“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” Mr. Mueller and his investigators wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
“The matters we investigated were of paramount importance.“ Mr. Mueller reemphasized the report’s main findings, including that there was not enough evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy with Russia’s interference and that he made no decision on possible obstruction of justice because of a Justice Department policy on not indicting sitting presidents.
It wasn't his job to exonerate Trump, it was his job to investigate the issue of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. He states plainly in the report that there was none. Zero Nada. Zilch. And he reiterated this in his statement today.
So what you Trump haters are left with is the idea that Trump was obstructing an investigation into a crime that didn't occur. One could safely assume that, given the fact the there was no evidence of collusion found, that Trump knew that there would be no evidence of collusion found. An innocent man knows if he is in fact innocent. So you are left to explain why a man who knows he is innocent would obstruct an investigation that he knows will find him innocent.
A Special Prosecutor's job is to investigate for possible crimes and report back as to whether there is sufficient evidence to pursue legal charges on those crimes. Additionally, a Special Prosecutor is not supposed to be appointed on a hunch, by statute there is supposed to be clear evidence of a crime that warrants further investigation. There was no such evidence in this case, just what we now know to be baseless speculation by people who couldn't accept the legitimacy of Trumps election. He certainly has no business offering speculation regarding possible crimes that he himself states can't be prosecuted, which is precisely what he has done with his insinuation about obstruction. If he did not find sufficient evidence to suggest prosecution then he does not hint that he wanted to on an unrelated charge but couldn't for whatever reason. So the question is why he did so.
The fact of the matter is that Mueller wanted to find something to pin on Trump and couldn't do it. Someone conducting a fair and impartial investigation into someone doesn't hire a team that is overwhelmingly made up of people with an obvious bias against the subject of the investigation. And that's exactly what Mueller did. But when the possibility of saying that collusion did in fact happen collapsed he fell back on the unprovable insinuation that there was obstruction in a case where no crime was committed. So he has very purposefully thrown this back in the hands of Congress by providing them with the patina of "obstruction" so that they can try and accomplish what he was not able to.
So move on already. But if you really can't, then please pursue impeachment. It will guarantee his reelection.
>>>>So you are left to explain why a man who knows he is innocent would obstruct an investigation that he knows will find him innocent.
Trump often doesn't operate in a normal, rational way. Remember Nixon probably didn't know about the Watergate break in until after the fact, but he then engaged in irrational acts to cover it up. As they say, the coverup is often worse than the crime.
Trump is an egomaniac (we can all agree on that) and perhaps he was so concerned about the perception that the Russian interference (which we can all agree happened) gave him a thumb on the scale in 2016 and he didn't win fair and square, that he engaged in irrational acts to interfere with the investigation as outlined in the report.
That being said, I do agree that an impeachment by the House will be a quixotic exercise that will fail miserably in the GOP senate and help guarantee Trump's re-election in 2020. They should still investigate, but keep the powder dry on impeachment until the 2020 election plays out.
>>>If he did not find sufficient evidence to suggest prosecution then he does not hint that he wanted to on an unrelated charge but couldn't for whatever reason. So the question is why he did so.
“If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Mueller said at a press conference at Justice Department headquarters in which he also announced his resignation. “A President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. ... Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”
And BTW, obstructing an investigation is still a crime, even if you're innocent of said crime. Only a dumbass like Thom (MAGA freaks) would think otherwise. The whole purpose of an investigation is to determine guilt. You could be found guilty, you could be found innocent - that's how investigations work. But the fact that you know you are innocent does NOT give you the right to interfere with an investigation. How could anybody possibly think that?
I must say that I find it fascinating that most people around here are more than willing, if not eager, to jettison the traditional assumption of innocence that our legal system is based on and that has always been one of the great accomplishments of our culture. At least in anything involving Donald Trump. Innocence is the default position in this country. If a person doesn’t have enough evidence that someone committed a crime to contend that a crime was committed, he is obliged to presume his innocence. “Not exonerated” is not a standard in our system, and it shouldn’t be one in our culture, either. Investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed (as in this case), they are supposed to say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed.” They are not supposed to look for evidence that a crime was not committed and then say, “We couldn’t find evidence of innocence.”
