DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[Danny Bateman]

5 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

To me, while it may be 'pragmatic', this is a cowardly and dangerous way to approach this. Hillary Clinton almost won the election. Giving Trump an opening for another term is dangerous because he may win despite all of the evidence and bloodying. What kind of precedent does this set for future presidents? Do whatever you want to get elected and while in office and the worst you'll get is some tough talk on the campaign trail next time out? Look out for worse and worse offenses as time goes on... 

 

The precedent that you can do whatever you want as long as you have enough votes in the Senate isn't functionally any different, IMO.

 

The bold isn't what's happening to Trump, though. He's being investigated by multiple Congressional committees and likely other federal prosecutors based on what Mueller passed onto them. Mueller felt bound by the principle that the DOJ cannot indict a sitting president; Congress is under no such obligation IF they uncover clear evidence of substantial crimes committed by the president. They are in the process of gathering such evidence now, and Trump & his cronies trying blanket refusal to cooperate including ignoring subpoenas, which is a matter for the courts. So far in court he is losing badly.

 

The precedent being set is that presidents who look, walk and quack like a criminal should not spit in the face of Congress, because they can make their life very unpleasant.

 

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

7 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Unfortunately this isn’t the day and age where you can just  allow “the written word to speak for itself.” People don’t like reading. We need Mueller to speak up more. 

The refusal to testify is Mueller obstructing justice right?

[Nebfanatic]

3 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

The precedent that you can do whatever you want as long as you have enough votes in the Senate isn't functionally any different, IMO.

 

The bold isn't what's happening to Trump, though. He's being investigated by multiple Congressional committees and likely other federal prosecutors based on what Mueller passed onto them. Mueller felt bound by the principle that the DOJ cannot indict a sitting president; Congress is under no such obligation IF they uncover clear evidence of substantial crimes committed by the president. They are in the process of gathering such evidence now, and Trump & his cronies trying blanket refusal to cooperate including ignoring subpoenas, which is a matter for the courts. So far in court he is losing badly.

 

The precedent being set is that presidents who look, walk and quack like a criminal should not spit in the face of Congress, because they can make their life very unpleasant.

 

 

But what I'm saying is investigations don't mean that much when people are so entrenched. Whatever is uncovered that they can throw at Trump on the election trail means nothing to Trump voters. The precedent is he will get another chance at another term which is dangerous enough in my opinion. I understand the route that is being taken and I also understand it is going to be the most effective considering Trump would not be convicted by senate, but at the same time, id like to see our political functions work how they are supposed to when we have a raving lunatic criminal in office. It doesn't give me much peace of mind knowing this is how we deal with that.

[TGHusker]

21 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Finally got to a point where I could sit and listen to the entire statement.

 

Once again, Robert Mueller proved he's the adult in the room.

I heard Mark Levin on the radio last night as I drove around looking at the rising water in the the Tulsa area. 

Here is the predictable take of the Trump supporters like Mark:

1.  Mueller was feeble - Mark said he looked and spoke feebly.   Thus Mueller was only a 'figure head - mouth piece' while the real investigators were the Dem operatives on the team. 

2. Mueller would be torn up by GOP questions if he testified before congress.  That he wouldn't have been able to defend the actions of the investigators.

3. Mueller made a deal wt the Dems - don't ask me to testify but I'll give a wink to you (see my post above) by making the statement that he did about  not being confident of clearing the president of any wrong doing.  That is all the Dems would need to carry on the investigation until the election.

4. The whole thing is a deep state event, they should be investigating the Dems, Obama, etc for turn the FBI, etc on Trump.  Dem establishment was shocked that Trump won. Therefore they had to take out Trump quickly. Now that 'quickly' hasn't occured, they had to change the narrative from Russian collusion to conspiracy to tamper wt an investigation and coverup.

 

So, expect the above to be the mantra of talk radio. 

 

To me there was enough info from the investigation to warrant an indictment but unfortunately....  it will have to be left up to Congress and eventually the voters.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

I get a kick out of this little veggie.

 

 

[TGHusker]

 

 

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-deletes-tweet-admitting-russia-helped-him-get-elected-while-lashing-out-at-mueller/

Quote

 

In a remarkable development, however, it appears that Trump is publicly admitting, for the first time at least, that Russia interference helped get him elected president, as has been stated repeatedly by numerous U.S. intel and Justice Department investigations, including the office of Special Counsel. That is until he deleted the tweet.

Here are the screenshots of the tweets in which Trump says he “had nothing to do with Russia helping me get elected.”

