[W:41]BOMBSHELL: Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow call on Sen. Feinstein to ‘resign tomorrow’ (1 Viewer)

[Excast]

When you provide 1 hour of information for 3 days, with nothing new just a hearings rerun, and your own Senators walk out, coupled with ratings so low most networks turn it off, that should tell you something.

It's a trial about abuse of power, not a ******* rock concert. This isn't being done to entertain average voters, let alone the 100 Senators charged with behaving like we would expect from any responsible jury and listening to the arguments presented.

 

[CharisRose]

I turned it off after the first day. There's only so much redundancy a person can take.

Oh and screw Trump haters, Maddow and Hayes. Who cares what they both think?

I turn it on, turn up the volume, do chores, play on iPad etc and listen for tidbits like the one I heard from shape shifter Representative Schiff.

Schiff: Voters shouldn't get to decide 2020

Snippet...

The House Judiciary chairman began the second day of the Senate's impeachment trial by admitting the unconscionable.

"If not remedied by his conviction in the Senate and removal from office, President Trump’s abuse of his office and obstruction of Congress will permanently alter the balance of power among the branches of government," the lead impeachment manager said.

>>>"For precisely this reason, the president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won."<<<

Democratic power grab to circumvent the will of the Peoples Vote in Our 2020 Presidential Election via impeachment?

An impeachment that was the Democratic goal on day 1 of 45’s Presidency.

Proof, that they wanted Trump out of Office via impeachment based on nothing that he actually did or would do in Office in the future.

Based on their non acceptance of the Vote of the (deplorable)People that put him in office as The Duly Elected POTUS

Remembering....“ Not my President” “Impeach 45”

Roseann

 

[trixare4kids]

I turn it on, turn up the volume, do chores, play on iPad etc and listen for tidbits like the one I heard from shape shifter Representative Schiff.

Schiff: Voters shouldn't get to decide 2020

Snippet...

The House Judiciary chairman began the second day of the Senate's impeachment trial by admitting the unconscionable.

"If not remedied by his conviction in the Senate and removal from office, President Trump’s abuse of his office and obstruction of Congress will permanently alter the balance of power among the branches of government," the lead impeachment manager said.

>>>"For precisely this reason, the president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won."<<<

Democratic power grab to circumvent the will of the Peoples Vote in Our 2020 Presidential Election via impeachment?

An impeachment that was the Democratic goal on day 1 of 45’s Presidency.

Proof, that they wanted Trump out of Office via impeachment based on nothing that he actually did or would do in Office in the future.

Based on their non acceptance of the Vote of the (deplorable)People that put him in office as The Duly Elected POTUS

Remembering....“ Not my President” “Impeach 45”

Roseann

Exactly. We know what these vipers from the party of hate are about. They're not fooling anyone.

 

[trixare4kids]

All that would be great except for the fact trump is guilty and has already been proven. I can't help that the republicans refuse to see facts.

Guilty of what and when was he pronounced guilty by the senate?

:coffeepap

 

[trixare4kids]

You honestly have no clue what's going on?

When someone claims Trump has been found guilty, it's only right to ask when and where.

Interesting word you chose to use, "honestly", in light of the inaccurate proclamation made by the above poster.

Neither the senate or the Mueller report found the president guilty of anything.

 

[ecofarm]

When someone claims Trump has been found guilty, it's only right to ask when and where.

False. You know. Everyone knows.

 

[bubbabgone]

Oh good. Did you see the part where mueller pointed out in his opinion ten instances of obstruction of justice or did you miss that part?

He didn't point "out in his opinion ten instances of obstruction of justice".

 

[trixare4kids]

False. You know. Everyone knows.

Is that so?

 

[trixare4kids]

He didn't point "out in his opinion ten instances of obstruction of justice".

Yeah, I don't know where they're coming up with this stuff but I bet it's a very dark and lonely place.

 

[trixare4kids]

sorry but that is not a legal determination. in fact the constitution prohibits such language.
you are either guilty or you are innocent.
mueller doesn't get to throw dirt in the water like that.
he knows better and was playing politics. which was not his job.

Since mueller couldn't make up his mind his bosses did.
rosenstein and barr looked at what he gathered and both agreed
that it did not meet the requirements for obstruction.

obstruction requires intent. remember that little phrase?

