"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[Pommer]

What if... Doesn't count. You don't know what would have happened. The fact is it didn't.

Because he followed the “not a law” that kept him from preferring charges!

 

[stevil]

When has Trump ever been articulate? Honestly it's not surprising he stumbled over his words. He does that all the time. If he was was a masterful speaker and never screwed up his words or sentences then maybe we could talk. The left is just always so ridiculous when it comes to this stuff. Trump screws up his words and he likes lies lies. Then he screws up his words and it supports what you like then he's totally being honest. What dishonest here is the left again.

I don't see it as left vs right.
Myself, I'm right leaning regarding finances. I don't support unions, I don't support affirmative action. I don't considering that raising minimum wage solves problems.
With regards to social concerns I think quality education and health should be affordable to all.
I think there should be conditions with regards to getting unemployment benefit e.g people must be actively seeking employment or must be attaining skills (except those with disabilities or dependants).

But here, in this thread, I'm not concerned about policy differences, after all I don't live in USA.
I'm just interested in how the USA constitutional system can stack up under challenge. How a President who may potentially be committing crimes can be investigated and can be convicted.

I live in a democratic country, with a Prime Minister. We vote for a party and a set of policies, not for a specific leader. In our country if the party in power loses faith in their leader they can simply vote for a new leader, the public don't really care too much. In USA it seems you guys vote for a leader rather than a party. It doesn't seem your party can replace their leader, they very much get stuck if the leader turns out to be rouge.

One thing that our country is missing though is these checks and balances regarding co-equal branches and whatnot. But with that comes so much difficulties to get things done. If your house and/or senate is a different party to the White house then you generally get nothing done. So with all that burden, what is the benefit? are you able to protect yourself from a rogue President.

It seems to me that you are not able to do that.
Your president can fire people investigating him, he can fire the head of the Justice system, he can stack it all with loyalists, he can stack the supreme court with loyalists. His party will stand behind him completely, he can openly threaten people not to testify against him, he can lie to the American people without any fear of losing his base.
He can also go around the system by declearing national emergencies and just pass whatever policy he wants. He can also pardon whomever he wants. He has complete power.

I'm really find it rather fascinating.

 

[USincognito]

I don't see it as left vs right.

Welcome to American politics were some of our population can only see things a left vs right. I'd also note that some of our population has taken to using "leftist" as shorthand for "anyone who disagrees with me politically" regardless of the fact that there actually very few leftists here in the U.S.

 

[Allandavid]

I don't see it as left vs right.
With regards to social concerns I think quality education and health should be affordable to all.

As much as that might seem perfectly acceptable there in NZ, or here in Oz, there are many in the US that would regard us as ‘filthy commies’ for holding such a view....

 

[rjs330]

Great! I eagerly await your ringing statements of support as these orders and sub poenas are upheld through the various stages of deliberation...!

We can count on that, can’t we.....?

Yes you can!

 

[rjs330]

I see...

So when he says “I can’t see why it would be Russia” (interfering in US elections)...

When he says “We are in love”....”I like him a lot”....when speaking about the murderer Kim....

When he says “it’s all a hoax” (investigation of Russian interference)...

Is he just “screwing up” his words...?

They are just more examples of the stupid things he says. And he says a lot if stupid things.

 

[rjs330]

Stop repeating that like a mantra! Did you even listed to his press briefing the other day or read any of the content of the report? Do you even understand how DOJ works (low key, not sensationalist)? He said it wouldn't be fair to state a conclusion about someone he couldn't even charge with a crime.

Mueller revealed why he didn't charge Trump with obstruction, and it directly contradicts what Barr told the public

Mueller's report lays out three main reasons why prosecutors didn't indict Trump or suggest he should be charged:

• They adhered to the OLC's 1973 decision that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
• They believed that if their report suggested Trump could face federal charges without actually bringing them, it would not be fair because there would be no trial, and he wouldn't have an opportunity to clear himself.
• Mueller did not consider filing a sealed indictment against Trump out of fear that it would be leaked and significantly impede his ability to govern.

Policy is not law. According to Barr he absolutely could have made accusations of criminality. He didn't. If this was true Clinton could never have been charged with perjury.

