Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This discussion isn't about whether any formal accusations of Obstruction have already been made.
It's about people discussing the SC report, discussing the evidence presented, discussing the SC position, discussing what the next steps are, if there are to be next steps...
They’re doing it now...the Judicial Committee hearings, C-SPAN 3...now C-SPAN 1Next steps are in the hands of the dem run house. What do you think they will do?
1) Some people have pointed out that they were acting in different roles 2)I suppose my question was in response to "youvegottobekidding" because I personally don't know what instructions were given to Starr. I assume that the person making the claim is informed enough to be able to provide those instructions.You tell me what instructions were given to Starr. And the policy has been in effect since 1973.
.
I asked a very simple question. You've been arguing YOUR point through 550 posts. Now you get to address that question:Meuller also did not accuse Trump of committing a crime
This discussion isn't about whether any formal accusations of Obstruction have already been made.
It's about people discussing the SC report, discussing the evidence presented, discussing the SC position, discussing what the next steps are, if there are to be next steps...
It'll be interesting to see what happens.They’re doing it now...the Judicial Committee hearings, C-SPAN 3...now C-SPAN 1
1) Some people have pointed out that they were acting in different roles 2)I suppose my question was in response to "youvegottobekidding" because I personally don't know what instructions were given to Starr. I assume that the person making the claim is informed enough to be able to provide those instructions.
I asked a very simple question. You've been arguing YOUR point through 550 posts. Now you get to address that question:
Mueller WAS permitted, through instruction AND policy to vindicate Trump yet he did not: WHY?
Pause. Expand on this in a meaningful way: How do you know that? What evidence do you have that he didn't "want to". Why do you think that Mueller's desires are affecting is judgment?Because he didn't want to.
No one is debating you on the point that Mueller didn't accuse Trump of a crime.Then I guess people shouldn't be trying to debate me. We are all in agreement.
Since he was also allowed to state he believed Trump committed an offense. He didn't do that either because he didn't want to.
Did I use the word prosecute? I don't think so. At least not that I recall.
And who has prosecuted him? Nobody.
Yep having conversations on the internet are difficult. Please quote me saying no criminal activity exists and do include the context please.
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. And who is this dude on the internet that says no criminal activity exists? I'd like to meet him.
Thanks for the substantive contribution to the thread.Loaded with irony and continued, selective reading and interpretation.
Hey, whatever floats your boat, knock yourself out.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdfPlease point to the law you are referring to.
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
But apparently they aren't finding he did anything wrong either.
Trying to make sense of right wing spin will tend to cause confusion. The goal isn't to make you think deeply about a subject, it is to provide rationalizations to keep believing what one wishes were true despite the evidence.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.
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.
He could have, but what actual difference would it have made? How would the situation be any different today if he had?Here is the simple fact, mueller could have said; my interpretation of the guidelines, is a sitting president can not be indicted, so i have refrained from doing so. But, my investigation, indicates that obstruction occured.
You'd think it would be a discussion of the evidence, but instead there are a lot of posts questioning why one person didn't do one particular thing he wasn't really allowed to do anyway. Kinda makes one wonder why the post would be hyper-focused on that one talking point instead of wanting to discuss the actual facts of the case.It's about people discussing the SC report, discussing the evidence presented, discussing the SC position, discussing what the next steps are, if there are to be next steps...
No one is debating you on the point that Mueller didn't accuse Trump of a crime.
And no one is debating you on the point that the House haven't started impeachment proceedings on the grounds that the sitting President has committed high crimes or misdemeanours.
Do you have anything more to add?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?