knapplc Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 BREAKING - Sarah Sanders is not a credible source of information!!! 1 Link to comment
ZRod Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 The bits and pieces I'm reading from the reddit mega thread... Wow... Mueller teed this one up for Congress. 1 Link to comment
commando Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 i had the radio on at work and couldn't really pay attention to it...but i noticed several times he used the term "knowingly". it sounded to me like he was saying trump and his merry band of idiots were to stupid to realize that russia was using them. did anyone else notice that? or did i jsut hear a small portion of something else? constructions sights are not conductive to being able to pay too much attention to something like this. lol. Link to comment
Swiv3D Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 24 minutes ago, knapplc said: "This reads to me as an impeachment referral." Yes, that is exactly what it is. Mueller didn't think he had standing to charge the White House himself, so he provided the evidence to allow Congress to do it. This is what confuses me. Is he saying he doesn't have enough evidence so he's not confident in doing it himself so he wants Congress to try to do it, and if that's the case what would they be able to do with the evidence he couldn't? Or is he saying due to his position he doesn't think he has the power himself to do anything so maybe Congress can with his evidence? Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, ZRod said: The bits and pieces I'm reading from the reddit mega thread... Wow... Mueller teed this one up for Congress. But we don’t have enough people in Congress willing to put the country before themselves or their party. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Swiv3D said: This is what confuses me. Is he saying he doesn't have enough evidence so he's not confident in doing it himself so he wants Congress to try to do it, and if that's the case what would they be able to do with the evidence he couldn't? Or is he saying due to his position he doesn't think he has the power himself to do anything so maybe Congress can with his evidence? The bold. He's saying his is not the position to prosecute Trump, that's Congress' job. Here's the evidence - go get him. 2 1 Link to comment
Swiv3D Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Just now, knapplc said: The bold. He's saying his is not the position to prosecute Trump, that's Congress' job. Here's the evidence - go get him. Ah, thanks Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 WTF. Imagine flexing on this. 1 2 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 26 minutes ago, schriznoeder said: SO MUCH THIS. Disregard Barr. I actually would've preferred Sessions at this juncture because at least he was recused. Barr is nothing more than a lackey foot soldier putting the GOP above the country. 3 2 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 13 minutes ago, knapplc said: BREAKING - Sarah Sanders is not a credible source of information!!! Oh okay. It's cool that the chief contact between the American public and POTUS pulls stuff out of her butt because reasons. Neat. 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 14 minutes ago, commando said: i had the radio on at work and couldn't really pay attention to it...but i noticed several times he used the term "knowingly". it sounded to me like he was saying trump and his merry band of idiots were to stupid to realize that russia was using them. did anyone else notice that? or did i jsut hear a small portion of something else? constructions sights are not conductive to being able to pay too much attention to something like this. lol. You're right. Unfortunately a lot of the criminal statutes people were hoping Trump would get nailed on are predicated on intent. As in, they have to be able to prove the president and his men were KNOWINGLY doing things ON PURPOSE with a criminal intent. That's a massive legal hill to climb. It's undoubtably the reason we aren't referring the president a criminal this morning (he is one, FWIW, just in his personal capacity and not his governmental one ) @Swiv3D What Knapp said - the bar that constitutes criminality is too high, but the bar for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors" meaning whatever Congress wants it to be. It's a much lower bar that has to be cleared for Trump to be impeached. 2 Link to comment
commando Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said: You're right. Unfortunately a lot of the criminal statutes people were hoping Trump would get nailed on are predicated on intent. As in, they have to be able to prove the president and his men were KNOWINGLY doing things ON PURPOSE with a criminal intent. That's a massive legal hill to climb. It's undoubtably the reason we aren't referring the president a criminal this morning (he is one, FWIW, just in his personal capacity and not his governmental one ) so our president isn't a criminal...he is too mentally deficient to be charged as a criminal for his actions. that makes me feel better. Link to comment
Recommended Posts