Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

Seriously?

over 2 years of this "stolen" election blather, constantly moaning that you did not get your desired result.

 

He won. Fair and square, as much as anyone else has in the past. if you are too emotionally and irrationally wrapped up

in the silly fairy tale of an election being "stolen" by "hacking the election" there is no hope you have any chance to get over it.

 

so keep up the outrage and keep your fantasy alive if you need to feed your narrative. that says all

all we need to know about your rationality.

"He won.  Fair and square, as much as anyone else has in the past."

 

I take it that you have abandoned your irrational claim that Russian interference had no affect on the outcome of the election.  Now you are equating the interference in the 2016 election that reached tens of millions of Americans with interference in past elections that had little or no reach.  I suppose that's progress.

 

Regarding fantasies about hacking the election, neither I nor anyone I know of have disputed the result of the 2016 election.  Horrible as it is, Trump is the President.  However the failure of Trump and his supporters to endorse measures to prevent future hacking is a serious threat to our democracy.  Don't you think elections should be defended from hostile foreign powers?

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not at all. IMO it was a crock from the start.

 

My beef is that Mueller has implied there is something to charge Trump over if only he was not a sitting president, but failed to indicate what "something" is.

 

He did not find sufficient evidence

Exactly. There is no "evidence" but the farce continues regardless.

 

He described actions that could have led to obstruction charges.  He explained why he didn't charge Trump.  He made it clear that the report did not exonerate Trump.  He explained that the alternative was political (impeachment) remedies. If that isn't enough for you to connect the dots, that's your problem. 

 

There is a big difference between insufficient evidence for a specific charge, and no evidence of any crime.  Take off your blinders.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"He won.  Fair and square, as much as anyone else has in the past."

 

I take it that you have abandoned your irrational claim that Russian interference had no affect on the outcome of the election.  Now you are equating the interference in the 2016 election that reached tens of millions of Americans with interference in past elections that had little or no reach.  I suppose that's progress.

 

Regarding fantasies about hacking the election, neither I nor anyone I know of have disputed the result of the 2016 election.  Horrible as it is, Trump is the President.  However the failure of Trump and his supporters to endorse measures to prevent future hacking is a serious threat to our democracy.  Don't you think elections should be defended from hostile foreign powers?

I think the US spends enough on the security services that they should be able to stop some mediocre hacking. If they can't, why not, and what does that say about their ability to prevent a real attack on the US?

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

He described actions that could have led to obstruction charges.  He explained why he didn't charge Trump.  He made it clear that the report did not exonerate Trump.  He explained that the alternative was political (impeachment) remedies. If that isn't enough for you to connect the dots, that's your problem. 

 

There is a big difference between insufficient evidence for a specific charge, and no evidence of any crime.  Take off your blinders.

Insufficient is the same as none, if it means a person can't be prosecuted. Get realistic.

The world is full of crims that weren't charged because there was insufficient proof- life is not fair. 

[thaibeachlovers]

24 minutes ago, heybruce said:

neither I nor anyone I know of have disputed the result of the 2016 election.

Perhaps so, but you haven't accepted the result, IMO, and continue to call for his ouster by some means.

Edited June 7, 2019 by thaibeachlovers

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I think the US spends enough on the security services that they should be able to stop some mediocre hacking. If they can't, why not, and what does that say about their ability to prevent a real attack on the US?

Really?  How much does the US spend on election security?

 

Are you aware that elections, both conduct and security, are a responsibility of the states?  Did you know that this responsibility is often delegated to the county level?  When electoral college results can be shifted significantly by a few thousand votes in a few key counties, what guarantee is there that election hacking won't affect results?

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Insufficient is the same as none, if it means a person can't be prosecuted. Get realistic.

The world is full of crims that weren't charged because there was insufficient proof- life is not fair. 

So you are comfortable with a President who is an uncharged criminal?

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps so, but you haven't accepted the result, IMO, and continue to call for his ouster by some means.

So you think criticizing a sitting President is the same as not accepting his legitimacy?  I assume you never criticized any sitting President.

 

As I stated a few posts back, I accept the election result as much as I hate it.  However ouster through legitimate means is on the table.

