Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment

[Jingthing]

37 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

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...

 

That's too much silliness to bother to reply to entirely but one thing stood out. "trump" fans know he is a liar too. "trump" fans know he is a criminal too. But they do not care!

[bendejo]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

"trump" fans know he is a liar too. "trump" fans know he is a criminal too. But they do not care!

These poor people will have to be de-programmed, like Moonies and Sci-ent-ologists.  It can be very difficult for people to admit they have been conned, and in this case in such in a major way.  Safety in numbers, "it's impossible that millions of people can be so wrong" etc.

If the same redacted Mueller report came out regarding a non-GOP president the Republican Senate would have stayed late to get the impeachment procedures going THE DAY THE REPORT CAME OUT.  The Fox scream machine would be at full-blast "damn the redactions, he's hiding something!"

I'm waiting for DT to say something to pee in the beer, like state the Earth is flat or Jesus ain't coming back.

 

 

[mogandave]

That's too much silliness to bother to reply to...

Of course it is.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 2:12 AM, Jingthing said:

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. 

 

You can believe me when I say I want Nancy to impeach him, then when it fails he will get re elected, IMO, because of it, just as Clinton did, and Nancy will be gone, just like Newt.

In his second term the "impeach" option will not work and he can get on with building the wall, adding conservative judges to SCOTUS, restricting immigration, and building up the military.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 6:24 AM, bendejo said:

These poor people will have to be de-programmed, like Moonies and Sci-ent-ologists.  It can be very difficult for people to admit they have been conned, and in this case in such in a major way.  Safety in numbers, "it's impossible that millions of people can be so wrong" etc.

If the same redacted Mueller report came out regarding a non-GOP president the Republican Senate would have stayed late to get the impeachment procedures going THE DAY THE REPORT CAME OUT.  The Fox scream machine would be at full-blast "damn the redactions, he's hiding something!"

I'm waiting for DT to say something to pee in the beer, like state the Earth is flat or Jesus ain't coming back.

 

 

Hmmmmm. IMO you just don't understand that Trump was not elected because voters liked him, except for his base, and that is far from a majority, but because they didn't want her to be president.

By backstabbing Bernie, the Dems won the battle and lost the war.

IMO, HRC was so toxic to so many that middle America could not stand by and let her become president.

You may not remember, but Trump was not at all popular, and I was certain that the tapes would have seen him out, as I said on this forum, so I was quite shocked when he survived them. Had the Dems fielded a decent candidate, Trump, IMO, would have been a sure fire loser in the election.

 

These poor people will have to be de-programmed, like Moonies and Sci-ent-ologists. 

LOL. Some of us are just happy every day that she didn't win.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 4:45 AM, Jingthing said:

That's too much silliness to bother to reply to entirely but one thing stood out. "trump" fans know he is a liar too. "trump" fans know he is a criminal too. But they do not care!

Absolutely. He may not be a Jack Kennedy, but when I think of who would have won if he hadn't, I can forgive him almost anything.

Don't think the voters didn't know who they were voting for, but they did so, defects and all.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You can believe me when I say I want Nancy to impeach him, then when it fails he will get re elected, IMO, because of it, just as Clinton did, and Nancy will be gone, just like Newt.

In his second term the "impeach" option will not work and he can get on with building the wall, adding conservative judges to SCOTUS, restricting immigration, and building up the military.

I don't believe you.  I think you, and Trump, want the House to stop investigating Trump and successfully going to the courts for legally demanded data that would expose his crimes.  You see impeachment as a useful diversion and smoke screen.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmmm. IMO you just don't understand that Trump was not elected because voters liked him, except for his base, and that is far from a majority, but because they didn't want her to be president.

By backstabbing Bernie, the Dems won the battle and lost the war.

IMO, HRC was so toxic to so many that middle America could not stand by and let her become president.

You may not remember, but Trump was not at all popular, and I was certain that the tapes would have seen him out, as I said on this forum, so I was quite shocked when he survived them. Had the Dems fielded a decent candidate, Trump, IMO, would have been a sure fire loser in the election.

 

These poor people will have to be de-programmed, like Moonies and Sci-ent-ologists. 

LOL. Some of us are just happy every day that she didn't win.

 

But, but, but...Hillary!

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Absolutely. He may not be a Jack Kennedy, but when I think of who would have won if he hadn't, I can forgive him almost anything.

Don't think the voters didn't know who they were voting for, but they did so, defects and all.

People who rely upon Fox News for information aren't even aware that the Mueller Report does not exonerate Trump, that the Trump Foundation was closed down for illegal activities and that the Uranium One deal was legal and in no way harmed the US.  They are unaware of many other important facts. 

 

In view of this self-inflicted ignorance, how can you think they knew what they were voting for.

[usviphotography]

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

People who rely upon Fox News for information aren't even aware that the Mueller Report does not exonerate Trump, that the Trump Foundation was closed down for illegal activities and that the Uranium One deal was legal and in no way harmed the US.  They are unaware of many other important facts. 

 

In view of this self-inflicted ignorance, how can you think they knew what they were voting for.

