• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats fume as McGahn skips House hearing: 'Our subpoenas are not optional'

Mueller Report....time to move on Dems....you lost that round.

or Nancy would be IMPEACHING

The Mueller Report hasn't been resolved. It's is riddled with ambiguities - especially where it comes to making judgments on the President's conduct. It neither accuses him or exonerates him. We need to get to the bottom of the matter and decide the issue once and for all for the good of the country.
 
Your desire to personally insult me is only exceeded by your lack of knowledge on the actual Mueller Report where everything I have stated is documented.
Deliberately deleting multiple links which prove what I'm saying and disprove what you are saying, that's a dishonest thing to do.

Why don't you quit crying and playing fallacy games and argue the facts, if you can.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
Awesome. I guess I missed that quote from Mueller. How about a link? Thanks!
How about you get a grip on your ignorance. There are multiple sources for this. Maybe you should get sources from somewhere besides mother jones.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
The Mueller Report hasn't been resolved. It's is riddled with ambiguities - especially where it comes to making judgments on the President's conduct. It neither accuses him or exonerates him. We need to get to the bottom of the matter and decide the issue once and for all for the good of the country.

where's MUELLER? get him on the stand please..really please.
 
They should get on the pot or off as far as impeachment goes.
Tell the American people what exactly our president has done wrong to warrant continuous investigation and impeachment.
IF they won't do this, they need to get their sewercrat asses back to the jobs they were elected to do.

The majority have heard enough about the Mueller report! It's the Democrats who are trying to keep this alive!
Latest CBS poll show 53% of the American public want congressional Democrats to drop the Russia matter, and move on to other issues....

And an overwhelming majority of the American public, 77%, say that the Trump Administration should cooperate with the Congressional investigations. So it would seem to me that the strategy for Pelosi and the democrats would be simply be to continue slowly feeding out enough rope to allow Trump's inbred obstinance and instinct to obstruct to hang himself and his party.
 
Yup. The most incompetent and deliberately maliciously provocative phrase from the Mueller report. I have found no objective legally trained person who does not think that was put in there specifically to hurt the President that they found no crime to accuse him of.

You know what? I'm not dismissing that possibility out of hand. It certainly is a possibility that it's some passive-aggressive stance against the President on Mueller's part. Like I said before in this thread, if Mueller was just left alone to do his job without any outside interference and he came out with the same conclusions, I'd agree with you 100%. But, by the same token, from the very start, the President has taken actions and expressed views which could have very seriously impaired the ability of the Special Prosecutor to do his job, and that was the reason he was unable to come to more iron-clad conclusions. I don't know for sure... but that's certainly my suspicion. Either way, the existence of that possibility is why the matter needs to be examined further.
 
It is clear Mueller knew there was no collusion a year ago because his indictments stopped about then. Mueller engaged (continued) an investigation that may have been reasonably premised on apparently fraudulent evidence, he found the evidence flawed and the justification for the investigation into Trump's collusion with Russians to defeat Hillary without merit. As it became apparent there was no big there there, Mueller resorted to these indictments, none of which have anything to do with collusion, but do relate to other wrongful conduct.

About a year ago all Mueller had was the possibility of coercing some admissions from people associated with Trump for wrongful conduct of their own in whatever dealings they made that had nothing to do with collusion. For example, Mueller discovered Cohen was not properly reporting the foreign citizenship of NYC taxicab medallion buyers, this is a process crime, but it is indictable, Cohen was charged, he admitted the wrongdoing and agreed to cooperate in Mueller's investigation of collusion. Since there really wasn't any collusion, Cohen couldn't provide any evidence for Mueller, in the end Cohen cops a plea, yes he's been indicted, this was Trump's lawyer, Trump looks bad, but it is clear there's just a faint hope someone on Trump's team, caught in some improper deal will confess to this collusion.

The cases against Manafort and Page are analogous to Cohen's; Mueller found evidence they did lobby without being properly registered, its another process crime, they get indicted, are persuaded to cooperate, but again, they've no evidence of collusion, they can't provide Mueller with anything, cop their pleas and Mueller needs to see what he can get from Papadopoulos or someone else.

This pattern suggests Mueller went at it, came up empty on collusion, uncovered sundry entirely unrelated misdeeds by Trump associates, leaned on them to extract collusion confessions, got nothing and finally had to give up.

The notion Barr, Mueller, McGahn or anyone else can offer testimony that will reveal Trump's collusion with the Russians is absolutely ridiculous.

What I do think could become evident from their testimony is a strong suspicion Mueller kept the pointless investigation going for a year after he knew there was no big there there, just in order to promote circumstances when Trump's conduct could be described as obstructive.

I love how you characterized Cohen and Manafort's crimes. Manafort for example didn't just lobby without being registered, he laundered millions, evaded $millions in taxes, and is in general criminal scum who's where he belongs, in prison. Cohen also pled guilty to tax evasion over a period of years, and of lying to Congress.

At any rate, if you have a quote from Mueller indicating he knew a year ago he wouldn't find evidence of "collusion" present it. I'm not all that interested in rehashed talking points about the Mueller investigation. I've been following along all by myself.
 
Mueller Report (Vol I, Page 9):

"...the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference."

Mueller Report (Vol II, Page 8) (Emphasis mine):

"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The (bolded above) says it all but folks like to concentrate on the rest of the (meaningless?) story being presented for further (inconclusive?) discussion. Why we had a special prosecutor appointed to spend $33M not to make that call has yet to be explained.
 
What you bolded in her post is factual. --->>

Maybe you misread?

