agip wrote:
it's a stealing, corruption free for all at the executive branch. Trump gave his approval to all those who steal from us, and his idiot minions are following his lead. the fish rots at the head. The corruption is just...everywhere. We need Dems in office to clean out the mud and criminals. I don't know how anyone could disagree with this.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/461604-house-committee-launches-investigation-into-chao
#Moscowmitch
TTH wrote:
SiIly WilIy wrote:
You're really trying to invoke a "facts and logic" angle about statements in the Mueller Report as you stand there with zero indictments in your hand? THAT defies facts and logic.
Speaking of facts and logic, it is a FACT that as a prosecuting attorney, you DO NOT finish an investigation, bring zero indictments against the person you're investigating, and then imply that you think that person was guilty. If they thought he was guilty, they would have charged him. They didn't. Fact. Game over.
In addition, Mueller himself confirmed to multiple House members that his investigation was not obstructed in any way. Again, fact. Again, game over.
Robert Mueller:
"As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”
”
A prosecutor or special investigator NEVER exonerates or expresses that the person being investigated did not commit a crime. That is not his or her job. He or she will look at the evidence and interview witnesses and everything else and then decide if the person being investigated has committed a crime. Trump HAS A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, just like any other person being investigated. Robert Mueller was WAY out of bounds even mentioning that he would have exonerated Trump if the facts merited that. NO! His job is not to exonerate. It is to look at all the evidence and pursue criminal prosecution if the facts merit that.
Sally Vix wrote:
TTH wrote:
Robert Mueller:
"As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”
”
A prosecutor or special investigator NEVER exonerates or expresses that the person being investigated did not commit a crime. That is not his or her job. He or she will look at the evidence and interview witnesses and everything else and then decide if the person being investigated has committed a crime. Trump HAS A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, just like any other person being investigated. Robert Mueller was WAY out of bounds even mentioning that he would have exonerated Trump if the facts merited that. NO! His job is not to exonerate. It is to look at all the evidence and pursue criminal prosecution if the facts merit that.
Why did you clip off the part of the post containing the Mueller quote:
“a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office,” he said. “That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that, too, is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”
It's almost as if you're trolling.
In fact it's exactly as if you're trolling.
SiIly WilIy wrote:
Calyope wrote:
Why do you people present facts and logic to Sally? Sally has proven to know nothing and proven not to have the ability to see facts.
You're really trying to invoke a "facts and logic" angle about statements in the Mueller Report as you stand there with zero indictments in your hand? THAT defies facts and logic.
Speaking of facts and logic, it is a FACT that as a prosecuting attorney, you DO NOT finish an investigation, bring zero indictments against the person you're investigating, and then imply that you think that person was guilty. If they thought he was guilty, they would have charged him. They didn't. Fact. Game over.
In addition, Mueller himself confirmed to multiple House members that his investigation was not obstructed in any way. Again, fact. Again, game over.
I will assume you are an American. How is it that you don't understand how the Special Counsel works? How is it that you don't understand that the US House of Representatives is investigating regarding possible impeachment based on things found by Mueller, mostly Obstruction of Justice? How it is that you don't understand that under the US Department of Justice, that they can't indict a sitting President and that the prevailing opinion is that Trump faces legal challenges including possible prison after he is no longer in office? Maybe you should read your country's Constitution, mate. Maybe you should look into your Department of Justice's guidelines a bit more before you spout such folly.
I believe you and Sally to be the same person. Both wankers.
tired of the liars wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
A prosecutor or special investigator NEVER exonerates or expresses that the person being investigated did not commit a crime. That is not his or her job. He or she will look at the evidence and interview witnesses and everything else and then decide if the person being investigated has committed a crime. Trump HAS A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, just like any other person being investigated. Robert Mueller was WAY out of bounds even mentioning that he would have exonerated Trump if the facts merited that. NO! His job is not to exonerate. It is to look at all the evidence and pursue criminal prosecution if the facts merit that.
Why did you clip off the part of the post containing the Mueller quote:
“a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office,” he said. “That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that, too, is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”
It's almost as if you're trolling.
In fact it's exactly as if you're trolling.
