agip wrote:
Criminal Trump wrote:
A gross misinterpretation of the laws.
The president cannot be charged with crimes for thing done that are directly connected to the job of president.
The president can be charged with crimes for thing done that are NOTdirectly connected to the job of president.
The above is how it would be handled by Republicans if a Democrat was a president and they did the same outside-the-job things Trump has done.
source? I don't believe that is correct.
The US Constitution. There is nothing in it that allows the president to break laws for acts outside the job. What you "think" is correct is Barr's gross misinterpretation of what a president can, and cannot, do.
Criminal Trump wrote:
agip wrote:
source? I don't believe that is correct.
The US Constitution. There is nothing in it that allows the president to break laws for acts outside the job. What you "think" is correct is Barr's gross misinterpretation of what a president can, and cannot, do.
That makes sense. Trump could not declare a national emergency and drop nukes on California to eliminate those pesky 3-5 million illegal voters, and claim he is protected because he is president. Trump could also declare himself president for life, and cancel national elections.
kibitzer wrote:
"IF WE HAD CONFIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD CLEARLY NOT COMMITTED A CRIME, WE WOULD HAVE SAID SO."
And they didn't.
Are you guys still hoping for an obstruction of justice charge?! LOL! That stupid statement means nothing. Purely political.
Today, Mueller is saying to YOU GUYS in particular, stop depending on his team to help with your damaged mental state. "The report is my testimony," said Mueller. He doesn't want to be part of your theatrics.
We are all innocent until proven guilty. The job of investigators is to prove guilt and bring indictments. They did NOTHING of the sort.
Grow up. I know you're brain is F'd up, but you've got to be strong and make it through this.
Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:
He basically said that the crime of Obstruction doesn’t fit the full elements of the crime.
1) Umm...what? What does that even mean? I have no idea what you are trying to say there, and I don't think you do either.
2) Mueller said he is letting his work product speak for itself. It has now 11 (one was initially redacted that we now know about) instances of probable Obstruction of Justice. Over 1000 former federal prosecutors have said Trump would have been indicted for Obstruction of justice if he weren't President now. He made it clear that it was not within his power to indict a sitting President. He also made it clear that this was being punted to Congress to determine if any next steps need to be taken.
3) The report is damning of this President. Obstruction of Justice is often not successfully prosecuted based on one thing but rather a proven pattern of obstructive behavior. His report clearly lays that out...as again, over 1000 former federal prosecutors have confirmed.
4) Mueller's stance is a good one. He doesn't want to testify. He wants his work to stand on its own, and he has every right to believe it should. He is being crystal clear that he will not deal with hypotheticals if forced to testify. I am not sure his insistence is going to keep him from being forced to testify. Saying what you want to say in the way you want to say it is not the same as having to answer pointed questions. I believe he will not provide any new information though due to questioning.
5) Democrats DO face potential blowback if they make him testify. The right will accuse them of theatrics, and that accusation wouldn't be 100% wrong. Having Mueller testify publicly does put a different face on things that is not good for Trump, but it would not be 100% about just getting to the truth. Since I am driven by truth and justice, not politics, I am torn here a bit. Congress has a right and a responsibility to perform oversight, and no person, no matter how dignified or well-meaning gets to determine what Congress can and can not do with regard to a legal issuance of a subpoena. On the other hand, testifying should be done to try to get additional information, NOT to give voters a visual to a report they didn't read. There probably isn't a person out there who wants Trump out of office more than I do, but since I have 100% integrity 100% of the time, I DO need things to be done the right way, and one of the ways to ensure that is to not even have an appearance of not doing it the right way. I'm not sure that's possible if Mueller is subpoenaed and has to testify before Congress.
SilIy WiIly wrote:
And now Mueller has closed up shop. His job was to bring indictments (not to "clear" anyone). He did not do so.
NO indictments for collusion.
NO indictments for obstruction.
This is inaccurate and (at best) ignorant.
Mueller's mandate was to investigate--and prosecute where "appropriate."
But it is settled DOJ policy that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted, so prosecuting DJT would never have been appropriate for Mueller.
Mueller's job was laid out on a single page. Why do so many people refuse to read it?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download"IF WE HAD CONFIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD CLEARLY NOT COMMITTED A CRIME, WE WOULD HAVE SAID SO."
Oh yeah...forgot this:
Mueller is STILL coming (14 Mueller-borne investigations still out there, and Trump will not escape them all).
The clown is done.