 

[rjs330]

Because he followed the “not a law” that kept him from preferring charges!

Hmm .... Still no criminal accusations or allegations. Its just killing the left.

 

[rjs330]

I don't see it as left vs right.
Myself, I'm right leaning regarding finances. I don't support unions, I don't support affirmative action. I don't considering that raising minimum wage solves problems.
With regards to social concerns I think quality education and health should be affordable to all.
I think there should be conditions with regards to getting unemployment benefit e.g people must be actively seeking employment or must be attaining skills (except those with disabilities or dependants).

But here, in this thread, I'm not concerned about policy differences, after all I don't live in USA.
I'm just interested in how the USA constitutional system can stack up under challenge. How a President who may potentially be committing crimes can be investigated and can be convicted.

I live in a democratic country, with a Prime Minister. We vote for a party and a set of policies, not for a specific leader. In our country if the party in power loses faith in their leader they can simply vote for a new leader, the public don't really care too much. In USA it seems you guys vote for a leader rather than a party. It doesn't seem your party can replace their leader, they very much get stuck if the leader turns out to be rouge.

One thing that our country is missing though is these checks and balances regarding co-equal branches and whatnot. But with that comes so much difficulties to get things done. If your house and/or senate is a different party to the White house then you generally get nothing done. So with all that burden, what is the benefit? are you able to protect yourself from a rogue President.

It seems to me that you are not able to do that.
Your president can fire people investigating him, he can fire the head of the Justice system, he can stack it all with loyalists, he can stack the supreme court with loyalists. His party will stand behind him completely, he can openly threaten people not to testify against him, he can lie to the American people without any fear of losing his base.
He can also go around the system by declearing national emergencies and just pass whatever policy he wants. He can also pardon whomever he wants. He has complete power.

I'm really find it rather fascinating.

Yup, ain't it grand!

 

[rjs330]

Welcome to American politics were some of our population can only see things a left vs right. I'd also note that some of our population has taken to using "leftist" as shorthand for "anyone who disagrees with me politically" regardless of the fact that there actually very few leftists here in the U.S.

Except in the media and Democratic party.

 

[Allandavid]

They are just more examples of the stupid things he says. And he says a lot if stupid things.

But...are they stupid because of a screw-up...or because he’s hamfistedly trying to cover up his misdeeds...?

 

[Allandavid]

Policy is not law. According to Barr he absolutely could have made accusations of criminality. He didn't. If this was true Clinton could never have been charged with perjury.

Only if you use the kind of ethics that Barr operates with....Mueller appears to have a higher standard...

 

[Arcangl86]

Policy is not law. According to Barr he absolutely could have made accusations of criminality. He didn't.

Mueller was appointed under regulations (and yes, regulations are laws) that stated that he needed to follow department guidelines and policies.

If this was true Clinton could never have been charged with perjury.

Clinton wasn't charged with perjury. He was impeached on the basis he committed perjury. Not the same thing.

 

[LostMarbels]

00:42
As set forth in the report after that investigation,
00:46
if we had had confidence that the President
00:50
clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.
00:53
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether
00:56
the president did commit a crime.

What kind of doublespeak is this? So, we did not say he did not commit a crime, and we made no determination that he did not commit a crime.

What determination was made that Trump DID commit a crime? Ah, we can't say that (reasons) Let's look at this...

Determination definition is - a judicial decision settling and ending a controversy. So they admittedly did not even look into (if) a crime was committed. This was Beria fishing expedition, but they used bad bait.

Are they purposely NOT "settling and ending the controversy" concerning Trump? Could it be they want the controversy over Trump's head? Shocking to consider such things happening in politics.

These are a draft of the articles of impeachment drafted around May of 2017.

Spoiler: Articles of Impeachment

Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 12, 2017
Mr. Sherman (for himself and Mr. Al Green of Texas) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION



Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Article of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

In his conduct while President of the United States, Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice during a Federal investigation in that:


Knowing that Federal law enforcement authorities were investigating possible criminal law violations of his former National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn and knowing that Federal law enforcement authorities were conducting one or more investigations into Russian state interference in the 2016 campaign for President of the United States, and that such investigation(s) included the conduct of his campaign personnel and associates acting on behalf of the campaign, to include the possible collusion by those individuals with the Russian government, Donald John Trump sought to use his authority to hinder and cause the termination of such investigation(s) including through threatening, and then terminating, James Comey, who was until such termination the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The pattern of behavior leading to the conclusion that he sought to cause the hindrance or termination of said investigation(s) include the following:

(1) Requesting that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation curtail the investigation of the activities of General Michael Flynn under circumstances wherein it appeared that Director Comey might be terminated if he failed to adhere to such request.