Not at all. I wanted to focus on a specific part of the post... specifically this: "... if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”
Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Change will come when car range is greater, charging stations are more prevalent, and the expense of electric cars gets even better, especially for performance cars.
Car range is excellent these days. Most EV's today get over 200 miles on a charge. Some get over 300 miles. Short road trips are just as convenient as with gas cars. Even long trips only take slightly longer than gas.
New long range electric cars can be bought for less than the average gas car. Total cost of ownership of an electric car is far lower than a comparable gas car.
You can get some fantastic deals on used EV's that are coming off lease.
The US now has over 68,000 public charge points. And more are being built every day. Many are free. Go to plugshare.com and you will see all the charge points near you. Most people don't know they are there because they don't look for them. Charging stations don't take up an entire street corner like gas stations. So people don't notice.
As for performance cars, you get superior performance for less money with an EV. I'm not sure what you were referring to here.
The time to go electric is now.
Not everyone agrees with you that the range is good enough yet. Might not be LOGICAL, but people want what they want...they want 4 wheel drive or All wheel drive even if they are in areas where that's hardly needed...they want to be able to drive 400+ miles without stopping if they want.
The choices for electric vehicles is still small, ESPECIALLY with regard to "performance" vehicles...sports cars, muscle cars. Yes I know that just about any electric car destroy a gas car off the line, but that's not what I'me talking about. electric sports cars are out there, but they are still too expensive.
Still not enough charging stations...has to be absolutely ubiquitous. The Columbus Zoo has some charging stations for electric cars that are right up front...about 10 of them for a parking lot that holds thousands. I want electric cars to be the thing too, but it's just not a reality for most people yet. People who live in apartments? Where do they plug in? The vast majority of apartments do not have charging stations available. Until charging takes just a couple minutes, they need to be everywhere. You are willing to make the sacrifice for an electric car now. Most people are not.
Calyope wrote:
SiIly WilIy wrote:
You're really trying to invoke a "facts and logic" angle about statements in the Mueller Report as you stand there with zero indictments in your hand? THAT defies facts and logic.
Speaking of facts and logic, it is a FACT that as a prosecuting attorney, you DO NOT finish an investigation, bring zero indictments against the person you're investigating, and then imply that you think that person was guilty. If they thought he was guilty, they would have charged him. They didn't. Fact. Game over.
In addition, Mueller himself confirmed to multiple House members that his investigation was not obstructed in any way. Again, fact. Again, game over.
I will assume you are an American. How is it that you don't understand how the Special Counsel works? How is it that you don't understand that the US House of Representatives is investigating regarding possible impeachment based on things found by Mueller, mostly Obstruction of Justice? How it is that you don't understand that under the US Department of Justice, that they can't indict a sitting President and that the prevailing opinion is that Trump faces legal challenges including possible prison after he is no longer in office? Maybe you should read your country's Constitution, mate. Maybe you should look into your Department of Justice's guidelines a bit more before you spout such folly.
I believe you and Sally to be the same person. Both wankers.
The DOJ guidelines that you mention are unwritten ones. They are not in the US Constitution. "The prevailing opinion is that Trump faces legal changes and possible prison time..." Whose prevailing opinions are those? That of mainstream media? That of the NY Times which knew the Kavanaugh alleged victim said nothing happened and they edited that bit out of the story? The only ones who "prevailing opinion" thinks Trump will face prison time are the ones who have spent 3 years trying to overturn the election. Get over it! Trump won fair and square. You have become deranged lunatics trying to oust Trump from his rightful role as president of the US. Just get over it!
Sally Vix wrote:
tired of the liars wrote:
Why did you clip off the part of the post containing the Mueller quote:
“a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office,” he said. “That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that, too, is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”
It's almost as if you're trolling.
In fact it's exactly as if you're trolling.
Not at all. I wanted to focus on a specific part of the post... specifically this: "... if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”
Yes, you want to focus on the specific part consistent with your talking point while ignoring the part that reveals your talking point to be vacuous bullshit.
