Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[Red]

So essentially you have opinion on why they need to see the other 1% other than Dems should get would Dems want regardless of implications. Doesnt matter if someone's personal info gets leaked. Doesn't matter if sensative information to the intelligence agency is leaked, etc.

Again, what in the remaining 1% could possibly change anything? You dont think Muller would have had anything damning in the other 99% if it were really all that bad?

What if Barr is really just doing the right thing here and the Democrats are pushing for nothing? Has that ever crossed your mind?

Regardless of all of this. Why not just wait for when Muller testifies? Im sure he will make it known if Trump did something wrong.

1. In the 4 page summary of the Mueller report, as interpreted by AG Barr, Barr determined there was not enough evidence to indict Trump on obstruction of justice.

2. In the actual report, Mueller made it clear he did not make a prosecutorial judgement because of DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president, and not because there was no evidence of obstruction of justice by Trump.

3. Mueller objected to Barr's mischaracterization of his report, and told Barr as much in a written letter. Both Barr and Mueller understood that putting his objections in writing would mean the public would see that letter. That was why it was put in written form, and that is why Barr asked Mueller "why didn't you just pick up the phone and call me" if you had issues. Answer: because Mueller wanted Congress and the public to know he felt Barr mischaracterized the Mueller report

4. Congress is one of three co-equal branches of our federal government.

5. Congress also has the Constitutionally guaranteed power of oversight over the Executive branch of the federal government.

6. This power of Congressional oversight is part of the separation of powers enshrined in our constitution and the system of checks and balances enshrined in our constitution.

6. The House of Represenatives has the power to launch impeachment proceedings against the president. Congress does not need the president's permission for this.

7. The power of oversight over the Executive branch means the House Judiciary Committee has the right to see the entirety of the Mueller report, minus the redacted grand jury section. Once that full report is examined, it may, or it may not, serve as the basis for impeachment proceedings. But that requires the Executive branch, and the DOJ is part of that branch, recognizing and agreeing to subpoenas issued under the power of Congressional oversight.

8. The president, not just in stonewalling the House Judiciary Committee, (by declaring the entire Mueller report is now covered by executive privlage, a claim the courts will likely strike down, but it's a great stalling tactic), but in stating that he will ignore every and all Congressional subpoenas for both persons and documents, is in effect denying that Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government, and through our system of checks and balances, enjoys oversight over the Executive branch.

9. The preceding point, #8, is the reason Nadler said "we are now in a constitutional crisis".

10. I believe you already know all of this, you're not as dense about this as you wish to appear. I also believe increasing authoritarianism in the Executive branch is OK with you. You're not alone, a perhaps significant % of the electorate likely feels the same way.

For those who judge this to be instead a constitutional crisis, increasing consolidation of power in the Executive branch is not something the framers of the constitution had in mind, and is not OK. This is one of the central differences dividing Americans at this time. When asked, following the Constitutional Convention, what kind of government had the delegates created, Benjamin Franklin answered "A republic. If you can keep it".

11. With # 10 in mind, some of us are vigilant and recognize the threat represented by Trump's effort to negate the powers granted to Congress by our constitution. Barr's argument, that the president can shut down any investigation if he thinks it isn't fair is an absurd argument reflective of Barr's apparent belief that the powers of the Executive are virtually unlimited.

 

[Red]

I’m assuming that no one on this thread condones the notion of shooting immigrants. At a trump rally, a person shouted “shoot them” the crowd laughed and cheered and trump joked.

I have not heard trump or his followers distance themselves from this.

Giving trump supporters a chance to comment to condemn this and refute the deplorable narrative.

I wonder about the different response if a BLM rally shouted “shoot them” about white nationalists. Just curious.

Yeah, I saw that. It's a telling, albeit very depressing, example of how Trump debases the office of the presidency on virtually a daily basis, and, as well, reflective of how easy it is to bring out the baser instincts in people. It's moments like that that illustrate how far we have fallen in elevating a man such as Trump to the highest office in our government.

 

[Hotdog]

I’m assuming that no one on this thread condones the notion of shooting immigrants. At a trump rally, a person shouted “shoot them” the crowd laughed and cheered and trump joked.

I have not heard trump or his followers distance themselves from this.

