Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment

[mogandave]

"I see not having been on the public teat as a benefit, and I don’t care that he didn’t know what the nuclear triad was, I expect he’s up to speed now."
 
We are discussing the President of the United States, the person with the nuclear codes who has the unchecked power to launch the missiles.  I find it amazing that people don't think that is a big deal and don't have a problem with him learning (or not) on the job.

There is no need for you to keep telling me that we are talking about the President, or that the President’s job is important, or about the nuclear codes and whatnot. I know all these things, and to be clear, I am more comfortable with Trump as President than with the last several we’ve had. You don’t, I get it. But it’s not really Trump, it would be the same had it been anyone other than a leftist in the Whitehouse, the only thing different about Trump is that he’s crass and pushes back a little, which I don’t think is a big deal when I consider the consequences. I definitely wish Trump were more conservative.

I think the Presidency is a big deal, that’s why I happy we did not get a rerun of the last election. I get it, you wanted a rerun, didn’t get it and you are disappointed. Better you than me.

As there is only one President in the the world at a time, everyone not running for re-election needs to learn on the job, so how is this even an argument?

[mogandave]

 
Real tyrants like Kim Jong Un, Putin, Mohammed bin Salman al Saud...  You know, the kind of people Trump likes and is friends with.

Why do you claim Trump likes and is friends with all these people?

[Tug]

17 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Why do you claim Trump likes and is friends with all these people?

 

Ahhhhh probably because Donald says so but the man of 10,000 lies could be lying 

[mogandave]

"I see not having been on the public teat as a benefit, and I don’t care that he didn’t know what the nuclear triad was, I expect he’s up to speed now."
 

I know you like to paint all people who hate having Trump as President as "the left", but their are a lot of conservatives who also oppose him.  As has been mentioned, Max Boot is one.  George Will is another.  I regard myself as a centrist.  I am also a retired USAF officer and spent half my career on jobs involving delivery systems for nuclear weapons.  Of course I think military experience is important for a President, I have since I reached voting age.  I also think having a grasp of the basics of end-of-civilization weapons is essential.

I never said everyone that hates having Trump as President was a leftist, you are just making that up. Are George Will and Max Boot are calling for Trumps impeachment?

So:

You voted for President Bush over President Clinton?

You Voted for Bob Dole over President Clinton?

You voted for McCain over President Obama?

I’m an independent and regard myself as a centrist as well, I’m sure we have a lot of common ground.

[elmrfudd]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

I don't know who Sundar Pichai is and don't think he/she is worth looking up.  Try to stay focused.

 

"Mayor Pete" is also a combat vet, a useful experience for someone who will be Commander in Chief of the US military.  I don't support him because I think he needs more experience, but I do think he is far better qualified to be President than Commander Bone Spur.

 

Once again, you are citing a claim without referencing it.  I suspect you are taking it far out of context.  Try giving a proper reference to the claim you lean so heavily on; it might give your posts some credibility.

mayor pete spent 6 months as a driver inside a compound.

[mogandave]

"I see not having been on the public teat as a benefit, and I don’t care that he didn’t know what the nuclear triad was, I expect he’s up to speed now."
 
The fact that Trump is refusing congressional oversight on specious grounds is a current example of him actively circumventing the constitution. 

I do not believe what Congress is “investigating” actually falls under oversight.

As I understand it, oversight has to do with what he does in his official capacity as President, and has nothing to do with anything prior to his inauguration or with his personal finances. You could argue the “obstruction” qualified, but that would be a stretch, as it relates back to an investigation of something that happened prior to his being President.

So besides that, what else has all the centrists calling him Hitler, a fascist, a dictator and whatnot?

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

We are discussing the President of the United States, the person with the nuclear codes who has the unchecked power to launch the missiles. 

While that may be so, what has it to do with Mueller?

[attrayant]

52 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I do not believe what Congress is “investigating” actually falls under oversight.

 

 

As the judiciary continues to remind us, it doesn't matter what you believe.  Congress is under no obligation to explain WHY they need certain information, except maybe to a judge if the information falls under secrecy or privacy protections, such as grand jury information.  Even in those cases, judges almost always release said information to congress.

