Team Mueller (and Their Report)

18911131421

Comments

  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,185
    mcgruff10 said:
    CM189191 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    It's so quiet in here.
    why the edit from the pic you posted?
    Damn my bad.  Can we finally move on?
    Collusion isn't the only item to be looked at. but yes, I think we can at least cross collusion of the list. 
    As legally defined to bring criminal charges.
    yeah, and?
    Congress may have a different opinion of whether "colluding" with a foreign power to throw an election, lie about it and attempt to obstruct justice rises to a "high crime & misdemeanor." 
    Just stop. 
    Do you know what the threshold is for impeachment? 
    Yeah I m almost positive  what it is but just for the hell of it why don’t you explain it to me using your own words. 
    It’s the bar that the House members set, which was intended to be lower than what some are applying to trump, which seems high, similar to a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. 

    ... but Mitt Romney said...
    Romney was right, there is insufficient evidence to charge him.  You enjoy beating dead horses huh?

    Mueller straight up said in his report that tRUmp can and should be charged:

    A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office. Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law. Indeed, the Impeachment Judgment Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in addressing an official’s conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment. See U.S. CONST. ART. l, § 3, cl. 7. Impeachment is also a drastic and rarely invoked remedy, and Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment, rather than making criminal law applicable to a former President, as OLC has recognized. A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. at 255 (“Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President’s term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment.”).
    Yes thanks for the copy and paste job however Romney thinks that Trump shouldn't be charged which I agree with.  But I especially like and agree with what Romney stated in the second half of his post (which of course was ignored when I orgianlly posted it):

    "Even so, I am sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the President. I am also appalled that, among other things, fellow citizens working in a campaign for president welcomed help from Russia—including information that had been illegally obtained; that none of them acted to inform American law enforcement; and that the campaign chairman was actively promoting Russian interests in Ukraine.

    Reading the report is a sobering revelation of how far we have strayed from the aspirations and principles of the founders."

    ‘I’m sickened, but won’t do anything because I have no spine’. 

  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 19,733
    mcgruff10 said:
    CM189191 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    It's so quiet in here.
    why the edit from the pic you posted?
    Damn my bad.  Can we finally move on?
    Collusion isn't the only item to be looked at. but yes, I think we can at least cross collusion of the list. 
    As legally defined to bring criminal charges.
    yeah, and?
    Congress may have a different opinion of whether "colluding" with a foreign power to throw an election, lie about it and attempt to obstruct justice rises to a "high crime & misdemeanor." 
    Just stop. 
    Do you know what the threshold is for impeachment? 
    Yeah I m almost positive  what it is but just for the hell of it why don’t you explain it to me using your own words. 
    It’s the bar that the House members set, which was intended to be lower than what some are applying to trump, which seems high, similar to a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. 

    ... but Mitt Romney said...
    Romney was right, there is insufficient evidence to charge him.  You enjoy beating dead horses huh?

    Mueller straight up said in his report that tRUmp can and should be charged:

    A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office. Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law. Indeed, the Impeachment Judgment Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in addressing an official’s conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment. See U.S. CONST. ART. l, § 3, cl. 7. Impeachment is also a drastic and rarely invoked remedy, and Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment, rather than making criminal law applicable to a former President, as OLC has recognized. A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. at 255 (“Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President’s term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment.”).
    Yes thanks for the copy and paste job however Romney thinks that Trump shouldn't be charged which I agree with.  But I especially like and agree with what Romney stated in the second half of his post (which of course was ignored when I orgianlly posted it):

    "Even so, I am sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the President. I am also appalled that, among other things, fellow citizens working in a campaign for president welcomed help from Russia—including information that had been illegally obtained; that none of them acted to inform American law enforcement; and that the campaign chairman was actively promoting Russian interests in Ukraine.

    Reading the report is a sobering revelation of how far we have strayed from the aspirations and principles of the founders."

    ‘I’m sickened, but won’t do anything because I have no spine’. 


    I m impressed he called out his own party. 
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 20,892
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    CM189191 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    It's so quiet in here.
    why the edit from the pic you posted?
    Damn my bad.  Can we finally move on?
    Collusion isn't the only item to be looked at. but yes, I think we can at least cross collusion of the list. 
    As legally defined to bring criminal charges.
    yeah, and?
    Congress may have a different opinion of whether "colluding" with a foreign power to throw an election, lie about it and attempt to obstruct justice rises to a "high crime & misdemeanor." 
    Just stop. 
    Do you know what the threshold is for impeachment? 
    Yeah I m almost positive  what it is but just for the hell of it why don’t you explain it to me using your own words. 
    It’s the bar that the House members set, which was intended to be lower than what some are applying to trump, which seems high, similar to a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. 

