Jump to content
NM11046

DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

Recommended Posts

She's just goading him. The reason she won't impeach him is she thinks the Dems have a better chance of winning the White House if he stays, but acts like a psycho over the next several months. She needs to put party behind country and do what the constitution requires of her.

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Evan McMullin is another. And while they're on the outside looking in of Republican power, at least they're speaking out. Amash is unequivocal in his denunciation of Trump.

McMullin isn't a congressman. There are plenty of Trump critics from the right but not nearly enough of them are in Congress. Its good Amash and others are speaking out but when the rest of the right continues to defend Trump, these critiques fall on deaf ears. Instead of swaying the view on the right, the Trump critics end up getting thrown in a group with the rest of the libtards. I guess I'm just getting frustrated by the blindness on the right. It won't go away anytime soon but I wish they would at least read the dang report.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

McMullin isn't a congressman.

 

DOH!  Can't believe I wrote that. You're right.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

DOH!  Can't believe I wrote that. You're right.

Haha it happens and I think he is doing great work with StandUpRepublic. With everything I said I do really respect Amash for being genuine. It's not nothing that he is speaking out and what he has said on the issue is absolutely true. Just hope it can do more than get him some attaboys from us. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TGHusker said:

San Fran Nan questions the fitness of Trump have his implosion earlier this week - walking out of the infrastructure meeting:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-insane-talk-infrastructure-pelosi-remark-135120541--politics.html

Yeah, if only someone other than Trump's staff and family had the authority, responsibility, and duty to intervene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller states that he is speaking today because the investigation is complete.

 

Formally closing the special counsel's office. Retiring to public life.

 

Important for the written word to speak for itself.

 

Interference in the 2016 special election - Russian intelligence officers launched a concerted attack on our political system, hacked the Clinton campaign, and released that information. Designed & timed to interfere with our election. 

 

Boldly stating that Russia interfered with our political process.

 

Also investigated whether there was obstruction.

 

Obstruction - if they had confidence that the president did NOT commit a crime, they would have said so, and explicitly did NOT.

 

Charging Trump with a crime was not an option they could consider.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of interesting statements made by Mueller today. The only statements we will recieve from him apparently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that time Trump claimed Mueller "exonerated" him?

 

Yeah. Sit down, because this will be a shock:  TRUMP LIED.

 

Mueller baldly states that he was not in a position to accuse or exonerate the focus of his investigation.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is the Trump Administration going to do to combat future efforts to undermine our democracy?

 

And if they do nothing... why would that be?

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Mueller states that he is speaking today because the investigation is complete.

 

Formally closing the special counsel's office. Retiring to public life.

 

Important for the written word to speak for itself.

 

Interference in the 2016 special election - Russian intelligence officers launched a concerted attack on our political system, hacked the Clinton campaign, and released that information. Designed & timed to interfere with our election. 

 

Boldly stating that Russia interfered with our political process.

 

Also investigated whether there was obstruction.

 

Obstruction - if they had confidence that the president did NOT commit a crime, they would have said so, and explicitly did NOT.

 

Charging Trump with a crime was not an option they could consider.

 

 

 

 

 

The bold - this is the huge wink/green light to the Dems (even if they didn't need one - perhaps a good confirmation) - start looking and digging - there is something there.  My hands were tied but your hands are not. 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what's funny about this?

 

Congressional Republicans, over the course of several years, used their committees and associated powers to turn Benghazi into emails into nonstop media coverage of Hillary Clinton, with the explicit purpose of damaging her chances of becoming president in 2016. And it worked.

 

And now Dems are generally losing their mind because their elected officials are going to do the same thing to Trump. Investigation of his transgressions is undoubtedly more justified.

 

We can talk about motivations and what's ethically correct all you want. But from a utilitarian, pragmatic standpoint, if your goal is preventing a second term of a Trump presidency, what they're doing now seems pretty likely to work, IMO. Bloody him as much as possible before the election, expose his criminality to the world and then let the voters decide.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

You know what's funny about this?

 

Congressional Republicans, over the course of several years, used their committees and associated powers to turn Benghazi into emails into nonstop media coverage of Hillary Clinton, with the explicit purpose of damaging her chances of becoming president in 2016. And it worked.

 

And now Dems are generally losing their mind because their elected officials are going to do the same thing to Trump. Investigation of his transgressions is undoubtedly more justified.

 

We can talk about motivations and what's ethically correct all you want. But from a utilitarian, pragmatic standpoint, if your goal is preventing a second term of a Trump presidency, what they're doing now seems pretty likely to work, IMO. Bloody him as much as possible before the election, expose his criminality to the world and then let the voters decide.

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...

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

You know what's funny about this?

 

Congressional Republicans, over the course of several years, used their committees and associated powers to turn Benghazi into emails into nonstop media coverage of Hillary Clinton, with the explicit purpose of damaging her chances of becoming president in 2016. And it worked.

 

And now Dems are generally losing their mind because their elected officials are going to do the same thing to Trump. Investigation of his transgressions is undoubtedly more justified.

 

We can talk about motivations and what's ethically correct all you want. But from a utilitarian, pragmatic standpoint, if your goal is preventing a second term of a Trump presidency, what they're doing now seems pretty likely to work, IMO. Bloody him as much as possible before the election, expose his criminality to the world and then let the voters decide.

 

The DNC not nominating one of the most despised political candidates in American history should also help. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.”

Screen-Shot-2019-05-30-at-7.58.28-AM.jpg

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.”

 

 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Did Trump lie on a FASFA application?

