Robert Mueller All But Calls For Impeachment

  
By:  john-russell  •  4 months ago  •  525 comments

Robert Mueller All But Calls For Impeachment

Well, Bob Mueller spoke today, for about 8 minutes. While no one will be real happy with the brief remarks he made, one thing was crystal clear. He believes that the report did not exonerate Donald Trump, and the matter needs to be taken up by Congress. 

There is no other way to interpret what he said in his relatively short comments. 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    4 months ago

By the way , Mueller did not say there was no collusion. What he said today , exactly, was that there was insufficient evidence of conspiracy to charge a crime.  That is not "no collusion". 

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 months ago
was that there was insufficient evidence of conspiracy to charge a crime.

Insufficient evidence? Heir Mueller had 2 years, unlimited resources, and investigated anything and everything Trump. He indicted several members of the Trump administration and campaign; but not one of them had anything to do with collusion with the Russians. If he couldn't find enough evidence that means it doesn't exist.

At this point I give up. Please call your Democratic rep in the House and start impeachment proceedings. Keep the pressure on them, they must follow through. Let's get this shit show on the road already. No need for the Dems to endlessly investigate and drag out a prolonged smear campaign against Trump, and anyone associated with Trump until election day. This will be purely along political lines; and get no further than the House.  Maybe impeaching Trump in the House will bring closure for the left finally.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    4 months ago
If he couldn't find enough evidence that means it doesn't exist.

The claim is a falsehood.  It just meant that the evidence was too well hidden, or the lies obscured too much of the truth.

Please call your Democratic rep in the House and start impeachment proceedings.

Hey!  We agree on something!

No need for the Dems to endlessly investigate and drag out a prolonged smear campaign against Trump, and anyone associated with Trump until election day.

Like was done with Hillary?  Again we agree!!

This will be purely along political lines; and get no further than the House.

Because even if there was a smoking gun, eye witnesses, and signed confessions, Senate Republicans will still deny wrongdoing  and continue to allow Trump to shred the Constitution.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    4 months ago
Senate Republicans will still deny wrongdoing

Sorry, if you are not implicated by evidence in a criminal matter, you are cleared. That’s our system. Correct?

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    4 months ago
The claim is a falsehood.  It just meant that the evidence was too well hidden, or the lies obscured too much of the truth.

BS. The Dems in the House will not have near the power Mueller had. This will be a political impeachment only. After the Dems didn't impeach Bill Clinton for perjury, this will just be icing on the cake or their hypocrisy.

Hey!  We agree on something!

Read the rest of it. Not even close.

Like was done with Hillary?  Again we agree!!

Comey and Hillary sycophants in the FBI had no intention of ever prosecuting Hillary. Neither did Lynch. Hillary should be thanking god there was no special prosecutor assigned.  She wouldn't have gotten off so lightly. Instead of Comey handing out immunity like it was candy, those around her would have found out what it was like to be yanked in from of a Grand Jury and forced to testify. Having their entire lives investigated for any illegality that could be further used against them. After that was over the Republican controlled House and Senate would have taken their shots at her. Using the Dems logic of insufficient evidence meaning they just didn't search hard enough.

Because even if there was a smoking gun, eye witnesses, and signed confessions, Senate Republicans will still deny wrongdoing  and continue to allow Trump to shred the Constitution.

Because even after a two year investigation with unlimited resources and the full power of the US government behind it; an elite team full of Hillary and Obama sycophants with just one goal of getting Trump at all costs; and special council that used any means necessary to coerce testimony- they still couldn't come up with shit. With the way Trump abuses the system it must be damn difficult for them to admit it. So difficult in fact that Mueller cannot even admit it.

Not that it will matter. The left will never admit there is nothing there. Trump is a "legal" political criminal. Just like every other politician at the federal level. He is just better at abusing the system than the rest of them. So by all means keep looking for that non existing smoking gun. Keep trying to coerce confessions from anyone near Trump. The left will never admit they have been outsmarted by a better political criminal than they could ever hope to be; they will just "continue to shred the Constitution" in a vain effort to try get Trump at all costs.

So get it over with. Stop wasting tax payer money. Impeach Trump in the House purely for political reasons.  The left needs to get this out of their system. Maybe then they can work on getting the crazies out of their exploding clown car of candidates; working on a platform doesn't cater to their extremists; and get back to work. The border issues are still there to solve. Infrastructure is way past due for an overhaul (Not that the Dems will ever come up with a way to pay for it. Nor either party agree on what needs take top priority- electrical grids- or roads and bridges). The tax code still favors the rich- but of course neither side will ever do anything. Both want the tax code to favor themselves, and those on the rich that give them campaign money. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.1.4  pat wilson  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    4 months ago

You're right, impeachment would be a waste of time as the senate will shut it down.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    4 months ago
The claim is a falsehood.  It just meant that the evidence was too well hidden, or the lies obscured too much of the truth.

Then 35 million or so of tax payer money was WASTED ?

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.6  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.5    4 months ago

Wasted?  Hell NO!  (I don't recall any problems with Benghazi, which actually did produce nothing.)

http://time.com/5556331/mueller-investigation-indictments-guilty-pleas/

Details in link below, read them.

https://www.axios.com/mueller-russia-investigation-timeline-indictments-70433acd-9ef7-424d-aa01-b962ae5c9647.html

After nearly two years, special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation netted 199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and 5 prison sentences.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/breakdown-indictments-cases-muellers-probe/story?id=61219489

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.7  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @1.1.6    4 months ago
After nearly two years, special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation netted 199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and 5 prison sentences.

And none were "Our President" Donald J. Trump or Family. jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

"Wasted? Hell NO! (I don't recall any problems with Benghazi, which actually did produce nothing.)"

HELL YES !

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi Again ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.5    4 months ago

'Then 35 million or so of tax payer money was WASTED ?'

That was 25 million which Manafort's seized assets paid for.

Why does the chump Rump and his supporters keep inflating the amount the investigation to more than it was?  The turd Rump said 40 million.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.9  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.8    4 months ago
That was 25 million which Manafort's seized assets paid for.

May of 2017 up to September 2018. 

"We're still waiting on the final report for the last six months of the investigation, but based on the total costs outlined in the first three reports — $6.8 million, $10 million, and $8.5 million — the entire investigation could cost somewhere between $32 million and $35 million. "

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.10  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.7    4 months ago
Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi Again ?

Dude, we had so many years of fruitless Benghazi its still ringing in our heads.  Next time don't do it and we won't remind you all. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.11  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @1.1.10    4 months ago
Dude, we had so many years of fruitless Benghazi its still ringing in our heads. 

Didn't "Ring" in my head. Knowing there were 4 dead Americans for NO REASON....was enough for me. How it happened really didn't matter.....did it !  After all, it was just "Politicians" that made the non-decision that got them killed, and I didn't vote for them. "Politicians" are immune, except to being voted out of office !

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.12  Ender  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.11    4 months ago

There was a lot more to it than that as I am sure you know. From the man going to the consulate when it wasn't the most secure, to lack of funding and congress not giving said funding.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.13  It Is ME  replied to  Ender @1.1.12    4 months ago
From the man going to the consulate when it wasn't the most secure, to lack of funding and congress not giving said funding.

What....they didn't pay the gas station attendant yet ?

"Funding" Issues is NOT a defense for what was allowed to happen.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    4 months ago
He indicted several members of the Trump administration and campaign; but not one of them had anything to do with collusion with the Russians.

Perhaps you should review the plea agreements for Flynn, Papadopoulos and Cohen.  

If he couldn't find enough evidence that means it doesn't exist.

Mueller found plenty of evidence of 'collusion'. READ Volume I. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    4 months ago
Sorry, if you are not implicated by evidence in a criminal matter, you are cleared. That’s our system. Correct?

Conversely, if you ARE implicated by evidence in a criminal matter you are indicted. That's our system, UNLESS you hold the office of the President of the United States. That was true for Nixon and Clinton and now for Trump. It's up to the Congress to investigate now. 

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.16  Ender  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.13    4 months ago

I never said it was a defence, I am pointing out, it is not all black and white like you are trying to say. There were several factors in play that led to what happened.

Blame can be put in several corners, not just one.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.17  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    4 months ago
unlimited resources

Dog do!  Cooperation should be considered an unlimited resource.  However, Trump demanded that no one in his circle, political or personal, cooperate with the investigation.  The folks that followed his demand are awaiting trial, awaiting sentencing, or are in prison.  That speaks volumes...not only in regard to evidence, but also in regard to what kind of a man Trump is.  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.18  r.t..b...  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.17    4 months ago
Cooperation should be considered an unlimited resource

Hear, hear! Unfortunately...

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." ~ F. Nietzsche

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.19  It Is ME  replied to  Ender @1.1.16    4 months ago
There were several factors in play that led to what happened.

There was only "One" Factor. "LACK OF URGENCY" !

They had to wait for the "Video" to play out and then make sure they rewound it before turning it in. Wouldn't want a "Fee" charged so they'd be over budget !

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.20  Ender  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.18    4 months ago

The really sad thing about all of this is the glaring obvious.

That Russia was involved in trying to sway the election and are going to do it again the next election.

All the while we are fixated on internal investigations and ignoring a real threat.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.21  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.15    4 months ago
It's up to the Congress to investigate now.

Six years from now the desire for investigating Trump will be over.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.21    4 months ago
Six years from now the desire for investigating Trump will be over.

Sis years from now the investigations will be long over. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.23  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    4 months ago
Insufficient evidence? Heir Mueller had 2 years, unlimited resources, and investigated anything and everything Trump. He indicted several members of the Trump administration and campaign; but not one of them had anything to do with collusion with the Russians.

Your problem is that this collusion thing isn't going to be what impeachment is about.  It's about the crimes of obstruction as described in part II if the report.  Mueller basically said in the report and now directly from his mouth--here's out to impeach the Scumbag.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.14    4 months ago
rhaps you should review the plea agreements for Flynn, Papadopoulos and Cohen.

I don't think you understand what those agreements actually say.

You should read them again. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.25  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @1.1.12    4 months ago
to lack of funding and congress not giving said funding.

I'm sorry to have to correct you, but the authorities said there was no lack of funding.

SoS Hillary Clinton was asleep at the switch, help should have been sent.

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.26  lib50  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.25    4 months ago

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had “voted to cut the funding for embassy security.”

“Absolutely,” Chaffetz said. “Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration’s request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 — cutting back on the department’s request by $331 million.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/28/house-benghazi-report-clinton-attack-military

House Republicans investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, have found no new evidence to conclude that Hillary Clinton , secretary of state at the time, was culpable in the deaths of four Americans, according to the committee’s final report released on Tuesday.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.27  Sean Treacy  replied to  lib50 @1.1.26    4 months ago

You should have probably paid attention to the hearings.

State Department officials testified under oath that budget issues did not keep State from providing better security. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.28  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.5    4 months ago
Then 35 million or so of tax payer money was WASTED ?

It actually seized 40 million in assets, so it MADE money for the US government, (aside from locking up some members of trumps crime family). 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.29  MrFrost  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.17    4 months ago
what kind of a man Trump is.

Is asshat one or two words? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.30  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.25    4 months ago
SoS Hillary Clinton was asleep at the switch, help should have been sent.

1) Not sure why you are still beating this dead horse after 9 fucking investigations. Your wet dream of locking her up FAILED, let it go.

2) Amb. Stevens was warned NOT to go to Benghazi because security couldn't be guaranteed, (because the republican congress denied requests for more security). Steven opted to go anyway, so as tragic as it is, it was his decision to go, knowing the risks. 

3) What exactly do YOU think Hillary should have done? ANY help would have been at least 8 hours away and by the time she was notified, steven's and party were already dead. 

Again, 9 investigations, all 9 were republican led, found nothing, zip, zilch, nada. At worst was the email server, which oddly enough Kushner and Ivanka BOTH use, but the right doesn't care about that. And the email server? Weird that those 33k emails suddenly showed up in Russia just three days after trump asked russia, on live, national tv, to get them. 

You want to keep making comparrisons between trump/russia and Hillary/Benghazi? OK! 

Benghazi = 9 investigations over 5 years costing nearly 250 million dollars, 2 FBI email server investigations and an 11 hour LIVE TV, under oath interrogation. 

Result? No charges. No guilty pleas. No indictments. No prison sentences. 

Trump/Russia = One investigation, 2 years costing 35 million, (but seized 40 million in assets), trump never testified in any way under oath because he is a coward and a pussy. 

Result? Robert Mueller's investigation netted 199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and 5 prison sentences.

Now here is the softball question for you Greg... Which one is the witch hunt and hoax? Hint: It's not Benghazi. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.31  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.24    4 months ago
I don't think you understand what those agreements actually say.

You're wrong. 

You should read them again. 

Been there, done that. You should try it. 

Oh and READ the Mueller report too:

On December 29, 2016, then-President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for having interfered in the election. Incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and asked Russia not to escalate the situation in response to the sanctions. The following day, Putin announced that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the sanctions at that time. Hours later, President-Elect Trump tweeted, Great move on delay (by V. Putin). The next day, on December 31, 2016, Kislyak called Flynn and told him the request had been received at the highest levels and Russia had chosen not to retaliate as a result of Flynn's request.

Then once in office, Trump et al DENIED it ever happened. 

Sure sounds like secret coordination to me. 

In truth, it's a Logan act violation. But hey, Flynn got off easy...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.32  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.31    4 months ago

IF you think the indictments contain evidence of those three colluding with Russia to interfere with  the election, you either don't understand English or are spectacularly dishonest.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.33  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.32    4 months ago

You should read what I originally replied to and stop moving the goal posts. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.33    4 months ago

I'm glad we agree there was no collusion by the three you mentioned to interfered with the election (you know, the point of Mueller's investigation).

Since we agree that those three did not collude with Russia with regards to the 2016 election, what illegal acts did those  three commit with Russians that justify your claim of collusion and what did they collude about?  

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.35  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.25    4 months ago

SoS Hillary Clinton was asleep at the switch, help should have been sent

The Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi , Libya, which killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, have spurred numerous Republican allegations against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton .

GOP nominee Donald Trump went so far as to say the Benghazi victims were "left helpless to die" as Clinton, then the secretary of state, "soundly slept in her bed."

That earned a  False from PolitiFact National. Congressional investigations did not find Clinton was inattentive, much less asleep. Rather, she worked into the night after the attacks occurred.

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/oct/07/paul-ryan/state-department-under-hillary-clinton-refused-sec/

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.36  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.34    4 months ago
I'm glad we agree there was no collusion by the three you mentioned to interfered with the election (you know, the point of Mueller's investigation).

We don't. BTFW, you've moved the goal posts AGAIN. 

Your comments are disingenuous and no longer worthy of reply. Move on. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.37  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.36    4 months ago
We don't. B

Then show the collusion to interfere with the election..

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.38  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.3    4 months ago

 That was epic!

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.39  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ender @1.1.20    4 months ago

 Meanwell nobody seems to care about China’s attempt to sway the 2020 election already in favor of some fucking piece of shit Democrat who will kowtow to their nefarious schemes.  For obvious reasons all they really are interested in is power and fucking people over like me. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.40  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.3    4 months ago
BS. The Dems in the House will not have near the power Mueller had.

