Jump to content

Mueller says Trump was not exonerated but Trump declares victory


webfact

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, jcsmith said:

This post makes no sense.

 

For one, the obstruction did not happen under Obama's watch. And for two, the investigation was launched into the interference under Obama's watch. Obama didn't interfere in the investigation, because President's shouldn't have their thumb on the justice department.

You think Clinton said the same thing?

In a private, secret meeting in the plane on the tarmac?

Oh wait....  they only discussed the grandkids... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 397
  • Created
  • Last Reply
53 minutes ago, quandow said:

I broke down and read the report (yes, VERY dry, it took some effort), and am SHOCKED at the level of criminal activity the Trump campaign was involved in. The same as I couldn't believe Hillary got away with HER criminal acts, I can't see how Trump remains a free man. This shit has got to STOP - too many politicians are emboldened every time they see no legal action brought against these evil people. It's becoming a horrific norm. Sure, politicians have always been dodgy, but Trump has taken it to an unforgivable level and needs to be stopped.

Good post. The only place we may differ is that I believe the problems are much deeper and for a longer time that you suggest.  So I have a question. If both party's and much of Washington are above the law and corrupt, why would you accept the Mueller report at face value? I can't, especially now that I see Mueller was almost certainly not the driving force, probably a figurehead to garner respect. I don't know the answer but agree its all must stop.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Weird, if you're so sure hes done all these things then it should be no problem getting his impeachment and prosecution thereafter.

That Trump has perpetrated these crimes is a matter of record. The chilling fact is the Republican held Senate will back Trump regardless of what he does because he speaks to the base. A very White Nationalist base. Impeachment starts with Congress then has to be approved by the Senate, and they've come right out and said they won't vote for impeachment no matter WHAT crimes Trump has committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, rabas said:

If both party's and much of Washington are above the law and corrupt, why would you accept the Mueller report at face value?

If there had been as little as a misplaced semi-colon, Republicans would have been all OVER it. They cannot dispute the facts as they stand. There were some fine points where they tried to give Mueller a "Gotcha!" moment, but they fell flat when Mueller explained the logic behind them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, quandow said:

That Trump has perpetrated these crimes is a matter of record. The chilling fact is the Republican held Senate will back Trump regardless of what he does because he speaks to the base. A very White Nationalist base. Impeachment starts with Congress then has to be approved by the Senate, and they've come right out and said they won't vote for impeachment no matter WHAT crimes Trump has committed.

Mueller said he found Trump had no connection with Russia and had done nothing wrong about Russia.  Look it up in the report if you don't believe me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Weird, if you're so sure hes done all these things then it should be no problem getting his impeachment and prosecution thereafter. 
 
And yet, hes STILL you're president, most of the US public DOES NOT support impeachment, hes garnered more re-election money than almost all the Dem candidates combined, and Ill wager that his approval numbers go up and Independent voters move even farther away from impeachment after this sham Mueller testimony.


He was never prosecuted far any of that because that all happened back when he was a Democrat donor glad-handing with the Clintons.

My how times have changed...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, quandow said:

That Trump has perpetrated these crimes is a matter of record. The chilling fact is the Republican held Senate will back Trump regardless of what he does because he speaks to the base. A very White Nationalist base. Impeachment starts with Congress then has to be approved by the Senate, and they've come right out and said they won't vote for impeachment no matter WHAT crimes Trump has committed.

The whole White Nationalist crap is getting old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

I imagine theres 50 or 60 politicians and a minority of voters that would like him impeached. "The Squad" being the most vocal, and the most unliked, and the best for Republicans to put on blast. 

 

Outside of the extremist left echo chamber, most people are happy enough with Trump to not support impeachment - to the point that Pelosi keeps blocking any effort to try it. 

That is very misleading.

Lots of democrats don't want to impeach because they know the senate won't convict and that will give 45 a boost.

So your statement that most are happy enough with 45 is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is very misleading.
Lots of democrats don't want to impeach because they know the senate won't convict and that will give 45 a boost.
So your statement that most are happy enough with 45 is false.


