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

[bhsmte]

The Supreme Court has a loose “Ripeness Doctrine” by which the High Court can let an issue percolate, back-and-forth, in the circuit courts until there’s a clear cut divide that can be adjudicated with precision, by The Nine.

Nancy wants to wait until there’s a “critical-mass”, (if only to appear that she’s not ready to fight to get Trump out of the White House, tooth-and-nail, everyday, forever.)

Do you think they will ever have 'criticall mass' in the senate, to convict?

 

[rambot]

I consider internet forums to be international.
You certainly meet people from many different countries, even here.

It's just that, I find the atheist and Christian based forums have a large amount of Americans on them.
Lots of Americans on atheist forums, in particular from Bible belt regions because they need a lot of support. They get suppressed and treated really bad in those regions.

That makes me kinda sad. I'm not doubting you but what kinda things are happenning to them?

 

[Pommer]

Do you think they will ever have 'criticall mass' in the senate, to convict?

No.
But then I think that “making liberals’ heads explode” isn’t going to have the draw that it did WAY back in 2016, either.

 

[bhsmte]

No.
But then I think that “making liberals’ heads explode” isn’t going to have the draw that it did WAY back in 2016, either.

I dont follow.

 

[stevil]

That makes me kinda sad. I'm not doubting you but what kinda things are happenning to them?

Many are fearful, they are scared about using the internet and atheist forums because they don't want to be found out. Many lose their friends, some people end up divorced because their partner can't handle them losing their faith. Most get hounded daily by people trying to challenge them, challenge their beliefs, telling them that they are going to hell etc. Some are worried that parents won't help financially for them to go through university.
Some are just worried about disappointing their family. They feel they are betraying their family.
Most of the time they just blend in. Others on the forums advise them not to rock the boat, to just go with the flow and not tell their parents until after they eventually move out.

They find it hard to find support of like minded people so they come to atheist forums where they can speak freely.

 

[KCfromNC]

Do you think they will ever have 'criticall mass' in the senate, to convict?

Depends on what the hearings turn up, I'd imagine. Plus if Trump continues to tank down-ticket races things could get interesting.

 

[NotreDame]

I've been saying all along that Trump could have committed Obstruction. None if what you said changes that. What I have said is no one including Mueller has actually brought that charge forward. Mueller says often that the things he listed were possible obstruction. He fell short of actual acts of obstruction. I don't really care what his reasoning was. He didn't accuse Trump of Obstruction. And neither has anyone else.

Could Trump have obstructed? Possibly. But possibly is a just a maybe. Maybe he did maybe he didn't. You believe he did. Fine. Some believe he didn't. Fine. I don't know if he did or didn't. Some of the incidents seem like they could be on the surface. But much of the information is based on verbal interactions. And if you know anything about about verbal interactions they are not particularly reliable.

And written interactions are just as bad sometimes. Take a look at these forums and how often stuff gets misconstrued or misunderstood.

So I will wait for someone to accuse him and bring out the evidence as to why before I say I think he did or didn't.

What I have said is no one including Mueller has actually brought that charge forward. Mueller says often that the things he listed were possible obstruction. He fell short of actual acts of obstruction. I don't really care what his reasoning was. He didn't accuse Trump of Obstruction. And neither has anyone else.

So what? You’ve repeated this ad nauseum and have never stated why this matters. Why is an accusation or a lack of it matter? It doesn’t, logically it doesn’t, which is why you continue to not even attempt a logical argument why an accusation or lack thereof matters. Better to make no argument than a bad argument. But until you make some argument why an accusation and the lack thereof matters, this premise is entirely useless.

So I will wait for someone to accuse him and bring out the evidence as to why before I say I think he did or didn't.

Why does a formal accusation matter? Why must a formal accusation exist before you can look at the evidence in the Report and evaluate the strength of the evidence?

And Muller made a de facto accusation. Have you read the entire segment of the Report on obstruction? Mueller’s investigation did “bring out the evidence as to why” Trump obstructed justice. He does it!

Do you know what the phrase of, “If we could have exonerated Trump, we would have,” means? It MUST MEAN, logically, there is evidence incriminating Trump of obstruction.

It is mystifying why you attach so much to whether a formal accusation has been made.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Mueller has agreed to testify to Congress in an open session. Looks like @bhsmte is getting his wish granted.

 

[stevil]

Mueller has agreed to testify to Congress in an open session. Looks like @bhsmte is getting his wish granted.

Question: In your opinion, did Trump commit the crime of Obstruction during the Special Council investigation?
Answer: It would be unfair for me to offer my opinion on this matter as Trump does not have a means to defend himself in a court against such an allegation.

Follow up: There is no law stopping you from offering your personal opinion. You are no longer representing the Special Council, you must answer the question.
Answer: In my opinion it would be unfair and irrelevant for me to offer my opinion on whether Trump committed an Obstruction crime.