Different standards.  Mueller had to strive for criminal level of guilt (beyond a shadow of doubt), the House doesn't have to go for that level.  You're comparing apples to bicycles.

Comey and Hillary sycophants in the FBI had no intention of ever prosecuting Hillary.

It's not nice to call life long Republicans sycophants just because you don't like the results.

Comey and Hillary sycophants in the FBI had no intention of ever prosecuting Hillary.

After 8 House investigations and an FBI investigation, all clearing her, I don't think she was worried.  FYI, she even testified before them, something Trump was too afraid to do.

Because even after a two year investigation with unlimited resources and the full power of the US government behind it; an elite team full of Hillary and Obama sycophants with just one goal of getting Trump at all costs; and special council that used any means necessary to coerce testimony- they still couldn't come up with shit.

Another person proud of the fact that they never read the report.  You know how foolish it makes you look to make such false statements?

So get it over with. Stop wasting tax payer money.

Another lie.  Manafort seizure turned the investigation into a profit.

Infrastructure is way past due for an overhaul (Not that the Dems will ever come up with a way to pay for it.

Too bad Trump walked out of the meeting after 3 minutes.

The tax code still favors the rich- but of course neither side will ever do anything.

Were you sleeping during Trump's 1.5 trillion dollar tax give away to the wealthy?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.41  Freedom Warrior  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.28    4 months ago

 So if we can attribute a funding surplus to Trump’s election why don’t they fund  the fucking wall.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.42  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.37    4 months ago
Then show the collusion to interfere with the election..

I don't have to Sean and I'll tell you why. I was replying to Ronin who said: 

He indicted several members of the Trump administration and campaign; but not one of them had anything to do with collusion with the Russians.

Nothing about interference in that statement Sean. Nothing about the election either. So STOP asking me to address YOUR ever changing versions. 

All three of the people I mentioned colluded with the Russians. I'd also add Manafort to the list. The evidence is in the report. 

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.43  Ender  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.39    4 months ago

Odd to me when you call the Dem candidates pieces of shit when most of them are rather diplomatic.

Yet you would never once say that about trump, who is an actual piece of shit.

Hate to break the news to you but China has long term plans that don't involve an eight year or less president.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.44  Ender  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.40    4 months ago
Another person proud of the fact that they never read the report.  You know how foolish it makes you look to make such false statements?

I can always tell when people watch fox news.

The jackass Tucker is trying to push that Russian interference is minimal and dismissive.

Sad and sick really.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.45  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ender @1.1.43    4 months ago

Oh you can guarantee yourself that China is prepared to fuck over and take advantage of any of those piles of  shit that you call Democratic presidential candidates  just like they would any establishment  Republican candidate.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.46  Ender  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.45    4 months ago

Uh huh. Don't tell me, you think only trump can lead the way

Too funny.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.47  Ronin2  replied to  lib50 @1.1.6    4 months ago
Wasted?  Hell NO!  (I don't recall any problems with Benghazi, which actually did produce nothing.)

You mean the Benghazi investigation that was obstructed by Obama every step of the way? No special prosecutor, just a Select Committee from the House.

Oh, and Obama refused to answer the Select Committee's questions.  Funny how the left supported him in that; but railed against Trump even thinking about not testifying to Mueller.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-benghazi-obama-224813  

The White House and the House Select Committee on Benghazi are at a standoff over whether President Barack Obama should answer a series of questions about the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya that left four Americans dead.

Neil Eggleston, counsel to the president, blasted the committee for sending the president a list of questions about the attack — an inquiry the administration deemed inappropriate and a partisan attempt to frame the White House as uncooperative.

Eggleston has encouraged Obama not to answer the committee’s questions “because of the implications of his response on the constitutional separation of powers,” according to a letter sent Saturday to Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and obtained by POLITICO.

“If the president were to answer your questions, his response would suggest that Congress has the unilateral power to demand answers from the president about his official acts,” the letter reads.

Eggleston also accused the panel of asking questions it already knew the answer to — something the committee denies.

And Gowdy's panel criticized the White House's response as unhelpful to its investigation. Committee members have been trying to answer several unresolved questions before releasing their final report in the coming weeks.

“It's no surprise President Obama would rather take questions from Derek Jeter than answer questions for the American people about the Benghazi terrorist attacks, which followed what he himself has called his worst mistake — failing to plan for what happened after the State Department pushed U.S. intervention in Libya,” said committee spokesman Jamal Ware, referring to Obama's chat a few days ago with the former New York Yankee. “The White House’s fictional narrative today is the latest chapter of the storyit has been spinning since 2012, when four of our fellow citizens were murdered by Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists in the tragic terrorist attacks in Benghazi."

If you can't tell the difference between a House Special Committee; and a special prosecutor, there is no point in discussing anything with you.  It also will prove that anything the Democrats do in the House will not have near the power or authority to investigate that Mueller had at his disposal. Since Congress cannot bring criminal charges against anyone.

http://www.mololamken.com/news-knowledge-34.html

Although congressional authority to investigate is broad, it is not unlimited.  Because Congress’s authority to investigate is tied to its authority to legislate, limits on congressional investigations are necessarily linked to the limits on Congress’s constitutional authority.  For example, Congress has no general authority to investigate the purely private affair of an ordinary citizen.

The doctrine of separation of powers also places limits on congressional authority to investigate.  Congress cannot, under the guise of an investigation, usurp the power of another branch of government.  It cannot investigate matters where the means of redress is purely judicial.  Nor can Congress investigate matters committed to the President’s discretion.  For example, Congress could not undertake an investigation to determine an individual’s entitlement to a pardon because the Constitution granted the pardon power to the President, not Congress.

While Congress can investigate conduct that may be criminal, Congress itself lacks the authority to bring criminal charges or otherwise initiate a criminal prosecution.  If a congressional investigation uncovers evidence of criminal activity, however, Congress may refer the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation and, potentially, prosecution.  Sometimes, the DOJ investigation predates the congressional investigation.  No matter which branch of government moves first to investigate, however, the end result is that a congressional investigation often will run parallel to a criminal investigation.  As a result, evidence developed in a congressional investigation might be used by the DOJ in its criminal investigation or in a prosecution.

So that is the reason why there were no criminal charges in Benghazi. Congress doesn't have the power to bring them; and an Obama DOJ (Holder or Lynch) would never bring charges on anything a Republican Congress found.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1.48  1stwarrior  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.3    4 months ago

384

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.49  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ender @1.1.46    4 months ago

So who else? No one else has stepped up to the plate.  

What you have now is a long list of a bunch of fucking pussilanimous punks and pukes that have done nothing to curtail our greatest geopolitical threat.  

Xi got the message.    I don't see that you have.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.50  Sparty On  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.48    4 months ago

There it is

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.51  Freedom Warrior  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.48    4 months ago

That's putting an exclamation point on corruption within the FBI.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.52  author  JohnRussell  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.9    4 months ago
"the entire investigation could cost somewhere between $32 million and $35 million. "

Over roughly the same time period , US taxpayers have spent over $100 million on Trump's golfing habit. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.53  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.52    4 months ago
  • President Donald Trump's trips to golf courses in Florida, New Jersey, Los Angeles, and Scotland have cost taxpayers at least $102 million,  according to a HuffPost report .
  • That figure is 255 times the presidential salary that Trump declined to take, HuffPost said.
  • HuffPost's breakdown of estimated costs found that Trump's two dozen trips to Florida cost taxpayers $81 million, his 15 trips to New Jersey cost $17 million, his one LA trip cost $1 million, and his Scotland trip cost $3 million.
 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.54  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.5    4 months ago
Then 35 million or so of tax payer money was WASTED ?

If you don't mind the now over $100M costs to taxpayers for Shtibag's golfing or the complete wast of several times that much each time Shitbag goes overseas and accomplishes less than nothing (other than finding a way to  give KJU a diplomatic blow job) then we'll continue to ignore the whining about the cost of the Mueller report which is beginning to look the the bargain of the century for what it tells us about Shitbag's crimes. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.56  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dulay @1.1.33    4 months ago
 stop moving the goal posts. 

What would he have left then? 

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.57  lib50  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.47    4 months ago

Congress has the power to open impeachment hearings to get to the truth.  And if there had been criminal wrongdoing in Benghazi there would have been fallout.  Benghazi was a tragedy, not a crime.  Not even remotely like what is going on now, but we do all remember the multiple committees that investigated for years and found no malfeasance.  Gop couldn't even come up with anything.  And if they had, they would have taken it to the max.  But they couldn't, nothing was there.  Lynch is not and never was Barr.  He considers his job as a Trump protector, not a USA protector.   From your link

If a congressional investigation uncovers evidence of criminal activity, however, Congress may refer the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation and, potentially, prosecution.  Sometimes, the DOJ investigation predates the congressional investigation.  No matter which branch of government moves first to investigate, however, the end result is that a congressional investigation often will run parallel to a criminal investigation.  As a result, evidence developed in a congressional investigation might be used by the DOJ in its criminal investigation or in a prosecution.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.58  It Is ME  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.54    4 months ago
Then 35 million or so of tax payer money was WASTED ? If you don't mind the now over $100M costs to taxpayers for Shtibag's golfing or the complete wast of several times that much each time Shitbag goes overseas and accomplishes less than nothing 

You and john should do an "Article" on that.

For now, I'll stick with this "Mueller" thingy we're supposed to be talking about !

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.59  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.31    4 months ago
sident Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for having interfered in the election. Incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and asked Russia not to escalate the situation in response to the sanctions. The following day, Putin announced that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the sanctions at that time. Hours later, President-Elect Trump tweeted, Great move on delay (by V. Putin). The next day, on December 31, 2016, Kislyak called Flynn and told him the request had been received at the highest levels and Russia had chosen not to retaliate as a result of Flynn's request.

So your evidence of collusion to interfere with the election is a post election conversation where an incoming administration official asks Russia to protect our ally?

That's just sad. Did you just post this without reading it? Or do you think because it contains the words Russia and Flynn, it proves collusion to interfere with the election?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.60  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.59    4 months ago
So your evidence of collusion to interfere with the election is a post election conversation where an incoming administration official asks Russia to protect our ally?
That's just sad. Did you just post this without reading it? Or do you think because it contains the words Russia and Flynn, it proves collusion to interfere with the election?

So you are going to continue to post strawman fallacies? 

I already asked you to STOP asking me to address YOUR ever changing versions of the comment I originally replied to. 

BTW, Sean, what ally are you claiming that Flynn asked Russia to protect? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.61  Ronin2  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.40    4 months ago
Different standards.  Mueller had to strive for criminal level of guilt (beyond a shadow of doubt), the House doesn't have to go for that level.  You're comparing apples to bicycles.

Can't read? I said the impeachment in the House will be along political lines only. They will not be able to get more, or better, evidence. They can investigate until Trump is out of office and it won't make a damn bit of difference. It is nothing more than a continuation of a smear job at this point.

It's not nice to call life long Republicans sycophants just because you don't like the results.

Strozk & Page are Republicans? Now you really are getting absurd. Seems you missed all of their emails fawning over Hillary, and worrying about how their investigation was affecting her election chances. Also, above all else bashing Trump and talking about their plans to stop him.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/397902-opinion-one-fbi-text-message-in-russia-probe-should-alarm-every-american

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/politics/ig-report-clinton-email-investigation/index.html

After 8 House investigations and an FBI investigation, all clearing her, I don't think she was worried.  FYI, she even testified before them, something Trump was too afraid to do.

Where did I ever say she was worried? I said she had nothing to worry about since the FBI and DOJ had no intention of ever indicting her; regardless of the evidence. So what if she did testify before the FBI- according to Lisa Page's testimony to Congress Clinton was allowed aides (that had already testified several times to the FBI themselves on the issue) to be present, in an effort to limit the FBI questioning/access.

https://www.apnews.com/cd3efc5b5e7a8c8c6c2d53f974031491

Ms. Page also said decisions to allow Hillary Clinton’s top aides to sit in on her FBI interview in 2016, and not to pursue gross negligence charges against her for her secret emails, were made by the Justice Department. She identified two lawyers at the department she said made that decision.

Transcripts from two interviews the House conducted with Ms. Page were released by Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

Another person proud of the fact that they never read the report.  You know how foolish it makes you look to make such false statements?

Do you know how foolish you look when you misread, and misquote, the Mueller report? Take off your TDDS glasses.

Another lie.  Manafort seizure turned the investigation into a profit.

Wow, so it is ok to illegally spy on a US citizen, or political opponent, so long as you can turn a profit from it? Oh, and since you still can't read my full posts correctly. I said "stop wasting tax payer money" or do you think the Democrats' multiple investigations in the House aren't costing tax payers anything? Please tell us!

Too bad Trump walked out of the meeting after 3 minutes.

Too bad Pelosi wasn't there to discuss infrastructure to start with. She was there to tweek Trump on the Mueller investigation. Of course this is just like her grand plan for the border to increase security. She talked a great game to the press; but when it came time for the House to submit their budget- not one dime was allocated.  How did she expect to implement all of those grand plans with no money!

From her own web site no less.

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/22219-4/

What are we talking about here, not building a wall, but building a protection again that respects people and values, and what that meant was we would have hundreds millions of dollars for more sophisticated scanning and detection, for vehicles coming through the ports of entry, that we would have some infrastructure at the ports of entry because so much more is coming through now, that we would have other detection technologically where deemed necessary on the border, that we would have provision to meet the needs of people seeking asylum, whether it was for food, clothing, medical needs and the rest, we would have funding for judges to expedite the process of people coming through – so it was all about protecting and recognizing the needs of that were here.  But none of them amounting to a crisis or justifying a declaration of a national emergency.

 

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.62  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.52    4 months ago

I am sure you were upset about US taxpayers spending money on Obama's golfing habit; and shoot arounds with college and pro basketball teams?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.63  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.61    4 months ago
Can't read? I said the impeachment in the House will be along political lines only.

ALL impeachments are along political lines.  The difference this time is that Senate Republicans under McConnell have already shown that they would block impeachment EVEN IF IT IS JUSTIFIED.

Strozk & Page are Republicans? Now you really are getting absurd. Seems you missed all of their emails fawning over Hillary, and worrying about how their investigation was affecting her election chances.

You're lying again.

Strozk & Page exchanged texts that were just as dismissive of both Hillary and Bernie.  Your claim that they were opposed to only Trump is ingenuous at best and an out right obfuscation at worst.

Do you know how foolish you look when you misread, and misquote, the Mueller report?

Says the person that refuses to read anything passed Barr's "summary".

Wow, so it is ok to illegally spy on a US citizen, or political opponent, so long as you can turn a profit from it?

Of course not.  TOO BAD THAT DID NOT OCCUR!  If you have evidence that it did, you should call Nunes immediately since he could not find any during his investigation.

Too bad Pelosi wasn't there to discuss infrastructure to start with.

I'll let you explain how you know this.  Since they never had time to start any discussion prior to Trump walking out. 

Your cut and paste is talking about Trump's stupid wall, not infrastructure.  You do understand the difference between the 2, don't you???