 

The fact that Trump is resisting constitutional oversight is a good reason for impeachment.  However I am confident that Trump's resistance won't hold up in court, and the reasons for his resistance will convince all but the most die-hard Trump culties that impeachment is in order.

Edited June 7, 2019 by heybruce

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So you are comfortable with a President who is an uncharged criminal?

I never said he was a criminal. I think Mueller's investigation was a scam for political reasons and that there is no evidence of collusion with the Russians because he didn't collude with them.

As for any other crimes Trump may have committed in his life, I have zero knowledge, so innocent till proven guilty.

[elmrfudd]

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

what protections do you think would work?

 

when you say republicans are "blocking" legislation, are you

referring to a bill that also contains loads of other things in it

or a singular specific bill that targets just this issue?

 

instead they come up with this ridiculous thing:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text

 

 

explain that this will stop russian interference

Please explain why a bill that would make it harder to gerrymander, expand ethics requirement, limit special interest money, and make it easier for eligible voters to vote is a bad thing.

have you actually looked at the monstrosity they put together?

 

thousand plus pages of all kinds of things to get more power, such as:

 

SEC. 2201. FINDINGS RELATING TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATEHOOD.

(more dem reps and senators)

or 

“SEC. 303A. PERMITTING USE OF SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENT TO MEET IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

no chance of this being abused is there? how stupid do you think people are to allow this BS?

 

or allowing felons to vote 

 

SEC. 1402. RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.
The right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election.

 

here is another gem of stupidity designed to get the dems more power:

 

SEC. 1094. ACCEPTANCE OF VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.

 

 

here is another ridiculous section:

SEC. 1054. GRANTS TO STATES FOR ACTIVITIES TO ENCOURAGE INVOLVEMENT OF MINORS IN ELECTION ACTIVITIES.
(a) Grants.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Election Assistance Commission (hereafter in this section referred to as the “Commission”) shall make grants to eligible States to enable such States to carry out a plan to increase the involvement of individuals under 18 years of age in public election activities in the State.

(2) CONTENTS OF PLANS.—A State’s plan under this subsection shall include—

 

 you obviously have not read the monstrous thing, it is full of these kinds of ridiculous sections designed for one thing,

increase Dem votes.

 

 

have the decency to know what nonsense you are trying to tell other people to vote for.

 

[elmrfudd]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Insufficient is the same as none, if it means a person can't be prosecuted. Get realistic.

The world is full of crims that weren't charged because there was insufficient proof- life is not fair. 

So you are comfortable with a President who is an uncharged criminal?

are you comfortable pretending you have any clue as to the facts behind your "uncharged criminal"

comment?

 

other than your opinion of course

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

have you actually looked at the monstrosity they put together?

 

thousand plus pages of all kinds of things to get more power, such as:

 

SEC. 2201. FINDINGS RELATING TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATEHOOD.

(more dem reps and senators)

or 

“SEC. 303A. PERMITTING USE OF SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENT TO MEET IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

no chance of this being abused is there? how stupid do you think people are to allow this BS?

 

or allowing felons to vote 

 

SEC. 1402. RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.
The right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election.

 

here is another gem of stupidity designed to get the dems more power:

 

SEC. 1094. ACCEPTANCE OF VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.

 

 

here is another ridiculous section:

SEC. 1054. GRANTS TO STATES FOR ACTIVITIES TO ENCOURAGE INVOLVEMENT OF MINORS IN ELECTION ACTIVITIES.
(a) Grants.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Election Assistance Commission (hereafter in this section referred to as the “Commission”) shall make grants to eligible States to enable such States to carry out a plan to increase the involvement of individuals under 18 years of age in public election activities in the State.

(2) CONTENTS OF PLANS.—A State’s plan under this subsection shall include—

 

 you obviously have not read the monstrous thing, it is full of these kinds of ridiculous sections designed for one thing,

increase Dem votes.

 

 

have the decency to know what nonsense you are trying to tell other people to vote for.

 

Your careful editing would be much more convincing it there were actual evidence of election fraud.

 

What is wrong with getting teenagers involved in elections before they are old enough to vote?

 

Why shouldn't people who have been convicted of a crime and satisfied all penalties be allowed to vote?