Follow up: Let me rephrase. If there were no DOJ policy on not indicting a sitting president, would you have initiated an allegation of Obstruction for processing through the judicial system?
Answer: That is a hypothetical that did not eventuate. I can only speak on what actually happened, on what the situation actually was. There is a DOJ policy and so I was unable to initiate an allegation of Obstruction for processing through the judicial system.

Follow up: If this discovered evidence was found on someone other than a sitting president would you have initiated an allegation of Obstruction for processing through the judicial system?
Answer: The evidence discovered was on the sitting president.

Follow up: Is it true that in order to qualify as an Obstruction of Justice act, there are three criteria that must be met?
1. an obstructive act
2. a nexus between the act and an official proceeding
3. corrupt intent.
Answer: Yes

Follow up: Is it true that Obstruction of Justice can be committed in an investigation even if the investigation concludes that there was no original crime?
Answer: Yes

Follow up: Would it be considered as an obstructive act if the person being investigated attempted to fire the person doing the investigation?
Answer: Yes

Follow up: Where you heading the investigation into the Trump's campaign conspiring with the Russians in order to get Trump elected into office? and did Trump attempt to fire you during this investigation?
Answer: Yes, this is stated in the Special Council report

Follow up: Would it be considered as a nexus between the act and an official proceeding if the person being investigated was aware that the person he was attempting to fire was the person doing the investigation on him?
Answer: Yes

Follow up: Was Trump aware that you were the person doing the investigation on himself?
Answer: Yes, this is stated in the Special Council report

Follow up: Would it be considered as corrupt intent if the person being investigated attempted to fire the person doing the investigation because they wanted to stop the investigation?
Answer: Yes

Follow up: Is there compelling evidence that Trump attempted to fire you because he wanted to stop the investigation?
Answer: Yes, this evidence is documented in the Special Council report

Follow up: I note for the record that Mueller acknowledges that three criteria must be met in order to successfully present an allegation of Obstruction of Justice and that Mueller also acknowledges that all three criteria for Obstruction of Justice is met in the situation where Trump attempted to fire Mueller.

After the Hearing
The non conservative media :- Nothing new was found during the hearing. Mueller simply referred back to findings in the SC report.
The Fox opinion shows :- Trump was completely exonerated of collusion and obstruction. Mueller also showed his liberal bias and that he is a Trump hater.
Trump :- Total exoneration, No Collusion, No obstruction. Crooked Hillary however did commit collusion with the dirty dossier and is being protected by Mueller and his 13 angry Democrats. No president has ever been treated so unfairly, we will continue to investigate the oranges.
Lindsey Graham :- The Democrats committed crimes with the dossier, I'd like that to be investigated
Mitch McConnel :- The case is closed. No need to relive the 2016 election. We need to focus on keeping America great, quelling socialism and building a wall to stop the crisis on the border.
Nancy Pelosi :- In light of what Mueller said today, this was very revealing, we will have to go back and think some more about what to do, we don't want to be hasty.

Trump's response to Nancy :- I call her nervous Nancy, she is a wreck, just look at her, by the way I won the electoral vote, no one thought I could do it, but it was a tremendous landslide and if not for the millions of illegal votes I would have won the popular vote. We have a tremendous economy, the best that there has ever been, I won the women's vote don't you know, everyone is talking about it. 52%. As for Iran, we'll just have to wait and see. We have some very interesting steps to be taken, trust me, although Iran will face total annihilation if they try something stupid. I was 10 minutes away from blowing them up but then I asked, will people die, and then compassionately I decided not to do it. I think it was the right thing to do. Everyone tells me it was the right thing. Noone knows the right thing better than I do.

 

[KCfromNC]

It is mystifying why you attach so much to whether a formal accusation has been made.

Look at it in the context of it being the best defense one can muster for Donald's actions during the investigation. If one has a need to believe that Donald is innocent, it certainly makes a lot more sense to focus on that rather than the facts outlining the various attempts to obstruct the special counsel's work.

 

[whatbogsends]

Question: In your opinion, did Trump commit the crime of Obstruction during the Special Council investigation?
Answer: It would be unfair for me to offer my opinion on this matter as Trump does not have a means to defend himself in a court against such an allegation.

Follow up: There is no law stopping you from offering your personal opinion. You are no longer representing the Special Council, you must answer the question.
Answer: In my opinion it would be unfair and irrelevant for me to offer my opinion on whether Trump committed an Obstruction crime.

Follow up: Let me rephrase. If there were no DOJ policy on not indicting a sitting president, would you have initiated an allegation of Obstruction for processing through the judicial system?
Answer: That is a hypothetical that did not eventuate. I can only speak on what actually happened, on what the situation actually was. There is a DOJ policy and so I was unable to initiate an allegation of Obstruction for processing through the judicial system.

Follow up: If this discovered evidence was found on someone other than a sitting president would you have initiated an allegation of Obstruction for processing through the judicial system?
Answer: The evidence discovered was on the sitting president.

