Predictions for mueller's testimony

[brandonbull]

You can keep telling yourself that he is innocent.

Mueller explicitly said he could be indicted once he left office based on the evidence in the report. And that was asked by a Republican no less.

Guess who else can be indicted once Trump leaves office, pretty much everyone. Doesn't mean a thing in this context. Trump could be indicted for any number of things after he leaves office, which is true and meaningless. The real question is there any evidence to do so? The report clearly states that there is not.

 

[brandonbull]

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge!

I guess you take my question or is answering out of your purview?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Guess who else can be indicted once Trump leaves office, pretty much everyone. Doesn't mean a thing in this context. Trump could be indicted for any number of things after he leaves office, which is true and meaningless. The real question is there any evidence to do so? The report clearly states that there is not.

No, it didn't. Go read it. There's 10 examples of likely obstruction of justice. Mueller's investigation determined that without the ability to indict a sitting president, they had no need to make a determination on guilt. That's a far cry from 'there's no evidence', and you're either being intentionally disingenuous or unintentionally ignorant/snowed.

 

[soundforbjt]

Guess who else can be indicted once Trump leaves office, pretty much everyone. Doesn't mean a thing in this context. Trump could be indicted for any number of things after he leaves office, which is true and meaningless. The real question is there any evidence to do so?The report clearly states that there is not.

Could you tell me the page and paragraph that states this? I have a pdf of the report on my desktop and would like to see that part you're referring to.

 

[Jhhnn]

Participation? Us? It seems that "we" are second class citizens then. The party systems are designed to provide an illusion while in most cases we are led by the nose. Our "betters" work to game the system and do so quite well.

Your bothsides bullshit is tedious.

 

[Jhhnn]

dp weirdness

 

[SMOGZINN]

While true today, the problem is, if Trump is reelected, the statute of limitations would most likely run out before he's out of office. If he doesn't get impeached, he's probably going to get reelected. Reality sux sometimes.

Which is why Mueller's testimony was so frustrating. He basically sat before Congress and said that nothing he says means anything at all. That he did his very best to make every word double talk. He has no opinions, came to no conclusions, and offered no evidence for literally anything at all. Trump is neither innocent or guilty, Mueller neither found any evidence nor didn't find any evidence of a crime, and every American should be concerned about Russia's involvement in our electoral process but for no specific reason that Mueller is willing to specify.

Mueller apparently does not consider 'investigating' and 'reporting' to require any conclusions be made. It is a ridiculous stance. I wish someone would have asked Mueller just why he thought they were asking him to investigate since his definition of investigate does not seem to have any meaning.

 

[Bird222]

Dems are fucked. We've hit a point where we don't have a guide or rule book. Congress has oversight authority. They ask for hearings and documents. Administration says "Nope". Fine. Issue subpoenas. Administration says "Fuck off, we're ignoring them too". Ok. Vote for contempt? Sure that passes. Your're in contempt. Now what? There's no good path or guide what to do here.

Impeachment is futile. All it does is give the biggest victim in the history of American politics an even bigger badge of dishonor to play the victim card with. The constitution has some guides but not everything we need right now. It doesn't have a good solution for a complicit and enabling Republican party that won't put country before their own party or individual greed. It doesn't really give a good way to resolve an administration that outright ignores congressional oversight. Impeachment only goes so far and assumes you have intellectual honesty and integrity in both branches of government and on both sides of the isle within them. But it doesn't know what to do when all of these ugly elements rear their head at the same time.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson

 

[fskimospy]

What news article was that summarized from again? Wasn't Volume II mostly news story summaries?

That was not summarized from any news article, it was from the person Trump directed to falsify documents himself, Don McGahn.

So again, how do you feel about the fact that Trump ordered his subordinates to falsify documents in order to obstruct a criminal investigation? Should he be prosecuted for this?

 

[brandonbull]

No, it didn't. Go read it. There's 10 examples of likely obstruction of justice. Mueller's investigation determined that without the ability to indict a sitting president, they had no need to make a determination on guilt. That's a far cry from 'there's no evidence', and you're either being intentionally disingenuous or unintentionally ignorant/snowed.

10 examples of likely obstruction? Mueller stated a lack of evidence for the 10 examples of likely obstruction for the lack of a decision. The report states that and one of the few times Mueller spoke outside of canned responses he even stated as such. He corrected his statement to Ted Lieu.

 

[fskimospy]

Guess who else can be indicted once Trump leaves office, pretty much everyone. Doesn't mean a thing in this context. Trump could be indicted for any number of things after he leaves office, which is true and meaningless. The real question is there any evidence to do so? The report clearly states that there is not.

The report literally states the opposite. Are you living in some sort of conservative media alternate reality where the report exonerated Trump instead of delivering damning evidence of his guilt for multiple felonies?

