You are not logged in. Please register or login.

mitchejw
 Rep: 128 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
PaSnow wrote:

Gotta admit Pelosis handling this well. Considering only a year or so ago she was considered a wacko left wing radical.

I think pelosi is chessing it out for sure.

mitchejw
 Rep: 128 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:
PaSnow wrote:

If he DID NOT commit a crime, we would have said so.
Mueller did not say so.
Hence, Trump DID commit a crime.

Its simple logical formula. Flagg can even vouch for that, he prolly knows Java or C+ computer programming arguments.

Also,
We did not seek to charge him with a crime, due to longstanding policy that a president cant be charged with a crime.

And
We didn't comment on if we found he commited a crime, since he wouldnt have a chance in court to essentially clear his name.

That makes no sense. If that's the case, even if you can't charge him, you can state exactly what he did that would lead to impeach. Otherwise he should have resigned two years ago and not spent tens of millions of dollars if his conclusion was: "we're not saying he did or did not do anything, but if he did we could not charge him, so we can't say one way or another, so please don't ask me about this ever again."

It seems to me that it was Mueller’s job to collect information and put it all together. It was not his job to persecute or prosecute.

misterID
 Rep: 468 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

Then he failed on all counts. He recommended the Congress take care of it, but there was nothing to go on. You can't impeach someone based on "maybe he" or "he probably" so he's not helping the people who actually *want* to impeach him.

mitchejw
 Rep: 128 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:

Then he failed on all counts. He recommended the Congress take care of it, but there was nothing to go on. You can't impeach someone based on "maybe he" or "he probably" so he's not helping the people who actually *want* to impeach him.

It’s not his job to impeach. It’s not his job to want. No matter how this turns out, i think he did a phenomenal job.

Congress should take care of it just like they have every other time this has happened.

PaSnow
 Rep: 205 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
misterID wrote:

Then he failed on all counts. He recommended the Congress take care of it, but there was nothing to go on. You can't impeach someone based on "maybe he" or "he probably" so he's not helping the people who actually *want* to impeach him.

Muellers a lifelong Republican, so he was never in it to "help out" the people who want to impeach.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 129 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
misterID wrote:

Then he failed on all counts. He recommended the Congress take care of it, but there was nothing to go on. You can't impeach someone based on "maybe he" or "he probably" so he's not helping the people who actually *want* to impeach him.

Muellers a lifelong Republican, so he was never in it to "help out" the people who want to impeach.

I’m not participating in the larger discussion, but this is a copout. Mueller was nothing but a professional. He’s the standard by which all honorable public servants should emulate. The guy didn’t seek the adoration of the press and elite who called him “our last safeguard of democracy”.  He kept his mouth shut and did the work. To even suggest he allowed personal political affiliation to influence his work, despite a President who admonished him publicly, and politicians and pundits who fabricated his words and thoughts, is to dishonor and discredit his exemplary handling of this investigation. That’s not cool.

Everyone wanted Mueller to reach a clear verdict. On collusion, the justification for the entire spectacle, Mueller did reach that verdict. And he contrasted that finality with the ambiguity of Obstruction charges.

The idea that a sitting President isn’t capable of being indicted isn’t new or novel. It’s the same standard that was followed when Starr determined Clinton had objectively committed perjury, but couldn’t indict. It’s only deficiency is that it hasn’t been affirmed in writing by the Supreme Court. Just like giving birthright citizenship to anchor babies hasn’t been affirmed by SCOTUS; everyone just assumes it.

Mueller didn’t opine officially on obstruction, but as he made clear today, he can’t say “no evidence exists  to support this allegation” like he can with conspiracy to collude. Mueller also refused to take questions and warned Congress (House Democrats) he won’t testify on anything outside of the written report - something CNN and other outlets are ignoring. You and everyone else can speculate whether unique presidential authority via oversight and DoJ policy against indictment is all that stands between Trump and indictment - I’m done with that discussion. But Mueller made it clear he couldn’t make that decision based on reality, and reaffirmed the reality Congress alone has the authority to remove a President.

But we all know impeachment won’t happen because the Senate will never vote 67 in favor. And House leadership is cognizant of the dangers in pursuing a failed impeachment that could harm their success in 2020.

There’s great irony in potentially seeing Trump impeached for the exact same charges Congress brought against Clinton and acquitted him for. 20 years later no less. I guess the comparisons between the two now extends beyond lifestyle and policy.

misterID
 Rep: 468 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:

Then he failed on all counts. He recommended the Congress take care of it, but there was nothing to go on. You can't impeach someone based on "maybe he" or "he probably" so he's not helping the people who actually *want* to impeach him.

It’s not his job to impeach. It’s not his job to want. No matter how this turns out, i think he did a phenomenal job.

Congress should take care of it just like they have every other time this has happened.

I didn't say it was his job to impeach. He didn't really do anything in regards to the President but be incredibly vague. He said he couldn't bring charges and left it up to congress to act, but didn't give them anything to act on. I have yet to hear what Trump actually obstructed. Mueller finished his investigation unimpeded.

PaSnow
 Rep: 205 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:

unFUCKINGbelievable.


mitchejw
 Rep: 128 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
misterID wrote:

Then he failed on all counts. He recommended the Congress take care of it, but there was nothing to go on. You can't impeach someone based on "maybe he" or "he probably" so he's not helping the people who actually *want* to impeach him.

It’s not his job to impeach. It’s not his job to want. No matter how this turns out, i think he did a phenomenal job.

Congress should take care of it just like they have every other time this has happened.

I didn't say it was his job to impeach. He didn't really do anything in regards to the President but be incredibly vague. He said he couldn't bring charges and left it up to congress to act, but didn't give them anything to act on. I have yet to hear what Trump actually obstructed. Mueller finished his investigation unimpeded.

Unimpeded? Really?

misterID
 Rep: 468 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

Was he prevented from conducting his investigation exactly how he wanted? What part of his investigation did Trump interfere with?

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB