"Defending the Indefensible"

[Gigimo]

Why aren’t the DOJ and other LE agencies investigating these illegal activities?

Give it some time it's being looked at, he announced that a few months back right about the time the Mueller report hit his 13 circular.

 

[Gigimo]

Who is “They”?

His political cohorts, you know how they circle the wagons around losers.

 

[redleghunter]

No, he couldn't and it's doubtful he would. Mueller's mandate was only to report to Barr; unlike Starr's mandate, there was no requirement to report to Congress.

Who to report to has no bearing on the situation. Mueller (or whoever was in charge) could have still pointed out federal statutes violated to the AG. The AG would then be compelled to report to Congress.

 

[Speedwell]

Who to report to has no bearing on the situation. Mueller (or whoever was in charge) could have still pointed out federal statutes violated to the AG. The AG would then be compelled to report to Congress.

Which in the long run has no direct bearing on impeachment. Violation of federal statutes is not necessary for impeachment.

 

[redleghunter]

Which in the long run has no direct bearing on impeachment. Violation of federal statutes is not necessary for impeachment.

Right. Which puts us back to the House having the power to impeach Trump based on his Twitter etiquette... or lack there of.

 

[Speedwell]

Right. Which puts us back to the House having the power to impeach Trump based on his Twitter etiquette... or lack there of.

Or because his pathetic failed attempts to disrupt the investigation were pathetic.

 

[redleghunter]

Or because his pathetic failed attempts to disrupt the investigation were pathetic.

The very fact the report was issued by Mueller shows no obstruction.

 

[cow451]

Or because his pathetic failed attempts to disrupt the investigation were pathetic.

Pathetic, huh?

 

[Speedwell]

Pathetic, huh?

Yes. We demand a higher standard of criminal competence in our Presidents. He's the President, for goodness sake, of the most powerful country in the world. He should have been able to derail that pokey investigation without us even knowing about it. Instead, we had to watch him thrashing around at it like a ninny. It's embarrassing.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes. We demand a higher standard of criminal competence in our Presidents. He's the President, for goodness sake, of the most powerful country in the world. He should have been able to derail that pokey investigation without us even knowing about it. Instead, we had to watch him thrashing around at it like a ninny. It's embarrassing.

That’s the point. Criminal competence denotes a crime was committed. That’s what the Mueller report and testimony failed to establish.

Or is this based on guilty until proven innocent?

 

[Speedwell]

That’s the point. Criminal competence denotes a crime was committed. That’s what the Mueller report and testimony failed to establish.

So?

Or is this based on guilty until proven innocent?

Guilty of what? Of being a blundering doofus? Of Not being competent enough to actually pull off the crime he wanted to commit?

 

[Magillacuddy]

That’s the point. Criminal competence denotes a crime was committed. That’s what the Mueller report and testimony failed to establish.

Or is this based on guilty until proven innocent?

No one could crime like Obama. The Chicago Way.

Shoot, the dude even got liberals to think Hillary can just delete emails and give secrets away like candy.

That's impressive.

 

[cow451]

No one could crime like Obama. The Chicago Way.

Shoot, the dude even got liberals to think Hillary can just delete emails and give secrets away like candy.

That's impressive.

Yeah, but what about Obama?

 

[Kentonio]

Why didn’t Obama stop this “hacking” in the first place? It’s actually things like not stopping an attack which can get a President impeached for dereliction of duty. Maybe we should discuss that.

You don’t have a federally controlled voting system. Instead of have a state controlled, wildly insecure and fragmented set of voting systems which are easily penetrated by hackers and which many of the states themselves show no interest whatsoever in securing.

Did you know that’s Russia hacked all 50 states voting systems in 2016? Do you know that in multiple states they managed to penetrate the systems to the extent that they could change voters? Do you know that no-one actually knows whether they changes the votes or not? This isn’t some conspiracy theory it’s actual fact, but most people don’t know this because the government told a series of lies to the public to stop that information becoming public, lies which were then revealed via FOI requests.

Russia may very well have changed the results of your last election. US actors may have changed the results of previous ones. No-one actually knows, because the government don’t want people to know how completely insecure your voting systems actually are. In a hacker conference test a while ago hackers successfully broke into every single one of the voting systems used in the US. Many have no paper trails to confirm the result. In Georgia last election the university where the results were stored deleted all their backups preventing any investigation.

If you care about election security then this stuff should make you both terrified and furious. But instead people are distracted by nonsense like voter ID, while the very voting systems themselves are compromised.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, old crimes, some going as far back as the 2016 campaign.

Wait, you mean prosecutors prosecuted someone who committed crimes during the time period they were investigating? That's nuts! Why hasn't the MSM been all over this?

 

[KCfromNC]

... and you and I both know why.

GOP senators being more devoted to Trump than their constitutionally-mandaded role?

 

[NightHawkeye]

GOP senators being more devoted to Trump than their constitutionally-mandaded role?

LOL ... since when has the Senate been devoted to Trump?

Trump's opposition has come strongly from both political parties. Only occasionally have the Republicans gone along with Trump.

 

[childeye 2]

That’s the point. Criminal competence denotes a crime was committed. That’s what the Mueller report and testimony failed to establish.

Or is this based on guilty until proven innocent?

This is a contradiction in reasoning: I am appointing you to investigate whether or not a crime was committed, but you are not allowed to make any determination of whether or not a crime was committed.

That's why we are here where Bob Mueller is forced to walk a line and say both that there is substantial evidence detailing that the crime of obstruction was indeed committed, but yet also I cannot determine that a crime of obstruction was committed.

I've read the Mueller report. It's so overwhelming in the evidence of intended obstruction that A.G. William Barr had to resort to saying that Trump was only obstructing injustice.

 

[Arcangl86]

LOL ... since when has the Senate been devoted to Trump?

Trump's opposition has come strongly from both political parties. Only occasionally have the Republicans gone along with Trump.

Which is of course why Congress has passed so many laws over Trump's vetos... oh wait.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I've read the Mueller report. It's so overwhelming in the evidence of intended obstruction that A.G. William Barr had to resort to saying that Trump was only obstructing injustice.

Had the evidence been "overwhelming" as you say, then the report would have said that. Instead, the report stated that the president couldn't be exonerated.

As pointed out in the hearing this past week. Exoneration is not a legal standard. Never has been ... and Mueller couldn't cite one single instance when anyone had attempted previously to apply it as a standard.