But of course if your motivation is the removal of a duly elected President you will go to any lengths and ignore any legal traditions to do so. Donald Trump's election has been a slap in the face to every progressive in this country, and they simply will not accept the reality that he won and they lost. To do so would be to admit that history is in fact not on their side (history doesn't take sides) and that is more than their religious progressive zeal can ever admit.
Thom, I know you don't care and can't understand but being presumed innocent and being under investigation for a crime are NOT two mutually exclusive concepts. Even with the presumption of innocence, there is nothing that says that you can't be investigated. There is nothing illegal or unethical about that. However, regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty you are not allowed to interfere with an ongoing investigation - that's a crime. It's called obstruction, and Trump was not exonerated of it. He was also not charged for the crime because the Special Prosecutor's office interpreted the law as saying that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime, hence, they had no authority to determine guilt or innocence either. That would be the job of congress
But you know, keep on spouting whatever Fox News dribble you want to, I know no rational argument will ever make a dent in a MAGA mind...
>>>>investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed (as in this case), they are supposed to say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed."
That's normally how it works, but the normal rules do not apply to a sitting president, who is in fact "above the law" under long standing DOJ policy. As Mueller explained this morning, (1) it would make little sense to issue an indictment because a sitting president cannot be indicted, and (2) because a sitting president cannot be charged with a federal crime, it would be inherently unfair to otherwise formally accuse of him of committing a crime when there is no mechanism (i.e. criminal trial) to vindicate himself. Instead, the process of dealing with a president who has allegedly committed a crime is to present the evidence to the House to decide whether to initiate an impeachment proceeding, which, at least at this point, won't happen or would not be successful for purely political reasons.
“Not exonerated” is not a standard in our system, and it shouldn’t be one in our culture, either. Investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed (as in this case), they are supposed to say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed.” They are not supposed to look for evidence that a crime was not committed and then say, “We couldn’t find evidence of innocence.”<<<
Thom, I believe you're either missing or ignoring the conundrum of how Mueller and the OSC has essentially been relegated to the legal space of "no man's land" as Ken has just outlined.
By stating the POTUS is "not exonerated", IMO Mueller is clearly deferring to the recourse of impeachment proceedings, or perhaps further debate regarding DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president.
My motivation is the removal of what appears to be a duly elected president who's crossed a "line" (obstruction) that has undermined any notion of trust & fitness to hold the highest office in the land.
Personally, I believe an impeachment inquiry needs to begin immediately; regardless of the outcome in the Senate (or the 2020 election for that matter). This sort of behavior simply can't be allowed to occur without an attempt of an appropriate oversight response from Congress.
Trump’s base, the Thom’s of the world, are beyond hope. They hated the last president because of his skin color, and they love the Mafia President. Reasoning with them is a fool’s errand. 2+2=5.
Dershowitz: Shame on Robert Mueller for exceeding his role
Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.
Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor, and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.
But of course the rules are different when Trump is involved. His very presence is an affront to the pieties of the progressive left and, being evil incarnate, he must be removed or at least impeded by any means necessary.
"And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
^Bag O'Shit, Mueller said it was not his job to indict a sitting president, he correctly indicated that this is the purview of Congress. It is clear that your intellectual and your moral deficiencies render you incapable of understanding this.
Trump-Drunk Republicans Are Choosing Russia Over the Constitution
Almost every Republican elected official in Washington knows Donald Trump is unfit to be president. Try getting more than one of them to say it.
How did this happen? How did the Republican Party descend from the moral heights of Ronald Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” to this apologist sewer filled with the weak trying to reassure the weaker that weakness is a virtue?
For the first time in American history we have meticulously detailed evidence that a hostile foreign power attempted to influence the choice of an American commander in chief, and the collective Republican response is apparently, “Our side won, move on.”
The beating heart of America is courage. This is the nation born of the courage of a few who made the impossible appear inevitable. The 75th anniversary of D-Dayis upon us, and yet Republicans don’t seem capable of summoning some mix of courage and decency to put country over their next primary. Courage is not standing up to Donald Trump. Courage is getting out of the boat when the man in front of you was just shot. That’s the legacy these Republicans are squandering and it should be called out for what it is: shameful.