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.64  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ender @1.1.35    4 months ago

Funny thing is I went to about at least a half dozen or more political fact checking sites to check politifact's bias and the majority found politifact to be blatantly leftist biased. So your quotes on politifact commentary can hardly be  considered fair or non biased can they?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.65  Ozzwald  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.64    4 months ago
Funny thing is I went to about at least a half dozen or more political fact checking sites to check politifact's bias and the majority found politifact to be blatantly leftist biased.

I don't know about Ender, but I find that very interesting.  Please give me a list of the sites you checked so I can read what they said about Politifact.

You said at least half a dozen, so just 6 sites are fine.  Thanks.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.66  Ender  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.64    4 months ago

According to fox news, every other source is bias....

Don't know where you look but the bias checker most used for this site list them in the least bias category.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Politifact has been called left biased by some   right leaning sources . In fact, there is a source called   Politifact Bias   that is dedicated to pointing out Politifact’s biases. Politifact is also a signatory of the   International Fact Checking Network (IFCN),  which outlines a code principles for credible fact checkers.

Politifact uses minimal loaded language in their articles and headlines such as this:   Trump falsely claims NATO countries owe United States money for defense spending.  All information is well sourced to credible media and/or direct statements from experts in the field or the politicians themselves. Fact Check selection leans slightly left as more right wing politicians are currently fact checked. This may be due to bias or the fact that Republicans currently control all branches of government and hence there is more to check. In fact, there was a recent   academic study   done that shows Politifact employs minimal bias through wording.

Overall, this update reveals a slight leftward shift in Politifact’s fact checking selection, but not enough to move them from the least biased category. (7/10/2016)

Link
 
 
 
Ender
1.1.67  Ender  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.65    4 months ago

A quick look on my end and what I could find calling them bias was the national review, some offshoot of the heritage foundation and some Libertarian podcaster.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.68  Ozzwald  replied to  Ender @1.1.67    4 months ago
A quick look on my end and what I could find calling them bias was the national review, some offshoot of the heritage foundation and some Libertarian podcaster.

And 2 days now with him refusing to provide a simple list, [deleted]  But hey, he can still provide the list so I can look for myself.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.69  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.68    4 months ago

You want to call me a liar, I do not really give a rat's behind. Do your own homework!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.70  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.69    4 months ago
You want to call me a liar, I do not really give a rat's behind. Do your own homework!

Well, it's not OK with me. You can't call a member a liar. You can say a comment is a lie. One is about the person and the other is about the comment. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.71  Ozzwald  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.70    4 months ago
Well, it's not OK with me. You can't call a member a liar. You can say a comment is a lie. One is about the person and the other is about the comment.

You are correct, I apologize, I phrased it wrong.  I meant to state that the comment he made appeared to be untruthful, but it came out as directed at him personally.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.72  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.69    4 months ago

All you need do is support your assertion. You have the burden of proof. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 months ago
Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office.

The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel’s Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.

I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.

These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.

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.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. 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.

The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by Department regulations.

The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.

At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.

I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.

The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.

It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.

Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.

I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.

Thank you.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    4 months ago
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

There is no reason for him to say this if he does not believe impeachment is merited. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.2  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    4 months ago
So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated.

Cop Out !

He and his crew could have "Recommended" ANYTHING to congress....without breaking his "Cop Out" statement !

I said it before....and I'll say it again …… Ken Starr at least had Balls.....Mueller and his team don't !

 
 
 
lib50
1.2.3  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @1.2.2    4 months ago

Mueller wasn't under the same rules as Starr. 

I don't know if all those dares to impeach Trump are going to pan out like republicans want.   But I do think we are about to move into a new phase of history.  Congress really has no choice but to do their constitutional duty.  Mueller made that clear.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.4  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @1.2.3    4 months ago
Mueller wasn't under the same rules as Starr. 

And Yet, Starr gave us a verdict ! jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

"Congress really has no choice but to do their constitutional duty."

Congress ALWAYS has a "Choice". Congress is all about "Politics", not rule of law, when it comes to looking at themselves !

 
 
 
lib50
1.2.5  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @1.2.4    4 months ago

Read my first sentence, FFS.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @1.2.2    4 months ago

Robert Mueller, in first public remarks, says charging Trump was 'not an option we could consider'

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  lib50 @1.2.5    4 months ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.8  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.6    4 months ago
says charging Trump was 'not an option we could consider'

BULLSHIT !

That's what he was "Hired" to do !

FIND INFO AND MAKE A FUCKING DECISION !

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.9  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @1.2.5    4 months ago
Mueller wasn't under the same rules as Starr. 

FFS...… Nothing stopped Mueller from giving a True life "Conclusion" to what he found or making a recommendation in his report !

https://observer.com/2019/03/special-counsel-robert-mueller-report-law/

"Special counsels are unique in that they are not subject to “day-to-day supervision” by the DOJ. They are also “free to structure the investigation as he or she wishes and to exercise independent prosecutorial discretion to decide whether charges should be brought.” Special counsels are also vested “within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.”

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.2.10  pat wilson  replied to  It Is ME @1.2.8    4 months ago

Whoa there, somebody's triggered. Lol.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.11  It Is ME  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.10    4 months ago
Whoa there, somebody's triggered. Lol.

I'm in a " Safe " Space" right now. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @1.2.8    4 months ago

NO THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WAS HIRED TO DO!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.13  Greg Jones  replied to  lib50 @1.2.3    4 months ago

We sincerely hope they do so. It will fail and thus assure Trump's reelection.

Not sure what the impeachment will be about, since no evidence has emerged pointing to any wrong-doing or criminal activities on Trump's part.

 
 
 
lib50
1.2.14  lib50  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.13    4 months ago
since no evidence has emerged pointing to any wrong-doing or criminal activities on Trump's part.

Not true, as Mueller himself said today, but by the time congress is through all the evidence of team Trump connections with Russia and obstruction to impede the investigation, America will know the truth.  At least if they want to, I don't expect Trumpers to lift the veil. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.10    4 months ago

'Whoa there, somebody's triggered. Lol.'

True dat!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  lib50 @1.2.14    4 months ago

Every reputable news station has verified that essentially wrongdoing has been committed by the turd but it's not up to Mueller to 'FIND INFO AND MAKE A FUCKING DECISION'

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.17  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.12    4 months ago

What was he hired to do then ?

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.2.18  Sunshine  replied to  lib50 @1.2.14    4 months ago
Not true, as Mueller himself said today, but by the time congress is through all the evidence of team Trump connections with Russia and obstruction to impede the investigation,

mmmm...seems we have heard this type of talk before. jrSmiley_38_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 months ago
What he said today

What his report said was,

The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the IRA.*

*The IRA is the Internet Research Agency that carried out the Russian interference.

It also says,

the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

To me, it is unconscionable that Americans everywhere aren't expressing sighs of relief and happiness over the good news that our president was elected legitimately and that the man himself and the people around him weren't working with people who would attack our system this way. (unless you are prepared to suggest and then prove that this president and his people - routinely characterized as incompetent boobs - somehow managed to outwit everyone in the special counsel's investigation)

You don't have to like Trump or even support him, but in light of the findings, it's long past time to drop this Russian collusion nonsense. Continuing to go after him at this point seems to me the behavior of power-hungry politicians and their supporters who care more about power and control than they do about justice and integrity.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.3    4 months ago
(unless you are prepared to suggest and then prove that this president and his people - routinely characterized as incompetent boobs - somehow managed to outwit everyone in the special counsel's investigation)

They didn't outwit anyone, there just isn't enough evidence to bring a charge of conspiracy.

You don't have to like Trump or even support him, but in light of the findings, it's long past time to drop this Russian collusion nonsense.

In Volume I, Mueller documented multiple instances of 'collusion' by Trump minions. It isn't 'nonsense'. 

Continuing to go after him at this point seems to me the behavior of power-hungry politicians and their supporters who care more about power and control than they do about justice and integrity.

Or it's elected officials that swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and who have a duty to conduct oversight and investigate the actions and policies of the Executive branch. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.3.1    4 months ago
It isn't 'nonsense'. 

Neither is it criminal. Like I said: move on.

uphold the Constitution

Which has not been violated. Move on.

the actions and policies of the Executive branch

Which have all been entirely legal or we would have heard otherwise. Move on.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.3  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.2    4 months ago

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.4  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.3.3    4 months ago

Bullshit is bullshit no matter who is saying it. The Constitution declares that impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors" not vague shit like "cleansing" or "collusion." That's what elections are for.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.5  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.4    4 months ago
The Constitution declares that impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors"

Which are defined by each person in Congress. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.6  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.3.5    4 months ago
Which are defined by each person in Congress.

So . . . make it up as you go. Great. Go with that. See what that does for the country.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.7  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.6    4 months ago
So . . . make it up as you go. Great. Go with that. See what that does for the country.

I didn't make up shit.

It is a well known legal position that the definition of 'high crimes' is whatever the hell the Congress says it is. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.3.8  pat wilson  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.4    4 months ago
The Constitution declares that impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors" 

And obstruction.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.3.9  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @1.3.8    4 months ago
And obstruction.

So why haven't Democrats moved to impeach?

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.3.10  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.9    4 months ago

1. It will never get through the senate.

2. If Dems move to impeach they will spend the next year and a half on this and ultimately not accomplish any of their own goals.

3. If in fact trump were impeached we end up with Putz for president and he'll just pardon trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.3.11  author  JohnRussell  replied to  pat wilson @1.3.10    4 months ago

I think impeachment is an unknown. While it is highly likely (95% ?) that the Senate would not convict, even that would likely somewhat depend on what the evidence was. I would be against impeachment based solely on what is known now of just the obstruction of justice. That would fail.  But if other criminal behavior was revealed in an impeachment investigation , along the lines of tax crimes or other financial crimes, it might be worth proceeding to impeachment. 

I think it is too much of an assumption to presume that impeachment would help Trump in the election. There is just as good of chance that revelations about him will end up nauseating more than enough voters to defeat him. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.3.12  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @1.3.10    4 months ago
1. It will never get through the senate.

Actually, if the House acts, the Senate is compelled to take the case.

2. If Dems move to impeach they will spend the next year and a half on this and ultimately not accomplish any of their own goals.

Democrats in general have been saying getting rid of Trump is a main goal. If Democrats are unwilling to impeach, then they should stop talking about it.

3. If in fact trump were impeached we end up with Putz for president and he'll just pardon trump.

If by the juvenile term "Putz", you mean VP Pence, then yes, he could certainly pardon Trump if he chooses.

But, gee, so many Democrats have been talking all about how many state investigations are going on and will bring Trump down, so no pardon applies to anything a state may indict Trump for.

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.3.13  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.12    4 months ago
Actually, if the House acts, the Senate is compelled to take the case.

It would still be stifled.

Democrats in general have been saying getting rid of Trump is a main goal. If Democrats are unwilling to impeach, then they should stop talking about it.

Its mostly the Dems running for POTUS that are talking the most about it.

If by the juvenile term "Putz", you mean VP Pence, then yes, he could certainly pardon Trump if he chooses.

putz
/ˌpəts,ˌpo͝ots/
Learn to pronounce
noun
  1. 1.
    INFORMALNORTH AMERICAN
    a stupid or worthless person.
But, gee, so many Democrats have been talking all about how many state investigations are going on and will bring Trump down, so no pardon applies to anything a state may indict Trump for.
And there's the silver lining, thank you.
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.3.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.11    4 months ago
ld likely somewhat depend on what the evidence was.

What secret evidence do you think Mueller missed?  If he's going to be impeached, its going to be based on what Mueller found. I was just reading an article by Byron York that summed it up pretty well:

"It's not unusual to hear House Democrats vow to "get to the bottom" of the Trump-Russia matter — as if the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, with 500 witnesses, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search-and-seizure warrants, and nearly 300 records of electronic communications, was somehow unable to fully probe allegations that the Trump campaign and Russia conspired to fix the 2016 election.

What really concerns Democrats is that   Mueller's investigation , conducted with law enforcement powers that Congress does not have, failed to establish any Trump-Russia conspiracy or coordination. And in doing so, Mueller exposed the fatal flaw of the Trump-Russia matter: It was driven entirely by the conspiracy/coordination allegation, which turned out to be false...

As that was happening, Mueller was trying and failing to establish that collusion ever occurred. From interviews with various players in the investigation, it now seems clear that by the end of 2017 Mueller knew that he could not establish conspiracy or coordination. That part of his investigation effectively ended when 2017 did.

Yet Mueller continued his probe for more than a year, mostly focusing on obstruction allegations. Collusion as a topic of investigation might have been dead and gone by that time, but the fact that the Mueller investigation was still going on kept the collusion narrative alive. And that fed the public perception that events Mueller secretly knew were not part of a collusion scheme were still in some way suspicious.

The collusion narrative became so entrenched in the minds of some commentators that even when the Mueller report was made public, with its repeated statements that "the investigation did not establish that the [Trump] campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities," some simply would not accept the verdict.

So now Democrats are promising to carry on, to find that thing — collusion — that Mueller could not find

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-retrospective-mueller-and-the-fatal-flaw-of-the-trump-russia-affair

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.15  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.12    4 months ago
Actually, if the House acts, the Senate is compelled to take the case.

pat said that it would never get THROUGH the Senate, not that it wouldn't get TO the Senate.

Democrats in general have been saying getting rid of Trump is a main goal.

And? 

If Democrats are unwilling to impeach, then they should stop talking about it.

Why? 

If by the juvenile term "Putz", you mean VP Pence, then yes, he could certainly pardon Trump if he chooses.

Why should he be given the chance? 

But, gee, so many Democrats have been talking all about how many state investigations are going on and will bring Trump down, so no pardon applies to anything a state may indict Trump for.

But gee, the Federal trials would be sweet to read...the state prosecutions will be the cherry on top...

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.16  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.14    4 months ago
As that was happening, Mueller was trying and failing to establish that collusion ever occurred.

collusion:

secret or illegal cooperation

Already showed you there was secret cooperation. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.3.17  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.3.15    4 months ago
pat said that it would never get THROUGH the Senate, not that it wouldn't get TO the Senate.

I know what she wrote. It most certainly will get through the Senate. The Senate must vote on it. 

Now, if you mean that the Senate won't rubberstamp something the House sends it, then you are, of course, correct.

Why?

It shows a real lack of integrity and an unwillingness to do the right thing, which can't help the Democratic Party.

Why should he be given the chance?

I didn't say he should. It was a possibility brought up by a poster.

But gee, the Federal trials would be sweet to read...the state prosecutions will be the cherry on top...

So impeach, indict, whatever you need to do to make it happen. Democrats talking about it sure ain't getting it done.

What's the big hold-up now?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.3.18  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.14    4 months ago

Nonsense. The reason obstruction of justice was added to Mueller's investigatory plate is because when done by a president it involves extraordinary abuse of presidential power. There is no question that it is an impeachable offense with or without "collusion" being present, although there is serious doubt that the Republicans in the Senate would vote that way. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.3.19  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.18    4 months ago

 You say it was an impeachable offense I call bullshit on that when somebody defends himself against a corrupt partisan government and massive  investigative abuse of power that we are talking about then I say fuck all those douche bags Comey Brennen  clapper Lynch  Strzok   McCabe page the list is unbelievable and yet you defend that, I’ve find that to be something unspeakable on this site 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.20  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.3.7    4 months ago
I didn't make up shit.

