. However, we've got a Church that has bishops that will install an "upside down Jesus clock" in a Church and call it "art."

And THE Shepherd of The Church pontificates about the evironment.

So my spleen needs LOTS of venting.

TJM said...

here is another CNN star guest biting the dust. LOL

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lawyer-michael-avenatti-charged-20-171535206.html

CNN is FAKE NEWSS

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous at 10:03 a.m.:

Perhaps you are correct that it would be better to abstain from political topics for the remainder of Lent. I had hoped, however, that it might be possible to elevate the conversation to rise above partisan bickering, which could also be an appropriate Lenten discipline. Certainly, God knows we need to do so in such a coarsened and tribal culture as we have sadly become.

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene:

I will respond to you (the other comments by Dan and TJM challenging what I say are too ridiculous to merit a response). Certainly the reaction you describe would be understandable if the factual premise you posit is correct. I still think it is premature to know that it is, however.

Anonymous 2 said...

Bee,

Well, at least they did correct it. But I agree, everyone needs to be extra careful to avoid even the appearance of deception in these perilous times when the body politic is so severely bruised already due to disregard for facts and truth.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

And CNN leads the pack in terms of disregard for the facts and the truth, followed by MSNBC, cBS, ABC, and NBC. The national media beclowned itself trying to take down Trump peddling for over 2 years this bogus Russian narrative that only a moron or a hardened ideologue would give an credence to.

Hey, here's another academic scandal involving Duke for your to chew on. There is probably a lot of phony research going on in academia. I doubt any of these folks voted for Trump:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/25/duke-pay-1125m-settlement-faked-research/

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

Thank you for bringing this document to my attention. I have since accessed it at:

https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfworthycom.htm

Perhaps you are unaware of the Nota Bene at the end of this document:

“[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]”

I have never, nor would I ever, “deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion” but I have voted for such a candidate "for other . . . proportionate reasons" in accordance with the guidelines in the USCCB document “Faithful Citizenship.”

I did some further research on this document and found a source that talks about McCarrick’s alleged distortions that you mention:

https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1123

Sadly, however, this source itself distorts in describing the Nota Bene by omitting the critical language qualifying the reasons for voting:

“In a 'Nota bene,' Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum warns the bishops against allowing any Catholic to deliberately vote for candidates who were pro-abortion and/or pro-euthanasia.”

Why, oh why, dear God why, do so many, even Catholics, have such a problem with facts and the truth?

Anonymous 2 said...

Sorry, I believe I just posted a response to TJM on abortion on this thread by mistake.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

The Opinion division (Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham) at FOX News is just as bad, if not much worse (as I have said before, the News division is a very different matter).

Regarding the fake research at Duke, well yes, higher education suffers from various kinds of corruption (including, as we have learned in recent days, preferential and sometimes even criminal access for the wealthy). You might also have mentioned the “Sokal Hoax” and its ilk:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

But let’s keep things in perspective and not throw out the baby with the bathwater. As the same article states:

“Like just about everything else in this depressing national moment, Sokal Squared is already being used as ammunition in the great American culture war. Many conservatives who are deeply hostile to the science of climate change, and who dismiss out of hand the studies that attest to deep injustices in our society, are using Sokol Squared to smear all academics as biased culture warriors. The Federalist, a right-wing news and commentary site, went so far as to spread the apparent ideological bias of a few journals in one particular corner of academia to most professors, the mainstream media, and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

These attacks are empirically incorrect and intellectually dishonest. . .”