And you think CNN viewers are any less ignorant? They are still going on about the Russian Hoax nearly 24/7 over there even after the publication of the Mueller report. "Exonerate" is a semantics game. An investigation isn't about exoneration/proving a negative. It is about finding evidence of a crime. Mueller spent two years and tens of millions of dollars investigating and found no evidence whatsoever that Trump and Russia colluded on the election. Exonerate may be the wrong word in a technical sense (that the report cleared him would be the technically accurate phrase), but the people who say that are certainly a lot closer to the truth than the folks on CNN who continue to beat this dead horse.  

[Sujo]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You can believe me when I say I want Nancy to impeach him, then when it fails he will get re elected, IMO, because of it, just as Clinton did, and Nancy will be gone, just like Newt.

In his second term the "impeach" option will not work and he can get on with building the wall, adding conservative judges to SCOTUS, restricting immigration, and building up the military.

How is he going with the wall. How is he going with restricting immigration? Last I looked immigration had increased. Oh those pesky south americans.

[usviphotography]

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

How is he going with the wall. How is he going with restricting immigration? Last I looked immigration had increased. Oh those pesky south americans.

Trump has certainly failed on several fronts. But better to have an incompetent guy who is at least trying to do the right thing than a competent woman who is trying to do the wrong things.

[mogandave]

I don't believe you.  I think you, and Trump, want the House to stop investigating Trump and successfully going to the courts for legally demanded data that would expose his crimes.  You see impeachment as a useful diversion and smoke screen.

Yes, I believe the whole investigation is BS, and I think they should stop it, but they won’t.

They have nothing. Some BS obstruction charges with no underlying crime the Mueller knew would not stick.

Please don’t tell me again that obstruction does not require an underlying crime, we all know that. But it does take s lot more than “Hey, can you go easy on Flynn, he’s a good guy.”

Nancy knows she has nothing, and without something the election is lost. All she wants to do is get enough crap the press (after it’s leaked) can pour through looking for anyone they can blow out of proportion and take out of context to make the President look bad.

Fortunately, people have gotten a little wiser to the news and the phony “fact checkers”

[mogandave]

But, but, but...Hillary!

Exactly. That was the choice. A continuation of the Obama Administration or Trump.

For a centrist like me, it was an easy choice. Against any of the dems running at this point, it’s still an easy choice.

[heybruce]

45 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

And you think CNN viewers are any less ignorant? They are still going on about the Russian Hoax nearly 24/7 over there even after the publication of the Mueller report. "Exonerate" is a semantics game. An investigation isn't about exoneration/proving a negative. It is about finding evidence of a crime. Mueller spent two years and tens of millions of dollars investigating and found no evidence whatsoever that Trump and Russia colluded on the election. Exonerate may be the wrong word in a technical sense (that the report cleared him would be the technically accurate phrase), but the people who say that are certainly a lot closer to the truth than the folks on CNN who continue to beat this dead horse.  

Informed people don't rely entirely on cable news for information.  Many rely on cable news little or not at all.  Many of the pro-Trump posters seem unable to find references other than Fox News or conspiracy sites.  They are clearly making no attempt at staying informed.  People who complain about CNN viewers "going on about the Russian Hoax nearly 24/7" are among the misinformed.

 

Regardless of what you think of the term "exonerate", the Mueller report clearly stated that it did not exonerate Trump.  It did not state it found "no evidence" of crimes (Mueller wisely avoided the use of the term "collusion"), it stated it found insufficient evidence for prosecution of the President.  Clearly it found sufficient evidence for others, as the indictments, guilty pleas and convictions indicate.

[heybruce]

27 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

Trump has certainly failed on several fronts. But better to have an incompetent guy who is at least trying to do the right thing than a competent woman who is trying to do the wrong things.

Tax breaks for the rich, an exploding deficit, praising tyrants, alienating allies, taking money from the military to build an ineffective law, defying constitutional oversight, etc; you consider these "doing the right thing"?

[heybruce]

27 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

Trump has certainly failed on several fronts. But better to have an incompetent guy who is at least trying to do the right thing than a competent woman who is trying to do the wrong things.

Tax breaks for the rich, an exploding deficit, praising tyrants, alienating allies, taking money from the military to build an ineffective law, defying constitutional oversight, etc; you consider these "doing the right thing"?

[heybruce]

26 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Yes, I believe the whole investigation is BS, and I think they should stop it, but they won’t.

They have nothing. Some BS obstruction charges with no underlying crime the Mueller knew would not stick.

Please don’t tell me again that obstruction does not require an underlying crime, we all know that. But it does take s lot more than “Hey, can you go easy on Flynn, he’s a good guy.”

Nancy knows she has nothing, and without something the election is lost. All she wants to do is get enough crap the press (after it’s leaked) can pour through looking for anyone they can blow out of proportion and take out of context to make the President look bad.

Fortunately, people have gotten a little wiser to the news and the phony “fact checkers”
 

Obstruction is what brought Nixon down, and Trump has more clearly committed obstruction than Nixon. On top of that is Trump's illegal attempts at obstructing House oversight.  Now we have Trump clearly stating he would accept illegal election assistance from a foreign power.

