What's new

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?


  • Total voters
    29
I don't know. Anyone who say they are certain, one way or the other, is kidding themself.

Have you seen the ads that the Russians ran on facebook? I'll comfortably state that they had no bearing on the outcome of the election. This reasoning would also assume that I could influence the election by running ads on facebook with less money than I owe on my mortgage. If that were possible, literally thousands of other entities would have attempted the same with more resources.
 
If Donald Trump weren’t president of the United States, he would have been charged with obstruction of justice, nearly 400 former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials said Monday in an extraordinary public letter.

The joint statement, which had 379 signers by early afternoon, rebuts Attorney General William Barr’s assertion that the evidence of potential obstruction uncovered by special counsel Robert Mueller was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.

“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the statement reads.

at least 10 episodes of efforts by Trump to obstruct the federal probe that the statement says satisfies all of the elements for an obstruction charge: “conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming.”

They include “the President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort; the President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and the President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.”

“Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here,” the former prosecutors add. “But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice ... runs counter to logic and our experience.”

Trump has falsely claimed that the special counsel’s investigation exonerated him on both collusion and obstruction.

And yet, not one of these people were hired to do Mueller's job. His conclusions are the only ones that matter. He punted. These people do not matter at all.
 
Just imagine if HRC's campaign chair and Chelsea had met with Kremlin representatives to get dirt on Trump? NPC would be wetting his pants.

Just imagine that they had hired an international actor to inject Russian-fed propaganda into the FBI as a pretext for spying on a campaign. Oh wait, we don't have to imagine it, because that happened.
 
For any clown who still thinks the Democrats are stuck on stupid, here is the statement, released Monday and signed by 375 former federal prosecutors, and counting, and who served in both Democrat and Republican administrations, and stating, that if not for the DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president, that it is their opinion that the Mueller report provides sufficient evidence to have charged Trump with obstruction of justice.

And for any clown who thinks it ain't a crime to obstruct if there is no underlying crime, think long and hard what obstruction of justice represents in and of itself, and what it means to be this certain that the chief executive of the United States was engaged in obstruction of justice. Quite the role model.

 
Except for there were a host of other people that would have been in trouble if there were the things in there that you want to be there.

I didn't want anything to be there. This is a sad time for our country. If Mueller had found no crimes, no lies, no evidence of obstruction, I would have been thrilled. Because I believe in the guy. And I want our country to be based on the rule of law. Period. Hard Stop.


None of them had executive immunity. Where is the frog marching of Don Jr. or Kushner? You guys all but guaranteed that this would happen.

No I didn't. Stop making things up, it undermines your credibility.

Why are you bringing up the guys who were not convicted of a crime and conveniently leaving off the ones who were convicted of a crime. Could this be a bias?

Congress can impeach on anything they want to, they don't even need a reason at all. I mean, it's not advisable, but it is legal.

Please read the constitution.

Did Mueller state in the report that he wanted to indict Trump but that he couldn't? Go ahead and cite that.

I answered that point directly in my last post. Please go back and re-read it

And, if this was not a criminal case, what the Hell was the reason behind any of it?

The reason was a counterintelligence investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. You remember the Russians who were indicted? They were indicted for something we call a "crime." Crimes are what make a case criminal.

There would have been no reason at all for a Mueller. Your goalposts have moved so far.

You are rambling. Where did I move my goalposts from? Where did I move them to? Please provide specifics

Suggest you do some reading outside of Trump's Twitter account, this information is out there.
 
Just imagine that they had hired an international actor to inject Russian-fed propaganda into the FBI as a pretext for spying on a campaign. Oh wait, we don't have to imagine it, because that happened.

The fact that you are upset about your HRC story but not about the Trump Tower meeting is all everyone needs to know about your bias.

By the way, HRC lost, move on. We are talking about the guy who won. But I understand your reason for deflecting and obfuscating. I'd want to change the topic if I were you.
 
For any clown who still thinks the Democrats are stuck on stupid, here is the statement, released Monday and signed by 375 former federal prosecutors, and counting, and who served in both Democrat and Republican administrations, and stating, that if not for the DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president, that it is their opinion that the Mueller report provides sufficient evidence to have charged Trump with obstruction of justice.

And for any clown who thinks it ain't a crime to obstruct if there is no underlying crime, think long and hard what obstruction of justice represents in and of itself, and what it means to be this certain that the chief executive of the United States was engaged in obstruction of justice. Quite the role model.



And since bipartisanship is virtually non existent at the present time, and that has been the case since at least the Obama years, this statement will not really carry the impact it might have carried in a different era. Nonetheless, it takes a sledgehammer to AG Barr's claim that, in his opinion, there was insufficient evidence to support charges of obstruction of justice.

Mueller did state, which Barr obfuscated, that he did not apply prosecutorial judgement because of DOJ policy relating to sitting presidents, and not because the evidence could not support such charges. These 379 former federal prosecutors express their belief that the evidence that Trump committed several felonies was not a "close judgement", but rather the evidence against Trump was "overwhelming".

We are supposed to be a nation of laws. Obstructing an investigation is a serious crime when committed by a president, as it is a clear statement on the part of that president that he is unwilling to uphold the rule of law. This is what makes obstruction by a president serious business, regardless of any underlying crime, or lack of underlying crime. It is the president putting his own interests above the rule of law, and that alone is sufficient to judge such a president unfit for the office.

And when Barr stated, at the time of the report's release, that the president was upset because he did nothing wrong, Barr crossed a line, and went from being an AG serving the citizens of the United States, and instead joined the president's legal team. At least in my lifetime, and including Nixon, no president has debased his office and the institutions of our democracy more then Donald Trump.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politi...truction-of-justice-former-prosecutor-letter/
 
I don't know. Anyone who say they are certain, one way or the other, is kidding themself.

If African American voting rates had stayed the same during the general as previous elections Hillary would’ve won. I’ve also read (but cannot find the link) to black turnout declining between the Democratic Party and general election.

Part of Russian disinformation was to discourage people of color from voting. It appears to have been successful.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ning-out-for-the-post-obama-democratic-party/
 
The fact that you are upset about your HRC story but not about the Trump Tower meeting is all everyone needs to know about your bias.

By the way, HRC lost, move on. We are talking about the guy who won. But I understand your reason for deflecting and obfuscating. I'd want to change the topic if I were you.

Trump won. Now move on please. Stop projecting.
 
I'm confused. I'm pretty clearly blaming the Russians who did the hacking.
But you're not blaming Hillary for operating an illegal mail server for her clearance level. That's been the conservatives argument all along. Blame the hackers but Hillary can run all the illegal mail server she wants.

Idc one way or the other right now, but one should not excuse the other.
 
But you're not blaming Hillary for operating an illegal mail server for her clearance level. That's been the conservatives argument all along. Blame the hackers but Hillary can run all the illegal mail server she wants.

Idc one way or the other right now, but one should not excuse the other.
Yeah, I don't think there was anything "illegal" about her private servers. She certainly wasn't indicted for anything. I'm just saying it gave a scandal additional legs, and made people think it was a bigger deal than it really was.
 
Back
Top