Mueller report shows evidence Trump committed crimes, House Judiciary chairman says

[Sir Swagman]

32 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

They just can't give up, can they? 

The massive butt-hurt that has become OTT TDS because Hillary lost is really quite unbelievable! 

 

MAGA! ???? 

This is based on E V I D E N C E.....not some belief or hope that most trump apologists prefer to facts. Investigation is not indictment - that may follow, but until the ‘evidence’ proves the total exoneration trump claims, let the process move forward.

[sammieuk1]

Having inflicted him on the world I would say its a crime against humanity Twitter and now spawning an evil twin Boris????

[bendejo]

It can't be any more obvious the president and his cabal have some things to hide. 

Run to daylight: if you have nothing to hide, innocent of everything, etc then come clean and let us all see, DT will then be admired and accepted.

And he & his need to quit changing the subject, it makes him look even worse every time they do it.

 

 

[bendejo]

3 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

Having inflicted him on the world I would say its a crime against humanity Twitter and now spawning an evil twin Boris????

They are both under the influence of the same man behind the curtain, his name is Steve Bannon.

 

 

[sammieuk1]

4 minutes ago, bendejo said:

They are both under the influence of the same man behind the curtain, his name is Steve Bannon.

 

 

Thought he was the incredible hulk but my memory ain't what it was????

[JCauto]

2 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

Trash. 

 

Democrats have been given passes for decades and do not get to all-of-a-sudden claim the moral high ground because their foe is in office. Until they start removing their own trash and stop playing political games with peoples lives then they can have the pulpit. Until then its all a political sham. 

 

Fact is, that even brief research into sexual impropriety by politicians will reveal that there IS NO MORAL HIGH GROUND. The number of sexual predators, deviants and blatant hypocrites in the political classes is astonishing, and transcends any political affiliation or viewpoint. You'll find as many Democrat scumbags as Republican and vice-versa. 

What ought to concern you is the character of people who keep getting elected, whether they are left, right or center. 
 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

 

Which conveniently deflects from Democrat politicians and their womanizing antics over the last few decades that nobody seems to care about unless Trump is mentioned. 

 

Nope. Excise your ranks first and then claim the high ground. 

The Mueller investigation does not examine Trump's sexual proclivities, so you are, once again, wandering off topic. 

 

We'll come back to your deflection when we get to discuss the overspill from the Epstein trial. 

 

[blazes]

5 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Let's imagine for a moment there would be clear evidence that Trump raped someone while he was in office, maybe a black maid.

I never heard of such a claim so this it only theoretical.

 

What would happen?

Would his supporters care?

Would many politicians of the republican party care? Would they impeach him?

It seems for American politicians, like many other politicians around the world, their job is about having power and making money and making sure the others don't take over.

Honesty? Justice? Working for the people? Those seem to be old fashion concepts they don't care about.

 

Trump should have resigned in shame long time ago. Before he was elected he should have told the crowd: You know, this was a joke, I didn't want to get elected. Are you all nuts and take me serious?

Now the party whose majority of members opposed him when he started his campaign works only for him. Disgusting!

 

 

Ha ha....put in the name Clinton for that of Trump and ....nothing changes in this little squib!!  

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, blazes said:

5 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Let's imagine for a moment there would be clear evidence that Trump raped someone while he was in office, maybe a black maid.

I never heard of such a claim so this it only theoretical.

 

What would happen?

Would his supporters care?

Would many politicians of the republican party care? Would they impeach him?

It seems for American politicians, like many other politicians around the world, their job is about having power and making money and making sure the others don't take over.

Honesty? Justice? Working for the people? Those seem to be old fashion concepts they don't care about.

 

Trump should have resigned in shame long time ago. Before he was elected he should have told the crowd: You know, this was a joke, I didn't want to get elected. Are you all nuts and take me serious?

Now the party whose majority of members opposed him when he started his campaign works only for him. Disgusting!

 

Ha ha....put in the name Clinton for that of Trump and ....nothing changes in this little squib!!  

I have to admit I didn't follow American politics too much when he had that session with Monica. But he was impeached.

And if a president from the other party would get away with a crime is that a reason to demand that a president from "your" party should also get away with a crime?

A crime is a crime. I wouldn't want to have a criminal for president. But then, I am not a US citizen. They seem to have other "standards" these days.