 

 

[TGHusker]

I agree wt Liz Warren on this.   Perhaps the restriction from indicting a sitting president is that we don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry investigator  doing

political indictments but this has gone too far. The president, while he is in office, should not be above the law.  We didn't set up a monarchy. 

There may need to be some guidelines of course on indictments so purely political revenge indictments don't occur, but when a Mueller or other has

a good case, it should be allowed to come to a proper ending with justice served - innocence or guilty. 

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elizabeth-warren-pass-law-president-130106297.html

 

Quote

 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has a plan for making it crystal clear in the future that sitting presidents can be indicted.

Warren, a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, proposed the legislation on Friday after special counsel Robert Mueller cited a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) finding earlier in the week that prohibits him from even considering pursuing criminal charges against President Trump.

“Congress should make it clear that Presidents can be indicted for criminal activity, including obstruction of justice,” Warren said. “And when I’m President, I’ll appoint Justice Department officials who will reverse flawed policies so no President is shielded from criminal accountability.”

 

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

4 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I agree wt Liz Warren on this.   Perhaps the restriction from indicting a sitting president is that we don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry investigator  doing

political indictments but this has gone too far. The president, while he is in office, should not be above the law.  We didn't set up a monarchy. 

There may need to be some guidelines of course on indictments so purely political revenge indictments don't occur, but when a Mueller or other has

a good case, it should be allowed to come to a proper ending with justice served - innocence or guilty. 

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elizabeth-warren-pass-law-president-130106297.html

 

 

Did Trump lie on a FASFA application?

[TGHusker]

1 minute ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Did Trump lie on a FASFA application?

  Typical Trump like come back.  Keep moving the goal post - point the finger at someone else and never acknowledge one's wrongs.    Warren has addressed those issues over and over again.     I use to aim my arrow (no pun intended) at her also, but she has proven her salt after acknowledging her error. 

[ZRod]

13 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Did Trump lie on a FASFA application?

Seriously? And that has what to do with the original comment?

[Nebfanatic]

4 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I agree wt Liz Warren on this.   Perhaps the restriction from indicting a sitting president is that we don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry investigator  doing

political indictments but this has gone too far. The president, while he is in office, should not be above the law.  We didn't set up a monarchy. 

There may need to be some guidelines of course on indictments so purely political revenge indictments don't occur, but when a Mueller or other has

a good case, it should be allowed to come to a proper ending with justice served - innocence or guilty. 

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elizabeth-warren-pass-law-president-130106297.html

 

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/31/18645173/mueller-report-barr-trump-obstruction

 

This article ties in nicely with what Warren is talking about. Its important now more than ever because Muellers decision sets a precedent that the President is above the law. If something isn't done legislatively, this will have a lasting effect

 

[TGHusker]

50 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/31/18645173/mueller-report-barr-trump-obstruction

 

This article ties in nicely with what Warren is talking about. Its important now more than ever because Muellers decision sets a precedent that the President is above the law. If something isn't done legislatively, this will have a lasting effect

 

Good article.  Yes, Mueller's investigation end as a dud not because nothing was found but because Mueller and team didn't close the loop and state the obvious - there was a lot found but he left it up to others to make that conclusion.  Which when left to Trump's personal attorney, oh I mean the Attorney General, Barr, the conclusion was going to be pro-Trump.

[Notre Dame Joe]

9 hours ago, TGHusker said:

10 hours ago, TGHusker said:

  Typical Trump like come back.  Keep moving the goal post - point the finger at someone else and never acknowledge one's wrongs.    Warren has addressed those issues over and over again.     I use to aim my arrow (no pun intended) at her also, but she has proven her salt after acknowledging her error. 

  Typical Trump like come back.  Keep moving the goal post - point the finger at someone else and never acknowledge one's wrongs.    Warren has addressed those issues over and over again.     I use to aim my arrow (no pun intended) at her also, but she has proven her salt after acknowledging her error. 

Some things you don't get to live down, including white people faking minority status for career advancement.  Nothing in that article improves Warren's reputation. If she's telling the truth , she is recommending more political power to government prosecutors. 

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Some things you don't get to live down, including white people faking minority status for career advancement.

 

 

I agree with you, but how can you say this with a straight face as a Trump supporter?

[funhusker]

I’m not going to pretend I know what was inside Warrens head/heart when she filled out the paperwork. But I can speak for myself.  When I was filling out my college papers for the first time I was also going to mark “Native American” ancestry. Thankfully my parents were there and started laughing wanting to know why in the he’ll I thought I was Native American? I told them that they and my aunts and uncles talked about my great grandmother (their grandmother) being Cherokee....

 

Come to find out, she was just dark complected and people called her Cherokee for a nickname. She had passed long before I was born, and I wasn’t in on the “joke”....