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

[bhsmte]

This really isn't about Hillary. It's about the constant hypocrisy of the left. They poo poo prosecutors and Napolitano when they said they believed Clinton committed a crime, but the use of then whole heartedly believe them when they say Trump committed a crime. It total and utter hypocrisy.

It's true but meaningless when no one who matters has accused him of committing a crime? Interesting. You must really be frustrated with the Democratic controlled house. Some of them are all hat and no cattle. While the rest are just lame.

Maybe Trump did commit a crime. If he did he should pay for it. But at this point no one who counts has accused him of such.

Us law and order folks just want to see the law carried out. We are not interested in talk and accusation from talking heads and people on the internet. We want an accusation from somebody who matters and action from them. Put up or shut up. If your not going to do something about it quit whining.

Both sides of.the aisle are loaded with hypocrisy and always have been.

 

[rjs330]

Prosecutors aren't judges and juries. They decide to charge people with crimes, or in this case, follow the policy of the department they work for and are not allowed to decide to.

Again, I can't help but notice how quickly the far-right talking points fall apart when the magical words aren't used correctly. Almost as if they're all flash and no substance.

Spoken by the same people who are so bent on pointing out that the word collusion wasn't in the investigation mandate but collaboration was. Magical words are your domain not mine.

And no prosecutor has charged Trump. Not that they could any way. It's seems that it's up to Congress to do their job. But apparently they aren't finding he did anything wrong either. So I guess you're still left with nothing.

 

[rjs330]

RJ, please don't take this the wrong way, but your response is why it is so hard to have an actual conversation on the Internet.



Who the heck said anything about anyone prosecuting him? My point, which you clearly and quite frankly bafflingly missed, is that while his fans (like you) are repeating "where is the evidence of wrong doing" over and over like a mantra, the evidence of wrong doing is summarized in Vol. II of the Mueller report. That evidence is so compelling that over 1000 former DOJ prosecutors have signed an open letter describing the crimes of obstruction that Trump had committed and why some sort of legal action against him should move forward.



I have no idea where in the world you got the impression that "How bizarre that over 1000 DOJ prosecutors were able to find the criminal activity in Vol. II of the report, but Some Dude On The Internet says it doesn't exist," suggests, infers, avers or alludes to someone saying that "no criminal activity exists."

Did I use the word prosecute? I don't think so. At least not that I recall.

RJ, please don't take this the wrong way, but your response is why it is so hard to have an actual conversation on the Internet.



Who the heck said anything about anyone prosecuting him? My point, which you clearly and quite frankly bafflingly missed, is that while his fans (like you) are repeating "where is the evidence of wrong doing" over and over like a mantra, the evidence of wrong doing is summarized in Vol. II of the Mueller report. That evidence is so compelling that over 1000 former DOJ prosecutors have signed an open letter describing the crimes of obstruction that Trump had committed and why some sort of legal action against him should move forward.



I have no idea where in the world you got the impression that "How bizarre that over 1000 DOJ prosecutors were able to find the criminal activity in Vol. II of the report, but Some Dude On The Internet says it doesn't exist," suggests, infers, avers or alludes to someone saying that "no criminal activity exists."

I agree this is why it's hard to have conversations on the internet. Because I don't believe I said there was no evidence. At least not that I recall.

My consistent point has always been that no one who matters including Mueller has put forth the accusation and then done something about it. If thus evidence is as strong as you claim then why hasn't something been done?

Remember that Mueller didn't have to follow policy. Policy is not law. It seems that he didn't want to be the guy to say this was serious enough for him to do something. He could have but chose not to.

Can a sitting U.S. president face criminal charges? - Reuters

As I have continually pointed out, policy is NOT law.

Yep having conversations on the internet are difficult. Please quote me saying no criminal activity exists and do include the context please.

 

[Speedwell]

Did I use the word prosecute? I don't think so. At least not that I recall.


I agree this is why it's hard to have conversations on the internet. Because I don't believe I said there was no evidence. At least not that I recall.

My consistent point has always been that no one who matters including Mueller has put forth the accusation and then done something about it. If thus evidence is as strong as you claim then why hasn't something been done?

Remember that Mueller didn't have to follow policy. Policy is not law. It seems that he didn't want to be the guy to say this was serious enough for him to do something. He could have but chose not to.

Can a sitting U.S. president face criminal charges? - Reuters

As I have continually pointed out, policy is NOT law.