[Pique Dard]

somehow trump remains intouchable, whatever  he says or does, nothing seems to affect his presidency, let alone his popularity

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, Pique Dard said:

somehow trump remains intouchable, whatever  he says or does, nothing seems to affect his presidency, let alone his popularity

You're wrong about that. 
His latest racist tweet storm has significantly reduced his support among independent voters, the key demographic in elections.

His core base of course isn't going anywhere no matter what.

The election is only about turnout (on both sides) and persuading the small percentage of the population that is persuadable. 

Let's get real here.

"trump" is not only running for reelection in 2020.

He is running to stay out of prison.

As long as he is president, he can't be indicted.

The moment he isn't he can be.

If he serves two terms, the statute of limitations would be in effect.

He will do anything to win.

He is willing to tear the country apart to win.

Some have noted the current divisiveness of Americans is already at civil war levels and I think that is actually true.

He's not running to help Americans, not even his base.

He's running for himself and his family empire only.

To him, it's not really American first. It is "trump" first.

From his POV to insult or criticize "trump" is to trash America. That's not the American way. That is the OPPOSITE of the American way.

 

Yes given all that he could still definitely win. God help us. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Jingthing

[elmrfudd]

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

What sham? I don't see any sham. I see 10 counts of obstruction of justice which fit as high crimes worthy of impeachment proceedings. 

No you don't see 10 counts, but you wish there were.

that is a distinct difference.

 

obstruction into an investigation that was based on false evidence.

 

amazing twist we have here.

[Jingthing]

Just now, elmrfudd said:

No you don't see 10 counts, but you wish there were.

that is a distinct difference.

 

obstruction into an investigation that was based on false evidence.

 

amazing twist we have here.

Saying what you just said, it's clear that you have no understanding of the crime of obstruction of justice. 

[PhonThong]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There are credible claims in court documents of Trump committing far worse crimes and yet still his base support him.

 

 

Yes. Because the other side is hated more by them. What part of that don't you get?

[elmrfudd]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Saying what you just said, it's clear that you have no understanding of the crime of obstruction of justice. 

I have a clear understanding of your desire for guilt regardless of the facts and a clear understanding of a setup.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

No you don't see 10 counts, but you wish there were.

that is a distinct difference.

 

obstruction into an investigation that was based on false evidence.

 

amazing twist we have here.

I’ll give you that, you present your amazing twist on reality.

 

 

[Jingthing]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ll give you that, you present your amazing twist on reality.

 

 

Yeah, yet again, that spin don't wash. But really when it comes to "trump" fans the chances of persuasion based on rational debate do not exist. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah, yet again, that spin don't wash. But really when it comes to "trump" fans the chances of persuasion based on rational debate do not exist. 

I agree, but they understand that Mueller’s testimony is something that will reveal Trump’s crimes to the American public in a way that can’t be misrepresented by Barr or Trump.

 

Hence the palpable panic amongst Trump supporters as Mueller’s testimony approaches.

 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I agree, but they understand that Mueller’s testimony is something that will reveal Trump’s crimes to the American public in a way that can’t be misrepresented by Barr or Trump.

 

Hence the palpable panic amongst Trump supporters as Mueller’s testimony approaches.

 

Yes and no. There is a pretty good chance that Mueller will answer only by referring to the literal text in the report. If the questioning can't get him to go further than that, then it's impact will be minimal. 

[elmrfudd]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I agree, but they understand that Mueller’s testimony is something that will reveal Trump’s crimes to the American public in a way that can’t be misrepresented by Barr or Trump.

 

Hence the palpable panic amongst Trump supporters as Mueller’s testimony approaches.

 

so testimony will reveal crimes that he did not prosecute? amazing twist on reality.

 

but then as long as you get your way, why worry about realities.

 

keep digging that hole to another 4 years. the Leftists will never learn. but it will be hilarious to watch the selective outrage machine spin out of control even further.

 

 

[elmrfudd]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I agree, but they understand that Mueller’s testimony is something that will reveal Trump’s crimes to the American public in a way that can’t be misrepresented by Barr or Trump.

 

Hence the palpable panic amongst Trump supporters as Mueller’s testimony approaches.

 

panic? how so? examples of this "panic"

 

I am going to enjoy the spectacle. especially when Rep Jordan

is asking the questions.

 

 

'when did you determine there was no collusion"?

"when did you erase the Strzok phone messages?

 

Edited July 22, 2019 by elmrfudd

[Curt1591]

Well then, let the games begin / continue !