 

Congress is further mandated to collect information that might be useful in the crafting of new legislation.  In that case they would be justified in subpoenaing confidential information about things that aren't even illegal.  That would be an example of a "fishing expedition", albeit a perfectly legal one.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

Why do you claim Trump likes and is friends with all these people?

He heaps praise on Kim Jong Un and trusts Putin and Mohammed bin Salman al Saud more than his own intelligence agencies.

[heybruce]

51 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I never said everyone that hates having Trump as President was a leftist, you are just making that up. Are George Will and Max Boot are calling for Trumps impeachment?

So:

You voted for President Bush over President Clinton? 

You Voted for Bob Dole over President Clinton?

You voted for McCain over President Obama?

I’m an independent and regard myself as a centrist as well, I’m sure we have a lot of common ground.

 

" You voted for President Bush over President Clinton? "

 

No, I was sick of having borrow and spend Republicans in the White House.

 

"You Voted for Bob Dole over President Clinton?"

 

No, I liked how the economy was improving and the deficit falling under Clinton.

 

"You voted for McCain over President Obama?"

 

If the McCain who ran against George W. Bush had run against Obama I might have.  However the McCain who ran against Obama had compromised too much to accommodate the Tea Party radicals of the Republicans for my taste.

 

I don't think you are a centrist but I'll concede you are not a traditional Republican.  Traditional Republican's are for free trade, small deficits and free flow of labor across borders.  Traditional Republicans are difficult to find now.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

mayor pete spent 6 months as a driver inside a compound.

What is your source for this information?

 

" According to the documents, Buttigieg served in the Afghanistan Threat Finance Cell (ATFC) in Kabul, placing him in “an imminent danger pay area” from late March to mid-September 2014, while the then-32-year old was still serving his first term as mayor. "  https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/442082-documents-provide-glimpse-into-buttigiegs-military-service

[heybruce]

54 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I do not believe what Congress is “investigating” actually falls under oversight.

As I understand it, oversight has to do with what he does in his official capacity as President, and has nothing to do with anything prior to his inauguration or with his personal finances. You could argue the “obstruction” qualified, but that would be a stretch, as it relates back to an investigation of something that happened prior to his being President.

So besides that, what else has all the centrists calling him Hitler, a fascist, a dictator and whatnot?

Your opinion of the Congressional investigations has no constitutional significance. Congress has the right and duty to oversee the Executive branch and  Trump is fighting this Constitutional duty as much as possible.

[heybruce]

58 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

While that may be so, what has it to do with Mueller?

Perhaps if you read my entire post and kept individual sentences in context.

 

While we're on the subject, what does you "republic, not a democracy" post have to do with Mueller? 

 

[rabas]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

2 hours ago, rabas said:

The kind of people that the world, and US, must deal with, but smiley politicians often avoid for fear of political cost. Clinton and Osama, Obama's red lines and "I can help you more after the election, Mr. Putin".  Though it is a non-partisan problem.

 

Trump smiles a lot, cozies up to evil people, takes the word of Putin over his own intelligence agencies, apparently thinks the horrendous crimes of Kim Jong Un are evidence of strong leadership, and has no problem with Mohammed bin Salman al Saud ordering the murder of a journalist for the Washington Post.

he smiles....

he cozies...

apparently thinks...

has no problem with...

 

I referred to well recorded and widely reported events.

 

On the other hand, can you rectify the MSM's Trumpy loves Vlad reporting with the facts of Trump's admin pushing heavy against Russian global outposts like Venezuala, Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea, sending weapons to Ukraine, especially two big missile strikes in Syria, both highly embarrassing to Putin. One destroyed aircraft within feet of Russians stationed at a base, the other making silly work of Putin's vaulted S200 missiles?

[mogandave]

 
As the judiciary continues to remind us, it doesn't matter what you believe.  Congress is under no obligation to explain WHY they need certain information, except maybe to a judge if the information falls under secrecy or privacy protections, such as grand jury information.  Even in those cases, judges almost always release said information to congress.
 
