Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

Mueller to Deliver Statement at 8am on Russian Probe

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It ain’t gonna happen.

cuz the supreme court?

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

cuz the supreme court?

Cuz half the country thinks the other half is full of shit. It’s useful when arguing, not so much when you need to persuade.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

What the Dems are doing to draw attention away from the pending legal shitstorm?

Bingo, a fan dance to distract from Barr's investigation.  Mueller is a jackass who influenced the 2018 election to the benefit of Democrats.  His report could have been wrapped and delivered prior to the election.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Cuz half the country thinks the other half is full of shit. It’s useful when arguing, not so much when you need to persuade.

I think the supreme court is a better answer. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

Bingo, a fan dance to distract from Barr's investigation.  Mueller is a jackass who influenced the 2018 election to the benefit of Democrats.  His report could have been wrapped and delivered prior to the election.

Yeah, I bet you were real mad at Comey for reopening the Hillary investigation 8 days before the election, too, huh?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob said:

+++++ Mueller for not clearing the air before the 2018 midterms. +++++ him for dragging this out. There is not a doubt in anyone's mind that if there any shred of evidence that Trump committed a crime then he would have documented as much in his report

He listed ten things Bob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pelosi's response.

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/52919/

“It is with the greatest respect for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the deepest disappointment in the Department of Justice holding the President above the law, that I thank Special Counsel Mueller for the work he and his team did to provide a record for future action both in the Congress and in the courts regarding the Trump Administration involvement in Russian interference and obstruction of the investigation.

“Special Counsel Mueller made clear that he did not exonerate the President when he stated, ‘If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.’  He stated that the decision not to indict stemmed directly from the Department of Justice’s policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.  Despite Department of Justice policy to the contrary, no one is above the law – not even the President.

“The Special Counsel’s report revealed that the President’s campaign welcomed Russian interference in the election, and laid out eleven instances of the President’s obstruction of the investigation.  The Congress holds sacred its constitutional responsibility to investigate and hold the President accountable for his abuse of power.

“The Congress will continue to investigate and legislate to protect our elections and secure our democracy.  The American people must have the truth.  We call upon the Senate to pass H.R. 1, the For The People Act, to protect our election systems.

“We salute Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team for his patriotic duty to seek the truth.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orange said:

Mueller actually wrote the articles of impeachment for Congress. 

Literally all they need to do is sign it and pass it.

whatever happened to that idiot jackmoron?

He sure made a complete fool of himself.

Oh well, at least he had enough self-awareness to run and hide once his idiocy, his credulousness and his abject ignorance was exposed. Others in here, to this day can't seem to grasp how badly they've been clowned. 

 

Haha

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alum93 said:

Pelosi's response.

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/52919/

“It is with the greatest respect for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the deepest disappointment in the Department of Justice holding the President above the law, that I thank Special Counsel Mueller for the work he and his team did to provide a record for future action both in the Congress and in the courts regarding the Trump Administration involvement in Russian interference and obstruction of the investigation.

“Special Counsel Mueller made clear that he did not exonerate the President when he stated, ‘If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.’  He stated that the decision not to indict stemmed directly from the Department of Justice’s policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.  Despite Department of Justice policy to the contrary, no one is above the law – not even the President.

“The Special Counsel’s report revealed that the President’s campaign welcomed Russian interference in the election, and laid out eleven instances of the President’s obstruction of the investigation.  The Congress holds sacred its constitutional responsibility to investigate and hold the President accountable for his abuse of power.

“The Congress will continue to investigate and legislate to protect our elections and secure our democracy.  The American people must have the truth.  We call upon the Senate to pass H.R. 1, the For The People Act, to protect our election systems.

“We salute Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team for his patriotic duty to seek the truth.”

If Pelosi is so damn sure Trump broke the law, why doesn’t she proceed with impeachment? Note she can do that whether or not he broke the law. C’mon Nancy go for it. Shit or get off the pot. Let’s get this war started. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10-scale rating of the dozens of posts above = insufficient

The reason is that a few - and thankfully only a few - are so clueless that zero isn't a low enough rating. Many, however, are quite astute.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, toonkee said:

He listed ten things Bob.

Ten things that have been debunked over and over.

You can't impeach a president for doing those things he is empowered to do by the constitution.    

Otherwise every president will be impeached everytime congress is of the opposite party.  It will destroy our government morons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

Ten things that have been debunked over and over.

You can't impeach a president for doing those things he is empowered to do by the constitution.    

Otherwise every president will be impeached everytime congress is of the opposite party.  It will destroy our government morons.

1,000+ former federal prosecutors from all sides of the political spectrum have a vastly different take. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, retrofade said:

1,000+ former federal prosecutors from all sides of the political spectrum have a vastly different take. 

Speaking of the 1,000 prosecutors, there is a really good opinion piece in USA Today that summarized how many feel.  Here it is along with the last few paragraphs.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/only-had-heard-robert-mueller-203930078.html

Some of those former prosecutors have already spoken. A bipartisan group of almost a thousand of them read Mueller’s report and concluded that they would have charged Trump with obstruction, based on the evidence. 