Follow up: Is it true that in order to qualify as an Obstruction of Justice act, there are three criteria that must be met?
1. an obstructive act
2. a nexus between the act and an official proceeding
3. corrupt intent.
Answer: Yes

Follow up: Is it true that Obstruction of Justice can be committed in an investigation even if the investigation concludes that there was no original crime?
Answer: Yes

Follow up: Would it be considered as an obstructive act if the person being investigated attempted to fire the person doing the investigation?
Answer: Yes

Follow up: Where you heading the investigation into the Trump's campaign conspiring with the Russians in order to get Trump elected into office? and did Trump attempt to fire you during this investigation?
Answer: Yes, this is stated in the Special Council report

Follow up: Would it be considered as a nexus between the act and an official proceeding if the person being investigated was aware that the person he was attempting to fire was the person doing the investigation on him?
Answer: Yes

Follow up: Was Trump aware that you were the person doing the investigation on himself?
Answer: Yes, this is stated in the Special Council report

Follow up: Would it be considered as corrupt intent if the person being investigated attempted to fire the person doing the investigation because they wanted to stop the investigation?
Answer: Yes

Follow up: Is there compelling evidence that Trump attempted to fire you because he wanted to stop the investigation?
Answer: Yes, this evidence is documented in the Special Council report

Follow up: I note for the record that Mueller acknowledges that three criteria must be met in order to successfully present an allegation of Obstruction of Justice and that Mueller also acknowledges that all three criteria for Obstruction of Justice is met in the situation where Trump attempted to fire Mueller.

After the Hearing
The non conservative media :- Nothing new was found during the hearing. Mueller simply referred back to findings in the SC report.
The Fox opinion shows :- Trump was completely exonerated of collusion and obstruction. Mueller also showed his liberal bias and that he is a Trump hater.
Trump :- Total exoneration, No Collusion, No obstruction. Crooked Hillary however did commit collusion with the dirty dossier and is being protected by Mueller and his 13 angry Democrats. No president has ever been treated so unfairly, we will continue to investigate the oranges.
Lindsey Graham :- The Democrats committed crimes with the dossier, I'd like that to be investigated
Mitch McConnel :- The case is closed. No need to relive the 2016 election. We need to focus on keeping America great, quelling socialism and building a wall to stop the crisis on the border.
Nancy Pelosi :- In light of what Mueller said today, this was very revealing, we will have to go back and think some more about what to do, we don't want to be hasty.

Trump's response to Nancy :- I call her nervous Nancy, she is a wreck, just look at her, by the way I won the electoral vote, no one thought I could do it, but it was a tremendous landslide and if not for the millions of illegal votes I would have won the popular vote. We have a tremendous economy, the best that there has ever been, I won the women's vote don't you know, everyone is talking about it. 52%. As for Iran, we'll just have to wait and see. We have some very interesting steps to be taken, trust me, although Iran will face total annihilation if they try something stupid. I was 10 minutes away from blowing them up but then I asked, will people die, and then compassionately I decided not to do it. I think it was the right thing to do. Everyone tells me it was the right thing. Noone knows the right thing better than I do.

Is there a rating above "winner"?

 

[cow451]

Is there a rating above "winner"?

Yes: cow451

 

[cow451]

During my recent absence, I was lured out of retirement by my Illuminati handlers and assigned a mission which required use of the Obama Time Portal. I spent some time in late July. I have been cleared to release the following quotes from President Trump:

• I like Bob Mueller. Really nice guy. He said no collusion, no obstruction. Read the report. Just like I told that little Twit from ABC.
• Mueller ought to be investigated. He’s a liar and is in bed with Nancy Pelosi... she’s not my type, by the way.
• Hey, you in the corner.... somebody give that guy a cough drop.... three short coughs, three sniffs, three coughs... what’s he doing, anyway?
• Mueller’s a Democrat!
• That wasn’t me in that dressing room. It was that weird Joe Biden. I’ve been told by some people.... you’d be really surprised at who they are... the crazy Joe dresses .... funny.... if you know what I mean. Just telling you what many people are saying.....
• I don’t want war with Iran. I’ve got bone spurs, you know. Really bad. Terrible pain.
• Somebody oughtta investigate Mueller. He’s the one colluding ... with Nancy and Shifty Shiff and that little Twit from ABC. Fake News!

 

[bhsmte]

Mueller has agreed to testify to Congress in an open session. Looks like @bhsmte is getting his wish granted.

Should be interesting and quite important, IMO.

 

[cow451]

Mueller has agreed to testify to Congress in an open session. Looks like @bhsmte is getting his wish granted.

It seemed an inevitability.

 

[DaisyDay]

When I look at what is on Hannity, or Ingraham or Carlson or Pirro. It's extreme, over the top, meme based, emotional, conspiracy stuff.
But if that is what has become "normalised" for their viewership. I can understand why those viewers might deem main stream media to be liberal and left wing biased.

There has been a concerted effort to make MSM seem liberal, left-wing and, with Donald, "fake". That effort seems to have succeeded with a large portion of TV watching America (the talk-radio listeners were won over long ago).