The congressmen and senators of the party whose unofficial slogan is now “Lock her/him up” have a constitutional duty to defend our country and they are failing. It’s not an elective they are auditing for no credit at night school, it’s a sworn oath:
"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
It baffles me that any member of Congress or senator can read the Mueller Report, describing how the Russians referred to their campaign to help elect Donald Trump as “information warfare,” and not respond as if America was under attack. The modern Republican Party that has pushed the Pentagon budget to over $700 billion a year, that supports American military personnel in over 150 countries, those same Republicans have suddenly decided that Lenin’s “useful idiots” are their new role models.
Why? These are not stupid men and women, though more than a few do a fair imitation. Each will have their own justifications that amount to a personal Faustian bargain predicated on the self-delusion that some particular issue or cause is more important than their oath of office. But equally powerful will be the reinforcing group mentality that Rep. Justin Amash describes:
“My colleagues tell me all the time—in fact, you wouldn’t believe how many phone conversations I’ve had, or conversations in person with colleagues... A lot of them think I’m right about the Mueller Report. And they just won’t say it. A lot of Republicans. What they’ll say to me is, Justin, you know, going out publicly with that, you know the Democrats will never support you. You know that they’re hypocrites on this stuff. And I say, you know, some of them are and some of them aren’t. It doesn’t matter to me. Because you have to look at what you’re doing first. You have to care about what you’re doing. If you have a society where all we care about is that the other side is bad, and therefore we don’t have to do the right thing, that society will break down, and you will have no liberty. I refuse to be a part of that.”
At the heart of the Trump presidency is a lie: almost every Republican elected official in Washington knows Donald Trump is unfit to be president. They knew it on Nov. 9, 2016, at 7 p.m., when they were planning on how to rebuild the party from the disaster of a nominating a know-nothing racist for president; and they knew it at midnight, when they were all frantically calling the oddballs and kooks Trump had assembled into a campaign to lavishly praise their brilliance.
The Republican Party stood by a candidate who ran on a religious test to enter the United States. They knew it was unconstitutional and indecent, but they were silent. All through 2016 I had conversations with what passes for leadership in the Republican Party on the need to stand up to Trump. Most of their responses went like this: “Trump is a disaster and a disgrace. But we have to let him lose on his own. If we, the Establishment, put our thumbs on the scale, when he loses it will be our fault and not the fault of his racism, the alt-right, those idiots at Breitbart. We will have elected Hillary Clinton. We have to let him lose and rebuild.”
To which I always responded, “But what if he wins?” Truth was, though, I didn’t think he would win, and I wasn’t great at making the case for something I didn’t believe. What these Republican leaders were saying wasn’t crazy. It just proved to be wrong. And in that miscalculation began the surrender of any sense of self to Donald Trump. So now the nation is in full possession of the reality that Russians—Russians, for cryin’ out loud—worked on the same side as every Republican volunteer, donor, elected official and Trump voter. When you learn that the bank you borrowed money from was actually owned by a drug cartel, should your first reaction be, “Well, we got a good interest rate”? The simple reality is that the Republican Party was in business with Russian intelligence efforts, what used to be known as the KGB, and precious few leading the Republican Party seem to give a damn.
I’ve spent decades waking up every morning eager to fight Democrats, trying to gain every bit of advantage for every battle. God knows we made mistakes and played too often on the Dark Side. But I never woke up knowing that somewhere out there a Russian agent was waking up with the same job I had.
My dad was in the FBI when Hoover ordered the roundup of Asian Americans. He hated it and quit, joined the Navy and spent the next three years fighting in the South Pacific. Like so many, he didn’t talk a lot about the war but when it came to leaving the FBI, he told me once, “You can always say no.”
And that’s my question to all those Republicans who are more worried about defending Donald Trump than defending America: Is this why you went into politics? Is this why you put up with all the bullshit and stupidity that is integral to our political system, so you can be on the same side as the Russians?