Makes sense wrote:
Criminal Trump wrote:
The US Constitution. There is nothing in it that allows the president to break laws for acts outside the job. What you "think" is correct is Barr's gross misinterpretation of what a president can, and cannot, do.
That makes sense. Trump could not declare a national emergency and drop nukes on California to eliminate those pesky 3-5 million illegal voters, and claim he is protected because he is president. Trump could also declare himself president for life, and cancel national elections.
it makes no sense whatsoever.
presidents 'could' do a lot of illegal stuff
the constitution's remedy is impeachment.
the DOJ has decided that a sitting president CANNOT BE INDICTED. I have never before heard this legal theory that yeah the president could be indicted for non-presidential crimes. You made it up.
Now, the DOJ could certainly CHANGE its policy - or the supreme court could order it to change. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether a sitting president can be indicted.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/28/phil-robertson-unashamed-the-evil-one-is-running-the-democrat-party/Flagpole wrote:
Oh yeah...forgot this:
Mueller is STILL coming (14 Mueller-borne investigations still out there, and Trump will not escape them all).
The clown is done.
here's Republican Rep Amash telling Pelosi to get on the stick
present, esq. wrote:
SilIy WiIly wrote:
And now Mueller has closed up shop. His job was to bring indictments (not to "clear" anyone). He did not do so.
NO indictments for collusion.
NO indictments for obstruction.
This is inaccurate and (at best) ignorant.
Mueller's mandate was to investigate--and prosecute where "appropriate."
But it is settled DOJ policy that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted, so prosecuting DJT would never have been appropriate for Mueller.
Mueller's job was laid out on a single page. Why do so many people refuse to read it?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download"IF WE HAD CONFIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD CLEARLY NOT COMMITTED A CRIME, WE WOULD HAVE SAID SO."
Speaking of ignorant- you're going to look REAL silly when Horowitz and Barr drop the bomb that the DNC, Hillary campaign, Obama DOJ, and the FBI worked to keep one candidate out of trouble and created a hoax for the other one.
Mueller cleared Trump of the underlying crime being investigated. Trump DID NOT collude with a foreign power. His team also fully cooperated with the investigation. So there was no obstructing the fake crime. Hence, NO indictments.
Mueller NOPE.
Clownpole DOPE.
Barr IS COMING.
agip wrote:
Makes sense wrote:
That makes sense. Trump could not declare a national emergency and drop nukes on California to eliminate those pesky 3-5 million illegal voters, and claim he is protected because he is president. Trump could also declare himself president for life, and cancel national elections.
it makes no sense whatsoever.
presidents 'could' do a lot of illegal stuff
the constitution's remedy is impeachment.
the DOJ has decided that a sitting president CANNOT BE INDICTED. I have never before heard this legal theory that yeah the president could be indicted for non-presidential crimes. You made it up.
Now, the DOJ could certainly CHANGE its policy - or the supreme court could order it to change. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether a sitting president can be indicted.
Don't backpedal. I said crimes. You now say indicted. There is nothing, except Barr, who says a president cannot be indicted for any, and all, crimes. As silly as it may seem, the comment about bombing a state for political reasons is something Trump could definitely be indicted for.
SilIy WiIly wrote:
Mueller Time wrote:
Yeah but very important for this to come out of his mouth... also for him to have confirmed the president didn't get a pass in the report and may have found to be criminal had their scope not been limited by DOJ regulation. I think this is a go ahead for the next action steps. Dems have the goods to impeach for sure, but knowing it's only going to get party line votes in the senante it may not be the most strategic thing to do.. which is of course why they haven't gone ahead with impeachment. They are going to keep up the pressure through other lawsuits and Pelosi is now on fire. It's a brawl of words all the way through the election. Biden could def take him down, but the whole Dem party will have to get behind him.
Why leave out the fact that the actual conspiracy of the DNC, Hillary, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Baker, the Ohrs, etc. conspiring to create the biggest political hoax in history will be exposed prior to the 2020 election? It's coming. Everyone knows it's coming. That's why Brennan, Clapper and Brennan are all pointing fingers at each other at the moment. They're in deep p oop.
Unlike the investigation into Trump, we already have most of the evidence needed. The declassification of FISA docs coming is going to blow it all up. Going to be super fun to watch.
And now Mueller has closed up shop. His job was to bring indictments (not to "clear" anyone). He did not do so.
NO indictments for collusion.
NO indictments for obstruction.
NO sealed indictments.
NO more Special Counsel Office. It's closed.
Mueller did NOT come, and has retired.