It's not a "fact" that there are no "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's an opinion, of a partisan who defends Trump no matter what he does or says. Maybe you're unclear about what "high crime and misdemeanor" means?
 
No, Jasper routinely sees things that aren't there. It's a special talent he has. Some would call it demonstrative of an underlying pathology, but I'd never do that.

How did you determine the 'fact' that there are no "high crimes and misdemeanors?"

Prove me wrong, don't just say I'm wrong. :roll:
 
How about you get a grip on your ignorance. There are multiple sources for this. Maybe you should get sources from somewhere besides mother jones.

I looked and all I found was some garbage at WND, because Mueller never said anything like he knew a year ago before the investigation was over that he would find nothing. It's a claim made up by right wing hacks. If you think I'm wrong, cite one of those "multiple sources." Should be easy, even on your mobile.
 
The (bolded above) says it all but folks like to concentrate on the rest of the (meaningless?) story being presented for further (inconclusive?) discussion. Why we had a special prosecutor appointed to spend $33M not to make that call has yet to be explained.

Because he wanted Congress to do it is my guess.

Good thing he arrested a lot of criminal people as a result of his investigation, and collected about $22 million from Manafort to go towards his expenses.
 
T/Y
Gives me pause to scroll on by...

Well, what it does is relieve you of the need to prove something you cannot, which is that it's a "fact" that there are no "high crimes and misdemeanors."
 
I looked and all I found was some garbage at WND, because Mueller never said anything like he knew a year ago before the investigation was over that he would find nothing. It's a claim made up by right wing hacks. If you think I'm wrong, cite one of those "multiple sources." Should be easy, even on your mobile.

WND, the Birther people? I didn't know they were still around. I thought after they, like Trump, failed to find Obama's Kenyan birth certificate they would have had the good sense to slink into obscurity.
 
The (bolded above) says it all but folks like to concentrate on the rest of the (meaningless?) story being presented for further (inconclusive?) discussion. Why we had a special prosecutor appointed to spend $33M not to make that call has yet to be explained.

Excellent point. I'd like to see an explanation for that as well.

As part of Mueller's mandate, he was authorized to investigate "(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)." Included within 28 CFR §600.4 (a) is the following provision:

"The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted."

It seemed to me that Mueller had more than adequate authority to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment one way or the other. So why didn't he choose to do so? Was it his judgment alone (if so, what was his reasoning?) or was he forced to take that stance by outside influences?
 
I looked and all I found was some garbage at WND, because Mueller never said anything like he knew a year ago before the investigation was over that he would find nothing. It's a claim made up by right wing hacks. If you think I'm wrong, cite one of those "multiple sources." Should be easy, even on your mobile.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-when-did-mueller-know-there-was-no-collusion

He didn't, it appears. In the wake of the release of Mueller's report, there are indications that special counsel prosecutors mostly knew by the end of 2017, and certainly by a few months later, that the evidence would not establish that conspiracy or coordination — or collusion, to use the popular term — had taken place. Mueller clearly spent a lot of time on the other half of his report — trying to establish that Trump obstructed justice — but on the most explosive and consequential allegation of the Trump-Russia affair, the conspiracy allegation, the Mueller investigation was essentially over long before it officially ended.

"By early December, [Mueller] had exhausted all of the evidence and the witnesses," John Dowd, who was the president's lawyer for the first 10 months of the investigation, said in a recent podcast interview.
 
OK, you've finally gotten around to stating the issue correctly, which is good. The dispute is, of course, what "properly applied executive privilege" means in this context. The courts will ultimately determine that. So far Trump's claims haven't done too well in the courts.

Claims against Trump have all been steered by his enemies to THEIR judges they can depend on to judge as partisans and adversaries instead of judging according to precedent, principle, law. It is no accident that all cases going against the President have been by judges selected by the opposition.
 
Because he wanted Congress to do it is my guess.

Good thing he arrested a lot of criminal people as a result of his investigation, and collected about $22 million from Manafort to go towards his expenses.

Then politely decline the job offer and so state.
 
Your desire to personally insult me is only exceeded by your lack of knowledge on the actual Mueller Report where everything I have stated is documented.

Its not, thanks for playing you have nothing substantive to say, you can play your little accusation game with someone else. You can however, contribute to the thread at any time and it would be welcome.
 
Aww, and here I thought I was being kind to the house sewercrats who won't, for their own nefarious reasons, drop their fishing expedition and do so for the good of the country.

Why should they drop the investigation into Traitor Trump and the repugnants, like Nasty Nunes and Blubberhead Bloviator Barr?
 
You know what? I'm not dismissing that possibility out of hand. It certainly is a possibility that it's some passive-aggressive stance against the President on Mueller's part. Like I said before in this thread, if Mueller was just left alone to do his job without any outside interference and he came out with the same conclusions, I'd agree with you 100%. But, by the same token, from the very start, the President has taken actions and expressed views which could have very seriously impaired the ability of the Special Prosecutor to do his job, and that was the reason he was unable to come to more iron-clad conclusions. I don't know for sure... but that's certainly my suspicion. Either way, the existence of that possibility is why the matter needs to be examined further.

The President expressing his views no doubt inspired Mueller to retaliate. I'll give you that. But no witnesses and no documents requested by Mueller were denied him. He was hindered or hampered in no way in doing his job.
 
Claims against Trump have all been steered by his enemies to THEIR judges they can depend on to judge as partisans and adversaries instead of judging according to precedent, principle, law. It is no accident that all cases going against the President have been by judges selected by the opposition.

LOL, of course, if the judge rules against Trump, they're wrong because Dear Leader cannot be wrong.... :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom