Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Mueller says Trump was not exonerated but Trump declares victory

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

if u read the report u would know that

 

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

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Edited by rabas
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Tell that the current occupant of the white house who is centering his 2020 campaign around throwing them dog whistles. 

That must be in a part of the Mueller report that I didn't read.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 


Only to us. The lefties all sop that stuff up.

 

True. I guess I should have said it sounds stupid to anyone with a brain.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...