The funniest lies are about how about how he thinks he’s intelligent
Yet guards his transcripts and test scores better than he guards his testicles
a question for you republican whores while I’m at it
ciao
how much money do you think Trump has spent golfing and For political rallies in his short presidency and how much of the payments of government business have gone directly to his businesses
And after a lifetime of practicing is not a good liar he’s too fucking stupid and egotistical
If anyone is interested in a complete refutation of Dershowitz on the Mueller presser you can find it here. Bottom line - Mueller didn’t say anything yesterday that wasn’t in his report. The only thing that changed yesterday is that Barr was exposed for the lying piece of shit that he is.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
And he said all the right
And he said all the right things.
You folks really need to get a life and move on.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: An organ grinder’s tune
yeah, you know...like
yeah, you know...like benghazi!!!!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
And he said all the right
And he said all the right things<<<
I agree.
Why would a public servant with a deep sense of honor and duty want to assume powers that are beyond the scope of his authority?
it's a clear statement to the House to shit or get off the pot.
IMO, Pelosi needs to begin an impeachment inquiry immediately or step aside.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dave
“If we had confidence after a
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” Mr. Mueller and his investigators wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
“The matters we investigated were of paramount importance.“ Mr. Mueller reemphasized the report’s main findings, including that there was not enough evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy with Russia’s interference and that he made no decision on possible obstruction of justice because of a Justice Department policy on not indicting sitting presidents.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Richard Cranium
Move on to what Tom? He did
Move on to what Tom? He did not exonerate Trump.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
It wasn't his job to
It wasn't his job to exonerate Trump, it was his job to investigate the issue of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. He states plainly in the report that there was none. Zero Nada. Zilch. And he reiterated this in his statement today.
So what you Trump haters are left with is the idea that Trump was obstructing an investigation into a crime that didn't occur. One could safely assume that, given the fact the there was no evidence of collusion found, that Trump knew that there would be no evidence of collusion found. An innocent man knows if he is in fact innocent. So you are left to explain why a man who knows he is innocent would obstruct an investigation that he knows will find him innocent.
A Special Prosecutor's job is to investigate for possible crimes and report back as to whether there is sufficient evidence to pursue legal charges on those crimes. Additionally, a Special Prosecutor is not supposed to be appointed on a hunch, by statute there is supposed to be clear evidence of a crime that warrants further investigation. There was no such evidence in this case, just what we now know to be baseless speculation by people who couldn't accept the legitimacy of Trumps election. He certainly has no business offering speculation regarding possible crimes that he himself states can't be prosecuted, which is precisely what he has done with his insinuation about obstruction. If he did not find sufficient evidence to suggest prosecution then he does not hint that he wanted to on an unrelated charge but couldn't for whatever reason. So the question is why he did so.
The fact of the matter is that Mueller wanted to find something to pin on Trump and couldn't do it. Someone conducting a fair and impartial investigation into someone doesn't hire a team that is overwhelmingly made up of people with an obvious bias against the subject of the investigation. And that's exactly what Mueller did. But when the possibility of saying that collusion did in fact happen collapsed he fell back on the unprovable insinuation that there was obstruction in a case where no crime was committed. So he has very purposefully thrown this back in the hands of Congress by providing them with the patina of "obstruction" so that they can try and accomplish what he was not able to.
So move on already. But if you really can't, then please pursue impeachment. It will guarantee his reelection.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
You Thom are a complete moron
You Thom are a complete moron
move on
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
Mueller did this to keep your
Mueller did this to keep your hopes alive.
And it's working.
Please. Begin impeachment. I'm begging you.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
Your comprehension skills and reasoning are far different then most human beings
Maybe you need to eat a full sheet of LSD, who the fuck knows if you’ll wake up out of your Daze
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
Mueller
Mueller
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
Your hero is a complete mob
Your hero is a complete mob boss with no morals, ethics nor intelligence
where do you fit?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
>>>>So you are left to
>>>>So you are left to explain why a man who knows he is innocent would obstruct an investigation that he knows will find him innocent.
Trump often doesn't operate in a normal, rational way. Remember Nixon probably didn't know about the Watergate break in until after the fact, but he then engaged in irrational acts to cover it up. As they say, the coverup is often worse than the crime.
Trump is an egomaniac (we can all agree on that) and perhaps he was so concerned about the perception that the Russian interference (which we can all agree happened) gave him a thumb on the scale in 2016 and he didn't win fair and square, that he engaged in irrational acts to interfere with the investigation as outlined in the report.