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

so testimony will reveal crimes that he did not prosecute? amazing twist on reality.

 

but then as long as you get your way, why worry about realities.

 

keep digging that hole to another 4 years. the Leftists will never learn. but it will be hilarious to watch the selective outrage machine spin out of control even further.

 

 

Wait a sec.

Let's have a FACTS based moment.

Mueller has made it crystal clear with no ambiguity whatsoever that he had decided to NOT indict the president at the very beginning of his investigation.

His reason for that was internal justice department rules (questionable and not tested constitutionally but still there) that they could not indict a sitting president.

 

Therefore, the fact that Mueller didn't seek indictment on the 10 counts of obstruction of justice does not in any way exonerate "trump" of those crimes. In fact, Mueller also made that crystal clear ALREADY. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Jingthing

[TPI]

8 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Let's make it clear: Do you personally think that people who obstruct justice should be punished? Yes or No?

Depends on the definition of "obstruction" ? If you say "someone should stop the investigation" but nobody does then how can that be described as obstruction? Or is it in your mind that the thought or the spoken word is the same as the deed? Very dangerous ground there! Imagine how many times you could have been charged with attempted murder in Thai traffic? Just a thought?

[GroveHillWanderer]

8 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

I personally think that Democrats are a day late and several dollars short on trying to apply some kind of morality to political discourse at this moment considering all the 'obstruction of justice' they've committed in the past and covered for. 

 

So ill be damned if morality is going to be applied conveniently when their foe is in office, and not within their own ranks as it happens. 

 

The only Democratic President against whom there was actual evidence of obstruction of justice was Bill Clinton and impeachment proceedings were indeed started against him on that very basis. Surely, 'what's sauce for the goose' applies here.

 

Anyway, apart from Clinton (who was impeached) where's the evidence of all these other cases of obstruction of justice that you're talking about?

[Gunna]

7 hours ago, Paul Henry said:

Instead of all this retoric and blind obsesive squabbling I suggest the the Trump supporters read the Muller report look at the crimes and charges laid and the blatant lying and deception by AG Barr and then have a cold beer and sit and make a fair assesment of the facts rather than getting into an emotional state that their POTUS is not worthy of any office.Let his past lies,cheating, adultry and bigotory speak for its self.

Sincerly sorry for the people and country of a once great Nation that is now the laughing stock of the world.

No charges were laid by Mueller - you can't spell his name and you obviously didn't read the report.  Not enough evidence to support charges. Why didn't Mueller look into how Hillary paid for a dossier with info supplied by foreign agents - that is collusion.

 

[elmrfudd]

21 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Fired up or not his hard core base is and will forever be a minority of the American people.

In some ways, going ahead with this is a risk for democrats of course. If Mueller refuses to really answer questions then any momentum towards impeachment is probably over. If on the other hand he surprises with open candor and it's negative towards 45, then impeachment is more likely to go ahead, which would be right thing to do from a constitutional POV, but still politically perilous as the senate will probably never convict.

sorry, you do not have any idea what "his hard core base" is or if they are a minority or why they may choose to disagree with your opinions. You wish that were true, but you have no idea.

 

As far as impeachment, go for it PLEASE. It is laughable to see the selective outrage machine keep trying. 

[Jingthing]

Just now, elmrfudd said:

sorry, you do not have any idea what "his hard core base" is or if they are a minority or why they may choose to disagree with your opinions. You wish that were true, but you have no idea.

 

As far as impeachment, go for it PLEASE. It is laughable to see the selective outrage machine keep trying. 

You are totally wrong. Anyone can know the size of his hard core base, not precisely but close enough. It wasn't a majority in 2016, it's not now, and it never will be. 

[elmrfudd]

let's get that IG report out. I know they had to delay it with more info being uncovered, but let's get out that report.

 

 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Gunna said:

No charges were laid by Mueller - you can't spell his name and you obviously didn't read the report.  Not enough evidence to support charges. Why didn't Mueller look into how Hillary paid for a dossier with info supplied by foreign agents - that is collusion.

 

You're incorrect. Indictments were not issued by Mueller because of justice department policy barring indicting any sitting president. What does that mean exactly? Well for example if Mueller had uncovered strong evidence that 45 was a mass murderer and he knew where the bodies were, he STILL would not have indicted him. He decided NOT to indict at the very beginning based on justice department policy. Nothing to do with what evidence he was going to find during the investigation.