Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I can’t get the quote to work, but:

Discussing who supported wall funding gets in the weeds, as if you stipulate “Trumps Wall”, dems have not flipped, but walls in general, many have.

Actually I think not just most but all immigrants enter through legal points of entry. It is illegal aliens that come in “legally” and then overstay their visa, or that sneak across the border.

But how does that make the wall idiotic? Does putting insulation in your walls keep all or even most of the heat out or in? No it does not. Does that mean it’s idiotic to insulate your walls? No it does not.

What percentage of the people crossing the border have trekked through jungles, swum rivers, climbed mountains and hiked across sun-parched deserts? Illegal border crossing in an industry. People are driven to the border.

If you saw any of CNN caravan footage, you would think it’s all fat single mothers coming across, and they are definitely not climbing a wall.

That something will take a long time is a good excuse to not do it? The sooner you start the sooner your done. Seems like a great multi-year infrastructure project to me.

To put the cost into perspective, the California Bullet Train cost projection is now $77 billion which is up 20% from just two years ago, and it will likely go as high as $98 billion (that’s b like in bodacious). It’s been delayed another four years so it will not be complete until 2033 at the earliest. The train will continue to hemorrhage money after it’s done, while the starts paying for itself right away.

I’ve driven or ridden over that border at least a hundred times and flown over at least twenty. There is not much of an environment down there. Most of the environmental studies/issues popping up are just designed to stall the project. Every highway, railway, aqueduct and pipeline in the country cut homes farms and ranches in half.

I think we need to have the wall AND do any number of other things, but as long as once they get a foot in they’re in, it a lost cause.

Explain how the wall will work for what? Will it stop all illegal immigration? No.

Is there anything that will stop all illegal immigration? No.

With a wall, people either have to go over, under or around. Far and away, most people can’t go over or under, so they go around, meaning through border crossings. Going through border crossings frees up resources currently wasted patrolling hundreds of miles of dirt.

No, it won’t stop everyone.

I fail to see the equivalence between insulating the walls of one's house and building a wall in near impassable deserts and mountains.  I also don't see how comparing the cost of a useless wall to the cost of a high speed train is relevant.

 

Deserts and the riverbanks of the Rio Grande do have an environment that will be destabilized by building a wall.

 

People who have a highway built through their property do not effectively put one side of their property in another country.

 

I didn't post that people trek across mountains and deserts, I posted:  " Walls also won't be much of a deterrent for people who have traveled thousands of miles and crossed jungles, rivers, mountains and deserts to get to the US border. "  They do this travel using any means possible.  They will cross the border in the same manner, and in almost every instance do so at a legal port of entry.

 

As you stated, "but as long as once they get a foot in they’re in, it a lost cause."  Since large portions of the wall will be built in US territory the "outside" US territory, between the wall and Mexico, will make it easy for people to enter the US and claim asylum. 

 

You have failed to address my post about implementing the most cost-effective means of securing the border.  There is no evidence that a wall is cost-effective, and ample reasons to think it isn't.  How many wall proponents are asking for a cost-benefit analysis of the wall?

[mogandave]

Who reports the facts is important because few of us are in a position to personally verify the reports are accurate.  I prefer established news sources with a history of factual reporting, and a history of acknowledging mistakes.  I don't regard pundits, spin masters, and conspiracy theorists as reliable sources. 
 
Some people only trust sources that confirm their biases and beliefs.  These are the people who think they are watching news when they watch Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones or other fools pretending to be reporters.

I agree, but you forgot Wolf Blitzer, Don Lemon, Jim Acosta, Anderson Cooper and a thousand others.

[mogandave]

I fail to see the equivalence between insulating the walls of one's house and building a wall in near impassable deserts and mountains.  I also don't see how comparing the cost of a useless wall to the cost of a high speed train is relevant.

 

Deserts and the riverbanks of the Rio Grande do have an environment that will be destabilized by building a wall.

 

People who have a highway built through their property do not effectively put one side of their property in another country.

 

I didn't post that people trek across mountains and deserts, I posted:  " Walls also won't be much of a deterrent for people who have traveled thousands of miles and crossed jungles, rivers, mountains and deserts to get to the US border. "  They do this travel using any means possible.  They will cross the border in the same manner, and in almost every instance do so at a legal port of entry.