That being said, I do agree that an impeachment by the House will be a quixotic exercise that will fail miserably in the GOP senate and help guarantee Trump's re-election in 2020. They should still investigate, but keep the powder dry on impeachment until the 2020 election plays out.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
>>>>>> They should still
>>>>>> They should still investigate
What should they do differently if they already investigated?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight
>>>If he did not find
>>>If he did not find sufficient evidence to suggest prosecution then he does not hint that he wanted to on an unrelated charge but couldn't for whatever reason. So the question is why he did so.
“If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Mueller said at a press conference at Justice Department headquarters in which he also announced his resignation. “A President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. ... Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight
And BTW, obstructing an
And BTW, obstructing an investigation is still a crime, even if you're innocent of said crime. Only a dumbass like Thom (MAGA freaks) would think otherwise. The whole purpose of an investigation is to determine guilt. You could be found guilty, you could be found innocent - that's how investigations work. But the fact that you know you are innocent does NOT give you the right to interfere with an investigation. How could anybody possibly think that?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
I must say that I find it
I must say that I find it fascinating that most people around here are more than willing, if not eager, to jettison the traditional assumption of innocence that our legal system is based on and that has always been one of the great accomplishments of our culture. At least in anything involving Donald Trump. Innocence is the default position in this country. If a person doesn’t have enough evidence that someone committed a crime to contend that a crime was committed, he is obliged to presume his innocence. “Not exonerated” is not a standard in our system, and it shouldn’t be one in our culture, either. Investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed (as in this case), they are supposed to say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed.” They are not supposed to look for evidence that a crime was not committed and then say, “We couldn’t find evidence of innocence.”
But of course if your motivation is the removal of a duly elected President you will go to any lengths and ignore any legal traditions to do so. Donald Trump's election has been a slap in the face to every progressive in this country, and they simply will not accept the reality that he won and they lost. To do so would be to admit that history is in fact not on their side (history doesn't take sides) and that is more than their religious progressive zeal can ever admit.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: g-reg
Attempted Collusion isn't a
Attempted Collusion isn't a crime for some reason. If little donnie had his way there would have been but no one took him seriously.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
I find it fascinating
I find it fascinating
that
your reading of only the words that suit your "cause" and your comprehension / processing capabilities are so limited / skewed / sad
is /was you father a bigot or criminal also?
- does your mirror love you ( as much as the "Donald's does") ?
carry on - and have a great day
make the day great again
tit for tat insult for insult....
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight
Thom, I know you don't care
Thom, I know you don't care and can't understand but being presumed innocent and being under investigation for a crime are NOT two mutually exclusive concepts. Even with the presumption of innocence, there is nothing that says that you can't be investigated. There is nothing illegal or unethical about that. However, regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty you are not allowed to interfere with an ongoing investigation - that's a crime. It's called obstruction, and Trump was not exonerated of it. He was also not charged for the crime because the Special Prosecutor's office interpreted the law as saying that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime, hence, they had no authority to determine guilt or innocence either. That would be the job of congress
But you know, keep on spouting whatever Fox News dribble you want to, I know no rational argument will ever make a dent in a MAGA mind...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
>>>>investigators are
>>>>investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed (as in this case), they are supposed to say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed."
That's normally how it works, but the normal rules do not apply to a sitting president, who is in fact "above the law" under long standing DOJ policy. As Mueller explained this morning, (1) it would make little sense to issue an indictment because a sitting president cannot be indicted, and (2) because a sitting president cannot be charged with a federal crime, it would be inherently unfair to otherwise formally accuse of him of committing a crime when there is no mechanism (i.e. criminal trial) to vindicate himself. Instead, the process of dealing with a president who has allegedly committed a crime is to present the evidence to the House to decide whether to initiate an impeachment proceeding, which, at least at this point, won't happen or would not be successful for purely political reasons.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
“Not exonerated” is not a
“Not exonerated” is not a standard in our system, and it shouldn’t be one in our culture, either. Investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed (as in this case), they are supposed to say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed.” They are not supposed to look for evidence that a crime was not committed and then say, “We couldn’t find evidence of innocence.”<<<
Thom, I believe you're either missing or ignoring the conundrum of how Mueller and the OSC has essentially been relegated to the legal space of "no man's land" as Ken has just outlined.
