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.
He was unfit for office before inauguration. He's only become more unhinged as time has passed. The Tweets will only get more maniacal as time passes. I can only imagine what will happen if he's impeached.
It was never Mueller’s call (whether the President “committed a crime”).I understand all that, but that does not preclude mueller from stating, our investigation concluded there is enough evidence ton conclude obstruction occured.
Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Mueller did not present a case that said we believe Trump committed this crime and here's our evidence. There is much wishy washy in this one
Probably?
I think this whole thing is based on probably. So far there hasn't been any press concerning exactly what "evidence" is being interpreted as solid..
Op Eds one way or another.... just opinion pieces that have no legs to stand up in court.
Useful maybe for moving the needle concerning Trump's job approval perhaps? Where he stands now impeachment would be near impossible with those numbers. Now, if they were in the low 20's or high teens then maybe impeachment would stand a chance.
Ok, so why is Nadler investigating for obstruction if the evidence is out there for all to see? Two years of investigating not enough?
Has anyone ever done a comparison between the Starr report and the Mueller report? The Starr report was very explicit about evidence uncovered. But the Mueller report is mostly food for one's opinion. The Starr report was so revealing that the democrats passed laws about how much could be made public... unredacted.
I understand all that, but that does not preclude mueller from stating, our investigation concluded there is enough evidence ton conclude obstruction occured.
The Special Council made a large amount of indictments against several "non president" people. Many of whom are spending time in jail right now.I disagree and why you appoint a special council to begin with. He cant indict, but he can make a conclusion, based on his own investigation.
Oops, I clicked "agree" but then I realized that he didn't win "fair and square." Russian interference. Voter suppression, particularly in Wisconsin, where 200,000 were thrown off the voter rolls and Trump squeaked by with 11,000 votes. Gerrymandering. Comey. The Koch Brothers, Adelsons, and Mercers.Plus, technically he wasn’t the voters choice! He won fair and square by the rules of the electoral college, but not because he was the voters’choice.
You got me there!Oops, I clicked "agree" but then I realized that he didn't win "fair and square." Russian interference. Voter suppression, particularly in Wisconsin, where 200,000 were thrown off the voter rolls and Trump squeaked by with 11,000 votes. Gerrymandering. Comey. The Koch Brothers, Adelsons, and Mercers.
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.
It was like when Comey was fired and Trump.kept saying the FBI was in chaos. I didn't need to hear Comey call it a lie to know it was, I juat needed to hear him say it. I didn't believe Sarah Sanders when she said they heard from countless FBI agents who were disgruntled. I just took special pride seeing her admit it was a lie when confronted by Mueller. Mueller said repeatedly this isn't new information but I loved hearing him confirm the obvious.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.
Because some choose to, or simply don't understand what Mueller is sayingHe quoted the report? Why would anything change
Due to the statements made by AG Barr (both pre release and post release) as well as Trump's tweets post release of the SC Report, there was confusion with regards to why the SC did not indict the President and why the SC Report did not make a claim of criminal wrong doing by the President.He quoted the report? Why would anything change
Where it belongs.He has left it upto processes outside the Justice System.
I agree that the report stands as a complete account of a thorough investigation, and provides enough detail for Congress to decide (with the help of legal council) whether to accuse the president of a crime and try to make him accountable.Where it belongs.
Mueller did his job.
He might be irked that Congress doesn’t seem up to the task, but I think that he’s satisfied with the job he, himself, has done.
His testimony will be dull.
He won’t go beyond quoting his report.
If pressed he may lash out at the poor Congress-critter poking the lion.
I understand all that, but that does not preclude mueller from stating, our investigation concluded there is enough evidence ton conclude obstruction occured.
Due to the statements made by AG Barr (both pre release and post release) as well as Trump's tweets post release of the SC Report, there was confusion with regards to why the SC did not indict the President and why the SC Report did not make a claim of criminal wrong doing by the President.
AG Barr claimed (under oath) that if the SC had found evidence of criminal wrong doing by the President then a claim would have been included in the report.
Trump claimed that the report totally exonerates him personally from collusion and obstruction.
Mueller's public statement made it clear that the report was never going to make any claim of criminal wrong doing by the sitting president (even if the SC team determined that the president had done criminal wrong doing).
Mueller also made it clear that the report does not exonerate the President of obstruction because it could not be determined that the President hadn't obstructed.
Mueller was clear that any claims of criminal wrong doing by the sitting president, would not come from the Department of Justice and would have to come via other avenues.
So, as it turns out, either AG Barr and the President where behaving likes Pigeons playing chess (knocking over all the pieces and rushing home to claim victory).
Or they were intentionally deceiving the public (and in the case of Barr, intentionally deceiving congress - a criminal act in itself) in order to cover-up.
Also with regards to the Democrat leaders, they appear to have been cowering like scared little children, waiting to be given permission by big daddy (Mueller) to act on the evidence submitted in the report.
Now it seems the Democrat leaders realise they need to decide for themselves (hopefully with the help of legal council) whether to act on the evidence and accuse the President of criminal behaviour.Basically, they need to grow a pair...
One would think the Republican supporter can now see that they have been mislead by Barr and Trump. But mostly they probably won't.
Would the impeachment trials change their minds?????
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?