 

How often have people who have no legal right to vote been caught voting?

 

Why do you thing voting fraud is a bigger problem than lack of voter participation in elections?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So you think criticizing a sitting President is the same as not accepting his legitimacy?  I assume you never criticized any sitting President.

 

As I stated a few posts back, I accept the election result as much as I hate it.  However ouster through legitimate means is on the table.

 

The fact that Trump is resisting constitutional oversight is a good reason for impeachment.  However I am confident that Trump's resistance won't hold up in court, and the reasons for his resistance will convince all but the most die-hard Trump culties that impeachment is in order.

IMO the present attacks on Trump far exceed the normal political discourse, and are breaking the USA.

Has any other president been subject to such excessive and long continual attacks?

The Dems should be careful of what they wish for, as if the next president is a Democrat, they can expect a repeat of the same on them.

 

While impeachment is obviously the Dem's aim, chances of success are slim to zero, so what is the point, other than causing more chaos?

However, I'm comforted to remember that should Trump be impeached and removed, Pence will make the Dems regret that they did so. I'm almost tempted to hope Trump is impeached just to see Pence in action.

 

I get the feeling that many that want Trump impeached actually believe that HRC will take over, because they don't understand that the VP does.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

are you comfortable pretending you have any clue as to the facts behind your "uncharged criminal"

comment?

 

other than your opinion of course

Yes, I'm comfortable that if Trump were not President he would have been charged with obstruction of justice.  Of course if Trump were not President he would have been charged early in his term when he shared highly classified foreign intelligence with the Russian ambassador.

[Chomper Higgot]

48 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not at all. IMO it was a crock from the start.

 

My beef is that Mueller has implied there is something to charge Trump over if only he was not a sitting president, but failed to indicate what "something" is.

 

He did not find sufficient evidence

Exactly. There is no "evidence" but the farce continues regardless.

 

I encourage you to read the report.

 

Doing so will give you the opportunity to replace the misrepresentations you’ve Ben fed and swallowed with some cold hard facts.

Edited June 7, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Why shouldn't people who have been convicted of a crime and satisfied all penalties be allowed to vote?

Because they are bad people that chose to be outside the law?

Unless it was just unpaid parking tickets, real criminals should not have the right to choose politicians that can make laws relating to criminals.

[heybruce]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the present attacks on Trump far exceed the normal political discourse, and are breaking the USA.

Has any other president been subject to such excessive and long continual attacks?

The Dems should be careful of what they wish for, as if the next president is a Democrat, they can expect a repeat of the same on them.

 

While impeachment is obviously the Dem's aim, chances of success are slim to zero, so what is the point, other than causing more chaos?

However, I'm comforted to remember that should Trump be impeached and removed, Pence will make the Dems regret that they did so. I'm almost tempted to hope Trump is impeached just to see Pence in action.

 

I get the feeling that many that want Trump impeached actually believe that HRC will take over, because they don't understand that the VP does.

Your think the strictly limited Mueller investigation was worse than the Whitewater investigation of the Clinton Presidency, when Kenneth Starr was given unlimited time, money and remit to dig up any dirt he could on the Clintons?  You are wrong.  That fishing expedition lasted much longer and cost far more than the Mueller investigation.

 

"I get the feeling that many that want Trump impeached actually believe that HRC will take over, because they don't understand that the VP does."

 

You shouldn't operate on feelings.  In this case (and many others I'm sure) they are dead wrong.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Your think the strictly limited Mueller investigation was worse than the Whitewater investigation of the Clinton Presidency, when Kenneth Starr was given unlimited time, money and remit to dig up any dirt he could on the Clintons?  You are wrong.  That fishing expedition lasted much longer and cost far more than the Mueller investigation.

Just because the Starr investigation was a farce, does not excuse the Mueller investigation.

[elmrfudd]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Your careful editing would be much more convincing it there were actual evidence of election fraud.

 

What is wrong with getting teenagers involved in elections before they are old enough to vote?

 

Why shouldn't people who have been convicted of a crime and satisfied all penalties be allowed to vote?

 

How often have people who have no legal right to vote been caught voting?

 

Why do you thing voting fraud is a bigger problem than lack of voter participation in elections?

have you read any of the bill?

