"Defending the Indefensible"

[wing2000]

Sure. The entire report was based on opposition research obtained by a foreign agent through Russian contacts.

The entire report? I didn't know you were part of Mueller's team.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Of course Russian interference of some kind was evident. Then why was not the Obama administration investigated it during their watch in 2016?

It did.

 

[redleghunter]

Perhaps that is because you don't regard the Mueller investigation as a key component to Hillary's Secret Plan to Get Trump

It was a good plan. Several of her supporters were on the Mueller team. Something if the shoe was in the other foot would not pass muster out of the gate.

 

[redleghunter]

It did.

They did not. Political party opposition does not count.

 

[Magillacuddy]

Yes, that's the James Comey FBI version of the story.

We'll see what version the U. S. attorney's office comes up with. Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry

The weird and funny thing is, two major investigations are currently taking place, as you allude, and we are to believe jacknob jones from the Internet, still saying President Trump colluded with Russia. Goodness, such resolve!

Hasn't the lesson of Rachel The Promiser taught people anything?

Perhaps sucking on a dirty sour sock when those reports come down will force them to simma down now?

Mueller brought nothing, a giant nothingburger, and the cowards not being able to impeach says it all, they can't even persuade their own people. Again, we know that because they cannot make their rhetorical gymnastics produce a speck of evidence of a crime, and hence cannot impeach.

I am thinking there won't be enough socks to go around when the time comes.

 

[Magillacuddy]

So we can discount the Russian interference and don't have to do anything about it. QED

Seriously man, there is no bigger meddler, no one who can mess with uber messin, then your very own United States of America.

We do dirty deeds all over the world, bring kings down and prop others up. We are the undisputed champ at subversion around the world.

Pull your head out, read the scriptures, and think.

 

[Speedwell]

They did not. Political party opposition does not count.

Obama spoke to Putin directly about it, expelled 35 Russian diplomats and imposed sanctions. He wanted to do more but was blocked by Congressional Republicans. Is that what you mean by "political party opposition?"

 

[redleghunter]

Obama spoke to Putin directly about it, expelled 35 Russian diplomats and imposed sanctions. He wanted to do more but was blocked by Congressional Republicans. Is that what you mean by "political party opposition?"

That was well after the election. After Hillary lost.

Obama expels 35 Russian diplomats in retaliation for US election hacking | Obama administration | The Guardian

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.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Based on what evidence?

The evidence presented in vol 2 of the Mueller Report and Mueller's own testimony before Congress yesterday.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Sure. The entire report was based on opposition research obtained by a foreign agent through Russian contacts. Even taking that bogus data, the Mueller investigation obtained no evidence to prefer charges against the President.

The Mueller investigation could not being charges against the President because of the presidents unique position within our government. He literally confirmed that were Trump out of office they could certainly bring charges against him.

Just curious. Do you think the whole thing is bogus or do you at least accept their finding that Russia tried to meddle in our election?

 

[Speedwell]

That was well after the election. After Hillary lost.

Obama expels 35 Russian diplomats in retaliation for US election hacking | Obama administration | The Guardian

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.

Don't you think it's a little late to think about impeaching Obama?

 

[redleghunter]

The evidence presented in vol 2 of the Mueller Report and Mueller's own testimony before Congress yesterday.

I did not see any charges preferred nor mention of any high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

[redleghunter]

The Mueller investigation could not being charges against the President because of the presidents unique position within our government. He literally confirmed that were Trump out of office they could certainly bring charges against him.

Just curious. Do you think the whole thing is bogus or do you at least accept their finding that Russia tried to meddle in our election?

Then the report was futile. If they were only investigating Russian hackers and trolls then the investigation could have been concluded in 6 months or fewer.

And Sessions would not have to recuse himself. So from the start the Mueller investigation was about Trump. It was a political investigation from the start.

 

[Speedwell]

I did not see any charges preferred nor mention of any high crimes and misdemeanors.

There wouldn't be. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, and "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a legal phrase. Basically, "high crimes and misdemeanors can be anything that two-thirds of the Congress agree on. They need not be violations of law.

 

[redleghunter]

Don't you think it's a little late to think about impeaching Obama?

He’s out of office. I guess history will tell the story of his dereliction of duty.

 

[redleghunter]

There wouldn't be. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, and "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a legal phrase. Basically, "high crimes and misdemeanors can be anything that two-thirds of the Congress agree on. They need not be violations of law.

Then the House can impeach Trump on his Twitter etiquette or lack there of. Why won’t they get to work on that?

 

[Speedwell]

Then the House can impeach Trump on his Twitter etiquette or lack there of. Why won’t they get to work on that?

The House is ready to go--Pelosi is having a hard time keeping them in check. But it wouldn't go anywhere. The Senate would not move against him no matter what he did.

 

[redleghunter]

There wouldn't be. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, and "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a legal phrase. Basically, "high crimes and misdemeanors can be anything that two-thirds of the Congress agree on. They need not be violations of law.

Clinton was impeached on preferred charges from the special council. Clinton’s articles of impeachment included perjury to a grand jury.

So Mueller could have preferred similar charges through the Justice dept and Bob Barr would be compelled to communicate them to Congress.

But that never happened with the Mueller report.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I did not see any charges preferred nor mention of any high crimes and misdemeanors.

Because they literally can't.

Because he's literally the only person in our government that cannot be indicted.

 

[redleghunter]

The House is ready to go--Pelosi is having a hard time keeping them in check. But it wouldn't go anywhere. The Senate would not move against him no matter what he did.

Pelosi knows better. She knows there is no evidence to impeach Trump in that soft report. She would have a better go at impeaching the President over taking Defense appropriated funds for the border wall. That’s a gray area that could be investigated. Yet they don’t move on that.