Giving trump supporters a chance to comment to condemn this and refute the deplorable narrative.

I wonder about the different response if a BLM rally shouted “shoot them” about white nationalists. Just curious.

Oh, you mean like when BLM chants we want dead cops and 5 Dallas cops are shot dead?

Do you mean like how the left doesnt condem the calls for violence against cops? And we keep ending up with dead cops?

Is that what you mean?

 

[silesian]

Yeah, I saw that. It's a telling, albeit very depressing, example of how Trump debases the office of the presidency on virtually a daily basis, and, as well, reflective of how easy it is to bring out the baser instincts in people. It's moments like that that illustrate how far we have fallen in elevating a man such as Trump to the highest office in our government.

Imagine Reagan joking about that. Imagine either bush joking. Imagine McCain.

You can’t imagine it. Because they would never do it.

 

[Hotdog]

1. In the 4 page summary of the Mueller report, as interpreted by AG Barr, Barr determined there was not enough evidence to indict Trump on obstruction of justice.

2. In the actual report, Mueller made it clear he did not make a prosecutorial judgement because of DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president, and not because there was no evidence of obstruction of justice by Trump.

3. Mueller objected to Barr's mischaracterization of his report, and told Barr as much in a written letter. Both Barr and Mueller understood that putting his objections in writing would mean the public would see that letter. That was why it was put in written form, and that is why Barr asked Mueller "why didn't you just pick up the phone and call me" if you had issues. Answer: because Mueller wanted Congress and the public to know he felt Barr mischaracterized the Mueller report

4. Congress is one of three co-equal branches of our federal government.

5. Congress also has the Constitutionally guaranteed power of oversight over the Executive branch of the federal government.

6. This power of Congressional oversight is part of the separation of powers enshrined in our constitution and the system of checks and balances enshrined in our constitution.

6. The House of Represenatives has the power to launch impeachment proceedings against the president. Congress does not need the president's permission for this.

7. The power of oversight over the Executive branch means the House Judiciary Committee has the right to see the entirety of the Mueller report, minus the redacted grand jury section. Once that full report is examined, it may, or it may not, serve as the basis for impeachment proceedings. But that requires the Executive branch, and the DOJ is part of that branch, recognizing and agreeing to subpoenas issued under the power of Congressional oversight.

8. The president, not just in stonewalling the House Judiciary Committee, (by declaring the entire Mueller report is now covered by executive privlage, a claim the courts will likely strike down, but it's a great stalling tactic), but in stating that he will ignore every and all Congressional subpoenas for both persons and documents, is in effect denying that Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government, and through our system of checks and balances, enjoys oversight over the Executive branch.

9. The preceding point, #8, is the reason Nadler said "we are now in a constitutional crisis".

10. I believe you already know all of this, you're not as dense about this as you wish to appear. I also believe increasing authoritarianism in the Executive branch is OK with you. You're not alone, a perhaps significant % of the electorate likely feels the same way.

For those who judge this to be instead a constitutional crisis, increasing consolidation of power in the Executive branch is not something the framers of the constitution had in mind, and is not OK. This is one of the central differences dividing Americans at this time. When asked, following the Constitutional Convention, what kind of government had the delegates created, Benjamin Franklin answered "A republic. If you can keep it".

11. With # 10 in mind, some of us are vigilant and recognize the threat represented by Trump's effort to negate the powers granted to Congress by our constitution. Barr's argument, that the president can shut down any investigation if he thinks it isn't fair is an absurd argument reflective of Barr's apparent belief that the powers of the Executive are virtually unlimited.

1. You still have not answered if it was constitutional crisis when Obama did the same thing.

2. When this does go to the courts, I guarantee the courts will side with Trump.

3. You still will not answer why its so important to see the specific redacted parts, and why the other 99% is not enough.

4. I like how this is now about Obstruction of Justice, and not collusion. You dont see anything wrong with charging someone with obstruction for a crime they werent committing and were just being entrapped by spying agents and a dirty bought and paid for FBI?

 

[Red]

Imagine Reagan joking about that. Imagine either bush joking. Imagine McCain.

You can’t imagine it. Because they would never do it.?

From urging his rally goers to beat up on protestors at his 2016 campaign rallies, to moments like yesterday, when he said, in so many words, that shooting migrants was OK in the Florida panhandle( getting huge laughs), no American leader has done a better job bringing out people's baser instincts. Bringing out the ugly in people. That is not a leadership quality. In less hyperpartisan, tribal times, one would expect universal condemnation of such a joke by our president. But he has elevated trolling to the essence of his leadership style, and he enjoys the admiration of an army of trolls as a result. It's a sad state of affairs, and sadder still the remarkable number of American citizens who are fine with it.

 

[Hotdog]

Imagine Reagan joking about that. Imagine either bush joking. Imagine McCain.

You can’t imagine it. Because they would never do it.

True.

But I cant imagine previous Journalists helping to mock cops and get them killed. Its a different world we live in I guess.

Tell your side to calm down the rhetoric then maybe things will change.

 

[Hotdog]

From urging his rally goers to beat up on protestors at his 2016 campaign rallies, to moments like yesterday, when he said, in so many words, that shooting migrants was OK in the Florida panhandle( getting huge laughs), no American leader has done a better job bringing out people's baser instincts. Bringing out the ugly in people. That is not a leadership quality. In less hyperpartisan, tribal times, one would expect universal condemnation of such a joke by our president. But he has elevated trolling to the essence of his leadership style, and he enjoys the admiration of an army of trolls as a result. It's a sad state of affairs, and sadder still the remarkable number of American citizens who are fine with it.

Trump is a product of what the left has created.

 

[fishonjazz]

Oh, you mean like when BLM chants we want dead cops and 5 Dallas cops are shot dead?

Do you mean like how the left doesnt condem the calls for violence against cops? And we keep ending up with dead cops?

Is that what you mean?

Well that deflection was predictable

I actually hold the president of the United States to a higher standard than blm or "the left" (or the right for that matter)

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Red]

4. I like how this is now about Obstruction of Justice, and not collusion. You dont see anything wrong with charging someone with obstruction for a crime they werent committing and were just being entrapped by spying agents and a dirty bought and paid for FBI?

I have to run at the moment, doctor appointments, etc., but I'll take the time to point out that I already explained this to you in an earlier comment. By committing obstruction of justice, even absent an underlying crime, a president demonstrates that he does not uphold the rule of law. That is why it is a issue. It demonstrates the president believes he is above the law. This is a simple concept to understand, but I cannot make you understand it, it's up to you to get it.

As to what you call the other 1%, I do not know what is in it, so I cannot say what it will reveal. Rep Schiff has also supoenaed the counterintelligence component of Mueller's report, as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Congress has every right to see all of that, and making the Mueller report something that is protected by executive privlage will not stand, IMO. We'll see, though.

I would also like to point out that you have not commented, at all, on any of the points I raised. You have not demonstrated you understand separation of powers, or that you understand the power of oversight Congress enjoys over the Executive Branch, or that you comprehend the notion of co-equal branches of government. You have given no indication whatsoever that you comprehend any of that. It's all Civics 101. And you've ignored every point I made while asking me questions, like the nature of obstruction of justice, that I have already taken the time to provide clear, and easy to comprehend, answers for you.

But it wouldn't matter, because you will never change your tune, despite my belief that you do in fact understand all of this.....

 

[One Brow]

Oh, you mean like when BLM chants we want dead cops and 5 Dallas cops are shot dead?

By a person not affiliated with BLM.

Do you mean like how the left doesnt condem the calls for violence against cops? And we keep ending up with dead cops?

The number of police killed in the line of duty hasn't changed significantly in the past ten years. Just the usual up-and-down fluctuations.

https://www.statista.com/chart/11727/us-police-deaths-spiked-last-year/

Still, you do get organization on the left condemning violence against police.

https://action.groundswell-mvmt.org...nst-black-people-and-law-enforcement-officers

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

So, when they invent an election out of thin air that hurts a far-left figure like Maduro, that's "sloppy", not anti-Maduro. Thank you for clarifying exactly how you interpret who has what sort of bias.

You are pretty far left. Do you support Maduro? Do you know of any American politicians who support Maduro? Does the American Democratic Party support Maduro? Yes, Maduro is very far left and CNN got something wrong about him, but unless I'm mistaken the American Left is fortunately very much anti-Maduro, so your claim is absurd.