By stating the POTUS is "not exonerated", IMO Mueller is clearly deferring to the recourse of impeachment proceedings, or perhaps further debate regarding DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president.
My motivation is the removal of what appears to be a duly elected president who's crossed a "line" (obstruction) that has undermined any notion of trust & fitness to hold the highest office in the land.
Personally, I believe an impeachment inquiry needs to begin immediately; regardless of the outcome in the Senate (or the 2020 election for that matter). This sort of behavior simply can't be allowed to occur without an attempt of an appropriate oversight response from Congress.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Rasputin O'Leary
Well put Javs + Ken. Too bad
Well put Javs, Ken + Face. Too bad there's not a trump supporter alive that can comprehend what you so eloquently stated.
In their deficient minds, today was just more vindication.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Lucky Day
>>>>>It wasn't his job to
>>>>>It wasn't his job to exonerate Trump
Then why were Republicans including Trump saying the report exonerated him?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bucky Badger
Trump’s base, the Thom’s of
Trump’s base, the Thom’s of the world, are beyond hope. They hated the last president because of his skin color, and they love the Mafia President. Reasoning with them is a fool’s errand. 2+2=5.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
Dershowitz: Shame on Robert
Dershowitz: Shame on Robert Mueller for exceeding his role
Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.
Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor, and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445983-dershowitz-shame-on-robert-...
But of course the rules are different when Trump is involved. His very presence is an affront to the pieties of the progressive left and, being evil incarnate, he must be removed or at least impeded by any means necessary.
"And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Apparently most of you do.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
^Bag O'Shit, Mueller said it was not his job to indict a sitting president, he correctly indicated that this is the purview of Congress. It is clear that your intellectual and your moral deficiencies render you incapable of understanding this.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Druba
(No subject)
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Rasputin O'Leary
Douschowitz
Douschowitz
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Rasputin O'Leary
Are they're any actual trump
Are they're any actual trump lovers on this list,
or are they just yer basic run of the mill repub who wouldn't vote for Jesus if he was a democrat ?
Nobody, no matter how devoted to their party, can actually love the dotard.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: g-reg
Shame on Dershowitz
Shame on Dershowitz
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
Bag’O’Thom
Bag’O’Thom
PATHETIC
Trump-Drunk Republicans Are Choosing Russia Over the Constitution
Almost every Republican elected official in Washington knows Donald Trump is unfit to be president. Try getting more than one of them to say it.
How did this happen? How did the Republican Party descend from the moral heights of Ronald Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” to this apologist sewer filled with the weak trying to reassure the weaker that weakness is a virtue?
For the first time in American history we have meticulously detailed evidence that a hostile foreign power attempted to influence the choice of an American commander in chief, and the collective Republican response is apparently, “Our side won, move on.”
The beating heart of America is courage. This is the nation born of the courage of a few who made the impossible appear inevitable. The 75th anniversary of D-Dayis upon us, and yet Republicans don’t seem capable of summoning some mix of courage and decency to put country over their next primary. Courage is not standing up to Donald Trump. Courage is getting out of the boat when the man in front of you was just shot. That’s the legacy these Republicans are squandering and it should be called out for what it is: shameful.
The congressmen and senators of the party whose unofficial slogan is now “Lock her/him up” have a constitutional duty to defend our country and they are failing. It’s not an elective they are auditing for no credit at night school, it’s a sworn oath:
"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
It baffles me that any member of Congress or senator can read the Mueller Report, describing how the Russians referred to their campaign to help elect Donald Trump as “information warfare,” and not respond as if America was under attack. The modern Republican Party that has pushed the Pentagon budget to over $700 billion a year, that supports American military personnel in over 150 countries, those same Republicans have suddenly decided that Lenin’s “useful idiots” are their new role models.