If the majority of Americans want the President impeached, and the house moved ahead with impeachment and the senate blocked it, would it not make it relatively certain the the dems would win the Whitehouse, take the senate and hold the house?

The dems aren’t moving on it because they know the people don’t want it. At 44% Trump’s ratings are almost as high as they have ever been and will likely get a bump from the Mueller debacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

Mueller said he found Trump had no connection with Russia and had done nothing wrong about Russia.  Look it up in the report if you don't believe me.  

No he didnt. if u read the report u would know that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Xavnel said:

You think Clinton said the same thing?

In a private, secret meeting in the plane on the tarmac?

Oh wait....  they only discussed the grandkids... 

Enlighten me. What does bill clinton have to do with a thread about trump doing illegal acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So your statement that most are happy enough with 45 is false.

 

What I actually said was that people are happy enough with trump not to support impeachment, and thats a straight up fact. 

But again, much like the other thread you guys hold the house, if youre so sure then do something about it and impeach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

What I actually said was that people are happy enough with trump not to support impeachment, and thats a straight up fact. 

But again, much like the other thread you guys hold the house, if youre so sure then do something about it and impeach. 

Again. Misleading. I already explained why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jingthing said:

Again. Misleading. I already explained why. 

 

Not misleading, you just don't want to accept it so you're trying to play the denialism game. 

 

You guys have even lost Independents over 70% of them don't support impeachment, and those are the votes you need to win elections. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No he didnt. if u read the report u would know that


Yes, everyone that has read the report agrees Trump is guilty, because everyone on the left has read every page of it and they all know he’s guilty.

Now if they can just get Nancy to read it she’ll move ahead with impeachment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sujo said:
1 hour ago, marcusarelus said:

Mueller said he found Trump had no connection with Russia and had done nothing wrong about Russia.  Look it up in the report if you don't believe me.  

No he didnt. if u read the report u would know that

New York Times...

 

Mr. Collins also tried to focus what the investigation did not find, asking whether it was accurate that it did not establish that the president “was involved in underlying crime of Russia interference.”

 

Mr. Mueller’s response was legalistic: “We found insufficient evidence of the president’s culpability.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/mueller-testimony.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 


If the majority of Americans want the President impeached, and the house moved ahead with impeachment and the senate blocked it, would it not make it relatively certain the the dems would win the Whitehouse, take the senate and hold the house?

The dems aren’t moving on it because they know the people don’t want it. At 44% Trump’s ratings are almost as high as they have ever been and will likely get a bump from the Mueller debacle.
 

 

Nope don’t think so exposing Donald’s dereliction of duty to protect our democracy and the crimes (as potus can’t be charged)combined with his stripping of health care his corporate welfare tax scam plus’s his total inability to govern and his many foreign relations fiascos don’t think so dump Donald trump 2020

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Telling people to "rEaD ThE rEpOrT" all the time is not an argument. 

It's not an argument, it's the truth, the foundation of what we SHOULD be discussing. Most people here are merely throwing out regurgitated spins from their perspective mouthpieces (Fox vs CNN vs Facebook). The report explains in black and white the facts of the Russian interference as well as the crimes Trump committed and WHY Mueller could not at this time bring Trump up on charges. Of course, if you had read the report, you'd already know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an argument, it's the truth, the foundation of what we SHOULD be discussing. Most people here are merely throwing out regurgitated spins from their perspective mouthpieces (Fox vs CNN vs Facebook). The report explains in black and white the facts of the Russian interference as well as the crimes Trump committed and WHY Mueller could not at this time bring Trump up on charges. Of course, if you had read the report, you'd already know that.


I agree. As you have read the report in its entirety, please start the discussion by pasting and discussing the portions of the report you think proves his guilt.

Thank you, and I look forward to your favorable response, and the opportunity to discuss this matter further.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I agree. As you have read the report in its entirety, please start the discussion by pasting and discussing the portions of the report you think proves his guilt.
Thank you, and I look forward to your favorable response, and the opportunity to discuss this matter further.

 

Here are some of the most important words in the report:
 

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

 

"Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

 

"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220(2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

 

"The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.”  Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

 

"Fourth, 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

 

I added the emphasis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...