 

the entire thing is designed to reduce the Identity verifications.

 

you can not be that stupid to think this would ever pass....

 

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Because they are bad people that chose to be outside the law?

Unless it was just unpaid parking tickets, real criminals should not have the right to choose politicians that can make laws relating to criminals.

I see, there is no redemption in your eyes.  A mistake made years or decades ago (marijuana, reckless driving, pirating cable, etc.) should permanently preclude someone from participating in democracy.

 

What about the rest of my post?  Why did you edit it down to just one sentence?

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just because the Starr investigation was a farce, does not excuse the Mueller investigation.

But, as has been explained repeatedly, the Mueller investigation was not a farce.  Actual threats to our elections were identified.  The President and the Republicans in the Senate refuse to take action.  That is a loud wake-up call for all who care about democracy.

[elmrfudd]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

16 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

are you comfortable pretending you have any clue as to the facts behind your "uncharged criminal"

comment?

 

other than your opinion of course

Yes, I'm comfortable that if Trump were not President he would have been charged with obstruction of justice.  Of course if Trump were not President he would have been charged early in his term when he shared highly classified foreign intelligence with the Russian ambassador.

I am comfortable that you have no idea of what you are claiming.

[elmrfudd]

56 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"He won.  Fair and square, as much as anyone else has in the past."

 

I take it that you have abandoned your irrational claim that Russian interference had no affect on the outcome of the election.  Now you are equating the interference in the 2016 election that reached tens of millions of Americans with interference in past elections that had little or no reach.  I suppose that's progress.

 

Regarding fantasies about hacking the election, neither I nor anyone I know of have disputed the result of the 2016 election.  Horrible as it is, Trump is the President.  However the failure of Trump and his supporters to endorse measures to prevent future hacking is a serious threat to our democracy.  Don't you think elections should be defended from hostile foreign powers?

I take it you are still delusional to think russia had any real influence on the vote or the outcome. 

 

not any more than anytime before the man you hate won.

 

People made up their minds and voted. She lost.

 

get over it and get on with some form of a life

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

But, as has been explained repeatedly, the Mueller investigation was not a farce.  Actual threats to our elections were identified.  The President and the Republicans in the Senate refuse to take action.  That is a loud wake-up call for all who care about democracy.

In your opinion. In my opinion it was a political witch hunt and a farce.

BTW, the US is not a democracy, it is a republic, as Bill O'Reilly was fond of saying.

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

have you read any of the bill?

 

the entire thing is designed to reduce the Identity verifications.

 

you can not be that stupid to think this would ever pass....

 

You've gone from complaining about how long the bill is, with provisions to improve ethics and eliminate gerrymandering, to focusing on one perceived flaw.  Why didn't you focus on your perceived flaw to being with?

 

The penalty for illegal voting is severe, the reward is hypothetical to non-existent, and the evidence it is a problem is nonresistant.   I know Republicans want to suppress voter turnout by anguishing over non-existent fraud, but you should at least give some real examples of such fraud if you want to convince the majority.

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Because they are bad people that chose to be outside the law?

Unless it was just unpaid parking tickets, real criminals should not have the right to choose politicians that can make laws relating to criminals.

But they are not outside the law all their lives are they?!

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

I take it you are still delusional to think russia had any real influence on the vote or the outcome. 

 

not any more than anytime before the man you hate won.

 

People made up their minds and voted. She lost.

 

get over it and get on with some form of a life

At least Trump himself has admitted  that Russia interfered to help him win.

 

Seems his followers are quite keeping up. 

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

I am comfortable that you have no idea of what you are claiming.

I am comfortable you have run out of arguments and are resorting to a wordy equivalent of "Says you!".

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

What about the rest of my post?  Why did you edit it down to just one sentence?

I wasn't replying to the rest of your post. People waste too much space quoting entire posts.

 

Forum rules

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In your opinion. In my opinion it was a political witch hunt and a farce.

BTW, the US is not a democracy, it is a republic, as Bill O'Reilly was fond of saying.

BTW, the US is a democratic republic, and can be legitimately referred to as either a democracy or a republic.  Only pretentious fools pull the "republic not a democracy" argument.

Edited June 7, 2019 by heybruce