Why? These are not stupid men and women, though more than a few do a fair imitation. Each will have their own justifications that amount to a personal Faustian bargain predicated on the self-delusion that some particular issue or cause is more important than their oath of office. But equally powerful will be the reinforcing group mentality that Rep. Justin Amash describes:
“My colleagues tell me all the time—in fact, you wouldn’t believe how many phone conversations I’ve had, or conversations in person with colleagues... A lot of them think I’m right about the Mueller Report. And they just won’t say it. A lot of Republicans. What they’ll say to me is, Justin, you know, going out publicly with that, you know the Democrats will never support you. You know that they’re hypocrites on this stuff. And I say, you know, some of them are and some of them aren’t. It doesn’t matter to me. Because you have to look at what you’re doing first. You have to care about what you’re doing. If you have a society where all we care about is that the other side is bad, and therefore we don’t have to do the right thing, that society will break down, and you will have no liberty. I refuse to be a part of that.”
At the heart of the Trump presidency is a lie: almost every Republican elected official in Washington knows Donald Trump is unfit to be president. They knew it on Nov. 9, 2016, at 7 p.m., when they were planning on how to rebuild the party from the disaster of a nominating a know-nothing racist for president; and they knew it at midnight, when they were all frantically calling the oddballs and kooks Trump had assembled into a campaign to lavishly praise their brilliance.
The Republican Party stood by a candidate who ran on a religious test to enter the United States. They knew it was unconstitutional and indecent, but they were silent. All through 2016 I had conversations with what passes for leadership in the Republican Party on the need to stand up to Trump. Most of their responses went like this: “Trump is a disaster and a disgrace. But we have to let him lose on his own. If we, the Establishment, put our thumbs on the scale, when he loses it will be our fault and not the fault of his racism, the alt-right, those idiots at Breitbart. We will have elected Hillary Clinton. We have to let him lose and rebuild.”
To which I always responded, “But what if he wins?” Truth was, though, I didn’t think he would win, and I wasn’t great at making the case for something I didn’t believe. What these Republican leaders were saying wasn’t crazy. It just proved to be wrong. And in that miscalculation began the surrender of any sense of self to Donald Trump. So now the nation is in full possession of the reality that Russians—Russians, for cryin’ out loud—worked on the same side as every Republican volunteer, donor, elected official and Trump voter. When you learn that the bank you borrowed money from was actually owned by a drug cartel, should your first reaction be, “Well, we got a good interest rate”? The simple reality is that the Republican Party was in business with Russian intelligence efforts, what used to be known as the KGB, and precious few leading the Republican Party seem to give a damn.
I’ve spent decades waking up every morning eager to fight Democrats, trying to gain every bit of advantage for every battle. God knows we made mistakes and played too often on the Dark Side. But I never woke up knowing that somewhere out there a Russian agent was waking up with the same job I had.
My dad was in the FBI when Hoover ordered the roundup of Asian Americans. He hated it and quit, joined the Navy and spent the next three years fighting in the South Pacific. Like so many, he didn’t talk a lot about the war but when it came to leaving the FBI, he told me once, “You can always say no.”
And that’s my question to all those Republicans who are more worried about defending Donald Trump than defending America: Is this why you went into politics? Is this why you put up with all the bullshit and stupidity that is integral to our political system, so you can be on the same side as the Russians?
You can always say no. Try it.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
Thom supports gerrymandering
Thom supports gerrymandering
All is fair in love and war - particularly when it comes to hating Democrats
at all costs
https://apple.news/Ac3Sv-yb2QdGBifllPwBcRw
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
More on the liar in chief
More on the liar in chief if we’re all lucky I’m gonna take a break
https://apple.news/AM017PpxuSdC_0CK9Th5kMQ
The funniest lies are about how about how he thinks he’s intelligent
Yet guards his transcripts and test scores better than he guards his testicles
a question for you republican whores while I’m at it
ciao
how much money do you think Trump has spent golfing and For political rallies in his short presidency and how much of the payments of government business have gone directly to his businesses
And after a lifetime of practicing is not a good liar he’s too fucking stupid and egotistical
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: An organ grinder’s tune
https://trumpgolfcount.com/
https://trumpgolfcount.com/#costModal
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino
If anyone is interested in a
If anyone is interested in a complete refutation of Dershowitz on the Mueller presser you can find it here. Bottom line - Mueller didn’t say anything yesterday that wasn’t in his report. The only thing that changed yesterday is that Barr was exposed for the lying piece of shit that he is.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/conservatives-stunned-by-mueller-...