Excellent summary.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

He didn't point "out in his opinion ten instances of obstruction of justice".

Yer right, it was actually 11.


Did Mueller find evidence related to potential issues of obstruction of justice involving the president? Yes.

Volume I of the special counsel’s report dealt with Russia’s attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Volume II focused solely on the issue of obstruction of justice. In the latter, Mueller highlighted 11 issues related to potential obstruction of justice by Trump.

Each of the following listed items is linked to the relevant portion of Mueller’s report:

The campaign’s response to reports about Russian support for Trump.
Conduct involving FBI Director James Comey and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
The president’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation.
The president’s termination of Comey.
The appointment of a special counsel and efforts to remove him.
Efforts to curtail the special counsel’s investigation.
Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence.
Further efforts to have the attorney general take control of the investigation.
Efforts to have White House Counsel for U.S. President Donald Trump Don McGahn deny that the president had ordered him to have the special counsel removed.

Conduct towards Flynn and Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
Conduct involving Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen.

Did Mueller Conclude Trump Committed 'No Obstruction' in the 2016 Election Probe?

 

[ludin]

Excellent summary.

it isn't that hard to figure out. it just takes a bit of logic and reason.

 

[trixare4kids]

it isn't that hard to figure out. it just takes a bit of logic and reason.

Yeah, no law degree required, just plain old fashioned logic.

 

[ludin]

Yer right, it was actually 11.


Did Mueller find evidence related to potential issues of obstruction of justice involving the president? Yes.

Volume I of the special counsel’s report dealt with Russia’s attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Volume II focused solely on the issue of obstruction of justice. In the latter, Mueller highlighted 11 issues related to potential obstruction of justice by Trump.

Each of the following listed items is linked to the relevant portion of Mueller’s report:

The campaign’s response to reports about Russian support for Trump.
Conduct involving FBI Director James Comey and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
The president’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation.
The president’s termination of Comey.
The appointment of a special counsel and efforts to remove him.
Efforts to curtail the special counsel’s investigation.
Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence.
Further efforts to have the attorney general take control of the investigation.
Efforts to have White House Counsel for U.S. President Donald Trump Don McGahn deny that the president had ordered him to have the special counsel removed.

Conduct towards Flynn and Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
Conduct involving Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen.

Did Mueller Conclude Trump Committed 'No Obstruction' in the 2016 Election Probe?

Yes mueller could not make a determination on obstruction.
Rosenstein and Barr did make that determination and determined
that there was no corrupt intent nor could they prove corrupt intent
which is a requirement for obstruction.

also there was no crime that obstruction charge was supposed to be built on.

 

[ludin]

Yeah, no law degree required, just plain old fashioned logic.

well it helps to know what the statute requirements are when you discussing these things.

obstruction calls for corrupt intent.

 

[CharisRose]

Exactly. We know what these vipers from the party of hate are about. They're not fooling anyone.

True. Besides, when The deplorable’s reelect 45 those vipers from the party of hate after a good cry~ a scream fest~ an orange Trump diaper baby parade they will have the option to...

Do a rinse and repeat, repeat, repeat impeachment for the all of those deplorable voters as punishment for voting for 45.

Bigly plus... They can repeat their call to arms “Not my President” Followed up by repeating over and over again their favorite chant “Impeach 45”

Roseann

 

[CharisRose]

Excellent summary.

I agree.

 

[Bullseye]

Yes, we know that is exactly what your posts are, but why are you telling us the obvious about your posts?

Jeez, Prax, what are you like in the first grade? "I know you are, but what am I" arguments were laughable in grade school.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Yes mueller could not make a determination on obstruction.
Rosenstein and Barr did make that determination and determined
that there was no corrupt intent nor could they prove corrupt intent
which is a requirement for obstruction.

also there was no crime that obstruction charge was supposed to be built on.

Barr would not make a determination because he believed the DOJ could not bring such charges, whatever the evidence, against a potus.

Beyond that, AG's don't judge.

The point remains, Mueller did find plenty of obstructions....and HUNDREDS of FEDERAL prosecutors would have brought charges if ANYONE else had committed those acts.

 

[Praxas]

Jeez, Prax, what are you like in the first grade? "I know you are, but what am I" arguments were laughable in grade school.

I was agreeing with what you said about your posts.