    ... but Mitt Romney said...
    Romney was right, there is insufficient evidence to charge him.  You enjoy beating dead horses huh?

    Mueller straight up said in his report that tRUmp can and should be charged:

    A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office. Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law. Indeed, the Impeachment Judgment Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in addressing an official’s conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment. See U.S. CONST. ART. l, § 3, cl. 7. Impeachment is also a drastic and rarely invoked remedy, and Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment, rather than making criminal law applicable to a former President, as OLC has recognized. A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. at 255 (“Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President’s term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment.”).
    Yes thanks for the copy and paste job however Romney thinks that Trump shouldn't be charged which I agree with.  But I especially like and agree with what Romney stated in the second half of his post (which of course was ignored when I orgianlly posted it):

    "Even so, I am sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the President. I am also appalled that, among other things, fellow citizens working in a campaign for president welcomed help from Russia—including information that had been illegally obtained; that none of them acted to inform American law enforcement; and that the campaign chairman was actively promoting Russian interests in Ukraine.

    Reading the report is a sobering revelation of how far we have strayed from the aspirations and principles of the founders."

    ‘I’m sickened, but won’t do anything because I have no spine’. 


    I m impressed he called out his own party. 
    It’s an awful lonely voice in the wilderness. What should be done? Nothing? And why is all up to the dems?
     
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 15,582
    edited April 23
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    It's so quiet in here.
    why the edit from the pic you posted?
    Damn my bad.  Can we finally move on?
    Collusion isn't the only item to be looked at. but yes, I think we can at least cross collusion of the list. 
    As legally defined to bring criminal charges.
    yeah, and?
    Congress may have a different opinion of whether "colluding" with a foreign power to throw an election, lie about it and attempt to obstruct justice rises to a "high crime & misdemeanor." 
    Just stop. 
    Do you know what the threshold is for impeachment? 
    Yeah I m almost positive  what it is but just for the hell of it why don’t you explain it to me using your own words. 
    It’s the bar that the House members set, which was intended to be lower than what some are applying to trump, which seems high, similar to a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. 

    ... but Mitt Romney said...
    Romney was right, there is insufficient evidence to charge him.  You enjoy beating dead horses huh?

    If there was insufficient evidence of Obstruction - as you say - where does Mueller state that or that he could have evidence in the context of charging someone? 

    Pointing out people spreading stupidity =/= beating a dead horse.
    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 15,368
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    It's so quiet in here.
    why the edit from the pic you posted?
    Damn my bad.  Can we finally move on?
    Collusion isn't the only item to be looked at. but yes, I think we can at least cross collusion of the list. 
    As legally defined to bring criminal charges.
    yeah, and?
    Congress may have a different opinion of whether "colluding" with a foreign power to throw an election, lie about it and attempt to obstruct justice rises to a "high crime & misdemeanor." 
    Just stop. 
    Do you know what the threshold is for impeachment? 
    Yeah I m almost positive  what it is but just for the hell of it why don’t you explain it to me using your own words. 
    It’s the bar that the House members set, which was intended to be lower than what some are applying to trump, which seems high, similar to a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. 

    ... but Mitt Romney said...
    Romney was right, there is insufficient evidence to charge him.  You enjoy beating dead horses huh?

    If there was insufficient evidence of Obstruction - as you say - where does Mueller state that or that he could have evidence in the context of charging someone? 

    Pointing out people spreading stupidity =/= beating a dead horse.
    Mueller starts from the understanding that a sitting president cant or shouldn't be indicted, which is based on current guidance and longstanding guidance at that from DOJ. I see enough that were he not in office, Trump would in fact be indicted.

    Theres a sense that because so much of the obstructive behavior was done in the open that it isnt chargeable. not true.




    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 15,368
    this speaks volumes, you cant or shouldnt indict a sitting president but.....