Yep having conversations on the internet are difficult. Please quote me saying no criminal activity exists and do include the context please.

But policy is based on the long-held understanding that Presidential wrongdoings are the responsibility of the Congress, not the Justice Department.

 

[rjs330]

Both sides of.the aisle are loaded with hypocrisy and always have been.

There is truth in that. I do find the left is rampant with it, while the right isn't. This is a good example. If someone who matters comes out and says Trump committed crimes I would absolutely say he should be prosecuted to let the justice system decide. The left wants to see Trump go down while defending Clinton to the end. I wanted the justice system to do their job with Clinton and they didn't. I also want the system to work on Trump. But it's not. It's all talk and no action. At least in Clinton's case someone who mattered came out and said she committed crimes. In Trump's case no one has.

 

[Speedwell]

There is truth in that. I do find the left is rampant with it, while the right isn't. This is a good example. If someone who matters comes out and says Trump committed crimes I would absolutely say he should be prosecuted to let the justice system decide. The left wants to see Trump go down while defending Clinton to the end. I wanted the justice system to do their job with Clinton and they didn't. I also want the system to work on Trump. But it's not. It's all talk and no action. At least in Clinton's case someone who mattered came out and said she committed crimes. In Trump's case no one has.

So what? Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. The President can be impeached and removed from office for any reason two-thirds of the Congress can agree on. There need be no actual violation of law.

 

[rjs330]

But policy is based on the long-held understanding that Presidential wrongdoings are the responsibility of the Congress, not the Justice Department.

Yes but the policy also says a president can be held accountable by the justice system as well. The Constitution is rather silent on the issue. So it's certainly not unconstitutional to hold the president accountable. Policy is not law and Mueller was not bound by that part of the policy.
Can a sitting U.S. president face criminal charges? - Reuters

 

[rjs330]

So what? Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. The President can be impeached and removed from office for any reason two-thirds of the Congress can agree on. There need be no actual violation of law.

Yes. But not even that has occurred.

 

[jardiniere]

There is truth in that. I do find the left is rampant with it, while the right isn't. This is a good example. If someone who matters comes out and says Trump committed crimes I would absolutely say he should be prosecuted to let the justice system decide. The left wants to see Trump go down while defending Clinton to the end. I wanted the justice system to do their job with Clinton and they didn't. I also want the system to work on Trump. But it's not. It's all talk and no action. At least in Clinton's case someone who mattered came out and said she committed crimes. In Trump's case no one has.

Can you tell me who the "someone who matters" is that you would listen to? We have a number of members of congress who have said such. If they don't fulfill the "someone who matters" criteria, then who might you be referring to? Or is this a way to differentiate the process of impeachment (which doesn't require crimes), from a prosecutor's criminal charges? I'm confused, frankly.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes. But not even that has occurred.

Even what? Mueller's primary responsibility was to discover if there was evidence hostile interference in our election process by a foreign power. He did indeed find evidence of interference, but Trump denies it and has tried to discredit the Mueller investigation to obscure that finding. Is that criminally actionable behavior? Perhaps not. Is it an impeachable offence? That is for Congress to decide. But it is most certainly disgusting and unAmerican and I do not understand how any patriotic American can stomach it.

 

[yougottabekidding]

1) Does this statement from Mueller's press conference today change your understanding of the report?

2)If it does: How?
If it does not: Why not?


Personally, it doesn't change my understanding as this is what I have understood from the beginning.

changes and means nothing -

Star labeled 11 felonies that Clinton committed

Mueller labeled nothing

why?

 

[rjs330]

Can you tell me who the "someone who matters" is that you would listen to? We have a number of members of congress who have said such. If they don't fulfill the "someone who matters" criteria, then who might you be referring to? Or is this a way to differentiate the process of impeachment (which doesn't require crimes), from a prosecutor's criminal charges? I'm confused, frankly.

Somebody who matters is somebody who is actually in a position to do something about it. Everyone else is just a matter if opinion. And the world is full of opinions.

And since impeachment doesn't need a crime why isn't Congress impeaching if they believe Trump Obstructed Justice? Since they don't have to prove a crime, this should be easy. Accuse him of Obstruction and move forward. The fact they aren't speaks volumes.