That is the essence of your contribution to this thread.
tired of the liars wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Not at all. I wanted to focus on a specific part of the post... specifically this: "... if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”
Yes, you want to focus on the specific part consistent with your talking point while ignoring the part that reveals your talking point to be vacuous bullshit.
That is the essence of your contribution to this thread.
Why the anger? Are you having a bad day? Here is the part I left out of what I quoted:
“a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office,” he said. “That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that, too, is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”
I am not a constitutional expert. Perhaps you can weigh in on this. I thought not charging the sitting president with a crime was a DOJ unwritten rule. I didn't think it is in the Constitution. I don't think it is. Can you clarify if it is or is not?
Everyone here will find this informative, even the very angry Libs:
WHAT IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY?
In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.
“The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.
The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.
“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” the memo stated.
The 1973 and 2000 memos are binding on Justice Department employees, including Mueller, according to many legal experts. Mueller was appointed in May 2017 by the department’s No. 2 official Rod Rosenstein.
But some lawyers have argued that the nation’s founders could have included a provision in the Constitution shielding the president from prosecution, but did not do so, suggesting an indictment would be permissible. According to this view, immunity for the president violates the fundamental principle that nobody is above the law.
Nixon himself in 1977 offered an opposite view when he told interviewer David Frost, “Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.”
COULD MUELLER INDICT TRUMP DESPITE THE EXISTING POLICY?
Possibly. The Justice Department regulations governing Mueller’s appointment allow him to deviate from department policy in “extraordinary circumstances” with the approval of the U.S. attorney general, the nation’s top law enforcement official. Trump appointee William Barr currently holds that post.
Some legal experts have suggested Mueller could invoke this exception if he has uncovered serious wrongdoing and lacked confidence in the ability of the divided Congress to hold Trump accountable. Some lawyers also have said Mueller is not bound by the 1973 and 2000 memos because he is not a typical employee of the department.
Ken Starr, who investigated President Bill Clinton in the 1990s in the somewhat different role of independent counsel, in 1998 conducted his own analysis of the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted, indicating he did not consider the 1973 Justice Department memo binding on him.
Starr did not indict Clinton in his investigation involving the president’s relationship with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky, but lawyers in his office concluded he had the authority to do so, according to a once-secret internal memo made public by the New York Times in 2017.
After the independent counsel statute under which Starr was named expired in 1999, the Justice Department devised procedures governing the appointment of special counsels to handle certain investigations. Mueller was named after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who had been overseeing the agency’s Russia probe.
the problem with all this is that trump is saying:
a) You can't indict me - you have to use impeachment if you've found me to have committed crimes.
B) But oh yeah I'm going to stop impeachment proceedings from finding anything out. I will ignore congressional subpoenas, invent new legal theories of exec priveledge, and my people will obstruct your impeachment investigation from finding out anything.
And Rs eat that stuff up - they LOVE it. They dig corruption - they are bad americans.
and of course trump has made the DOJ a part of the WH, starting show prosecutions and trying to prosecute trump's political foes.
Rs are sick in the head - they all need to be voted out. All of them.
The only thing that matters is that Mueller stated that the guidelines he was following said that he could not indict a sitting president.
So he provided evidence and turned some of it over to other jurisdictions and the rest to Congress.
Congress has chosen not to do anything with the evidence and that's where we stand on Trump.
We also see some of his associates in jail right now as a result of Mueller's investigation.
What any of us thinks of Mueller's opinion of whether Trump should have been charged or should be impeached is moot.
agip wrote:
and of course trump has made the DOJ a part of the WH, starting show prosecutions and trying to prosecute trump's political foes.
Rs are sick in the head - they all need to be voted out. All of them.
Agip - you losing it?
Flagpole wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Car range is excellent these days. Most EV's today get over 200 miles on a charge. Some get over 300 miles. Short road trips are just as convenient as with gas cars. Even long trips only take slightly longer than gas.
New long range electric cars can be bought for less than the average gas car. Total cost of ownership of an electric car is far lower than a comparable gas car.
You can get some fantastic deals on used EV's that are coming off lease.
The US now has over 68,000 public charge points. And more are being built every day. Many are free. Go to plugshare.com and you will see all the charge points near you. Most people don't know they are there because they don't look for them. Charging stations don't take up an entire street corner like gas stations. So people don't notice.