 

There is more than enough for the House to vote for impeachment.  However so long as the Senate is putting Trump above the law it is pointless.

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Exactly. That was the choice. A continuation of the Obama Administration or Trump.

For a centrist like me, it was an easy choice. Against any of the dems running at this point, it’s still an easy choice.

Noted:  Given a choice between rule of law and Trump, you choose Trump.

[heybruce]

Just now, mogandave said:

 

Yep, it’s all good, keep reading the times...

Oversight, too funny

Factually correct on every point, which is why you don't attempt to refute any of the points.

[usviphotography]

19 minutes ago, heybruce said:

.  Clearly it found sufficient evidence for others, as the indictments, guilty pleas and convictions indicate.

With that kind of art for misdirection and deception, you should work for CNN. Tell, me who among these people you mention was convicted of collusion (or anything related to collusion) with Russia? Most were process crimes unrelated to any underlying crime and the one notable on that wasn't was a tax and regulatory reporting case from years ago that didn't even have anything to do with Trump's campaign at all. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, usviphotography said:

With that kind of art for misdirection and deception, you should work for CNN. Tell, me who among these people you mention was convicted of collusion (or anything related to collusion) with Russia? Most were process crimes unrelated to any underlying crime and the one notable on that wasn't was a tax and regulatory reporting case from years ago that didn't even have anything to do with Trump's campaign at all. 

Once again, for you and all in denial, the investigation was into Russian interference in the 2016 election (it documented plenty) and possible criminal conspiracy with the Trump campaign.  On the latter point it found insufficient evidence for prosecution.  That is not exoneration.

 

"Process crimes", such as Al Capone not paying taxes on illegal income, are still crimes.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, usviphotography said:

 

Tax evasion is not a process crime. Perjuring yourself in the course of a tax invasion investigation would be an example of a process crime. Your ignorance of the law grows with every post.

 

And I already conceded that an investigation can never prove a negative, so "exoneration" is technically a poor term. But spending over two years and over 30 million dollars investigating something and coming up empty is as close to exoneration as you are ever going to get. 

I'm tempted to ask for your definition of a process crime, but it would just allow you to divert from the topic.

 

The Mueller investigation was necessary and productive.  Mueller keeps hitting upon the point that the US needs to do something to prevent future meddling into elections.  And Trump makes it clear he would welcome such meddling.

[dblstndrds]

13 hours ago, heybruce said:

Obstruction is what brought Nixon down, and Trump has more clearly committed obstruction than Nixon. On top of that is Trump's illegal attempts at obstructing House oversight.  Now we have Trump clearly stating he would accept illegal election assistance from a foreign power.

 

There is more than enough for the House to vote for impeachment.  However so long as the Senate is putting Trump above the law it is pointless.

he said he would listen to information. get over the breathless indignation and exaggerations please

[dblstndrds]

so this is illegal?

 

https://nypost.com/2018/02/07/russian-radio-hosts-once-pranked-adam-schiff-with-promise-of-naked-trump-photos/

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, dblstndrds said:

so this is illegal?

 

https://nypost.com/2018/02/07/russian-radio-hosts-once-pranked-adam-schiff-with-promise-of-naked-trump-photos/

What you failed to note is that Schiff promptly reported it to the FBI. Here's Schiff's response to them:

 He told Parubiy that the U.S. would welcome the chance to review the evidence he had described. “We will try to work with the FBI to figure out, along with your staff, how we can obtain copies.”...

A spokesman for Schiff said, “Before agreeing to take the call, and immediately following it, the committee informed appropriate law-enforcement and security personnel of the conversation, and of our belief that it was probably bogus.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/putins-game/546548/

 

[dblstndrds]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What you failed to note is that Schiff promptly reported it to the FBI. Here's Schiff's response to them:

 He told Parubiy that the U.S. would welcome the chance to review the evidence he had described. “We will try to work with the FBI to figure out, along with your staff, how we can obtain copies.”...

A spokesman for Schiff said, “Before agreeing to take the call, and immediately following it, the committee informed appropriate law-enforcement and security personnel of the conversation, and of our belief that it was probably bogus.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/putins-game/546548/

 

he listened, as the president said he would.

how do you know if it bogus or legit if you 

do no hear it?

[heybruce]

35 minutes ago, dblstndrds said:

he said he would listen to information. get over the breathless indignation and exaggerations please

Was this reply meant for a different post?  It had nothing to do with my post.

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, dblstndrds said:

he listened, as the president said he would.

how do you know if it bogus or legit if you 

do no hear it?

Did the President say he would inform appropriate law enforcement personnel before accepting the information?  Of course not. 

 

Your example in defense of the President's statement illustrates what is wrong with it.

[dblstndrds]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Was this reply meant for a different post?  It had nothing to do with my post.

13 hours ago, heybruce said:

Obstruction is what brought Nixon down, and Trump has more clearly committed obstruction than Nixon. On top of that is Trump's illegal attempts at obstructing House oversight.  Now we have Trump clearly stating he would accept illegal election assistance from a foreign power.

 

There is more than enough for the House to vote for impeachment.  However so long as the Senate is putting Trump above the law it is pointless.