Oh for Pete's sake. I wasn't trying to say you personally made up anything. I said "make it up as you go." It's a common phrase meaning there is no standard by which people can abide or from which they can expect consistency.

I was saying that if Congress is going to decide that "high crimes and misdemeanors" can be applied to any situation where they want to defeat the president politically, then that is, de facto, "making it up as you go."

It is a well known legal position

Yes, I'm well acquainted with it. However, in actual practice, Congress has taken the matter of impeachment very seriously - and the words "high crimes and misdemeanors" very literally - and only sought or threatened impeachment when an actual law was broken.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.21  Tacos!  replied to  pat wilson @1.3.10    4 months ago
they will spend the next year and a half on this

If they got to it right away and had a compliant Senate, they could get it done quickly. But they won't even try because they know the Senate would never convict. Actually, I think it wouldn't even be a close vote. The Senate is supposed to be the more "deliberative body" - aka "the grownups." I think in this case, that would actually show.

I believe the House would have to present an overwhelming case to convince even many of the Democratic senators of Trump's guilt and I don't think they can present such a case.

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.3.22  dennis smith  replied to  Dulay @1.3.1    4 months ago

How quickly the Dems and their supporters did the opposite of their 2 year long statements that the Mueller report would be the end of President Trump. 

First they were for it and then they weren't, they just moved the goalposts again.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.3.23  dennis smith  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.9    4 months ago

They do not have the courage of their convictions. It is strictly political for them.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.24  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.2    4 months ago

'Move on.

Once congress has done their job of investigating all of the wrongdoings by the turd 'president' and his corrupt cabinet, we will move on.  

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
1.3.25  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.4    4 months ago

Tacos! Do yourself a favor and download the Mueller Report. It is a difficult read, but, clearly demonstrates how corrupt Trump and his Family of thieves are.

When the Chief Executive, the Attorney General and most of the Republicans in Congress are CORRUPTED, it, is very difficult to weave a straight path through the Swamp!

It must be done!

 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.3.26  It Is ME  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @1.3.25    4 months ago
clearly demonstrates how corrupt Trump and his Family of thieves are.

It's as "Clear' as Mueller told us it was.

NOT VERY !

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.3.27  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.2    4 months ago
Move on.

No, thanks.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.28  Tacos!  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @1.3.25    4 months ago
download the Mueller Report

I have.

clearly demonstrates how corrupt Trump and his Family of thieves are

If it's so clear, where are the indictments? Where are even the recommendations to pursue further investigation or action against them? The answer is they aren't there. They haven't happened. So, these things you claim are so "clear," clearly aren't.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.29  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.17    4 months ago
Now, if you mean that the Senate won't rubberstamp something the House sends it, then you are, of course, correct.

Well gee Tex, I can't mean that they'd rubberstamp it because the Senate MUST conduct a TRIAL, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and then vote to acquit or convict. 

It shows a real lack of integrity and an unwillingness to do the right thing, which can't help the Democratic Party.

So you must think that impeachment is the right thing. Otherwise, your posit would demand that somehow, someone, censor every elected Democrat that wants to talk about impeachment. That can't help democracy. 

So impeach, indict, whatever you need to do to make it happen. Democrats talking about it sure ain't getting it done.
What's the big hold-up now?

The NYSD. They are methodical. The Stone trial is coming soon so the fun will start soon enough. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.30  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.20    4 months ago

'Make it up as THEY go' would have been more clear. 

and only sought or threatened impeachment when an actual law was broken.

Yet in instances of impeachment, at least one of the articles of impeachment have been actions that are NOT crimes. Lying to Americans isn't a crime. Making speeches disparaging Congress isn't a crime. Bringing disgrace on the office isn't a crime. 

Based on the Mueller report, all the Congress needs do is get ONE of the 10+ instances of obstruction of justice to stick. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.31  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.28    4 months ago
Where are even the recommendations to pursue further investigation or action against them? The answer is they aren't there. 

They're in Volume II. Didn't you understand what Mueller said yesterday? 

BTW, any ongoing litigation was redacted, much of which is alleged to be against Stone. Who will he throw under the bus? 

There are other state's investigations going on too. Will Trump.org survive? 

They haven't happened. So, these things you claim are so "clear," clearly aren't.

Which of the obstruction allegations don't you understand. Maybe if we review it together it will help. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.3.32  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.14    4 months ago
Yet Mueller continued his probe for more than a year, mostly focusing on obstruction allegations. Collusion as a topic of investigation might have been dead and gone by that time, but the fact that the Mueller investigation was still going on kept the collusion narrative alive. And that fed the public perception that events Mueller secretly knew were not part of a collusion scheme were still in some way suspicious.

Sean, if you get pulled over for speeding and the cop also notices you are drunk....can the cop arrest you for being drunk? Yes. 

Also, look up the special counsels mandate, it was incredibly broad. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.4  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 months ago

“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so,” said Mueller, adding, “Charging the president with a crime is not an option we could consider.”

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.4.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @1.4    4 months ago

He also didn't state the President committed a crime either; which there is nothing stopping him.

The chicken shit purposely left it open so Democrats could use it politically. Or is everyone on the left suddenly forgetting their claims that the Mueller report "would be the end of Trump"? Now it is just the beginning of endless investigations in the House into things that Mueller already investigated.

The House does not have nearly the power or authority that Mueller did; which they are already finding out.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.4.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4.1    4 months ago
HE CLEARLY COMMITTED CRIMES
 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.4.2    4 months ago
HE CLEARLY COMMITTED CRIMES

Then you should easily be able to post what laws he broke, what crimes he committed.

I notice you left those pertinent facts out.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.4.4  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.3    4 months ago
Then you should easily be able to post what laws he broke, what crimes he committed.

Done and redone and then done again.  Quit pretending you haven't been show the facts multiple times. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.5  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.4.4    4 months ago
Done and redone and then done again. Quit pretending you haven't been show the facts multiple times.

When will you stop pretending you have proven anything?

If what you say is true, then Democrats have all they need to impeach. No need for any more investigations or anything--just impeach based on what you say is proof.

What the hell is the Democratic hold up NOW?

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
1.5  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 months ago

The problem is that the Executive Branch, The Attorney General, and most REPUBLICANS in Congress are CORRUPT!



 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2  Vic Eldred    4 months ago

Ken Starr wrote a report in which he said Bill Clinton was guilty 11 times. Mueller couldn't find a way to use the word once. Now he's explaining what it could mean. Mueller had all the power of the US government and all the investigators who hated Trump, yet he could not find guilt. He won't testify in front of Republicans nor we he answer questions from the media.

A despicable coward!

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.1  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    4 months ago

He is a coward with no backbone to stand behind what he wrote in his report.

 
 
 
lib50
2.2  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    4 months ago

Mueller had a different set of rules.  (Thanks to Ken Starr)

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a3bm3b/frustrated-you-cant-read-the-mueller-report-you-can-blame-ken-starr

What changed :
  • The title: “ independent counsel” became “special counsel.” That word change signified a major shift in the power and independence granted to the position.
  • The process: The new rules put more power in the hands of the attorney general — including the right to decide how much of the investigator’s concluding document would ever see the light of day. Specifically, the old rules had called for the independent counsel to submit a report directly to Congress that documented any “substantial and credible information that an impeachable offense may have been committed” — a standard Ken Starr himself later described as a “surprisingly low threshold of evidence.”
  • The power : Now, the only thing that the attorney general had to share with Congress was a notification that the special counsel’s investigation was over, and a list of every time the AG had overruled the special counsel.
 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    4 months ago
“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so,” said Mueller, adding, “Charging the president with a crime is not an option we could consider.”

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.3.1  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @2.3    4 months ago

Have we forgotten how are justice system works?  It is very simple...

a. a crime is committed

b. an investigation is done to determine if there is probable cause for an arrest.

c. charges are filed against perp for a.) committing a crime

d. prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the perp is guilty.

None of this applies to Trump after 2 years of unlimited resources and using our best intelligence agencies to do so.

Done, over.  Get over it.  Quite with the TDS shit that is fucking up our country.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sunshine @2.3.1    4 months ago
Have we forgotten how are justice system works?  It is very simple...

a. a crime is committed

b. an investigation is done to determine if there is probable cause for an arrest.

c. charges are filed against perp for a.) committing a crime

d. prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the perp is guilty.

None of this applies to Trump after 2 years of unlimited resources and using our best intelligence agencies to do so.

Done, over.  Get over it.  Quite with the TDS shit that is fucking up our country.

ALL of this sounds like something from someone who did not read the report , or even good summaries of it, and did not see or read the transcript of what Mueller said today.  Your b,  c, and d points are irrelevant to the conclusion. Mueller says from the beginning that he could not arrest or charge Trump. And he said that he would not even openly state that he thought Trump was guilty because if he did that Trump would not have a venue to defend himself. 

Mueller said, in the report and today that there is a prescribed venue for dealing with the misdeeds of a president, the clear allusion was that is in Congress and impeachment. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @2.3.1    4 months ago

It's Rump and his corrupt self and his corrupt cabinet who are fucking things up dear

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.3.4  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.2    4 months ago
Mueller said, in the report

Mueller should have laid out any evidence from his report that Trump had committed collusion or obstruction as Comey did for Hillary and then stated that Trump was a blithering idiot so no charges would be forthcoming.

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.3.5  dennis smith  replied to  Sunshine @2.3.1    4 months ago

The dems have nothing to hang their hat on regarding impeachment. THEY claimed the Mueller report would be the final word, now they wont live up to their word. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.3.6  dennis smith  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.3    4 months ago

It is spelled Trump, looks like a spelling lesson is due.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.7  Tessylo  replied to  dennis smith @2.3.6    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.8  Texan1211  replied to  dennis smith @2.3.6    4 months ago
It is spelled Trump, looks like a spelling lesson is due.

It is kind of cute in a third-grade sort of way to deliberately misspell the President's name.

That way, the world knows that Trump isn't their President!

LOL!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.3.9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sunshine @2.3.1    4 months ago
Have we forgotten how are justice system works? 

Did you not hear Mueller tell the country yesterday that the "justice system" is not where crimes committed by a sitting president can be prosecuted.  That's Congress's job.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.3.10  Sunshine  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.3.9    4 months ago
"justice system" is not where crimes committed by a sitting president can be prosecuted. That's Congress's job.

Do you know that Congress members are not prosecutors?

Did you hear Mueller lay out his evidence of any crime committed by Trump?

And sitting Presidents can be charged and arrested for a crime, it is not a law or mandatory to not convict, only a policy.

Impeachment proceedings are not the same as prosecutorial proceedings, which you and many others fail to understand.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.3.11  MrFrost  replied to  dennis smith @2.3.6    4 months ago
It is spelled Trump, looks like a spelling lesson is due.

Yea, because the right wing ALWAYS spelled, "Obama", correctly, right? Now you're going to complain when people take shots at trump? Com'on man...really?  

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.3.12  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.8    4 months ago
It is kind of cute in a third-grade sort of way to deliberately misspell the President's name.

I dunno, 8 years and counting and many on the right still can't spell, "Obama". 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.13  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @2.3.12    4 months ago

I know how to spell it and use it correctly ALL of the time.

WTF does that have to do with calling Trump some asinine name?

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.3.14  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.13    3 months ago

Highly doubtful 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    4 months ago
Ken Starr wrote a report in which he said Bill Clinton was guilty 11 times.

Starr was appointed by the COURT, not the DOJ. 

Secondly, Starr reported to CONGRESS, not the DOJ or the AG. Starr NEVER had to inform the AG of a damn thing and didn't have to submit to the DOJ for funding. 

Thirdly, Starr submitted his report to CONGRESS, not the DOJ or the AG and it included ALL of the underlying evidence. 

Sheesh if you're going to demand Mueller give the same kind of report as Starr the LEAST you can do is recognize the DIFFERENCE in their circumstances. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.4.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.4    4 months ago

If you don't mind me adding to all that trivia - it was congressman Jerry Nadler, back in 1998, who argued that it would be “unfair” to release Starr’s complete report because it contained “salacious” material and unverified testimony.

I think we got it squared away now

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.1    4 months ago
If you don't mind me adding to all that trivia -

All of that 'trivia' was based directly on your comment. Well done. 

it was congressman Jerry Nadler, back in 1998, who argued that it would be “unfair” to release Starr’s complete report because it contained “salacious” material and unverified testimony.

Oh how I love when y'all make statements that contain one word 'quotes' out of context. /s

I think we got it squared away now

Yes, now the Special Counsel is under the AG and that's working out GREAT! /s

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.4.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.4.2    4 months ago
Yes, now the Special Counsel is under the AG and that's working out GREAT!

Don't like it?  Who made that change?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.3    4 months ago
Don't like it? 

It's worked just fine under other AGs. 

Who made that change?

Trump. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.4.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.3    4 months ago

Shall I reveal it or wait?

I can't be here much longer, so here's the answer:

Neal Katyal drafted the current special counsel rules in 1998-99 in Janet Reno’s Justice Department under Bill Clinton.

What a shame, they never envisioned there would be an investigation of a hated Republican President.

Have a good one.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.4.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.5    4 months ago

You keep saying hate, that hate comes from the turd 'president' and his supporters 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.7  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.5    4 months ago
Neal Katyal drafted the current special counsel rules in 1998-99 in Janet Reno’s Justice Department under Bill Clinton.

Funny that you would cite Neal Katyal, he is on MSNBC right now. He just said he would impeach and that Trump should be indicted afterward. They cited footnote 1091 of the Mueller report. 

What a shame, they never envisioned there would be an investigation of a hated Republican President.

Actually, as I stated before, it worked just fine before. Even for investigations into Republican Administrations. In fact, the Plame investigation, as conducted by Special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, under the above rules and supervised ironically enough by Acting Attorney General James Comey. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.4.8  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @2.4.4    4 months ago
It's worked just fine under other AGs. 

Like Holder and Lynch. Oh wait they never referred anything to a special counsel. Much easier to obstruct that way.

Trump. 

Prove it. This should be hilarious, since it has been proven already in posts that changes were made to special counsel laws after Starr.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.9  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.4.8    4 months ago
Like Holder and Lynch. Oh wait they never referred anything to a special counsel. Much easier to obstruct that way.

What grounds were there to appoint a Special Counsel? Please be specific. 

Prove it. This should be hilarious, since it has been proven already in posts that changes were made to special counsel laws after Starr.

I already have. 2.4.7. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    4 months ago
Ken Starr wrote a report in which he said Bill Clinton was guilty 11 times.

The difference is that Bill lied about a blowjob. Trump lied about accepting help from Russia to win an election.... HUGE difference. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.5.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @2.5    4 months ago
The difference is that Bill lied about a blowjob. Trump lied about accepting help from Russia to win an election.... HUGE difference.

What specific help did Trump receive, and what could he have done about it?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  MrFrost @2.5    4 months ago

 Russia didn’t help trump win the election that’s a fact so you’re gonna have to face up to the reality at some point. 

 
 
 
lib50
2.5.3  lib50  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.2    4 months ago
Russia didn’t help trump win the election

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-24/russian-meddling-helped-trump-win-in-2016

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/22/mueller-report-what-know-russian-election-interference/3538877002/

During the 2016 election, Russia employed tactics it has been using closer to home to sow discord among its democratic neighbors in the Balkans and to expand its influence.

Before Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, for example, it had launched a cyber campaign in eastern Europe. Russia flooded news web sites in Ukraine with tens of thousands of comments during unrest there, according to a report by the non-profit Rand Corp.

In the United States, the Russians bought $100,000 Facebook ads and bombarded Twitter accounts that boosted Trump and disparaged the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. The Russians unleashed another weapon in their unconventional arsenal: cyber espionage, stealing emails and disseminating them to embarrass Democrats. 

The Russian aim, according to Mueller’s report, was helping elect Trump because of a belief that it would benefit Moscow's interests. 

Regardless, "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," the report concluded.

The Russian campaign actually began in 2014, according to the Mueller report, when the Internet Research Agency mimicked Americans on social media.

"Using fictitious U.S. personas, IRA employees operated social media accounts and group pages designed to attract U.S. audiences," the report says. "By early to mid-2016, IRA operations included supporting the Trump Campaign and disparaging candidate Hillary Clinton."

The report cited an anti-Clinton ad from March 2016 with a caption that read in part, "If one day God lets this liar enter the White House as a president – that day would be a real national tragedy."

The operations seized on social divisions and showed a clear bias toward Trump, said Young Mie Kim, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison whose research analyzed 3,500 Facebook ads bought by Russia and released last year by the House Intelligence Committee.

"If the goal was to simply sow the division, then you should see voter suppression targeting likely Trump voters," Kim said in an email. "We found ZERO voter suppression targeting likely Trump voters."

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  lib50 @2.5.3    4 months ago

That is so laughable I may not be able to finish this post.

 
 
 
lib50
2.5.5  lib50  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.4    4 months ago

No worries,   the post are just more Trump lies, so better to have one less.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.5.6  MrFrost  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.4    4 months ago
That is so laughable I may not be able to finish this post.

I guess you missed the part when Mueller said that Russia DID interfere in our election process with the intention of helping trump win...AND....the trump campaign ACCEPTED that help. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.5.7  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @2.5.6    4 months ago

Please point out where it says Trump Campaign accepted help.

Just point it out and quote it.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.5.8  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.7    4 months ago

Start with reading page 41 of the report. They not only accepted help, they promoted it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.5.9  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.5.8    4 months ago

Bull.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.5.10  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.9    4 months ago

From the report page 41:

Subtitle a: 

Trump Campaign Promotion of IRA Political Materials
 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.5.11  Freedom Warrior  replied to  MrFrost @2.5.6    4 months ago

Except there was no fucking help.  That's why I have to laugh at these ludicrous assertions.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.5.12  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.5.11    3 months ago
Except there was no fucking help.

Unfortunately for you both assertions, i.e., that Russian interference had no effect on the election and Russian interference did affect the outcome of the election, can be neither confirmed or ruled out.  So that categorical statement of yours is, itself, an example of one of these "ludicrous assertions."  The fact is we don't and can't know but we do know that there was much "collaboration and cooperation" (from the Mueller report)  between the Shitbag campaign and Russian agents which may not have risen to the level of a crime of conspiracy but certainly does rise well above the level of foreign meddling in our election and that meddling being more than welcome ("Russia, if you're listening...") by Shitbag.  

In sum, the laugh's on you. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  author  JohnRussell    4 months ago

Ever since the report came out people have been trying to parse out what he said about possible impeachment.  He made it clear today. When I see a transcript of his statement today I will post it. 

Mueller all but said that Trump would have been indicted except for the fact that Justice Dept guidelines do not permit a sitting president to be charged with a crime. Then he noted that his report acknowledges that the constitution requires another method (Congressional investigation) for dealing with presidential wrongdoing. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 months ago
Then he noted that his report acknowledges that the constitution requires another method (Congressional investigation) for dealing with presidential wrongdoing. 

That would be hard for the House Committee's to do, since after 2 years  and bazillions of dollars of unobstructed digging , even the unobstructed Mueller said he found "Insufficient Evidence" to do anything.

You think the  "Committee's" in the "lackadaisical congress" are going to do any better ?

As far as Muellers statement about not being allowed to "Convict a sitting President", there was nothing that would have stopped him from making a recommendation to congress to run with their impeachment SCREAMING ! Even Ken Starr had the balls to make a recommendation ! He said Billy was Guilty of something !


Muellers "Speechifying" said NOTHING more than was already in the report !

I'd luv for these "Committee's" run by Democrats to ……. GO FOR IT !

Please ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
3.1.1  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  It Is ME @3.1    4 months ago
That would be hard for the House Committee's to do, since after 2 years  and bazillions of dollars of unobstructed digging , even the unobstructed Mueller said he found "Insufficient Evidence" to do anything.

You need to go read section two of the Mueller report, Mueller outlines 11 times the president attempted to obstruct the investigation.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @3.1.1    4 months ago
You need to go read section two of the Mueller report, Mueller outlines 11 times the president attempted to obstruct the investigation.

Democrats should …… GO FOR IT ….. since it's soooooo transparent.....to Some ! jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

Please ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
3.1.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.2    4 months ago
Democrats should …… GO FOR IT ….. since it's soooooo transparent ! Please !

See, this is why I don't like putting things up for folks to read, they either have a hard time with big words or, they just wish to stay ignorant. Go read the report, if you think I'm wrong then read the report and, post the part or, parts that prove me wrong but, I know what will happen, you'll either disappear or, you'll say something like you don't need to prove nothing. Which will tell me you have nothing to counter what is being said except snark.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @3.1.3    4 months ago
Go read the report

Everyone's read the friggin report.

It's been posted even here quite a few times ! Commented on ad-nauseum since it's been out. Did you miss it ?

If it's soooo damning....the Democrats SHOULD go the "Impeachment" route.

Are you against that premise ?

 
 
 
lib50
3.1.5  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.4    4 months ago
the Democrats SHOULD go the "Impeachment" route.

Not me, I'm not against that premise.  And I think we should freeze your quote for future reference.  I don't think things are going to turn out the way the gop thinks.  There will be no way for them to spin some of the malfeasance that will come out of the investigation and impeachment hearings.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @3.1.5    4 months ago
And I think we should freeze your quote for future reference. 

Please do ! jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

"I don't think things are going to turn out the way the gop thinks. There will be no way for them to spin some of the malfeasance that will come out of the investigation and impeachment hearings."

Who will "Investigate" what these "Malfeasances" are ?

Nadler....Schiff ……. their underlings ?

Schiff already has "Definitive Proof".....what's the holdup ?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
3.1.7  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.4    3 months ago
If it's soooo damning....the Democrats SHOULD go the "Impeachment" route. Are you against that premise ?

No but, it seems you and, your friends on here are against it, some of you have even said there would be Civil War if Congress tried to impeach Trump. Why are you against impeachment investigations, afraid that what was put in Mueller's report is true? And, if you had read the report you wouldn't be saying, "If it's soooo damning....", you would say that it is damning.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @3.1.7    3 months ago
No but, it seems you and, your friends on here are against it,

Not me !

Did you miss my ……. "THEY SHOULD GO FOR IT" ?

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.8    3 months ago

I agree in concept.   That is if its a fair process.  

My problem with it is i doubt many of the TDS ridden swamp creatures in congress are capable of such a thing when it comes to Trump

And that is my only problem with it.   Which in this case is a pretty damn big problem unfortunately.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.9    3 months ago
My problem with it is i doubt many of the TDS ridden swamp creatures in congress are capable of such a thing when it comes to Trump

They are all just spouting, hoping the spout will get enough "Lefty I want" folks to vote Trump out of office. They ain't gonna actually do it ! But it sounds good to "Their" folks anyway.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
3.1.11  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.8    3 months ago
Did you miss my ……. "THEY SHOULD GO FOR IT" ?

No, I saw that one sentence out of the whole post and, what it said to me was "I know you think that there should be an impeachment but, not me and, if you want to try it please do, we'll see you in November 2020", my answer to that is, if you plan on continuing to support Trump and, the traitors and, crooks who work with him to undermine our government then what happens AFTER 2020 will be on you.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.12  It Is ME  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @3.1.11    3 months ago

You have a wonderful imagination ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

Reminds me of the movie "Bridge to Terabithia"

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @3.1.11    3 months ago

I could support a truly moderate Democrat.   Someone like Jim Webb perhaps but since Hillary torpedoed him before she got to the Bern i never got the chance in 2016.

Let me if one of those ever runs and i'll take a look.   I haven't seen it yet in the clown car of wackos running right now.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
3.1.14  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.13    3 months ago
I haven't seen it yet in the clown car of wackos running right now.

One I know of does have a good record of reaching across the isle, he was governor of Colorado and, during his time there he had to work with a Republican legislature. John Hickenlooper. Of course he isn't doing well in the polls because he is a moderate and, because he isn't that well known outside of Colorado.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @3.1.14    3 months ago

Yeah i've looked at him.  

He'll probably get torpedoed by the DNC machine just like Webb and others.  

Especially this year .....  the year of far left fundamentalism

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
3.1.16  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.15    3 months ago

I hope not, he was a very good governor and, he does have good ideas to help us out of the hole that Trump is sinking us into with his "trade deals".

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.17  Sparty On  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @3.1.16    3 months ago

Jack Webb was a good man and good candidate as well.   It won't matter in the current environment.

Moderates get torpedo'd ..... by both parties.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
3.1.18  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.17    3 months ago
Moderates get torpedo'd ..... by both parties.

I can agree with this only in part, it isn't the DNC that is keeping a candidate from being mentioned even, it is the RNC who is doing that to Weld, they won't even admit that there is a Republican who is running against Trump this time around and, refuse to set up any kind of funding for him to run against Trump, sounds like what the RNC was blaming the Democrats of doing during the 2016 race to Bernie Sanders don't it?

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.19  Sparty On  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @3.1.18    3 months ago

I clearly didn't exclude the RNC.  Neither side has any high ground in this regard.

Neither side.

And if you think one does you are only fooling yourself.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
3.1.20  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.19    3 months ago
I clearly didn't exclude the RNC.  Neither side has any high ground in this regard.

Neither side.

And if you think one does you are only fooling yourself.

Oh, I agree that in the last election Bernie wasn't given much of a chance but, it wasn't like the DNC said, "Don't even put him on the ballot during the primaries", in this case the RNC is saying just that, they don't want any challenge to Trump from their side.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.21  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.15    3 months ago
  the year of far left fundamentalism

I love it when you lot just go free-form and manufacture shit out of nothing. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.22  Sparty On  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.21    3 months ago

Thats your move not mine.  

But hey, at least you will always get a few votes from folks here who are simpatico with you in that regard.

Birds of a feather if you will ......

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.2  KDMichigan  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 months ago
Mueller all but said that

No JR, CNN all but said. I was watching CNN and I feel sorry for their viewers. It was 45 minutes of what they think Mueller said. That Mueller WAS telling Congress to impeach President Trump...No wonder the snowflakes watch them. 

But yeah its time for Babbling Nancy to shit or get off the pot. She must impeach Trump, Mueller told her to.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  KDMichigan @3.2    4 months ago

If someone is innocent, you don't go to lengths to describe why you could not indict them. It is obvious that Muller thinks Trump committed wrongdoing. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    4 months ago
If someone is innocent

There's no if's John, In America you are innocent until proven guilty......Even Donald Trump gets those rights!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.2    4 months ago

Mueller clearly does not believe Trump is "innocent" . There is no reason to discuss why he couldn't be indicted if he is believed by the prosecutor to be innocent. 

For weeks and months we have heard that Mueller found no misconduct by Trump. Now we hear from the man's own mouth that that is not true. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.3    4 months ago
Mueller clearly does not believe Trump is "innocent"

Then why not provide the evidence?   

There is no reason to discuss why he couldn't be indicted if he is believed by the prosecutor to be innocent. 

If Mueller was laying out a road map for House democrats to use for impeachment - that would be the reason. Remember when people wondered if that report was doing just that?  I have said, over & over, that the definitive proof is Mueller waiting for the dems to win the House to hand in his report!  How long do you think it took Mueller to realize Trump hadn't conspired with Russia?  Remember, there was a counter-intelligence investigation which preceded Mueller's. He started with all that info. Also remember the words of the original lead investigator "I don't think there's any there there!" That's why Comey's buddy, Mueller had to give us this convoluted report in which he has only suspicions about collusion comprising about half the report.

For weeks and months we have heard that Mueller found no misconduct by Trump.

True

 Now we hear from the man's own mouth that that is not true. 

Nope, Mueller clearly took a final shot at his boss, but he didn't contradict the boss's decision - a decision Mueller refused to make.

 
 
 
pat wilson
3.2.5  pat wilson  replied to  KDMichigan @3.2    4 months ago
No JR, CNN all but said.

Listen to what Mueller said, not CNN.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.4    4 months ago

Barr is clearly a Trump toady, but even if he wasn't, the person who was involved with the two year investigation is the one with the knowledge and ability to reach the best conclusion, not someone who became "boss" a few weeks before the finish of the report. 

Barr is simply not a credible person. In his summary he claimed that Mueller did not refrain from indicting Trump because of the DOJ guidelines not allowing a president to be indicted, when it turns out that Mueller said today that was always at the forefront of their decisions. 

Barr is completely untrustworthy. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.6    4 months ago
Barr is clearly a Trump toady,

And Mueller is an Obama toady.

 but even if he wasn't, the person who was involved with the two year investigation is the one with the knowledge and ability to reach the best conclusion, not someone who became "boss" a few weeks before the finish of the report. 

Who's that, Jesus?  Oh no it's the partisan Mueller who used a bunch of Trump hating liberal to investigate Trump for over two years!  To bad he came back with nothing.

Barr is simply not a credible person. 

Because he dosen't do what you want?  You loved Rosenstein...Rosenstein agrees with Barr.

In his summary he claimed that Mueller did not refrain from indicting Trump because of the DOJ guidelines not allowing a president to be indicted

Mueller could have made a recommendation regardless of any DOJ policy. Why do I feel like I'm constantly repeating myself?

when it turns out that Mueller said today that was always at the forefront of their decisions. 

What decision? To have congress keep a cloud over this President after two years of telling the American people a lie?

Barr is completely untrustworthy. 

Mueller is a partisan Obama operative - see I can do it to!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.8  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.7    4 months ago

What proof do you have that Mueller is an Obama toady? 

We have proof against Barr.  In his summary he claimed that the DOJ guidelines against indicting a sitting president was not part of Mueller's result of not charging Trump , when the fact is that Mueller says the DOJ guideline had a lot to do with it. Barr was lying on behalf of Trump. Barr wanted to exonerate Trump and he needed to make it look like Mueller had no problem with that exoneration. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.8    4 months ago
What proof do you have that Mueller is an Obama toady? 

His actions. He only assigned anti-Trump democrat attorneys to his team. He never investigated the clear cut collusion of the Clinton campaign/Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele, or the actions of the lead investigator (Peter Strzok) whom he was forced to remove, or foreign agents who committed the same acts as Paul Manafort, but who happened to be democrat. Despite full cooperation from the President over documents, lots and lots of (right now questionable) surveillance by the FBI (and possibly the CIA and our allies) combined with other investigations it took Mueller two and a half years to tell us first that the President didn't conspire with Russia and second that he's not sure about conspiracy.
But you've herd all that many times, haven't you?