    “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. …

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 15,582
    mickeyrat said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    It's so quiet in here.
    why the edit from the pic you posted?
    Damn my bad.  Can we finally move on?
    Collusion isn't the only item to be looked at. but yes, I think we can at least cross collusion of the list. 
    As legally defined to bring criminal charges.
    yeah, and?
    Congress may have a different opinion of whether "colluding" with a foreign power to throw an election, lie about it and attempt to obstruct justice rises to a "high crime & misdemeanor." 
    Just stop. 
    Do you know what the threshold is for impeachment? 
    Yeah I m almost positive  what it is but just for the hell of it why don’t you explain it to me using your own words. 
    It’s the bar that the House members set, which was intended to be lower than what some are applying to trump, which seems high, similar to a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. 

    ... but Mitt Romney said...
    Romney was right, there is insufficient evidence to charge him.  You enjoy beating dead horses huh?

    If there was insufficient evidence of Obstruction - as you say - where does Mueller state that or that he could have evidence in the context of charging someone? 

    Pointing out people spreading stupidity =/= beating a dead horse.
    Mueller starts from the understanding that a sitting president cant or shouldn't be indicted, which is based on current guidance and longstanding guidance at that from DOJ. I see enough that were he not in office, Trump would in fact be indicted.

    Theres a sense that because so much of the obstructive behavior was done in the open that it isnt chargeable. not true.




    Yes, not to point people out - but @McGruff10 should watch Neal Katyal here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWjKYQFyJZM
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 19,733
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    It's so quiet in here.
    why the edit from the pic you posted?
    Damn my bad.  Can we finally move on?
    Collusion isn't the only item to be looked at. but yes, I think we can at least cross collusion of the list. 
    As legally defined to bring criminal charges.
    yeah, and?
    Congress may have a different opinion of whether "colluding" with a foreign power to throw an election, lie about it and attempt to obstruct justice rises to a "high crime & misdemeanor." 
    Just stop. 
    Do you know what the threshold is for impeachment? 
    Yeah I m almost positive  what it is but just for the hell of it why don’t you explain it to me using your own words. 
    It’s the bar that the House members set, which was intended to be lower than what some are applying to trump, which seems high, similar to a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. 

    ... but Mitt Romney said...
    Romney was right, there is insufficient evidence to charge him.  You enjoy beating dead horses huh?

    If there was insufficient evidence of Obstruction - as you say - where does Mueller state that or that he could have evidence in the context of charging someone? 

    Pointing out people spreading stupidity =/= beating a dead horse.
    So why are a lot of democrats so hesitant to impeach if there is all this evidence of obstruction?

    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 15,582
    edited April 23
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    It's so quiet in here.
    why the edit from the pic you posted?
    Damn my bad.  Can we finally move on?
    Collusion isn't the only item to be looked at. but yes, I think we can at least cross collusion of the list. 
    As legally defined to bring criminal charges.
    yeah, and?
    Congress may have a different opinion of whether "colluding" with a foreign power to throw an election, lie about it and attempt to obstruct justice rises to a "high crime & misdemeanor." 
    Just stop. 
    Do you know what the threshold is for impeachment? 
    Yeah I m almost positive  what it is but just for the hell of it why don’t you explain it to me using your own words. 
    It’s the bar that the House members set, which was intended to be lower than what some are applying to trump, which seems high, similar to a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. 

    ... but Mitt Romney said...
    Romney was right, there is insufficient evidence to charge him.  You enjoy beating dead horses huh?

    If there was insufficient evidence of Obstruction - as you say - where does Mueller state that or that he could have evidence in the context of charging someone? 

    Pointing out people spreading stupidity =/= beating a dead horse.
    So why are a lot of democrats so hesitant to impeach if there is all this evidence of obstruction?

    Ask your local congressman? My guess is that they know it will fall in the senate because republicans will pick party over what is right?

    I do not know the value of the obstruction or what the threshold for impeachment is in the US. I am just saying that Mitt Romney was factually wrong while you gush over him and saying he was "spot on".

    It's not my country. Take some responsibility and choose your sources for news better. And unfollow Jim Jordan on instagram. :P
    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,608
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    It's so quiet in here.
    why the edit from the pic you posted?
    Damn my bad.  Can we finally move on?
    Collusion isn't the only item to be looked at. but yes, I think we can at least cross collusion of the list. 
    As legally defined to bring criminal charges.
    yeah, and?
    Congress may have a different opinion of whether "colluding" with a foreign power to throw an election, lie about it and attempt to obstruct justice rises to a "high crime & misdemeanor." 
    Just stop. 
    Do you know what the threshold is for impeachment? 
    Yeah I m almost positive  what it is but just for the hell of it why don’t you explain it to me using your own words. 
    It’s the bar that the House members set, which was intended to be lower than what some are applying to trump, which seems high, similar to a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. 

    ... but Mitt Romney said...
    Romney was right, there is insufficient evidence to charge him.  You enjoy beating dead horses huh?

    If there was insufficient evidence of Obstruction - as you say - where does Mueller state that or that he could have evidence in the context of charging someone? 

    Pointing out people spreading stupidity =/= beating a dead horse.
    So why are a lot of democrats so hesitant to impeach if there is all this evidence of obstruction?

    because too many morons are believing the witch-hunt and politically-motivated bullshit that our liar-in-chief spews on a daily basis.  Dems are afraid it will hurt them politically because they aren't tough enough to stand up on a daily basis shouting what any reasonable person already knows. Do you think the republican party would allow the Dems to get away with all this shit? The Dems do a terrible job in messaging.  the Repubs get their message out, even when it's complete utter bullshit, and say it so often that lies become truth in many minds. The Dems need a leader who has the courage and backbone to stand on the top of the Hill (pun intended) and shout out the message on a daily basis that his is not ok for the Country.
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 15,582
    pjhawks said:
    The Dems need a leader who has the courage and backbone to stand on the top of the Hill (pun intended) and shout out the message on a daily basis that his is not ok for the Country.

    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 15,368
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    It's so quiet in here.
    why the edit from the pic you posted?
    Damn my bad.  Can we finally move on?
    Collusion isn't the only item to be looked at. but yes, I think we can at least cross collusion of the list. 
    As legally defined to bring criminal charges.
    yeah, and?
    Congress may have a different opinion of whether "colluding" with a foreign power to throw an election, lie about it and attempt to obstruct justice rises to a "high crime & misdemeanor." 
    Just stop. 
    Do you know what the threshold is for impeachment? 
    Yeah I m almost positive  what it is but just for the hell of it why don’t you explain it to me using your own words. 
    It’s the bar that the House members set, which was intended to be lower than what some are applying to trump, which seems high, similar to a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. 

    ... but Mitt Romney said...
    Romney was right, there is insufficient evidence to charge him.  You enjoy beating dead horses huh?

    If there was insufficient evidence of Obstruction - as you say - where does Mueller state that or that he could have evidence in the context of charging someone? 

    Pointing out people spreading stupidity =/= beating a dead horse.
    So why are a lot of democrats so hesitant to impeach if there is all this evidence of obstruction?

    because the lesson was learned during the Clinton impeachment. You better be certain a conviction will be the end result and the president forced out or you lose your majority. Just ask Newt.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,608
    pjhawks said:
    The Dems need a leader who has the courage and backbone to stand on the top of the Hill (pun intended) and shout out the message on a daily basis that his is not ok for the Country.

    ugh Bernie is not the answer.The repubs will hammer him on the free stuff he proposes.  Whether it's right or wrong the Dems have to move their message away from giving people free stuff. It's where the Repubs hammer the Dems on the message. 
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 15,368
    have any of the candidates been asked if their proposals can be passed and signed into law?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,185
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    It's so quiet in here.
    why the edit from the pic you posted?
    Damn my bad.  Can we finally move on?
    Collusion isn't the only item to be looked at. but yes, I think we can at least cross collusion of the list. 
    As legally defined to bring criminal charges.
    yeah, and?
    Congress may have a different opinion of whether "colluding" with a foreign power to throw an election, lie about it and attempt to obstruct justice rises to a "high crime & misdemeanor." 
    Just stop. 
    Do you know what the threshold is for impeachment? 
    Yeah I m almost positive  what it is but just for the hell of it why don’t you explain it to me using your own words. 
    It’s the bar that the House members set, which was intended to be lower than what some are applying to trump, which seems high, similar to a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. 

    ... but Mitt Romney said...
    Romney was right, there is insufficient evidence to charge him.  You enjoy beating dead horses huh?

    If there was insufficient evidence of Obstruction - as you say - where does Mueller state that or that he could have evidence in the context of charging someone? 

    Pointing out people spreading stupidity =/= beating a dead horse.
    So why are a lot of democrats so hesitant to impeach if there is all this evidence of obstruction?

    Because they don’t know how to control the narrative and have let republicans drive that car. 

  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 1,832
    mcgruff10 said:
    Yeah I m almost positive  what it is but just for the hell of it why don’t you explain it to me using your own words. 
    It’s the bar that the House members set, which was intended to be lower than what some are applying to trump, which seems high, similar to a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. 