:movegoalpost::movegoalpost::goalposts:  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. 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TGHusker said:
10 hours ago, TGHusker said:

:movegoalpost::movegoalpost::goalposts:  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. 

:movegoalpost::movegoalpost::goalposts:  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. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Plus1 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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”....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually really like the idea Warren is proposing here.

 

It would circumvent the issue that impeachment is fruitless because Mitch McConnell will opt to protect Trump rather than hold him accountable. It would shift power to federal prosecutors, who are far less likely to be partisan figures and should theoretically place highest priority on simply upholding the rule of law.

 

I only wish it was a thing when we have a president who actively sh#ts on the rule of law, like we do now.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

I actually really like the idea Warren is proposing here.

 

It would circumvent the issue that impeachment is fruitless because Mitch McConnell will opt to protect Trump rather than hold him accountable. It would shift power to federal prosecutors, who are far less likely to be partisan figures and should theoretically place highest priority on simply upholding the rule of law.

 

I only wish it was a thing when we have a president who actively sh#ts on the rule of law, like we do now.

This is my thing. It would be great for situations just like this, but at the same time it does seem a bit knee jerk to me. I would rather our constitutional proccesses play out how they should rather than create an entirely new check on the President. Again, it would be fantastic to have in a scenario such as this, but in my opinion it puts us on a slippery slope with future presidents.

 

That said Trumps entire presidency is a slippery slope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

This is my thing. It would be great for situations just like this, but at the same time it does seem a bit knee jerk to me. I would rather our constitutional proccesses play out how they should rather than create an entirely new check on the President. Again, it would be fantastic to have in a scenario such as this, but in my opinion it puts us on a slippery slope with future presidents.

 

That said Trumps entire presidency is a slippery slope.

It makes you wonder if this is just an anomaly or a new normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jsneb83 said:

It makes you wonder if this is just an anomaly or a new normal.

 

 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if Trump himself doesn’t decide to stage a coup, he’s taught people much smarter and more methodical than he is how to get it done. And as long as politics stay the way they are now in the U.S., the opportunity is still going to be there. I’m hoping this dies off with the baby boomers but we’ll see.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

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.  

 

If you're honestly saying that in response and support Trump currently (like I once did) then you, my friend, are the largest hypocrite on this board.  No offense meant...but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

  • Plus1 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a lot of people think all this anti-Trump hysteria is from people who are simply butthurt that Hillary lost, but I swear-to-God, Donald Trump ended up being far worse than I even imagined, and it's actually bizarre how much we've been forced to accept as normal.

 

And for me, less than 5% of this has anything to do with Russia.

  • Plus1 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

I actually really like the idea Warren is proposing here.

 

It would circumvent the issue that impeachment is fruitless because Mitch McConnell will opt to protect Trump rather than hold him accountable. It would shift power to federal prosecutors, who are far less likely to be partisan figures and should theoretically place highest priority on simply upholding the rule of law.

 

I only wish it was a thing when we have a president who actively sh#ts on the rule of law, like we do now.

What country do you live in?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

What country do you live in? 

 

Sorry man, I don't buy what the far right is serving up. Conspiracy theories are bad.

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Sorry man, I don't buy what the far right is serving up. Conspiracy theories are bad.

 

Warren and the Left are serving up the idea that government lawyers should usurp the powers Constitutionally granted to the elected branches.  can the Democrats get any less democratic?

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

Warren and the Left are serving up the idea that government lawyers should usurp the powers Constitutionally granted to the elected branches.  can the Democrats get any less democratic?

What if we made it possible for the DOJ to press charges and show the evidence to the House.  Then the house will vote to proceed with impeachment (kind of like a grand jury). Then the Senate takes care of the trial?

 

I think everyone currently is conflicted by Mueller’s lack of blatantly saying “our investigation found obstruction which is illegal.”  The report obviously found obstruction, But Trump supporters are left with enough wiggle room to make a poor argument.  Sadly, that’s all it takes for sides to dig in.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The overriding issue here is this: Presidents who don't commit crimes wouldn't ever be indicted.

If hyperpartisanship and Mitch McConnell are going to break the one mechanism that could remove a criminal president, I fail to see why adding an additional check that is less political would be a bad idea.

 

Again, this would not affect presidents who are not criminals.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

The overriding issue here is this: Presidents who don't commit crimes wouldn't ever be indicted.

If hyperpartisanship and Mitch McConnell are going to break the one mechanism that could remove a criminal president, I fail to see why adding an additional check that is less political would be a bad idea.

 

Again, this would not affect presidents who are not criminals.

Keep telling yourself that.  Also remind yourself that Prosecutors tend Republican.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Keep telling yourself that.  Also remind yourself that Prosecutors tend Republican.

Whats your point? Are republican prosecuters going to indict democrat presidents for purely political reasons? Thats real honorable of them.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

Whats your point? Are republican prosecuters going to indict democrat presidents for purely political reasons? Thats real honorable of them.

republicans impeached a democrat for getting a hummer....and will do everything possible to stop any investigation into a "republican"  who can't function unless he is breaking the law.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

can the Democrats get any less democratic?

 

Which political party keeps trying to gerrymander districts and put more barriers in place between people and voting? Which party keeps pushing for easier voting access and fair non-gerrymandered districts?

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

Which political party keeps trying to gerrymander districts and put more barriers in place between people and voting? Which party keeps pushing for easier voting access and fair non-gerrymandered districts?

both.  Now which party calls for socialism, importing foreign voters, and generally prefers SCOTUS to decide political questions?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×