The Clown has proven to be Flagpole.
Barr though? Yep- he IS COMING!!
What color is the sky in your world?
1) Mueller's job was NOT to bring indictments. He is exclusively prohibited from doing so, and he has made that crystal clear.
2) Ridiculous to call that a hoax. All those indictments and proof that Russia hacked into the DNC computers and involved themselves in a very serious and complete way to interfere with our election says otherwise.
3) You will be sorely disappointed if you think any big punishments or revelations will be made against those you mentioned.
4) Mueller is still coming. He won't have arrived until all of the investigations that came out of his office are complete.
5) The clown is done.
6) Barr's not coming anywhere unless it's to a buffet table.
Criminal Trump wrote:
agip wrote:
it makes no sense whatsoever.
presidents 'could' do a lot of illegal stuff
the constitution's remedy is impeachment.
the DOJ has decided that a sitting president CANNOT BE INDICTED. I have never before heard this legal theory that yeah the president could be indicted for non-presidential crimes. You made it up.
Now, the DOJ could certainly CHANGE its policy - or the supreme court could order it to change. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether a sitting president can be indicted.
Don't backpedal. I said crimes. You now say indicted. There is nothing, except Barr, who says a president cannot be indicted for any, and all, crimes. As silly as it may seem, the comment about bombing a state for political reasons is something Trump could definitely be indicted for.
so your point is that the DOJ definitely does not have a policy that says 'a sitting president cannot be indicted for federal crimes?'
Is that your point? Some kind of counter-reality statement?
Pookie Washington wrote:
I'm starting to believe this RepubliKKKan talking point that impeachment would be political suicide is a bit of reverse psychology. Initially I thought it would be a bad idea but now I say phuck it........impeach his a$$. The right wingers don't want Trump impeached.
You are correct. They do NOT want Trump to be impeached. Impeachment hearings and the continued cloud over Trump is not something they want as we approach the election. It also sullies Republicans for decades to come if not longer.
We should NEVER look at this as what is good or bad for our party though (in my case the Democrat Party). We should ONLY decide to act if we believe the President has engaged in impeachable offenses. That is clear among Democrats in the House that he has. In my view, they then need to act.
SilIy WiIly wrote:
Mueller cleared Trump of the underlying crime being investigated. Trump DID NOT collude with a foreign power. His team also fully cooperated with the investigation.
So there was no obstructing the fake crime.
Congratulations on winning the Non Sequitur of the Day Award!
The absence of an underlying (adjudicated) crime and the cooperation of witnesses mean ZERO (positive OR negative) with respect to whether obstruction occurred. That is a wholly separate question.
Come on, all of the media have spent weeks informing us about the distinction between obstruction and an underlying crime. Try to keep up.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-andrew-napolitano-mueller-report-shows-classic-obstruction-of-justiceFlagpole wrote:
Pookie Washington wrote:
I'm starting to believe this RepubliKKKan talking point that impeachment would be political suicide is a bit of reverse psychology. Initially I thought it would be a bad idea but now I say phuck it........impeach his a$$. The right wingers don't want Trump impeached.
You are correct. They do NOT want Trump to be impeached. Impeachment hearings and the continued cloud over Trump is not something they want as we approach the election. It also sullies Republicans for decades to come if not longer.
We should NEVER look at this as what is good or bad for our party though (in my case the Democrat Party). We should ONLY decide to act if we believe the President has engaged in impeachable offenses. That is clear among Democrats in the House that he has. In my view, they then need to act.
worth a read - from a Princeton historian.
his point is mainly that the Ds should not be frightened of impeachment affecting their chances. The Clinton impeachment was very different from the trump impeachment. Mainly because Clinton was popular and trump isn't.
And Flagpole, they 'key' guy says the Dems need to impeach in order to turn the 'keys' to their favor. You can probably find it if you look.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/28/impeachment-not-political-loser-democrats-trump-clinton-column/1212988001/Flagpole wrote:
On the other hand, testifying should be done to try to get additional information, NOT to give voters a visual to a report they didn't read.
I disagree.
People often get put on the stand to state facts that are already known.
But on the stand it becomes testimony not a report.
Public opinion will shape the direction of an impeachment.
The public is not going to read the report.
But the public will take note if Mueller publicly speaks to issues of obstruction in front of the cameras.
That is not the wrong way to do it.
It is not unethical.
It will have an impact to hear him speak what he wrote.