 

As you stated, "but as long as once they get a foot in they’re in, it a lost cause."  Since large portions of the wall will be built in US territory the "outside" US territory, between the wall and Mexico, will make it easy for people to enter the US and claim asylum. 

 

You have failed to address my post about implementing the most cost-effective means of securing the border.  There is no evidence that a wall is cost-effective, and ample reasons to think it isn't.  How many wall proponents are asking for a cost-benefit analysis of the wall?

 

I would like to see a cost benefit analysis, but not one of the thousand that pop up in Google by media outlets quoting “independent economists “

 

The arguments against the wall would be more convincing, if the people making them really wanted to do something else to stop the flow.

 

So what do you think should be done to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into the country?

Change asylum policies?

Eliminate sanctuary cities?

Deport illegal aliens if they’re arrested?

 

I seems you guys claim you don’t want open borders, but you don’t want to stop anyone from coming in.

 

Again, what do you think should be done to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into the county?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I would like to see a cost benefit analysis, but not one of the thousand that pop up in Google by media outlets quoting “independent economists “

 

The arguments against the wall would be more convincing, if the people making them really wanted to do something else to stop the flow.

 

So what do you think should be done to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into the country?

Change asylum policies?

Eliminate sanctuary cities?

Deport illegal aliens if they’re arrested?

 

I seems you guys claim you don’t want open borders, but you don’t want to stop anyone from coming in.

 

Again, what do you think should be done to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into the county?

The country needs immigration; with ageing baby boomers and insufficient new workers we have a demographic problem.  I don't want to stop immigration.  I'm not worried that the complexion of the US is becoming browner with immigration.

 

Illegal immigration can be reduced by:

 

Making it easier to bring guest workers into the country where they are needed.

Expand the visa program for people with in-demand skills.

Aggressively investigate and prosecute those who hire illegal workers.

Greatly improve inspection capabilities at all ports of entry to catch illegal entries and contraband entering the country.

 

I don't think we should defy international laws on asylum.  A great deal of the violence driving people to illegally cross our border is caused by demand for illegal drugs in the US and US guns illegally crossing our border heading south.  We are part of the problem.

 

Deporting illegal aliens who have been arrested needs to be done on a case by case basis.   People arrested for violent crimes should definitely be deported.  People arrested with an expired license who have been in the country for years, worked honestly, started a family of US citizens, and will leave this family on welfare if they are deported, should not.

 

I don't agree with a one-size fits all approach to the wide variety of circumstances of the millions of illegal immigrants in the US.  Do you think Melania Trump should be deported, along with her family, if it is determined she did nude modeling work on a tourist visa long ago?  Much like her husband, she refuses to release the information that could answer the question.   https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-politics-melania-immigration-20160914-snap-story.html

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I agree, but you forgot Wolf Blitzer, Don Lemon, Jim Acosta, Anderson Cooper and a thousand others.
 

That's why I get the majority of my news from reading, not watching television.  More people should try it.

[candide]

9 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I would like to see a cost benefit analysis, but not one of the thousand that pop up in Google by media outlets quoting “independent economists “

 

The arguments against the wall would be more convincing, if the people making them really wanted to do something else to stop the flow.

 

So what do you think should be done to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into the country?

Change asylum policies?

Eliminate sanctuary cities?

Deport illegal aliens if they’re arrested?

 

I seems you guys claim you don’t want open borders, but you don’t want to stop anyone from coming in.

 

Again, what do you think should be done to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into the county?

Actually, several very serious analyses on border control have been made, in particular by the OIG. Of course they don't appeal to most of Trump's core supporters who need something simple like "just build a wall!" 

https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-70-SR-Jun17.pdf

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P13123.pdf

I have no doubt these reports will satisfy your intellectual curiosity.

 

Anyway, as mentioned several times, most illegal immigrants enter with a valid visa and then overstay. So a better border control will not bring any solutions to the core source of illegal immigration. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Thakkar]

On 5/30/2019 at 2:09 PM, Berkshire said:

Geez man, Trump "diminishes the prestige of the office" on a daily basis.  Here's a new one which is just too bizarre to be believed.  There's a US Navy ship named the USS John S. McCain homeported in Yokosuka, Japan.  While Trump was there a few days ago....

 

[The White House asked Navy officials to obscure the USS John S. McCain while President Trump was visiting Japan, Pentagon and White House officials said Wednesday night.]