    ... but Mitt Romney said...
    Romney was right, there is insufficient evidence to charge him.  You enjoy beating dead horses huh?

    If there was insufficient evidence of Obstruction - as you say - where does Mueller state that or that he could have evidence in the context of charging someone? 

    Pointing out people spreading stupidity =/= beating a dead horse.
    So why are a lot of democrats so hesitant to impeach if there is all this evidence of obstruction?

    Because they don’t know how to control the narrative and have let republicans drive that car. 

    Pretty much this...they are scared of their own shadows now.  They know America grew impatient during the investigation.  They know that America, for the most part, is not outraged by the results.  They have to deal with being Pepsi to the GOP's Coke (or maybe even RC to the GOP's Coke).  They walk a tightrope between wanting to go after Trump and wanting to "go high."  Meanwhile, they're beating each other up while America's right watches with a smirk on its collective face.

    They are thinking about one thing and one thing only "how will what we do impact 2020."  It's tricky because my guess is that America does not want to go through this process, which won't end before the election. But his attempts at obstruction and willingness to ignore the rules and procedures in place are essentially being forgiven, maybe even endorsed, by the opposition party.  It's at least as bad as Nixon (the key difference being that Nixon recorded key phone calls).  

    Trump is probably going to win in 2020.  And he now, rightly, believes he can get away with anything.  And I'm crazy for thinking dictatorship is on the table.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,185
    OnWis97 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    Yeah I m almost positive  what it is but just for the hell of it why don’t you explain it to me using your own words. 
    It’s the bar that the House members set, which was intended to be lower than what some are applying to trump, which seems high, similar to a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. 

    ... but Mitt Romney said...
    Romney was right, there is insufficient evidence to charge him.  You enjoy beating dead horses huh?

    If there was insufficient evidence of Obstruction - as you say - where does Mueller state that or that he could have evidence in the context of charging someone? 

    Pointing out people spreading stupidity =/= beating a dead horse.
    So why are a lot of democrats so hesitant to impeach if there is all this evidence of obstruction?

    Because they don’t know how to control the narrative and have let republicans drive that car. 

    Pretty much this...they are scared of their own shadows now.  They know America grew impatient during the investigation.  They know that America, for the most part, is not outraged by the results.  They have to deal with being Pepsi to the GOP's Coke (or maybe even RC to the GOP's Coke).  They walk a tightrope between wanting to go after Trump and wanting to "go high."  Meanwhile, they're beating each other up while America's right watches with a smirk on its collective face.

    They are thinking about one thing and one thing only "how will what we do impact 2020."  It's tricky because my guess is that America does not want to go through this process, which won't end before the election. But his attempts at obstruction and willingness to ignore the rules and procedures in place are essentially being forgiven, maybe even endorsed, by the opposition party.  It's at least as bad as Nixon (the key difference being that Nixon recorded key phone calls).  

    Trump is probably going to win in 2020.  And he now, rightly, believes he can get away with anything.  And I'm crazy for thinking dictatorship is on the table.
    I’d say a lot want to go through the process of impeachment. If they control the narrative around it, they convince many more that it’s a good idea and they can roll that into a message of let’s clean house in 2020. 
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,560
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    It's so quiet in here.
    why the edit from the pic you posted?
    Damn my bad.  Can we finally move on?
    Collusion isn't the only item to be looked at. but yes, I think we can at least cross collusion of the list. 
    As legally defined to bring criminal charges.
    yeah, and?
    Congress may have a different opinion of whether "colluding" with a foreign power to throw an election, lie about it and attempt to obstruct justice rises to a "high crime & misdemeanor." 
    Just stop. 
    Do you know what the threshold is for impeachment? 
    Yeah I m almost positive  what it is but just for the hell of it why don’t you explain it to me using your own words. 
    It’s the bar that the House members set, which was intended to be lower than what some are applying to trump, which seems high, similar to a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. 

    ... but Mitt Romney said...
    Romney was right, there is insufficient evidence to charge him.  You enjoy beating dead horses huh?