Congress is further mandated to collect information that might be useful in the crafting of new legislation.  In that case they would be justified in subpoenaing confidential information about things that aren't even illegal.  That would be an example of a "fishing expedition", albeit a perfectly legal one.

I think you should review how congressional oversight is defined.

I have not argued that Congress needs to explain “WHY” they need certain information, so why are you bringing that up?

Yes, if Nancy can figure out how she can use Trump’s financial records for crafting new legislation she would have a legitimate reason to subpoena the records.

I am not arguing Nancy can’t ask for information, my position is that the request does not fall under congressional oversight, so Trump is no circumventing the Constitution by not giving it to her.

[thaibeachlovers]

39 minutes ago, heybruce said:

If you are comfortable with Trump being President, you clearly don't get it.  My guess is you have no military or government experience.  Like many others, you assume that a job you know nothing about is easy.

I do have years and years of military experience, and I'm entirely comfortable with Trump being fairly elected president, and my biggest fear pre election was that she would win. I remember I said I'd prefer a rock to her, so very happy that he won. I'd have preferred Bernie, but he wasn't even on the ballot after the Dems backstabbed him.

 

Get what?

 

[mogandave]

Your opinion of the Congressional investigations has no constitutional significance. Congress has the right and duty to oversee the Executive branch and  Trump is fighting this Constitutional duty as much as possible.

Yet your opinion does? You’ve really said nothing that addresses what I was talking about.

Things that he has done prior to being in office or unrelated to his presidency do not fall under Congressional oversight.

Congressional Oversight would be something like whether or not a particular policy he enacted were legal. Whether or not he got peed on by Russian prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room while he was a private citizen? Not so much.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

he smiles....

he cozies...

apparently thinks...

has no problem with...

 

I referred to well recorded and widely reported events.

 

On the other hand, can you rectify the MSM's Trumpy loves Vlad reporting with the facts of Trump's admin pushing heavy against Russian global outposts like Venezuala, Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea, sending weapons to Ukraine, especially two big missile strikes in Syria, both highly embarrassing to Putin. One destroyed aircraft within feet of Russians stationed at a base, the other making silly work of Putin's vaulted S200 missiles?

Look into the details of all of your "facts" (better yet, give credible sources) and you will see that they weren't Trump's idea and that he bent over backward to mollify Putin.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I think you should review how congressional oversight is defined.

I have not argued that Congress needs to explain “WHY” they need certain information, so why are you bringing that up?

Yes, if Nancy can figure out how she can use Trump’s financial records for crafting new legislation she would have a legitimate reason to subpoena the records.

I am not arguing Nancy can’t ask for information, my position is that the request does not fall under congressional oversight, so Trump is no circumventing the Constitution by not giving it to her.

 

You state "I have not argued that Congress needs to explain “WHY” they need certain information" then you present an argument based on the assumption that investigations can only be conducted for the purpose of legislation.  If that is your assumption, you are wrong.

[Rimmer]

Some off topic/troll posts and replies have been removed.

[mogandave]

You state "I have not argued that Congress needs to explain “WHY” they need certain information" then you present an argument based on the assumption that investigations can only be conducted for the purpose of legislation.  If that is your assumption, you are wrong.

That was not my assumption, I did not say that, nor do I think that is true.

As far as I can tell, legislation is separate from oversight, so given we all understand Congress is supposed to legislate, and we know Congress is supposed to have oversight over the executive branch, it would make no sense that Congress could only conduct investigations for the purpose of legislation.

[mogandave]

...you will see that they weren't Trump's idea...

Sound like a dictator?

[Jingthing]

Here's a brilliant idea.

The only problem is I doubt Pelosi has the lady balls to do it.

With this plan, "trump" basically impeaches himself. 

The public can watch this and be educated -- it will give "trump" every opportunity to avoid impeachment but he obviously won't take it and he will continue to obstruct congress. 

I realize some "trump" fans act like they want him to be impeached and that it will be a great thing for dear leader.

Don't believe them. 