(2) Making a determination to terminate the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and only thereafter requesting that the Deputy Attorney General provide him with a memorandum detailing inadequacies in the Director’s performance of his duties.

(3) Despite offering differing rationales for the termination of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, admitted subsequently that the main reason for the termination was that the Director would not close or alter the investigation of matters related to the involvement of Russia in the 2016 campaign for President of the United States.

(4) Stated that, once he had terminated the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the pressure of said investigation had been significantly reduced.

In all of this, Donald John Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

So not only do they make the accusation, they actualy seek impeachment but do not go thru with it???? (Because reasons) Yet they still use wording to keep up appearances that Trump 'might have', 'maybe', 'if'...

They don't have anything, Just want to run out the clock and hopefully get one of their 20 some odd candidates in the white house. This is desperation at this point.

 

[Allandavid]

00:42
As set forth in the report after that investigation,
00:46
if we had had confidence that the President
00:50
clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.
00:53
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether
00:56
the president did commit a crime.

What kind of doublespeak is this? So, we did not say he did not commit a crime, and we made no determination that he did not commit a crime.

What determination was made that Trump DID commit a crime? Ah, we can't say that (reasons) Let's look at this...

Determination definition is - a judicial decision settling and ending a controversy. So they admittedly did not even look into (if) a crime was committed. This was Beria fishing expedition, but they used bad bait.

Are they purposely NOT "settling and ending the controversy" concerning Trump? Could it be they want the controversy over Trump's head? Shocking to consider such things happening in politics.

These are a draft of the articles of impeachment drafted around May of 2017.

Spoiler: Articles of Impeachment

Article 1: Compromising the integrity of the presidency through continuing violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause. From his first day in office, Trump’s continuing stake in Trump Organization businesses has violated the clause of the Constitution proscribing federal officials from receiving foreign payments. The true and full extent of Trump’s conflicts of interest remains unknown. For his part, Trump has transferred day-to-day control over these interests to his adult children and the management of the Trump Organization. However, he remains the ultimate beneficiary for these businesses, so the fundamental conflict of interest remains. These foreign business ties violate both the letter and spirit of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, and arguably provide the clearest basis for impeachment based on the facts and law.

Article 2: Violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the duties of his office by disregarding U.S. interests and pursuing the interests of a hostile foreign power, to wit, Russia. L’affaire Russia began during Trump’s campaign for the presidency, during which several top aides reportedly had contacts with Russia and its intelligence service. His campaign manager also had reportedly worked either directly or indirectly for the Kremlin. These contacts continued, famously, into the presidential transition, when the president’s chosen national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had his ill-fated contacts with Russia. Beyond these contacts, Trump has substantively acted in myriad ways that benefit Russia, including dangerous diplomacy that has reportedly frayed relationships with our allies and allegedly put allied intelligence assets at risk. By offering classified information to the Russians, it was reported that Trump risked the intelligence assets of a Middle Eastern ally that already warned American officials that it would stop sharing such information with America if that information was shared too widely. In risking that relationship, Trump has opened up the possibility for the loss of that information stream for combatting terrorism, and potentially put American lives at risk from the loss of intelligence that could inform officials about future attacks on Americans at home and abroad.