[A senior White House official also confirmed that they did not want the destroyer with the McCain name seen in photographs.]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/white-house-wanted-uss-john-s-mccain-obscured-during-trumps-japan-visit/ar-AAC6DWI?ocid=wispr

 

Of course, Trump denies he was aware, but since he lies constantly, I'd tend to believe the Wall Street Journal. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 2:44 PM, heybruce said:

He has also revealed highly classified foreign intelligence to Russia, a crime for which anyone else would have gone to prison.

Really? Isn't it true that Trump can declassify any document he wants to? He is after all THE PRESIDENT.

 

On ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 2:44 PM, heybruce said:

Trump had no government or military experience when he entered office.

Which was precisely WHY he was elected, IMO. The populace having had enough of the swamp elected someone they thought was not part of that swamp.

Also because his opponent was worse than him, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, heybruce said:

I fail to see the equivalence between insulating the walls of one's house and building a wall in near impassable deserts and mountains.  I also don't see how comparing the cost of a useless wall to the cost of a high speed train is relevant.

 

Deserts and the riverbanks of the Rio Grande do have an environment that will be destabilized by building a wall.

 

People who have a highway built through their property do not effectively put one side of their property in another country.

 

I didn't post that people trek across mountains and deserts, I posted:  " Walls also won't be much of a deterrent for people who have traveled thousands of miles and crossed jungles, rivers, mountains and deserts to get to the US border. "  They do this travel using any means possible.  They will cross the border in the same manner, and in almost every instance do so at a legal port of entry.

 

As you stated, "but as long as once they get a foot in they’re in, it a lost cause."  Since large portions of the wall will be built in US territory the "outside" US territory, between the wall and Mexico, will make it easy for people to enter the US and claim asylum. 

 

You have failed to address my post about implementing the most cost-effective means of securing the border.  There is no evidence that a wall is cost-effective, and ample reasons to think it isn't.  How many wall proponents are asking for a cost-benefit analysis of the wall?

All irrelevant. He promised a wall on his campaign and hence he must endeavour to fulfil that promise. Or would you prefer him to have lied about it? 

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

The country needs immigration; with ageing baby boomers and insufficient new workers we have a demographic problem.  I don't want to stop immigration.  I'm not worried that the complexion of the US is becoming browner with immigration.

 

Illegal immigration can be reduced by:

 

Making it easier to bring guest workers into the country where they are needed.

Expand the visa program for people with in-demand skills.

Aggressively investigate and prosecute those who hire illegal workers.

Greatly improve inspection capabilities at all ports of entry to catch illegal entries and contraband entering the country.

 

I don't think we should defy international laws on asylum.  A great deal of the violence driving people to illegally cross our border is caused by demand for illegal drugs in the US and US guns illegally crossing our border heading south.  We are part of the problem.

 

Deporting illegal aliens who have been arrested needs to be done on a case by case basis.   People arrested for violent crimes should definitely be deported.  People arrested with an expired license who have been in the country for years, worked honestly, started a family of US citizens, and will leave this family on welfare if they are deported, should not.

 

I don't agree with a one-size fits all approach to the wide variety of circumstances of the millions of illegal immigrants in the US.  Do you think Melania Trump should be deported, along with her family, if it is determined she did nude modeling work on a tourist visa long ago?  Much like her husband, she refuses to release the information that could answer the question.   https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-politics-melania-immigration-20160914-snap-story.html

 

The US can import as many people as it needs, legally. If there is some law restricting legal immigration, it can be changed.

The only reason for allowing illegal immigration across an unblocked border is to have a large pool of underpaid workers so capitalists can make bigger profits by exploiting them.

Every politician that wants to keep illegal immigration going by not securing the border is complicit in the exploitation of illegal workers, IMO.

[ThaiBunny]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The US can import as many people as it needs, legally.

Presidential wives, for example?

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Presidential wives, for example?

Are you claiming that he was president when he married Melania?

[candide]

40 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All irrelevant. He promised a wall on his campaign and hence he must endeavour to fulfil that promise. Or would you prefer him to have lied about it? 

He promised a wall paid by Mexico. Lol!

[candide]

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

The US can import as many people as it needs, legally. If there is some law restricting legal immigration, it can be changed.

The only reason for allowing illegal immigration across an unblocked border is to have a large pool of underpaid workers so capitalists can make bigger profits by exploiting them.