Here's a summary from Lawfare of the various obstruction of justice charges. The dark orange indicates that the report says there is 'substantial evidence' for that element of obstruction of justice.

 

[SMOGZINN]

10 examples of likely obstruction? Mueller stated a lack of evidence for the 10 examples of likely obstruction for the lack of a decision. The report states that and one of the few times Mueller spoke outside of canned responses he even stated as such. He corrected his statement to Ted Lieu.

No, Mueller basically said that he was not going to comment on if there is evidence or not, and the administration responsible for looking at the evidence told the US public that they don't really care if the President broke the law or not.

 

[soundforbjt]

10 examples of likely obstruction? Mueller stated a lack of evidence for the 10 examples of likely obstruction for the lack of a decision. The report states that and one of the few times Mueller spoke outside of canned responses he even stated as such. He corrected his statement to Ted Lieu.

Again, Could you tell me the page and paragraph that states this? I have a pdf of the report on my desktop and would like to see that part you're referring to.

 

[fskimospy]

10 examples of likely obstruction? Mueller stated a lack of evidence for the 10 examples of likely obstruction for the lack of a decision. The report states that and one of the few times Mueller spoke outside of canned responses he even stated as such. He corrected his statement to Ted Lieu.

Mueller most certainly did not state that there was a lack of evidence. This is a bald faced lie.

If you believe otherwise please provide us a link and quote where Mueller says this.

 

[brandonbull]

That was not summarized from any news article, it was from the person Trump directed to falsify documents himself, Don McGahn.

So again, how do you feel about the fact that Trump ordered his subordinates to falsify documents in order to obstruct a criminal investigation? Should he be prosecuted for this?

Again, using news articles as evidence is not valid. Then why didn't Mueller and his report say they have sufficient evidence of that obstruction charge? Even when the Dems tried walking through each of likely obstruction charges, Mueller didn't agree with their conclusion.

Volume II was a lot of summarized news stories about likely obstruction charges.

 

[soundforbjt]

Again, using news articles as evidence is not valid. Then why didn't Mueller and his report say they have sufficient evidence of that obstruction charge? Even when the Dems tried walking through each of likely obstruction charges, Mueller didn't agree with their conclusion.

Volume II was a lot of summarized news stories about likely obstruction charges.

So, you have no links to back up your assertions, just your feels ?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

10 examples of likely obstruction? Mueller stated a lack of evidence for the 10 examples of likely obstruction for the lack of a decision. The report states that and one of the few times Mueller spoke outside of canned responses he even stated as such. He corrected his statement to Ted Lieu.

As stated above, you're simply wrong.

Which is why Mueller's testimony was so frustrating. He basically sat before Congress and said that nothing he says means anything at all. That he did his very best to make every word double talk. He has no opinions, came to no conclusions, and offered no evidence for literally anything at all. Trump is neither innocent or guilty, Mueller neither found any evidence nor didn't find any evidence of a crime, and every American should be concerned about Russia's involvement in our electoral process but for no specific reason that Mueller is willing to specify.

Mueller apparently does not consider 'investigating' and 'reporting' to require any conclusions be made. It is a ridiculous stance. I wish someone would have asked Mueller just why he thought they were asking him to investigate since his definition of investigate does not seem to have any meaning.

Mueller's investigation was not into whether or not trump committed a crime, it was an investigation into Russia meddling in our election. In that, it was an incredibly detailed and thorough analysis. He also included a ton of information for Congress to have reason to impeach the President, to which they have thus far declined to follow through on.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Again, using news articles as evidence is not valid. Then why didn't Mueller and his report say they have sufficient evidence of that obstruction charge? Even when the Dems tried walking through each of likely obstruction charges, Mueller didn't agree with their conclusion.

Volume II was a lot of summarized news stories about likely obstruction charges.

Mueller's report didn't state they had sufficient evidence because the president is un-indictable. It's like gathering evidence that a chair committed obstruction of justice.

The purpose of Vol2 was not to either indict nor clear the president of wrongdoing, it was to give the AG and Congress ammunition and justification needed to impeach.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, using news articles as evidence is not valid.

The report did not use news articles to detail Trump's efforts to have McGahn falsify documents - it relied on in-person testimony to that effect from an eyewitness, McGahn himself. Do you consider eyewitness testimony to be valid? If so, how do you feel about the fact that Trump ordered his subordinates to falsify documents in order to obstruct a criminal investigation? Should he be prosecuted for this?

Then why didn't Mueller and his report say they have sufficient evidence of that obstruction charge? Even when the Dems tried walking through each of likely obstruction charges,

This indicates you've never even read the report and have gotten your news about it from conservative media. This is a bad idea because conservative media lies to you constantly.