We have proof against Barr. 

No, you don't like Barr.

In his summary he claimed that the DOJ guidelines against indicting a sitting president was not part of Mueller's result of not charging Trump , when the fact is that Mueller says the DOJ guideline had a lot to do with it.

So, you've said. There is also a policy about not criticizing those investigated if you don't recommend prosecution. It's funny how Mueller felt free to disregard that one, just like his buddy Comey did.

Barr was lying on behalf of Trump

Barr NEVER LIED!

You better prepare yourself, and so should Mueller. A lot of FBI and maybe CIA officials might just be facing criminal prosecution!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.8    4 months ago
Barr wanted to exonerate Trump and he needed to make it look like Mueller had no problem with that exoneration. 

Really?  In that briefing, Mueller clearly said that "Barr acted in good faith."

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.2.11  KDMichigan  replied to  pat wilson @3.2.5    4 months ago
Listen to what Mueller said,

Did you? 

My opinion hasn't changed and guess what ? Neither has Mueller's. 

The ball still rest in Babbling Nancy's hands. I would think that people would contact her and let her know their feelings instead of trying to put words in Mueller's mouth.

NO Collusion.  

 
 
 
lib50
3.2.12  lib50  replied to  KDMichigan @3.2.11    4 months ago

Yes, congress gets to decide that.   Mueller came out and made it clear.  He was constricted by the rules, only congress has the authority to get to the truth and make sure Trump is not above the law.  And believe me, people are letting them know.  Even in republican districts like Justin Amash represents.   Americans will see what Trump did in open hearings and it won't be pretty, because regardless of the willful blindness of conservatives, Trump did a lot of bad things.  The obstruction is too obvious to even mention, but why leave it out?  Bring it on.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.9    4 months ago
His actions. He only assigned anti-Trump democrat attorneys to his team. He never investigated the clear cut collusion of the Clinton campaign/Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele, or the actions of the lead investigator (Peter Strzok) whom he was forced to remove, or foreign agents who committed the same acts as Paul Manafort, but who happened to be democrat. 

Mueller wasn't appointed to investigate your fantasies. 

Despite full cooperation from the President over documents, lots and lots of (right now questionable) surveillance by the FBI (and possibly the CIA and our allies) combined with other investigations it took Mueller two and a half years to tell us first that the President didn't conspire with Russia and second that he's not sure about conspiracy.But you've herd all that many times, haven't you?

Actually, Mueller didn't fine sufficient evidence to prosecute for conspiracy and said so. 

No, you don't like Barr.

No, all we need do is compare his statements to Mueller's report. 

So, you've said.

Again, all we need do is compare Barr's statement to Mueller's report. 

There is also a policy about not criticizing those investigated if you don't recommend prosecution. It's funny how Mueller felt free to disregard that one, just like his buddy Comey did.

Mueller didn't 'criticize' Trump, he documented the evidence of his actions. 

Barr NEVER LIED!

Sure as hell looks like he did. 

You better prepare yourself, and so should Mueller. A lot of FBI and maybe CIA officials might just be facing criminal prosecution!

Yay, a second Inquisition to purge the heretics. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.2.14  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.4    4 months ago
Then why not provide the evidence?   

JFC, do you never bother to go to the first sources for anything?  Vol. II specifically addresses multiple examples of obstruction along with a list for each indicating the legal elements  for future prosecutors to follow.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.2.14    4 months ago

So why won't Democrats impeach?

What are they waiting for, when, according to you, they have ALL the evidence they need?

or do they simply lack the balls to do it?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.2.16  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  KDMichigan @3.2.11    4 months ago
NO Collusion.  

Collusion is not a legal term.  The only time it's used in the report it is to point that out:

...this Office's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term "collusion."

So if you're betting all your chips on Mueller not finding "collusion" it means your betting on an empty pot.  From the Mueller report here's the introduction to that section on p. 66, Vol I:

The Office identified multiple contacts-"links," in the words of the Appointment Order­ between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts constituted a third avenue of attempted Russian interference with or influence on the 2016 presidential election. In particular, the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination.

This Section describes the principal links between the Trump Campaign and individuals with ties to the Russian government, including some contacts with Campaign officials or associates that have been publicly reported to involve Russian contacts. Each subsection begins with an overview of the Russian contact at issue and then describes in detail the relevant facts, which are generally presented in chronological order, beginning with the early months of he Campaign and extending through the post-election, transition period.

There follows 133 pages describing dozens of contacts between multiple Shitbag campaign officials and various Russians, both government related and apparently independent trolls.  

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.17  katrix  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.2.16    4 months ago

They're just parroting what Trump and Fox are saying - clearly without bothering to research the legal terms or even read the full report.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 months ago
Mueller all but said that Trump would have been indicted except for the fact that Justice Dept guidelines do not permit a sitting president to be charged with a crime.

That doesn't explain why exactly zero people in the campaign were indicted for working with Russians trying to interfere with the election. Democrats were adamant that even if Trump couldn't be indicted because he was president, people around him - including his son - would be indicted. That didn't happen.

Is it your claim that Trump himself was the only person cooperating with Russia and that he somehow kept everyone in his campaign from knowing about it? Because that's what would have to be happening.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.3    4 months ago

Mueller is referring to the obstruction of justice part of this.  You keep trying to limit it to the conspiracy aspect. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.3.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.1    4 months ago

 referring to the obstruction of justice part of this

Almost all of the events that Mueller claimed could possibly be construed as obstructive would require co-conspirators. Why weren't any obstruction charges brought that point to  Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator? 

When you read Mueller's report it's clear he couldn't demonstrate the criminal intent necessary for obstruction. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.4  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 months ago

Mueller all but said .... So he did NOT say it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

Actually, he just put to rest the new book claiming he "drew up an indictment" of Trump.

That's about all that happened, other than his refusal to question the Atty General's good faith. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 months ago

lol

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 months ago

Sean, if Mueller thinks Trump is innocent, why is he alluding to impeachment as the way to deal with the findings of the report? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2    4 months ago

Because he understands how the Constitution works and Congress can always impeach a President for whatever reasons it chooses.

How is this news?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.1    4 months ago

It is news because there is little to interpret in what he said. For many weeks people have been trying to interpret the sentences in the report that dealt with charging Trump . Mueller said today the same thing that was in the report, that is true. Trump was not exonerated on obstruction of justice. But in a short statement today he said that "another forum" is required to deal with presidential misconduct, other than a criminal indictment from the Dept of Justice.  This makes it very clear that Mueller did not find trump innocent. 

Sean, should Trump continue to say that the Mueller Report "completely exonerated" him? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.2    4 months ago
should Trump continue to say that the Mueller Report "completely exonerated" him? 

No, a prosecutor doesn't "exonerate" anyone. He either indicts or he doesn't. Just like juries don't find defendants innocent. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.3    4 months ago

Your boy is the one that keeps saying the Mueller report exonerated him....

....jes sayin'

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.2.5  Ronin2  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2.4    4 months ago

Yes, and the entire left is screaming the Mueller report says Trump is guilty. Which neither it, nor Mueller, claim.

.....jes sayin'

35 million, plus countless millions more to be wasted by the House; to divide the country even further. The Establishment is loving this. They couldn't ask for a better outcome.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.1    4 months ago
How is this news?

It's newsworthy because Mueller said that, but for the OLC ruling that a sitting president cannot be indicted, he would have been criminally charged with multiple counts of obstruction of justice. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.6    4 months ago
worthy because Mueller said that, but for the OLC ruling that a sitting president cannot be indicted, he would have been criminally charged with multiple counts of obstruction of justice. 

 He never said that, he just manipulated you into thinking he did. 

In fact, as he quietly clarified via press release, he never claimed that the OLC guidelines prevented him from finding the President obstructed justice.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.6    4 months ago
It's newsworthy because Mueller said that, but for the OLC ruling that a sitting president cannot be indicted, he would have been criminally charged with multiple counts of obstruction of justice.

Here are Mueller's remarks.

Do point out what you claim.

From Time:

By Rachel E. Greenspan

May 29, 2019
Special Counsel Robert Mueller spoke out publicly for the first — and possibly only — time since his 2017 appointment Wednesday morning to make a statement on his findings in the investigation into 2016 presidential election interference.
“I am speaking today because our investigation is complete,” Mueller said in the live-streamed conference at the Justice Department, before announcing that he would resign to return to “private life.” He took no questions from reporters following his comments.
His statement comes as House Democrats continue to seek his testimony on the investigation. Rep. Jerrold Nadler wrote a letter to Mueller on April 18 asking that the Special Counsel testify publicly before May 23. “It is clear Congress and the American people must hear from Special Counsel Robert Mueller in person to better understand his findings,” Nadler said on Twitter at the time.
Attorney General William Barr told The Wall Street Journal on May 16 that he was not preventing Mueller from giving Congressional testimony in the wake of his own refusal to present the House with an unredacted version of the Mueller report.

The Brief Newsletter
Sign up to receive the top stories you need to know right now. View Sample
Sign Up Now
Mueller made it clear Wednesday that he would prefer not to testify before Congress.
“The report is my testimony,” he said.
Here’s the full transcript of Mueller’s statement on the investigation:
Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office.
The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel’s Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.
I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.
Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.
As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.
The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.
And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.
These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.
The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.
That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.
Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.
The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.
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.
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.
It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. 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.
The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.
We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by Department regulations.
The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.
At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.
I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.
There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.
The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.
In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.
So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.
It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.
Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.
I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American.
Thank you.
Write to Rachel E. Greenspan at rachel.greenspan@time.com.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.8    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.9    4 months ago
[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.7    4 months ago
In fact, as he quietly clarified via press release, he never claimed that the OLC guidelines prevented him from finding the President obstructed justice.

Link? 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.10    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.7    4 months ago

Your comment infers that Mueller made a separate and independent statement in a press release. Unless you have some special access that none of the rest of us has, your claim is false. 

The document released by the SC office the day Mueller made his statement merely QUOTES what Mueller said in his statement and in his report and CONTRASTS it with what Barr said in his press conference. 

Your comment is misleading at best and utter bullshit at worst. 

Eventually Rosenstein and Mueller will be asked if what Barr said is true. How confident are you that they will back up Barr's characterization of the exchange? 

Here's another thing about Barr. He keeps claiming that DOJ policy did not prohibit Mueller from making prosecutorial decisions about Trump's obstruction of justice.

So that begs the question: If it was Mueller's job to document those decisions, WHY didn't Barr hand Volume II back to Mueller and tell him to do just that? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 months ago

Actually, he's given the House democrats their new narrative- that but for DOJ policy, Mueller would have found the President guilty of obstruction. Something Mueller could have recomended despite whatever policy there was. The problem was that Rosentein and Barr disagreed with Mueller on what "obstruction" really is.

Here comes a world of pressure on Nancy Pelosi

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3    4 months ago

he House democrats their new narrative- that but for DOJ policy, Mueller would have found the President guilty of obstruction

It's a nitpick, but mueller doesn't have the power to find anyone guilty.   

hat but for DOJ policy, Mueller would have found the President guilty of obstruction

That's been the narrative since the report was released.  Mueller's statement hasn't changed whats in the report. 

As an aside, do Democrats now care about obstruction of justice? The same people who claim to care now didn't think it was an impeachable offense when Clinton did it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.1    4 months ago
As an aside, do Democrats now care about obstruction of justice? The same people who claim to care now didn't think it was an impeachable offense when Clinton did it.

In the case of Bill Clinton, which had a single similarity to this, Clinton did commit perjury and obstruct justice. The Republicans in the House voted to impeach and Senate democrats blocked a conviction.  It was good that Clinton wasn't convicted. Why one may ask?  Because those criminal acts were committed because of something other than what the investigation was about. It was supposed to be about Whitewater and morphed into a blue dress!
In the case of Trump, there was an investigation lacking a crime. Even if Trump committed obstruction, I'd have to say it becomes mute. Obstruction of a baseless investigation dosen't deserve a prosecution!

IMO if there was no crime, you can't have obstruction.

I hope the Republicans subpoena Mueller and grill him on that bogus/fraudulent investigation.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.3.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.2    4 months ago
In the case of Trump, there was an investigation lacking a crime. Even if Trump committed obstruction, I'd have to say it becomes mute. Obstruction of a baseless investigation dosen't deserve a prosecution! IMO if there was no crime, you can't have obstruction.

That is not the law. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.3    4 months ago
That is not the law. 

Didn't you notice the IMO

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.3.5  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.4    4 months ago

OK, your personal opinion is irrelevant. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.4    4 months ago

Your personal opinion IS NOT THE LAW

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.3.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.3    4 months ago

The law has nothing to do with impeachment. 

 
 
 
JBB
4.3.8  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.7    4 months ago

WTF? Impeachment is all about the law. What's next? Is up down now?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.3.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @4.3.8    4 months ago

Read the Constitution.

Congress, and Congress alone, decides what is an impeachable offense.  All that matters is a majority in the House and 2/3 of the Senate agree to impeach and then remove.  Congress could impeach Trump even if Mueller reported Trump was the most innocent person in the history of the world. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.3.10  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4.3.8    4 months ago
WTF? Impeachment is all about the law. What's next? Is up down now?

Impeachment is far more about politics than law.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.3.11  Raven Wing  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.10    4 months ago
Impeachment is far more about politics than law.

Then is that why Bill Clinton was impeached?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.9    4 months ago
Congress, and Congress alone, decides what is an impeachable offense.

Exactly. Only two Presidents have been impeached. It might be interesting to go back and read why the first one, Andrew Johnson was impeached.

(In neither case did the US Senate vote to convict)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  Raven Wing @4.3.11    4 months ago

Actually, it was why Andrew Johnson was impeached.

Clinton committed perjury and obstruction.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.3.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.13    4 months ago
why Andrew Johnson was impeached.

Johnson, who was a terrible President, didn't deserve that impeachment. The Tenure of Office Act he was accused of violating was clearly unconstitutional.  It was a drastic overreach on the part of Congress to claim Johnson couldn't fire executive officers without it's approval. I'm no fan of Executive Power, but the idea that the President can't fire members of his branch of government moved the balance of power between the branches way too far in Congress's direction. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.14    4 months ago

You nailed it again Sean.  In those days the President didn't pick his vice President, they were both elected, thus you had Abraham Lincoln, a Republican President with Andrew Johnson a democrat Vice President. Johnson was regarded as a southern democrat who was actually loyal to the Union. The problem was that after Lincoln was assassinated, some hard line Republican Congressmen found themselves with Johnson as President. Johnson's views on reconstruction were much different than their's. He favored a more lenient type of Reconstruction, thus as you mentioned, there was a fierce political battle over what he had the authority to do, very similar to today's political animosity. The case for impeachment against Johnson was purely political. 

Republican Senator Edmund G Ross, along with 6 other Republican Senators are highlighted in JFK's book "Profiles in Courage" for voting for acquittal and saving both Johnson's Presidency and the stature of the office

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.3.16  Texan1211  replied to  Raven Wing @4.3.11    4 months ago
Then is that why Bill Clinton was impeached?

In all likelihood, yes.