 

[ultmd]

sorry but that is not a legal determination. in fact the constitution prohibits such language.
you are either guilty or you are innocent.
mueller doesn't get to throw dirt in the water like that.
he knows better and was playing politics. which was not his job.

Since mueller couldn't make up his mind his bosses did.
rosenstein and barr looked at what he gathered and both agreed
that it did not meet the requirements for obstruction.

obstruction requires intent. remember that little phrase?

Excellent summary.

:lamo...only to uneducated Trump acolytes.

Clearly, Mr. Ludin doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.

• The Constitution does NOT "prohibit such language".
• The Mueller investigation was NOT charged with the duty of bringing charges against the sitting president, because that duty is deemed by DOJ policy as the SOLE responsibility of Congress.
• The Mueller investigation WAS, on the other hand, empowered, if/when possible, to clear the sitting president of any criminal or unconstitutional behavior within the parameters of the investigation. Mueller, as noted, explicitly stated that he could NOT do that due to the evidence against the president.
• Anyone...ANYONE...accusing Mueller of "playing politics" in his report CLEARLY never read the report itself. In other words, any such person is either ignorant, or dishonest. No point is sugar coating it any longer.
• Similarly, "Mueller's bosses" were also NOT authorized to rule on the evidence detailed in the Mueller Report. They, too, were bound by the SAME long-held DOJ precedent that limited Mueller. That DOJ policy notes that sitting presidents cannot be indicted while in office, EXCEPT by Congress via the impeachment process.
• Indeed, ANYONE who has actually READ the Mueller Report (part 2) understands that AT LEAST 10 (and as many as 12) separate acts of OBSTRUCTION are detailed, at least half of which explicitly detail "intent" by the president to interfere with the legal process.

But of course, none of this matters to you people, because you people have been brainwashed by a generation of fake news (and other alt-right/white grievance social media/propaganda).

Just understand that for the rest of us (i.e. those of us in the REALITY-BASED community), these are the reasons why some of you garner so little intellectual (and occasionally personal) respect for the social/political/moral/ethical "values" that you represent.

:roll:

 

[Bullseye]

I was agreeing with what you said about your posts.

And now you double down on childish responses. :lamo

 

[Praxas]

And now you double down on childish responses. :lamo

You’re so upset I agreed with you that your posts are crap. :lamo:lamo

Looks like I got another bullseye! :lamo

 

[mrjurrs]

I turned it off after the first day. There's only so much redundancy a person can take.

Oh and screw Trump haters, Maddow and Hayes. Who cares what they both think?

People that don't care what you think...

 

[trixare4kids]

:lamo...only to uneducated Trump acolytes.

Clearly, Mr. Ludin doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.

• The Constitution does NOT "prohibit such language".
• The Mueller investigation was NOT charged with the duty of bringing charges against the sitting president, because that duty is deemed by DOJ policy as the SOLE responsibility of Congress.
• The Mueller investigation WAS, on the other hand, empowered, if/when possible, to clear the sitting president of any criminal or unconstitutional behavior within the parameters of the investigation. Mueller, as noted, explicitly stated that he could NOT do that due to the evidence against the president.
• Anyone...ANYONE...accusing Mueller of "playing politics" in his report CLEARLY never read the report itself. In other words, any such person is either ignorant, or dishonest. No point is sugar coating it any longer.
• Similarly, "Mueller's bosses" were also NOT authorized to rule on the evidence detailed in the Mueller Report. They, too, were bound by the SAME long-held DOJ precedent that limited Mueller. That DOJ policy notes that sitting presidents cannot be indicted while in office, EXCEPT by Congress via the impeachment process.
• Indeed, ANYONE who has actually READ the Mueller Report (part 2) understands that AT LEAST 10 (and as many as 12) separate acts of OBSTRUCTION are detailed, at least half of which explicitly detail "intent" by the president to interfere with the legal process.

But of course, none of this matters to you people, because you people have been brainwashed by a generation of fake news (and other alt-right/white grievance social media/propaganda).

Just understand that for the rest of us (i.e. those of us in the REALITY-BASED community), these are the reasons why some of you garner so little intellectual (and occasionally personal) respect for the social/political/moral/ethical "values" that you represent.

:roll:

Maybe less "you people" type insults?

One comment for you though...Listing ten possible obstruction of justice scenarios via Mueller repot does not mean the president has been found guilty of a crime.