The report is crystal clear as to why Mueller did not say they had sufficient evidence of that obstruction charge. I will quote it from page 213:

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

Because the OLC says Mueller was not allowed to indict Trump no matter what he found, Mueller declined to make a judgment either way. It had zero to do with the evidence.

Mueller didn't agree with their conclusion.

This is false, he said he wasn't going to make any conclusions, not that their conclusions were wrong.

Volume II was a lot of summarized news stories about likely obstruction charges.

Irrelevant.

 

[Jhhnn]

Da rules-

1- No person can be accused of a crime w/o the opportunity to clear their name in a court of law.

2- No sitting President can be afforded that opportunity.

Therefore, no prosecutor can say they would charge a President if they could. Mueller came as close as he ethically could in saying that he could not exonerate the President.

Of course Trump will ultimately be prosecuted for obstruction. That's not a matter of politics but rather a matter of him being a criminal. It's also a matter of national security in a different kind of way. He tried to sweep Russian meddling in the election under the carpet. He knows they're on his side, as demonstrated in 2016. They know he's tearing down this country faster than they ever could so they'll be back to help him out again. Stupid fucking Americans, huh?

 

[nakedfrog]

Again, using news articles as evidence is not valid. Then why didn't Mueller and his report say they have sufficient evidence of that obstruction charge? Even when the Dems tried walking through each of likely obstruction charges, Mueller didn't agree with their conclusion.

Volume II was a lot of summarized news stories about likely obstruction charges.

"As I said forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Your bothsides bullshit is tedious.

Your detachment from reality is noted as your lack of learning much of anything. Business as usual eh?

 

[zinfamous]

Guess who else can be indicted once Trump leaves office, pretty much everyone. Doesn't mean a thing in this context. Trump could be indicted for any number of things after he leaves office, which is true and meaningless. The real question is there any evidence to do so? The report clearly states that there is not.

The report clearly states that there is plenty of evidence. In fact, it says it in very clear words. Why do you keep making preposterously false statements like this? Do you simply not care that you look like an illiterate moron?

 

[zinfamous]

10 examples of likely obstruction? Mueller stated a lack of evidence for the 10 examples of likely obstruction for the lack of a decision. The report states that and one of the few times Mueller spoke outside of canned responses he even stated as such. He corrected his statement to Ted Lieu.

This is a bald-faced lie. The report clearly details mountains of evidence of obstruction. It couldn't be more clear.

Read the report.

 

[jackstar7]

Dems are fucked. We've hit a point where we don't have a guide or rule book. Congress has oversight authority. They ask for hearings and documents. Administration says "Nope". Fine. Issue subpoenas. Administration says "Fuck off, we're ignoring them too". Ok. Vote for contempt? Sure that passes. Your're in contempt. Now what? There's no good path or guide what to do here.

Impeachment is futile. All it does is give the biggest victim in the history of American politics an even bigger badge of dishonor to play the victim card with. The constitution has some guides but not everything we need right now. It doesn't have a good solution for a complicit and enabling Republican party that won't put country before their own party or individual greed. It doesn't really give a good way to resolve an administration that outright ignores congressional oversight. Impeachment only goes so far and assumes you have intellectual honesty and integrity in both branches of government and on both sides of the isle within them. But it doesn't know what to do when all of these ugly elements rear their head at the same time.

Here's the thing, when Trump is actually put on defense, he's fucking terrible at it.

When he is made to appear weak, his base does not rally to him. They demand that he be strong always!

Impeachment inquiries can be dragged out indefinitely AND would control the narrative with a constant stream of crimes to investigate.

Impeachment is the tactically sound move and it needed to start a while ago... but I'll take it whenever we can get it going.

Trump is only strong when no one stands up to his bullshit. He looks like a dummy when he tries to take shots of people who don't tolerate his shit.

 

[vi edit]

Here's the thing, when Trump is actually put on defense, he's fucking terrible at it.

When he is made to appear weak, his base does not rally to him. They demand that he be strong always!

Impeachment inquiries can be dragged out indefinitely AND would control the narrative with a constant stream of crimes to investigate.

Impeachment is the tactically sound move and it needed to start a while ago... but I'll take it whenever we can get it going.

Trump is only strong when no one stands up to his bullshit. He looks like a dummy when he tries to take shots of people who don't tolerate his shit.

His base is around 30% and that has been unwavering. Absolutely unwavering. Anything above 30% is a bonus. The problem is that he is unchallenged in his own party. They all tail tuck and bend the knee to him. Resist and face a primary. Impeachment will not alter that 30% and will just make for a higher chance of getting primaried if a Republican goes against him. So nothing changes the calculus there. Republicans are just going to run the clock out to 2020 and do anything they can to prevent any meaningful legislation for a hopeful democrat to hang their hat on for reelection. We're in for 15'ish months of pure gridlock and misery. And after that, who knows.