Are we going to rehash Clinton again or is the topic more about Trump and Mueller?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.3.17  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.5    4 months ago

 Wouldn’t that make your personal opinion of his personal opinion irrelevant as well 

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.3.18  dennis smith  replied to  Raven Wing @4.3.11    4 months ago

Politics

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.3.19  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3    4 months ago
Here comes a world of pressure on Nancy Pelosi

Well, that is true but Nancy's tough and she can handle it.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.3.20  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.16    4 months ago
Are we going to rehash Clinton again or is the topic more about Trump and Mueller?

Are you now telling us you're (as in all rightwingers) no longer going to keep attacking Clintons for simply existing?  You might as well give up breathing, too. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.3.21  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.13    4 months ago
Clinton committed perjury and obstruction.

So impeachment IS about the law, then.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.3.22  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.3    4 months ago
That is not the law. 

It can be. It depends on which obstruction statute he would be charged with. There are a couple dozen. The obstruction laws most frequently cited regarding Trump require some kind of force or threat (not in evidence here) or "corrupt intent." Logically, it's hard for most people to envision corrupt intent when no underlying crime exists.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.3.23  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.3.20    4 months ago

Still waiting for an answer for post 4.2.8

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.24  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.2    4 months ago
Even if Trump committed obstruction, I'd have to say it becomes mute. Obstruction of a baseless investigation dosen't deserve a prosecution!

The Mueller report address that unfounded claim and so did the SCOTUS. 

But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense.
See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir . 2017) (stating , in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area , or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

There's more on page 369. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.25  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.7    4 months ago
The law has nothing to do with impeachment. 

Since impeachment is enumerated in the Constitution, you'd be WAY wrong about that. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.26  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.10    4 months ago
Impeachment is far more about politics than law.

So you agree that it does have to do with the law. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.3.27  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.3.26    4 months ago
So you agree that it does have to do with the law.

If there is something in my post eluding your understanding, just let me know.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.28  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.27    4 months ago
If there is something in my post eluding your understanding, just let me know.

Thanks for the offer but I got it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.3.29  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.3.28    4 months ago

You sure? You seemed a bit confused.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.30  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.29    4 months ago

Yep. I'm good. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6  Nerm_L    4 months ago

Robert Mueller told Democrats they've gotten all they are going to get from him.  Mueller is not going to be the Democrat's political patsy. 

The issue of impeachment has become strictly a political decision for Democrats.  Democrats must decide if they are going to put party before country.  Is winning elections more important than the rule of law?

As usual, Democrats have painted themselves into a corner and Robert Mueller is not going to help them get out.  Democrats alone must choose whether or not to impeach Trump.  And Democrats alone will bear the political consequences of that choice. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @6    4 months ago
Democrats must decide if they are going to put party before country.  Is winning elections more important than the rule of law?

Are you serious? Please explain how you think enforcing the demands of the constitution is putting party before country? 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    4 months ago
Are you serious? Please explain how you think enforcing the demands of the constitution is putting party before country? 

Doesn't the Constitution demand holding a President accountable to the rule of law by impeachment?

Robert Mueller affirmed that he will not hold Trump accountable to the rule of law.  Investigation, by itself. does not hold Trump (or anyone else) accountable to the rule of law or the Constitution.  Only a judicial trial will accomplish that.

Democrats have actually created a Constitutional crisis by claiming Trump broke the law while also avoiding holding Trump accountable to the law.  Does the rule of law matter?  Democrats must choose.  Will Democrats enforce the rule of law?  Or will Democrats engage in posturing to avoid the political consequences of trying to impeach a President?

So far, it seems Democrats have chosen party politics over the Constitution and rule of law.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.1    4 months ago

Oh I see what you are up to. Let's take all the onus off the criminal (Trump) and place it on the politicians. 

 
 
 
lib50
6.1.3  lib50  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.1    4 months ago

Mueller said he could NOT hold Trump accountable because of the restrictions on his mandate.  And he also made it clear that Trump was not exonerated from either conspiracy nor obstruction, and that he had done all he could, now the ball is in congresses court to do its job.  I can't eve believe that 'democrats chose party over country' crap after what we are witnessing daily from the gop.  I submit your post about dems is a total projection of what the gop has been doing for years.  It doesn't matter how hard dems try to work with gops, McConnell will obstruct every time. 

And here is an example of courage and how Justin Amash's republican constituents feel about his honesty. Doesn't bode well for Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/05/28/justin-amash-town-hall-trump-supporter-vpx-sot.wood

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.4  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    4 months ago
Oh I see what you are up to. Let's take all the onus off the criminal (Trump) and place it on the politicians. 

The Constitution prevents Robert Mueller (or any other prosecutor) criminally indicting POTUS in a Federal court because that would circumvent the Constitutional authority of Congress.  The checks and balances of the Constitution require that both the judicial and legislative branches of government must be involved in holding a President accountable to the rule of law.  Robert Mueller tossed off legal mumbo Jumbo about DOJ policy but the reality is that the Constitution is why Mueller could not issue a criminal indictment.

The role of investigating a President is to reach a legal conclusion based on evidence that the President committed a crime.  A prosecutor cannot circumvent Congress and criminally indict a President in Federal court.  A Representative must criminally indict a President through articles of impeachment.  It may be a convoluted process but that is what the Constitution demands to maintain the checks and balances between the branches of government.

The Constitution demands holding a President accountable to the rule of law through impeachment.

The investigation of the President is complete and the legal conclusions based on evidence have been delivered.  Now the House of Representatives must decide whether or not to criminally indict the President.  Since the House is controlled by Democrats, Democrats must choose.

The Constitutional onus is on the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.  The hair-on-fire politics deliberately pursued by Democrats have raised the political stakes for doing the job they were elected to do and that the Constitution demands.  Democrats have placed themselves in that position.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.5  Nerm_L  replied to  lib50 @6.1.3    4 months ago
And he also made it clear that Trump was not exonerated from either conspiracy nor obstruction, and that he had done all he could, now the ball is in congresses court to do its job.

Robert Mueller did not issue a legal conclusion that President Trump did commit a crime, either.  In effect, Mueller did not provide a legal conclusion either way.

The Constitution only allows the House of Representatives to criminally indict a President.  By avoiding delivering a definitive legal conclusion, Robert Mueller adopted a position that avoids being the political patsy for the Democratic majority in the House.  Democrats can't claim that Robert Mueller told them to impeach Trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.4    4 months ago

Oh please. The ignorance and blind fealty to Trump from his supporters  and his lap dogs among the Republicans in Congress is what has created this crisis. If there were objective Republicans in both houses of Congress there would never have been any doubt about impeachment. Trump is the most unfit for office president anyone has ever seen. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.6    4 months ago
Oh please. The ignorance and blind fealty to Trump from his supporters  and his lap dogs among the Republicans in Congress is what has created this crisis. If there were objective Republicans in both houses of Congress there would never have been any doubt about impeachment. Trump is the most unfit for office president anyone has ever seen.

So, impeach Trump.  That's what the Constitution demands.  Pointing fingers and snarky diatribes won't fulfill that Constitutional obligation.

Democrats desperately wanted to control a majority of seats in the House of Representatives.  Democrats succeeded.  But having a majority also comes with Constitutional obligations and responsibilities.  Democrats got what they wanted, now they need to govern.  The Democratic majority in the House will have to choose whether or not Trump will be held accountable to the rule of law.  Republicans can't do that for Democrats since they lost the midterm elections.

If Democrats are not going to fulfill their Constitutional obligations and responsibilities then why should Democrats remain in the majority?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.7    4 months ago
So, impeach Trump. That's what the Constitution demands. Pointing fingers and snarky diatribes won't fulfill that Constitutional obligation.

Exactly.

What is the freaking hold-up?

Didn't the Great Mueller Report give them everything they needed and demanded?

Personally, I think too many in Congress simply lack the cojones to do it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.8    4 months ago

n't the Great Mueller Report give them everything they needed and demanded?

It didn't take. so now they have to pretend something new happened (though the facts remain the same) and try impeachment drive 2.0

In a few weeks, they'll find someone to testify about what's been publicly available in the report and excitedly claim this information (that they already knew) really demands impeachment. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.6    4 months ago

The gop congress doesn't want to move forward on impeachment because they're complicit along with the 'president'

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.10    4 months ago
The gop congress doesn't want to move forward on impeachment because they're complicit along with the 'president'

Since there isn't any links, I'll file that under "wishful thinking".

WHAT 'gop congress"????

You DO realize that it is the Democrats in control of the House, right? Nothing the GOP can stop the Dems from filing the articles of impeachment.

But for some reason, Dems are dragging their heels.

Must not have the cojones to pull it off.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    4 months ago
Oh I see what you are up to. Let's take all the onus off the criminal (Trump) and place it on the politicians.

Well, unless you somehow think Trump will impeach himself, then YES, the onus is on the Democrats to impeach.

Democrats have been braying for wel over 2 years about all the Trump "crimes". Either the Dems were lying and there are no crimes, or they were telling the truth and there were crimes and now they just don't care.

Impeach Trump or stop braying about doing it, Democrats!

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1.13  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    4 months ago

There will be no impeachment from the House as it would hurt them politically. If they had the courage of their convictions they would impeach. They only concern is their own political position.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1.14  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    4 months ago

Far better than taking the onus off the politicians and placing it on Trump as the Dems have been doing.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.15  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.10    4 months ago
The gop congress doesn't want to move forward on impeachment because they're complicit along with the 'president'

As expected, Democratic candidates for President are being pressed to take a definite stance on impeachment. 

Joe Biden has made the noncommittal establishment argument that impeachment would be divisive but may be unavoidable if Trump continues to stonewall, as if the Mueller investigation didn't happen.  Biden (and the party establishment) are placing party politics ahead of the rule of law.

Not too surprisingly candidates that are back in the pack are taking a more aggressive position on impeachment to gain mentions in the news and raise their public visibility.  The press isn't particularly interested in camp followers so its necessary for lesser known candidates to challenger the leaders.

Nancy Pelosi has lost control of the politics.  Impeachment will be divisive and division is to Trump's political advantage.  The Democratic Party has already begun to divide itself over impeachment which is only a precursor to the divisions that will emerge in the electorate.  The hair on fire politics pursued by Democrats have forced the issue of impeachment into the headlines.  The 2020 election is turning into a referendum for establishment party politics and Democrats won't be able to avoid scrutiny for their role in the political mess. 

Nancy Pelosi won't be Speaker of the House after the 2020 election no matter which party holds the majority of seats in the House.  Democrats will push her out as quickly as would Republicans.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7  Tacos!    4 months ago

I say do it or STFU. Every day that Democrats prance around talking about their evidence and Trump's guilt but don't actually take steps to prosecute him, tells me they are all 100% full of shit. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1  It Is ME  replied to  Tacos! @7    4 months ago

Self preservation "Politics" are the most important thing on this planet to democrats in office ! 

Can't beat what the economy is doing now....Impeach !

Can't beat that Trump is talking with those no one dreamed of talking to before …… Impeach !

Trying to make our borders actual Borders ….. Impeach !

Trying to make U.S. Citizens Important over all others ……. Impeach !

Trying to get jobs going for U.S. Citizens as the most important thing ………. Impeach !

Making "Trade" more fair for this country ………… Impeach !

Letting ALL "Americans" keep more of what they earn ………. Impeach !

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @7    4 months ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
lib50
7.3  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @7    4 months ago

Be careful what you wish for.  Check out how Justin Amash's republican constituents feel about his call for justice and the fact president is not above the law.  (Hint:  standing ovation)  And it's now going to be done through congress.  Thank god. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/445862-amash-gets-standing-ovation-at-first-town-hall-after-calling-for-trumps

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @7.3    4 months ago
And it's now going to be done through congress.  Thank god. 

Thank God, huh? Because Congress has a whole bunch of investigative experience and tools that the Department of Justice lacks ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
7.3.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.3.1    4 months ago
Because Congress has a whole bunch of investigative experience and tools that the Department of Justice lacks?

The Congress has the tools to hold a sitting POTUS accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors. The DOJ does NOT. 

The Congress has the tools to collect evidence for legislative purposes. The DOJ does NOT. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.4  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Tacos! @7    4 months ago
I say do it or STFU.

You (and others) keep telling everyone to hurry up and then when things do wind up (e.g., Mueller and his report) you go all ape-shit about the results.  I'd suggest you all learn a bit of self-control and patience and be careful for what you wish for. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.4.1  Tacos!  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7.4    4 months ago
you go all ape-shit about the results

WTF are you talking about? I'm totally satisfied with the results. The report said no one in the Trump campaign was working with the Russians to interfere with the election. That was the big worry. As far as I'm concerned, the crisis is over.

You're the one who's not happy and wants more investigations. You're the one who thinks it's still cool to go around talking shit about these people when it's already been concluded they didn't do anything wrong. If anyone was going around making accusations about someone else and saying there oughta be action, I'd say do the action already. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that all you really care about is smearing someone's reputation for political gain.

I'd suggest you all learn a bit of self-control

I'd suggest you bite me. My self control is just fine.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8  Vic Eldred    4 months ago

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9  author  JohnRussell    4 months ago

Rudy Giuliani Reacts to Mueller by Comparing Him to Soviet Union: ‘He’s Lost His Notion of American Fairness’

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/rudy-giuliani-reacts-to-mueller-by-comparing-him-to-soviet-union-hes-lost-his-notion-of-american-fairness/

giphy.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10  author  JohnRussell    4 months ago
In his initial reaction to  Robert Mueller  speaking out on his investigation, Fox News anchor  Bret Baier  said the special counsel’s announcement flies in the face of President  Donald Trump’s  insistence that he was completely exonerated.

In  Mueller’s announcement , he said that because of Justice Department policy the special counsel didn’t have the option of charging Trump with a crime, but he also that “if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.” In Baier’s response on  America’s Newsroom , he said he was “struck by the tone and tenor of the remarks” and how very different they were from how Trump speaks about the report’s conclusions.

“This was not – as the president says time and time again – no collusion, no obstruction. It was much more nuanced than that. He said specifically they couldn’t find evidence to move forward with the crime of collusion for the investigation of the Trump campaign. He said specifically if they had found that the president did not commit a crime on obstruction, they would have said that, and then went into specific details about the DOJ policy and why they couldn’t move forward with anything else than their decision.”

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-bret-baier-reacts-to-muellers-statement-this-was-not-no-collusion-no-obstruction/

 
 
 
r.t..b...
11  r.t..b...    4 months ago

Is anyone really surprised? The apologists continue to deflect. The impeachers continue to demand action. The only thing not surprising is the commentary from either camp as they pound their chests and beat their partisan drums. The only thing more disgusting than the tribal reality of the situation is the punditry trying in vain to buttress their oh so myopic viewpoints. Embarrassing doesn't begin to describe it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @11    4 months ago

More "both sides are wrong" ism  from the independents and moderates. What a waste. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
11.1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    4 months ago
What a waste.

Interesting comment, JR. You and I are closer politically than you would care to admit and seeing as how those despised independents and moderates will decide the upcoming circus of an election, you do yourself no favors in dismissing the center. But it will give you fodder for another four-years of venting, something you seem to relish and is in reality the real waste.

 
 
 
evilgenius
11.1.2  evilgenius  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    4 months ago
...the independents and moderates. What a waste. 