Every politician that wants to keep illegal immigration going by not securing the border is complicit in the exploitation of illegal workers, IMO.

Most illigal immigrants enter with a legal visa and then overstay.....

 

On top of it, when they cross the southern border, they don't do it where there are no walls, because of natural obstacles...

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/683662691/where-does-illegal-immigration-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-us

 

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, candide said:

Most illigal immigrants enter with a legal visa and then overstay.....

 

On top of it, when they cross the southern border, they don't do it where there are no walls, because of natural obstacles...

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/683662691/where-does-illegal-immigration-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-us

 

Far as I remember, they already said the wall would not be built everywhere, like where there are natural obstacles.

[tlandtday]

Mueller has long been a frame em up hack just do some research on this sleazeball.  You may want to take a shower after you read about this reptile.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, tlandtday said:

Mueller has long been a frame em up hack just do some research on this sleazeball.  You may want to take a shower after you read about this reptile.

Funny. He was awfully polite to 45. Found 10 counts of obstruction of justice, didn't even push him to answer questions about them, and then did not indict. But he has made it clear from his POV that's not his job to prosecute a sitting and tweeting president. It's the job of congress and also prosecutors after he leaves office, the sooner the better.

[DogNo1]

Handing SE Asia to China?  Are you up to speed on the stance of the DOD and its present actions toward China.  Did you see the statement of Gen Mattis regarding China last year?  Check it out.

[tlandtday]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Funny. He was awfully polite to 45. Found 10 counts of obstruction of justice, didn't even push him to answer questions about them, and then did not indict. But he has made it clear from his POV that's not his job to prosecute a sitting and tweeting president. It's the job of congress and also prosecutors after he leaves office, the sooner the better.

You are skirting the issue I am talking about his past not the current dog and pony show.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Really? Isn't it true that Trump can declassify any document he wants to? He is after all THE PRESIDENT.

 

Which was precisely WHY he was elected, IMO. The populace having had enough of the swamp elected someone they thought was not part of that swamp.

Also because his opponent was worse than him, IMO.

Yes, revealing highly classified foreign intelligence to the Russian ambassador was legal, and incredibly stupid and harmful to the country.  Are you ok with that?

 

As I have explained repeatedly, giving someone the nuclear codes and the power to start a nuclear war when that person doesn't even understand the basics of nuclear deterrence is stupid.  Don't you agree?

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All irrelevant. He promised a wall on his campaign and hence he must endeavour to fulfil that promise. Or would you prefer him to have lied about it? 

He promised a wall paid for by Mexico.  He also promised better healthcare than the Affordable Care Act at a lower price.  He promised to eliminate the deficit.  He promised to drain the swamp, then filled his administration with ethically conflicted industry insiders and lobbyists.

 

Trump promised a lot of things.  When will you realize that he will keep making unkept promises for as long as people cheer him for his lies?

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

The US can import as many people as it needs, legally. If there is some law restricting legal immigration, it can be changed.

The only reason for allowing illegal immigration across an unblocked border is to have a large pool of underpaid workers so capitalists can make bigger profits by exploiting them.

Every politician that wants to keep illegal immigration going by not securing the border is complicit in the exploitation of illegal workers, IMO.

Read my post.  I'm advocating better border security where it will do some good.  I'm arguing against spending tens of billions on useless walls.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, tlandtday said:

Mueller has long been a frame em up hack just do some research on this sleazeball.  You may want to take a shower after you read about this reptile.

Rather than ask others to do your research for you, why don't you do the research and provide the references here?

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, DogNo1 said:

Handing SE Asia to China?  Are you up to speed on the stance of the DOD and its present actions toward China.  Did you see the statement of Gen Mattis regarding China last year?  Check it out.

Did I see the statement of the General who left the Trump administration because his advice was being ignored?  No, why is it relevant?

 

The military and State Department have been on autopilot regarding SE Asia, more or less following the policies of the Obama administration.  There has been no high level leadership to give these policies emphasis or a new direction.

[candide]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Rather than ask others to do your research for you, why don't you do the research and provide the references here?

It's because he knows there is nothing to find. ????

[candide]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

if you cared to read the entire thing, it is much more than a sentence left out. but you can ignore the purposeful distortions

Mueller has presented. I mean all we ever heard was you wanted the whole report, shouldn't you want all the information

it was based on to see if it is accurate and unbiased?