 

[rjs330]

Even what? Mueller's primary responsibility was to discover if there was evidence hostile interference in our election process by a foreign power. He did indeed find evidence of interference, but Trump denies it and has tried to discredit the Mueller investigation to obscure that finding. Is that criminally actionable behavior? Perhaps not. Is it an impeachable offence? That is for Congress to decide. But it is most certainly disgusting and unAmerican and I do not understand how any patriotic American can stomach it.

It's pretty obvious Russia tried to interfere. I believe that wholeheartedly. It's absolutely ridiculous for Trump to say they didn't.

I am editing the post here for the following reason.

The real problem I have with this is did Trump actually say Russia did not meddle or try to meddle in the election? Do you have a quote from him saying that? I do t recall any. He said a lot of things about him collaborating with the Russians being a hoax. But I don't recall him saying the Russians didn't do anything. I looked on the internet to try and find a quote where he said Russia didn't do any meddling. I didn't find any.

 

[Arcangl86]

changes and means nothing -

Star labeled 11 felonies that Clinton committed

Mueller labeled nothing

why?

Because Starr and Mueller were in different positions working under different guidelines.

 

[jardiniere]

Somebody who matters is somebody who is actually in a position to do something about it. Everyone else is just a matter if opinion. And the world is full of opinions.

And since impeachment doesn't need a crime why isn't Congress impeaching if they believe Trump Obstructed Justice? Since they don't have to prove a crime, this should be easy. Accuse him of Obstruction and move forward. The fact they aren't speaks volumes.

So, some members of congress have said he committed crimes. These congress members are capable of "doing something about it." Therefore you are claiming that Trump should be prosecuted, right?

Since there are members of congress that want to impeach, the fact that they are not currently in the process speaks only to the fact that they haven't done so yet, not to the fact that he's not committed crimes, right? Because they are capable of doing something about it, and have claimed that it appears to them he has committed crimes.

My opinion: Pelosi would like to see the president in jail for obstruction and campaign finance fraud. She won't get that if the president is impeached, because impeachment won't pass through the senate, no matter the solid evidence found. So I think she's willing to forgo the move to impeach, and wait until he's no longer president.

 

[Pommer]

As I have continually pointed out, policy is NOT law.

Yes it is.
Oh, not a law that started as a bill, voted and passed by subcommittee, committee, the full House and Senate and signed by a President, in that, you are correct.

But Congress cedes the DOJ (and other agencies in our Government) the power to set its own rules and regulations, having the force of law.

 

[Pommer]

changes and means nothing -

Star labeled 11 felonies that Clinton committed

Mueller labeled nothing

why?

Mueller operated under authority given to him by Rod Rosenstein’s memo, “Special Counsel”.
Starr was operating under the now defunct “Special Prosecutor” law that lapsed at the turn of the century.

 

[rjs330]

So, some members of congress have said he committed crimes. These congress members are capable of "doing something about it." Therefore you are claiming that Trump should be prosecuted, right?

Since there are members of congress that want to impeach, the fact that they are not currently in the process speaks only to the fact that they haven't done so yet, not to the fact that he's not committed crimes, right? Because they are capable of doing something about it, and have claimed that it appears to them he has committed crimes.

My opinion: Pelosi would like to see the president in jail for obstruction and campaign finance fraud. She won't get that if the president is impeached, because impeachment won't pass through the senate, no matter the solid evidence found. So I think she's willing to forgo the move to impeach, and wait until he's no longer president.

I'm saying if they found he did something then they should do something about it. If they really believe he did something they should do something. You have to wonder if they really believe it or if they are just shooting off their mouth because they hate Trump. So far it appears they are just shooting off their mouth. It's meaningless.

Anyone can claim anything. When you finally put your money where your mouth is is when you can say you really believe what you are saying. Otherwise it's just noise.

 

[rjs330]

Because Starr and Mueller were in different positions working under different guidelines.

Wrong Starr had the same policy that Mueller had. This policy was in effect since the 70s. The fact is Starr elected not to adhere to that.

Please show in Murllers mandate where it stated he HAD to follow the policy. Please show in Starts mandate where he was told he didn't have to.

 

[rjs330]

Yes it is.
Oh, not a law that started as a bill, voted and passed by subcommittee, committee, the full House and Senate and signed by a President, in that, you are correct.

But Congress cedes the DOJ (and other agencies in our Government) the power to set its own rules and regulations, having the force of law.

Are you trying say that Mueller would have broken the law if he would have accused Trump.of a crime?