As for performance cars, you get superior performance for less money with an EV. I'm not sure what you were referring to here.
The time to go electric is now.
Not everyone agrees with you that the range is good enough yet. Might not be LOGICAL, but people want what they want...they want 4 wheel drive or All wheel drive even if they are in areas where that's hardly needed...they want to be able to drive 400+ miles without stopping if they want.
The choices for electric vehicles is still small, ESPECIALLY with regard to "performance" vehicles...sports cars, muscle cars. Yes I know that just about any electric car destroy a gas car off the line, but that's not what I'me talking about. electric sports cars are out there, but they are still too expensive.
Still not enough charging stations...has to be absolutely ubiquitous. The Columbus Zoo has some charging stations for electric cars that are right up front...about 10 of them for a parking lot that holds thousands. I want electric cars to be the thing too, but it's just not a reality for most people yet. People who live in apartments? Where do they plug in? The vast majority of apartments do not have charging stations available. Until charging takes just a couple minutes, they need to be everywhere. You are willing to make the sacrifice for an electric car now. Most people are not.
All wheel drive is here. Many electric models have that and it's far better than what you get with a gas car.
Yes, when EV's with 400 mile range come out next year, some will say they need 500. BTW, there is one coming out that has 1000 miles of range. (It's a very weird car though)
As for sports cars, the Tesla Model 3 is reasonably priced and its performance is far better than anything you can get at that price. It's not just super-quick off the line, but handling and top speed are superior as well. And it's the safest car you can buy.
The apartment dweller thing is sometimes a problem. But not always. Lots of apartment dwellers own and love their EV's.
There are plenty of public charging stations for the number of EV's on the road. You basically never find a site where all the chargers are taken. I'm sure it happens but I can't remember when I ever had to leave because the spots were full.
As for me, it hasn't been a sacrifice at all. The sacrifice would be going back to gasoline.
Living with an EV is far better. I never go to the gas station. Because I charge over night, I never worry about range during the day.
I never have to get oil changes, brake jobs, fluid replacement, tune ups, transmission service, air filter changes, belt and hose changes, gas filter changes, emissions inspections, and on and on. The only maintenance is to rotate the tires.
And like I said, the total cost of ownership is much, much lower if you own an EV.
It's true that we could always use more models and more public chargers. But there aren't many people left who wouldn't be better off with an EV.
Sally Vix wrote:
I am not a constitutional expert. Perhaps you can weigh in on this
Mueller said he couldn't indict as a matter of policy. Pointing out that he didn't indict while ignoring the context that he also felt he couldn't is vacuous.
Doing so over and over and over is trolling.
Someone please explain to me how a person who NEVER worked for the President can refuse to answer questions based on “executive privilege”?
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
and of course trump has made the DOJ a part of the WH, starting show prosecutions and trying to prosecute trump's political foes.
Rs are sick in the head - they all need to be voted out. All of them.
Agip - you losing it?
Agip is right. They all need to be voted out.
The Republicans have lost it. They have lost all sense of morality and duty to this country. They now serve a man instead of a nation.
Fat hurts wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Agip - you losing it?
Agip is right. They all need to be voted out.
The Republicans have lost it. They have lost all sense of morality and duty to this country. They now serve a man instead of a nation.
this lewandowski thing is such an outrage. Trump has openly told his people to ignore congressional subpoenas, including one who never worked in the WH. It's the WH declaring itself beyond investigation from the congress, despite all the precedent that the House oversees the exec branch.
it's a complete outrage but the Rs are deliriously happy with it because it pokes the libs.
Owning the libs by desecrating generations of precedent. The Rs are bad americans.
Trump has been caught telling people to commit crimes. Pure and simple.
Fat hurts wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Agip - you losing it?
Agip is right. They all need to be voted out.
The Republicans have lost it. They have lost all sense of morality and duty to this country. They now serve a man instead of a nation.
Just the opposite Fat Hurts. The Dems don't care about the country - only the party. What a sad party you have become. Just sad. Pathetic.