Here is a section of the report:
"Trump responded to questions about possible connections to Russia by denying any business involvement
in Russia, even though the Trump Organization had pursued a business project in Russia as late
as June 2016. Trump also expressed skepticism that Russia had hacked the emails at the same
time as he and other Campaign advisors privately sought information about any
further planned WikiLeaks releases. After the election, when questions persisted about possible
links between Russia and the Trump Campaign, the President-Elect continued to deny any
connections to Russia and privately expressed concerns that reports of Russian election
interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election."
Those are powerful words the public has not read.
Have Mueller state that in public testimony and it will influence public opinion.
Flagpole wrote:
SilIy WiIly wrote:
Why leave out the fact that the actual conspiracy of the DNC, Hillary, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Baker, the Ohrs, etc. conspiring to create the biggest political hoax in history will be exposed prior to the 2020 election? It's coming. Everyone knows it's coming. That's why Brennan, Clapper and Brennan are all pointing fingers at each other at the moment. They're in deep p oop.
Unlike the investigation into Trump, we already have most of the evidence needed. The declassification of FISA docs coming is going to blow it all up. Going to be super fun to watch.
And now Mueller has closed up shop. His job was to bring indictments (not to "clear" anyone). He did not do so.
NO indictments for collusion.
NO indictments for obstruction.
NO sealed indictments.
NO more Special Counsel Office. It's closed.
Mueller did NOT come, and has retired.
The Clown has proven to be Flagpole.
Barr though? Yep- he IS COMING!!
What color is the sky in your world?
1) Mueller's job was NOT to bring indictments. He is exclusively prohibited from doing so, and he has made that crystal clear.
2) Ridiculous to call that a hoax. All those indictments and proof that Russia hacked into the DNC computers and involved themselves in a very serious and complete way to interfere with our election says otherwise.
3) You will be sorely disappointed if you think any big punishments or revelations will be made against those you mentioned.
4) Mueller is still coming. He won't have arrived until all of the investigations that came out of his office are complete.
5) The clown is done.
6) Barr's not coming anywhere unless it's to a buffet table.
1) Mueller's job was absolutely to investigate and bring indictments. That's the job of investigators. Prove someone did something or something occurred, and indict as needed. He stated there was ZERO collusion between Trump and Russia. He also said he couldn't bring a case against Trump for obstruction. It is absolutely NOT his job to "clear" anyone, as we all know, but you folks disingenuously act like the "...we would say so" means anything. It doesn't. They would NEVER say that, and in fact, SHOULD NEVER say that. But silly, desperate fools like yourself fall for it.
2) Not ridiculous. Very clear now, actually.
3) Barr IS COMING. Brennan and Comey and Lynch are pointing fingers, all telling different stories. It's going to be more fun to watch than you continuing to be wrong for years on end (currently approaching 3.5 years, I believe).
4) LOL
5) You continually prove yourself to be the Clown.
6) Barr and Horowitz are going to further destroy your fantasy world of Russian Collusion and Obstruction of a fake investigation. You will be crying again.
Mueller NEVER (he's now retired- LOL).
Clownpole FOREVER.
Barr IS COMING.
Congratulater wrote:
SilIy WiIly wrote:
Mueller cleared Trump of the underlying crime being investigated. Trump DID NOT collude with a foreign power. His team also fully cooperated with the investigation.
So there was no obstructing the fake crime.
Congratulations on winning the Non Sequitur of the Day Award!
The absence of an underlying (adjudicated) crime and the cooperation of witnesses mean ZERO (positive OR negative) with respect to whether obstruction occurred. That is a wholly separate question.
Come on, all of the media have spent weeks informing us about the distinction between obstruction and an underlying crime. Try to keep up.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-andrew-napolitano-mueller-report-shows-classic-obstruction-of-justice
But that's within the context of a real investigation, which this was not. Mueller knew there wasn't Trump-Russia collusion from very early on. It was a joke then. It is a joke now.
After the DNC/HRC/FBI conspiracy is *formally* documented (we already know what happened), even you folks on the Left- is you have any integrity left whatsoever- will admit that trying to make an obstruction charge would have been outrageous. It wasn't a real investigation!
Mueller NOPE.
Clownpole DOPE.
Barr IS COMING!
What is the threshold that separates a "hobbyjogger" from a "sub-elite" runner?
BREAKING: Leonard Korir not going to Paris! 11 Universality athletes get in ahead of him!
Hicham El Guerrouj is back baby! Runs Community Mile in Oxford
Do "running influencers" harm the competitive nature of the sport?
Why's it cost every household $5000 in taxes just to run a public school?