Your analogy breaks at this point. This is the point in contention. You don't get to simply gloss over it as a given.
..
Perhaps it would sound less so if you didn't try to paper over the point of contention?
..
What in the blazes are you talking about? Several of us are trying to point out exactly how consequential the report is.
The report is so consequential that it is having little to no consequences other than rallying the Trump base which views it as
clearing the President of wrongdoing.
Rightfully so.
Did he collude with Russia? Zero evidence.
Did he conspire to steal the election? Zero evidence.
Of course, Hillary Clinton destroyed loads of incriminating evidence and
colluded with the media itself to get debate questions and to sink the Trump campaign, but these are not topics for the Left because no investigation was really ordered to be taken on this level.
Did it have a 241 page report detailing all the fires he set? Just want to see how closely this hypothetical parallels reality.
The fires he set.
What fires? Give me the juiciest fire and let's see how much of an inferno it is.
He was cooperative the whole time.
No, the results of the Mueller investigation were in line with my expectations. There was plenty of evidence which indicates that Trump obstructed justice, and he was bound by the OLC guidelines in not being able to charge a sitting president.
Congress is on it. The Mueller Report didn't "turn up nothing". That is a fabrication put forth my Trump and Barr. Interestingly, Trump is trying to limit the disclosure of this document that he claims "turned up nothing". If it truly says what he says it does, he would want that document put forth for all to see in its full glory.
As far as why the wheels of justice are so slow, the answer is obvious. The President is the single most powerful person in the US government. Actions, such as impeachment, are not done lightly. With the politics of the Senate, and partisan loyalty being what it is, Congress knows that impeaching the President will not likely result in the removal of Trump from office. As such, they are measuring the political calculations rather than the legal consequences.
Personally, I think they are fools to think that impeachment will galvanize Trump's base and give Trump fuel for the 2020 election. Trump's base is already galvanized. Not much will make them line up for Trump any more than they are already doing. What impeachment proceedings will highlight is just how dishonest Trump is. Which we all know, but it will be even harder to bury your head in the sand if he lies under oath. That being said, I don't think Trump will submit himself under oath. I think he will try to use his power and influence to extra-constitutionally prevent any impeachment proceedings. I'm curious as to how far his supporters will go to support him in such actions. Based on what we've seen so far, i'm not sure there's any line in the sand which will dissuade them.
Lots of words that amount to reconstructign reality around the lie that
the President is guilty of something.
But, you do not need to provide evidence -- you talked about how
the wheels of justice are slow and
it's such a grave matter so it's going to take time.
But not even the loud mouthed Democrats who have been breathing fire on the topic for the last two years (like Pelosi) have really shown us they are going to do anything.
I guess what everyone is hoping for more tens of millions of dollars of investigations to occur
after the Presidency is over or during his second term to uncover whehter or not Pres. Trump was overly terse with Comey or Mueller on a phone call or whether or not he obstructed justice by not having his personal lawyer do an additional 30 hours of interviews.
Where did I make the claim "he has obstructed justice"? My claim, which I will repeat verbatim is "There is clear evidence in Section 2 of the Mueller Report which outlines actions that constitute obstruction of justice, that he can't be charged with because he's a sitting President." Whether that evidence would be enough to convict is for the courts to decide, but people more familiar with applicable law than I (you know, the former federal prosecutors that I referenced in my last post), believe there is enough evidence to indict, at the very least.
If he did actions that constituted obstruction of justice, did he obstruct justice? Or is there
levels to this game, so to speak?
From this conversation you really see how the law becomes esoteric really fast: when people do not want to concede to reality, they hide in the confusing artifices of language.