Thanks John. That post is a clear example of why politics is in the toilet. Frankly I'm pretty pissed off with wack-a-doodles at the edges getting all the press. They all know how things should be, but can't ever get there.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @11.1.1    4 months ago

Are you saying you will vote for Trump out of spite against vocal anti-Trumpers? 

One of the distressing things we have seen in American politics for the past 4 years (since Trump announced his candidacy) is the indifference of independents and so called moderates to his abject unfitness to hold the office. 

 
 
 
JBB
11.1.4  JBB  replied to  r.t..b... @11.1.1    4 months ago

The point of being independent is to be free to go either way.

Not excuse independents from ever having to choose sides...

Any still not knowing where they stand on Trump aren't alive.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
11.1.5  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.3    4 months ago
Are you saying you will vote for Trump out of spite against vocal anti-Trumpers? 

Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion, other than to assuage some preconceived prejudice against a 'centrist'. I did not vote for trump in 2016, nor would ever cast a ballot for him and everything he represents. The opposition party does themselves no favors, however, in making the upcoming election a referendum on the incumbent. Somewhere, somehow, and someone will realize policy, decorum, and eloquence still matter. Are you with us?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @11.1.5    4 months ago

I think you can be vocally anti-Trump and still observe "decorum". 

It is fairly obvious to my mind that Trump has survived and somewhat thrived as president because the constant gravitational pull towards "normalizing" him becomes a practical inevitability.   That is exactly the reason there is a need for a constant resistance. Without the resistance he would be much closer to re-election than he is now.  Someone with a "good economy" like now should be at 56 or 57 % popularity. Trump is at 40%. I think it is fair to credit the resistance for that. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
11.1.7  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.6    4 months ago
somewhat thrived as president because the constant gravitational pull towards "normalizing" him becomes a practical inevitability.

I agree here, JR, and understand the need to consistently call him out for his behavior, preferably with calm reason and constructive alternatives as a counterpoint. The danger lies in lumping the voiceless majority in the middle with the rabid right. Trump will get his 25%-30% regardless...don't give the 40% in the middle any reason to see him as a lesser-of-two-evils choice...thus the Democrat conundrum. One just look back at how that worked out the last election. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
11.1.8  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.6    4 months ago

It is the Dems own fault....they are giving Trump a platform to be the victim.  

They should just shut up.

 
 
 
Ender
11.1.9  Ender  replied to  r.t..b... @11.1.5    4 months ago

I can agree to a point but I would have to add that most of the country doesn't care about politics.

I can understand why.

A lot of people just get snippets and sound bytes without digging any further. There are some that actually vote just because of the abortion issue and they look no further. There are some that believe all Liberals want to take away guns when that is not the case.

People believe in camps and unilaterally lump all extreme thought into those camps, when not all believe the same way.

I wonder about the political intelligence of the average voter when one candidate will speak of policy then the other candidate will call names and never answer any real policy question and the electorate will vote for the latter.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
11.1.10  r.t..b...  replied to  Ender @11.1.9    4 months ago
when one candidate will speak of policy then the other candidate will call names and never answer any real policy question and the electorate will vote for the latter.

The most accurate (and saddest) assessment of all. Apathy reigns and we are simply reaping what we sow. I guess the only question that remains is can we go any lower or will we collectively pull ourselves out of the muck...the need for leadership has never been more apparent.

 
 
 
evilgenius
11.1.11  evilgenius  replied to  r.t..b... @11.1.5    4 months ago
The opposition party does themselves no favors, however, in making the upcoming election a referendum on the incumbent.

It didn't work for the Republicans against Obama, it's not going to work against Trump. The Dems need to get behind more than that to win. All serious computer models have Trump winning a second term. I really don't want that to happen, but the Dems need a solid candidate that appeals to the moderates and a message that can keep the progressives in line. I don't think they can do that.

 
 
 
Ender
11.1.12  Ender  replied to  evilgenius @11.1.11    4 months ago

I have seen those too. So far every indication is that he will win.

It seems most people want a showman over substance.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
11.1.13  r.t..b...  replied to  evilgenius @11.1.11    4 months ago
I don't think they can do that.

Too many tents and precious little cohesiveness. Pelosi may be key. Cast dispersion as some no doubt will, but she's the most politically astute figure inside the beltway and has walked a fine line this session in the House. She may have not involved herself directly in presidential electioneering in the past, but her council should be sought if electability is the bottom line.

 
 
 
evilgenius
11.1.14  evilgenius  replied to  Ender @11.1.12    4 months ago
It seems most people want a showman over substance.

Perhaps. Both Bill Clinton and Obama were very charismatic though, the Dems have typically been abysmal at messaging. Last election Dems were accused of being too intellectual. 

 
 
 
Ender
11.1.15  Ender  replied to  r.t..b... @11.1.13    4 months ago

Herding cats.    haha

She does seem to know what is going on. Keeping people together seems like a constant struggle.

I can also see the primaries being a shit show like last time. That could be a turn off for a lot of people. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
11.1.16  evilgenius  replied to  r.t..b... @11.1.13    4 months ago
Too many tents and precious little cohesiveness.

Yes.

Pelosi may be key. Cast dispersion as some no doubt will, but she's the most politically astute figure inside the beltway and has walked a fine line this session in the House. She may have not involved herself directly in presidential electioneering in the past, but her council should be sought if electability is the bottom line.

I concur. I'd have to reiterate she's being fought tooth and nail by the more liberal wing of the party and they are driving the message bus.

 
 
 
lib50
11.1.17  lib50  replied to  Sunshine @11.1.8    4 months ago

No, they should start hearings and bring forth exactly what happened in the election and Trump's actions.   His shtick is losing its bloom.  So to speak.  Trump as victim?  yawn

 
 
 
Raven Wing
11.1.18  Raven Wing  replied to  Sunshine @11.1.8    4 months ago
They should just shut up.

So should Trump.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
11.1.19  Greg Jones  replied to  evilgenius @11.1.11    4 months ago

More and more of the experts are predicting a Trump win.

As for the Dems getting a solid wide appeal candidate, I just don't see that happening

 
 
 
evilgenius
11.1.20  evilgenius  replied to  Greg Jones @11.1.19    4 months ago
More and more of the experts are predicting a Trump win.

Incumbents have an advantage and 

As for the Dems getting a solid wide appeal candidate, I just don't see that happening

Dems do the opposite of what Reps do. When a candidate is finally picked the Reps fall in line - lock step. When I Dem candidate is picked the losers (Yes, I'm talking about those Bernie fans!) sit around and bitch about it for 2 years.

 
 
 
dennis smith
11.1.21  dennis smith  replied to  r.t..b... @11.1.10    4 months ago

Politicians from both major parties have taken America into the muck. 

Change is happening and that seems to be what most are afraid of.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
12  Trout Giggles    4 months ago

Why was Bill Clinton impeached for obstruction of justice but trmp can't be?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
12.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @12    4 months ago

Democrats set the precedent that obstruction of justice is not an impeachable offense, let alone one worthy of removal. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
12.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1    4 months ago

So it was the Democrats that set this precedent. All righty then.

Why didn't the Republicans over turn that when they had both House and Senate?

No need to answer that question. You republicans liked the idea and kept it because you knew it would come in handy some day

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
12.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.1.1    4 months ago

How would they overturn that?

The Democrats voted almost unanimously that obstruction of justice is not impeachable or removable.  Republicans didn't control 2/3 of the Senate, so how do you imagine they could remove a President without Democrat support?

As the Democratic Judiciary Chair said when Clinton was charged with obstruction, even if proven true, it's not an impeachable offense. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
12.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.2    4 months ago

Didn't the Republicans control the House and Senate for most of Obama's term?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
12.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.1.3    4 months ago

They never had close to 2/3 of the Senate.

And the House never tried to impeach Obama.   

I have no clue what point you are trying to make.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
12.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.4    4 months ago

That you republicans got the democrats to do your dirty work for ya.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
12.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.1.5    4 months ago

Republicans tricked Jerry Nadler in 1998 into claiming that it doesn't matter if the President obstructed justice because it's not an impeachable offense because they knew Nadler would be the head of the Judiciary 20 years later when a Republican was President? .

 
 
 
Ender
12.1.7  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.2    4 months ago

If lying was an impeachable offence, trump would have been out in his first year.

The man cannot tell the truth about simple things...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
12.1.8  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.6    4 months ago

I don't care what Jerry Nadler or anyone else said 20 years ago. I thought Bill Clinton should have resigned when it came out that he had lied to the American people about having "sex" with Monica Lewinsky. 

At any rate, anything that is a crime someone could go to prison for should be considered an "impeachable offense". 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.1.5    4 months ago

What exactly is stopping Democrats from filing the articles of impeachment?

They have the vaunted Mueller Report.

Let's get to it instead of braying incessantly about it!

 
 
 
Ender
12.1.10  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.9    4 months ago

What is the point when the senate would shut it down within a week.

Oh boo hoo, how dare the Dems talk about it....

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @12.1.10    4 months ago

If ALL they are going to do is yap about it, then, hell yes, the Democrats should shut their pieholes.

Time for Nancy and Co. to put up or shut up.

The Senate can not "shut it down" if the House impeaches.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
12.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.8    4 months ago
ht Bill Clinton should have resigned when it came out that he had lied to the American people about having "sex" with Monica Lewinsky. 

If he had, or had Democrats voted to remove him, someone like Trump would never have been elected. But once a major party convinced the American public that it didn't matter if a President lied, or obstructed justice, as long as the economy was good, than Trump became possible.

Michael Gerson, without connecting the dots, laid it out in the Washington Post last week:

"So it matters if the legacy of the president is that the ends justify the means; that rules do not apply across the board; that lawlessness can be excused. It matters, too, if we demean the presidency by lowering our standards of expectations for the office and by redefining moral authority down. It matters if truth becomes incidental, and public office is used to cover up misdeeds. And it matters if we treat a president as if he were a king, above the law.”

Once the standard was set with Clinton, it defined deviancy down for the Presidency and it becomes impossible to ask one side to unilaterally play by different rules. 

 
 
 
Ender
12.1.13  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.11    4 months ago

I know you know how it works, so just admit it.

Yes the house can open proceedings, the senate would shut it down and it would never happen.

They even said this.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @12.1.13    4 months ago

I learned long ago the difference between shutting something down and a vote to convict.

Pity not everyone knows the difference.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
12.1.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.11    4 months ago
Time for Nancy and Co. to put up or shut up.

This battle will be fought between Pelosi and that hate-filled group of bout 40 House democrats!  Just the fight by itself is going to hurt democrats.

 
 
 
Ender
12.1.16  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.14    4 months ago

Pity some just love to be obtuse.

GOP senators say that if the House passes articles of impeachment against  President Trump  they will quickly quash them in the Senate

“I think it would be disposed of very quickly,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman  Lindsey Graham  (R-S.C.).

Sen.  John Cornyn  (R-Texas), an adviser to McConnell’s leadership team, said “nothing” would come of impeachment articles passed by the House.

McConnell would have broad authority to determine how a Senate trial would play out. He could stifle the arguments of Democratic prosecutors from the House as long as he’s backed up by his fellow GOP senators.

Under the Senate manual’s rules for impeachment trials, the presiding officer — likely Roberts — would rule on all questions of evidence, but any senator could ask for a formal vote to appeal a decision. Under the Senate rules, it takes a majority to sustain or overrule a ruling from the presiding officer.

Democrats would need to persuade at least four Republicans to break with McConnell in order to bring in any witnesses or exhibits he decides to block.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/445512-senate-gop-pledges-to-quickly-quash-any-trump-impeachment-charges

Shutting down, quash, dispose of....same thing.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
12.1.17  KDMichigan  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.1.5    4 months ago
That you republicans got the democrats to do your dirty work for ya.

This is Hillaryious. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
12.1.18  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.1.15    4 months ago

I'm ready for the Dems to impeach.  They already have in a virtual sense. That's essentially what this strategy is at this point.   Once it's actually done they won't be able to use that sword again.

One benefit of a trial will be that around half of the voting Democrats will learn that there was no collusion with the Russians.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  Freedom Warrior @12.1.18    4 months ago
One benefit of a trial will be that around half of the voting Democrats will learn that there was no collusion with the Russians.

And around half the Democrats will promptly deny it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.2  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @12    4 months ago

All over a blow job and lying about it?

Didn't Starr get pictures of Clinton's penis?

 
 
 
MrFrost
12.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Tessylo @12.2    4 months ago
Didn't Starr get pictures of Clinton's penis?

Thanks Tessy, trying to eat dinner... lol

 
 
 
Ronin2
12.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @12.2    4 months ago
All over a blow job and lying about it?

It's called perjury.

Which is the reason that Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones an $850,000 settlement.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/13/us/clinton-settles-jones-lawsuit-with-a-check-for-850000.html

Just as the Senate is about to begin President Clinton's impeachment trial in earnest, Mr. Clinton sent $850,000 to Paula Corbin Jones today to settle the sexual misconduct lawsuit that started it all. Clinton Administration officials said a check for $850,000, the amount agreed to in November to settle the case, was being sent by overnight mail to Ms. Jones and her lawyers.

Clinton was also disbarred over it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/02/duncancampbell

The US supreme court yesterday issued an order disbarring former president Bill Clinton from practising law before the high court. The ruling is seen as marking the official end of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

The ruling struck a jarring note in the current mood of national unity. Mr Clinton has been praised for the supportive role he has been playing and the way he has thrown his political weight behind President George Bush.

The court did not explain its reasons for the disbarment, although such a decision usually follows disbarment in a lower court. In April, Mr Clinton's Arkansas law licence was suspended for five years and he was given a $25,000 fine.

He had agreed to that disbarment as a form of plea bargain in January, on the day before he left office, after reaching a deal to bring an end to the Lewinsky investigation, in which he could have faced charges for contempt.

Seems that only Democrats in the House and Senate condone perjury; and obstruction. When a Democrat is in the White House that is.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
12.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Trout Giggles @12    4 months ago

Not enough evidence of obstruction to prosecute. That's basically summed up what Mueller said today.

If there was enough real evidence, they would have charged him.

 
 
 
MrFrost
12.3.1  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @12.3    4 months ago
Not enough evidence of obstruction to prosecute.

Ok for the 500th time in the last 6 hours, that's NOT what Mueller said. He said that it's policy for the DOJ to not impeach or indict a sitting president. Tat's for CONGRESS to do. And since we still have way too many boot licking repubs, it would be a waste of time to impeach trump. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @12.3.1    4 months ago
Ok for the 500th time in the last 6 hours, that's NOT what Mueller said. He said that it's policy for the DOJ to not impeach or indict a sitting president. Tat's for CONGRESS to do. And since we still have way too many boot licking repubs, it would be a waste of time to impeach trump.

Is that a different way of saying that, for all the rhetoric thrown out by Congressional Democrats, they will simply refuse to do their duty and impeach? 

Doesn't that make them complicit?

 
 
 
MrFrost
12.3.3  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.2    4 months ago
Congressional Democrats

Oh sorry, I was talking about REPUBLICANS. Should have been more clear. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @12.3.3    4 months ago

Your merry little band of Democrats in the House hold all the power to impeach.

You trying to blame the GOP is laughable.