The attorney general has claimed that obstruction can’t be charged without an underlying crime a defendant sought to conceal. But as he knows, this is untrue, and DOJ prosecutors charge the crime without an underlying offense. This makes sense — the goal of obstruction is to keep prosecutors from proving a crime, so if you had to prove the crime to charge obstruction, it would be pointless. Mueller explained why obstruction of justice is so important. He told us it’s a crime that “strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.” Prosecutors take the crime seriously. And it’s that much more serious when it’s the president, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, who obstructs or attempts to obstruct justice.

Prosecutors often speak in measured tones. They are not given to drama or showy headlines. But Wednesday morning, Robert Mueller told us what he wanted the country to know about his report all along. It’s important to the future of our democracy that we listen and act accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dems can cry obstruction all night long, but the fact is Mueller was not prevented in completing his investigation. 
Also - for any investigation, once it is determined that the so called crimes for the investigation didn't actually happen, and the underlying documents used to launch the investigation were found to be completely unsubstantiated, then the investigation should have concluded.  They could have had the DOJ continue specific investigations into certain people for other crimes like Michael Cohen.  

And it could probably be proved that the whole investigation was a farce with the only goal to try and entrap the President in something else, such as obstruction.  
Regardless, any Impeachment will do nothing but bog down Wash. DC further, divide and weaken the country further and nothing will come of it.  The Senate is almost certain to not convict and throw Trump out.  I think most people will recognize that the whole impeachment process is simply political maneuvering by the Dems and has no real basis.   Its going to turn off a lot of people, not make them flock to the democrat candidate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, pokerider said:

Dems can cry obstruction all night long, but the fact is Mueller was not prevented in completing his investigation. 
Also - for any investigation, once it is determined that the so called crimes for the investigation didn't actually happen, and the underlying documents used to launch the investigation were found to be completely unsubstantiated, then the investigation should have concluded.  They could have had the DOJ continue specific investigations into certain people for other crimes like Michael Cohen.  

And it could probably be proved that the whole investigation was a farce with the only goal to try and entrap the President in something else, such as obstruction.  
Regardless, any Impeachment will do nothing but bog down Wash. DC further, divide and weaken the country further and nothing will come of it.  The Senate is almost certain to not convict and throw Trump out.  I think most people will recognize that the whole impeachment process is simply political maneuvering by the Dems and has no real basis.   Its going to turn off a lot of people, not make them flock to the democrat candidate. 

Trump won in an upset in 2016,  winning in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to swing the election.  He lost the popular vote by close to 3 million, which does not matter in terms of the election but does in terms of showing where the majority of American voters stood at the time. He had no track record as a politician.  2 years later the Democrats trounced Republicans to win back the House and ensure there was actual oversight of the WH.  Those are the last 2 election cycles.  You might be right in terms of the impeachment cycle.  We will be voting again in 18 short month, and this time we will all have watched Trump for 4 years.  My guess is Democrats will do very well and gain seats in both House and Senate, but with a strong economy (assuming it's similar to today), will be very difficult to knock off the president, regardless of whether he is democrat or republican.  It's only happened once in the last 3+ decades.  All others - Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama, won reelection.  I take Mueller's speech yesterday as many others did, to clarify how he wanted his own words interpreted.  He did it in 10 minutes.  In short, he told Congress it's up to them to act or not act and he has nothing further to say outside the report.  We'll see what Nancy decides to do.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/swing-state-margins/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alum93 said:

Speaking of the 1,000 prosecutors, there is a really good opinion piece in USA Today that summarized how many feel.  Here it is along with the last few paragraphs.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/only-had-heard-robert-mueller-203930078.html

Some of those former prosecutors have already spoken. A bipartisan group of almost a thousand of them read Mueller’s report and concluded that they would have charged Trump with obstruction, based on the evidence. 

The attorney general has claimed that obstruction can’t be charged without an underlying crime a defendant sought to conceal. But as he knows, this is untrue, and DOJ prosecutors charge the crime without an underlying offense. This makes sense — the goal of obstruction is to keep prosecutors from proving a crime, so if you had to prove the crime to charge obstruction, it would be pointless. Mueller explained why obstruction of justice is so important. He told us it’s a crime that “strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.” Prosecutors take the crime seriously. And it’s that much more serious when it’s the president, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, who obstructs or attempts to obstruct justice.

Prosecutors often speak in measured tones. They are not given to drama or showy headlines. But Wednesday morning, Robert Mueller told us what he wanted the country to know about his report all along. It’s important to the future of our democracy that we listen and act accordingly.

So why do you think Mueller held a different opinion?

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, pokebball said:

So why do you think Mueller held a different opinion?

He explained himself quite clearly yesterday.  I don't think he left anything open to interpretation.  He gave Congress the report and left it up to them to decide if they think it is worthy of impeachment.  And they either will or won't proceed, but at least it will be a Dem lead House deciding.  Let's just say his words didn't exactly jive with how Barr tried to make it sound, which was to be expected.  Now we have both on record and decide for ourselves who to believe.  More importantly, Congress has heard from both how and why they came to the conclusions and can proceed how they see fit.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...