I agree with you that the more extensive and transparent it is, the better (Ahem, I am not sure that was your position for the Mueller report ;))

I read the article and this sentence part was what they put forward. What are exactly the other missing parts that alter significantly the meaning of the transcript and how? What you have quoted in your post are comments expressed by Dowd and a law expert, but they don't provide any precision on what exactly was allegedly misleading. It's nice to know that Dowd is (pretending to be?) outraged, but what is the precise argumentation?

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

to further the upcoming disaster for the special counsel:

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/doj-rebuffs-judges-order-to-release-transcripts-of-michael-flynns-conversations-with-russian-envoy

 

this will not work out well for the prosecution. Flynn will be exonerated when it all gets uncovered

I'm confused; do you want full transparency or not?  Mueller no longer works for the DOJ, so this is Attorney General Barr's prosecutors withholding evidence from the courts.  How will that be a disaster for Mueller?  How will the DOJ defying a court order exonerate Flynn, who has already pleaded guilty? 

 

Most important:  Do you think the DOJ defying the judiciary is a good thing?  It seems like the beginnings of a constitutional crisis to me.

[DogNo1]

The Chinese are a much greater danger to the US than the Russians.  On the advice of Gen. Robert Spalding, a senior adviser to DOD and the NSC, the US is decoupling technologically from China.  Hopefully financial decoupling will come too.  The American Depository Receipts sold by Wall Street are junk.  NO Chinese financial documents are reliable.  A trade agreement will NOT be signed.  For complete details and up-to-date information, see Gen. Spalding's lecture on American Thought Leaders on You Tube.

 

All this political fussing over Russia is ridiculous.  We need to face the greater danger - China. 

 

 

 

[bendejo]

What has become evident, IMO, is that the FBI leans toward the Republicans.

Comey threw a monkey wrench into Hillary's campaign weeks before the 2016 election to avoid facing the wrath of the GOP, said so himself in plain words.

Mueller stopped short of naming and shaming DT because of the rules.  Republican prosecutor Ken Starr was not hindered by these supposed rules when pursuing Bill Clinton with the infamous semen-stained dress.

The Dems can do the impeachment proceedings, but with no support from the Senate and the Dept. of Justice bought off there is a snowball's chance in hell they will get removal.

 

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, DogNo1 said:

The Chinese are a much greater danger to the US than the Russians.  On the advice of Gen. Robert Spalding, a senior adviser to DOD and the NSC, the US is decoupling technologically from China.  Hopefully financial decoupling will come too.  The American Depository Receipts sold by Wall Street are junk.  NO Chinese financial documents are reliable.  A trade agreement will NOT be signed.  For complete details and up-to-date information, see Gen. Spalding's lecture on American Thought Leaders on You Tube.

 

All this political fussing over Russia is ridiculous.  We need to face the greater danger - China.

China needs to be dealt with, preferably with allies, not Trump's go it alone approach.

 

However to suggest that Russia's past and future attempts to meddle in our elections and undermine democracy is ridiculous fussing, implying we shouldn't worry about it, is much more ridiculous. 

 

 

[elmrfudd]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

I'm confused; do you want full transparency or not?  Mueller no longer works for the DOJ, so this is Attorney General Barr's prosecutors withholding evidence from the courts.  How will that be a disaster for Mueller?  How will the DOJ defying a court order exonerate Flynn, who has already pleaded guilty? 

 

Most important:  Do you think the DOJ defying the judiciary is a good thing?  It seems like the beginnings of a constitutional crisis to me.

I want it all released, everything they are asking for.

 

the constitutional crisis began years ago when unverified information was used to start surveillance on american citizens in an opposing political campaign.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

I want it all released, everything they are asking for.

 

the constitutional crisis began years ago when unverified information was used to start surveillance on american citizens in an opposing political campaign.

Still drinking the Fox News kool-aid.  The investigation into Russian interference and possible involvement of the Trump campaign was based on much more than the Steele dossier, and enough of the dossier was verified by other intelligence for it to be taken somewhat seriously.

 

The DOJ defying the courts, the DOJ defying congress, the Treasury defying congress, Trump claiming executive privilege for everything, including stuff that happened before he was President; these are constitutional crisis things.

Edited June 5, 2019 by heybruce