Article 3: Impairment and obstruction of inquiries by the Justice Department and Congress into the extent of the Trump administration’s conflicts of interests and Russia ties. The Trump administration has systematically impeded, avoided, or obstructed the machinery of justice to obscure its business relationships, its Russia ties, and the forces acting within the Trump White House to animate policy. The most egregious and visible examples have been Trump’s firings of Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and FBI Director James Comey. [Update, 6:18 p.m.: The New York Times reported on Tuesday afternoon on an even more egregious case of apparent obstruction of justice, wherein Trump allegedly directly asked Comey to end the FBI’s investigation of Michael Flynn.] Each termination had what appeared to be a lawful pretext; subsequent statements or admissions have indicated each had more to do with obstructing justice than holding leaders accountable. Alongside these sackings, the Trump administration has also worked to starve Justice Department inquiries of resources and refocus investigators on suspected leaks instead of the White House’s own Russia intrigues. The Trump administration also interfered with congressional inquiries through attempting to block witnesses like Yates from appearing or selective leaking of classified information to House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, compromising Nunes so badly he had to recuse himself from the matter.


Article 4: Undermining of the American judicial system through felonious intimidation of potential witnesses. In his desire to continue Comey’s public humiliation, and ensure Comey remained silent about Trump’s possible sins, the president threatened Comey on Twitter with disclosure of “tapes” of their conversations. This follows a pattern of Trump roughly treating witnesses and litigation adversaries that stretches back for decades before his presidency. Since taking office, Trump has also used the bully pulpit of his office to threaten intelligence officials for purported leaks and badger former Yates before her congressional testimony. In addition to falling beneath the dignity of the presidency, these verbal assaults also constitute obstruction of justice, prohibited by federal statutes on witness intimidation, retaliation against a witness, and obstruction of federal proceedings. These attacks don’t just harm the individuals who are targeted; they assault and undermine the rule of law. As such, they constitute further grounds for impeachment of Trump and his removal from the presidency.

So not only do they make the accusation, they actualy seek impeachment but do not go thru with it???? (Because reasons) Yet they still use wording to keep up appearances that Trump 'might have', 'maybe', 'if'...

They don't have anything, Just want to run out the clock and hopefully get one of their 20 some odd candidates in the white house. This is desperation at this point.

Oh sigh....

Yes, I’m sure this is just another ‘Deep State’ conspiracy, designed by [fill in blank] to trap that nice Mr Trump....

 

[LostMarbels]

$35 to $40 million spent. More than 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants executed, more than 500 witnesses interviewed, millions of pages of discovery... articles of impeachment drafted...... 9 terabytes of discovery from Roger Stone alone.

All that.. too not come to a determination? What?! How do you not come to a determination after an extensive 3ish year investigation involving 17 prosecutors?

What was all this for... if you have prosecutors, impaneled grand juries, and articles of impeachment? The stage was set for the prosecution of Donald Trump. So what happened?


Answer: They didn't find a crime even tho they had the man to pin it to.

 

[Allandavid]

$35 to $40 million spent. More than 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants executed, more than 500 witnesses interviewed, millions of pages of discovery... articles of impeachment drafted...... 9 terabytes of discovery from Roger Stone alone.

All that.. too not come to a determination? What?! How do you not come to a determination after an extensive 3ish year investigation involving 17 prosecutors?

What was all this for... if you have prosecutors, impaneled grand juries, and articles of impeachment? The stage was set for the prosecution of Donald Trump. So what happened?


Answer: They didn't find a crime even tho they had the man to pin it to.

Oh dear.....someone hasn’t even got their scripted talking points right.....

 

[stevil]

$35 to $40 million spent. More than 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants executed, more than 500 witnesses interviewed, millions of pages of discovery... articles of impeachment drafted...... 9 terabytes of discovery from Roger Stone alone.

All that.. too not come to a determination? What?! How do you not come to a determination after an extensive 3ish year investigation involving 17 prosecutors?

Lots of people have gone to prison. Flynn is being sentenced very soon.
It has been confirmed that the Russians interfered.

Lots of details with regards to Trump obstructing has been documented.
Also, many people have been cleared with regards to Conspiracy.

It wasn't all about Trump.

 

[KCfromNC]

Mueller found no collusion

You keep saying this even after being repeatedly corrected. At some point, people are going to think the falsehoods are intentional.

 

[KCfromNC]

Policy is not law. According to Barr he absolutely could have made accusations of criminality. He didn't.

I'm still wondering why some think it was so very very very important that he didn't. But so far I've seen zero explanation of why it is so very very very important that he didn't violate the policies of the organization he worked for. Anyone have any guesses? Maybe Fox News hasn't told their viewers why they're supposed to keep thinking about this, just that they are.