 

Quote

 

Give Trump an ultimatum on his stonewalling

 

If you want to understand how fundamentally President Trump and his Republican allies have damaged our capacity for self-government, look no further than the debate over whether he should be impeached.

In a more virtuous political world, a significant number of Republicans would read Robert S. Mueller III’s report and decide: Yes, these findings deserve thorough investigation — if only to prevent a foreign power from interfering in our elections again. Both parties would, together , push the administration to honor Congress’s right to hear from administration officials and get documents.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/give-trump-an-ultimatum-on-his-stonewalling/2019/06/09/56c4adc2-8950-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

That was not my assumption, I did not say that, nor do I think that is true.

As far as I can tell, legislation is separate from oversight, so given we all understand Congress is supposed to legislate, and we know Congress is supposed to have oversight over the executive branch, it would make no sense that Congress could only conduct investigations for the purpose of legislation.
 

So you agree:  Congressional oversight is not limited by the constitution.  If Congress wants to examine Trump's finances to find potential conflict of interest, it can.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Sound like a dictator?

 

Sounds like a puppet, or a useful idiot.

[mogandave]

In a more virtuous political world, a significant number of Republicans would read Robert S. Mueller III’s report and decide: Yes, these findings deserve thorough investigation

Except many of them did read it and don’t see it the way the com-post sees it.

Yes, a more thorough investigation, just keep pretending there’s something there until we get through the election.

I almost feel sorry for Nancy...

[Jingthing]

 

Except many of them did read it and don’t see it the way the com-post sees it.

 

Yes, a more thorough investigation, just keep pretending there’s something there until we get through the election.

 

I almost feel sorry for Nancy...

 

That's absurd. Imagine if the report was about a democratic president with evidence of 10 counts of obstruction of justice.

Surely the republicans in congress would not be interested in investigating that.

On some other planet maybe.

 

I agree about feeling sorry for Pelosi. She's definitely in the hot seat.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

[mogandave]

That's absurd.
Imagine if the report was about a democratic president with evidence of 10 counts of obstruction of justice.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

I know you don’t believe it, but the obstruction charges are weak.

And (I know it’s not required) there was no underlying crime.

And Trump allowed Mueller to complete the investigation.

And he cooperated fully.

Weak

[Jingthing]

I know you don’t believe it, but the obstruction charges are weak.

And (I know it’s not required) there was no underlying crime.

And Trump allowed Mueller to complete the investigation.

And he cooperated fully.

Weak

You're right.
I don't believe it.
And "trump" most certainly did not cooperate fully.
Please stop peddling that big lie.
He refused a live interview.
In his written clearly heavily lawyered written responses he answered do not recall in abundance.
He refused to answer even in writing even one question about obstruction.
If you think this is so weak why support the continuous obstruction of congress?
No need to answer. "trump" behaves like a guilty man. If he thought he was innocent he would welcome the chance to be exonerated. That would be a huge political win for him.
But as it stands most of the nation thinks he is a criminally corrupt constant liar.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[mogandave]

You're right.
I don't believe it.
And "trump" most certainly did not cooperate fully.
Please stop peddling that big lie.
He refused a live interview.
In his written clearly heavily lawyered written responses he answered do not recall in abundance.
He refused to answer even in writing even one question about obstruction.
If you think this is so weak why support the continuous obstruction of congress?
No need to answer. "trump" behaves like a guilty man. If he thought he was innocent he would welcome the chance to be exonerated. That would be a huge political win for him.
But as it stands most of the nation thinks he is a criminally corrupt constant liar.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

He could have disallowed his entire staff from testifying, he did not.

Neither did he interfere with the investigation.

A big team of mostly bright lawyers were (and are) doing all they can to run him out of office and put he and his family in jail. He would have been a fool to testify.

Much to lose and nothing to gain. The only people that think he’s a “...criminally corrupt constant liar...” didn’t vote for him anyway.

Exonerate him, that’s hilarious. I read the obstruction charges. Again, weak.

It’s worth noting Mueller refused a live interview as well. I wonder what he’s hiding...