    You enjoy watching the constitution being trampled every day by this administration one day one of your kids will ask you where you stood in this chapter of American politics ! I hope you will give them an honest answer ..
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,116

    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,185
    brianlux said:

    And this is why Dems need to move ahead with impeachment. It’ll make republicans go public with a committed position and create division in the party, whether it’s 90/10, 80/20, whatever the number is. 
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,560
    brianlux said:

    And this is why Dems need to move ahead with impeachment. It’ll make republicans go public with a committed position and create division in the party, whether it’s 90/10, 80/20, whatever the number is. 
    Yep make them stand with the crook ! 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,607
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,888
    jeffbr said:
    Agreed. Good read and perspective.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 15,582
    edited April 23
    I mean - republicans werent up for impeachment for Nixon in the beginning either - right?
    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 6,486
    jeffbr said:
    "Depending on how you count, roughly a dozen separate instances of obstruction of justice are contained in the Mueller report. The president dangled pardons in front of witnesses to encourage them to lie to the special counsel, and directly ordered people to lie to throw the special counsel off the scent."
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,116
    It seems most here are in favor of impeachment.  I have to admit, I'm on the fence of this.  It certainly appears now that he should be.  But what are the consequences? 

    This: 

    This would be our next president, at least until 2020 if not longer.  Trump is not a great president but he is transparent.  You know what he is up to.  Pence would be opaque.  He would be more apt to be able to achieve the following:

    - Allow firearms to be kept in vehicle on school property.
    -Defund or even shut down Planned Parenthood.
    -Make abortion illegal.
    -Outlaw gay marriage.
    -Restrict LGBT rights.
    -Eliminate embryonic stem cell research.
    -Reverse legal cannabis efforts.
    -And (in the long run), worst of all, reverse efforts to stem global warming.   He's already voted to eliminate funding for climate education programs and voted against energy efficiency and renewable energy funding and rules and has supported offshore drilling.

    Sure, Trump is bad news on these issues, but Pence?  Think about it.



    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,607
    brianlux said:
    It seems most here are in favor of impeachment.  I have to admit, I'm on the fence of this.  It certainly appears now that he should be.  But what are the consequences? 

    This: 

    This would be our next president, at least until 2020 if not longer.  Trump is not a great president but he is transparent.  You know what he is up to.  Pence would be opaque.  He would be more apt to be able to achieve the following:

    - Allow firearms to be kept in vehicle on school property.
    -Defund or even shut down Planned Parenthood.
    -Make abortion illegal.
    -Outlaw gay marriage.
    -Restrict LGBT rights.
    -Eliminate embryonic stem cell research.
    -Reverse legal cannabis efforts.
    -And (in the long run), worst of all, reverse efforts to stem global warming.   He's already voted to eliminate funding for climate education programs and voted against energy efficiency and renewable energy funding and rules and has supported offshore drilling.

    Sure, Trump is bad news on these issues, but Pence?  Think about it.



    Yeah, Pence scares the shit out of me. But his term would be very limited in nature (finish out Donny's term). He'd be considered a lame-duck from day 1. And he has no ability to win the election on his own, so he'd do a partial term and slink back home. A CNN poll a few months ago highlighted Pence's favorability, he had a 39% approval rating and a full 12% of those surveyed said they had never heard of him! lol. I think his impact would be very limited. He'd basically be a care taker until the election.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,116
    jeffbr said:
    brianlux said:
    It seems most here are in favor of impeachment.  I have to admit, I'm on the fence of this.  It certainly appears now that he should be.  But what are the consequences? 

    This: 

    This would be our next president, at least until 2020 if not longer.  Trump is not a great president but he is transparent.  You know what he is up to.  Pence would be opaque.  He would be more apt to be able to achieve the following:

    - Allow firearms to be kept in vehicle on school property.
    -Defund or even shut down Planned Parenthood.
    -Make abortion illegal.
    -Outlaw gay marriage.
    -Restrict LGBT rights.
    -Eliminate embryonic stem cell research.
    -Reverse legal cannabis efforts.
    -And (in the long run), worst of all, reverse efforts to stem global warming.   He's already voted to eliminate funding for climate education programs and voted against energy efficiency and renewable energy funding and rules and has supported offshore drilling.

    Sure, Trump is bad news on these issues, but Pence?  Think about it.



    Yeah, Pence scares the shit out of me. But his term would be very limited in nature (finish out Donny's term). He'd be considered a lame-duck from day 1. And he has no ability to win the election on his own, so he'd do a partial term and slink back home. A CNN poll a few months ago highlighted Pence's favorability, he had a 39% approval rating and a full 12% of those surveyed said they had never heard of him! lol. I think his impact would be very limited. He'd basically be a care taker until the election.
    Good points Jeff,  I hope that's how it would be.
    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 1,832
    jeffbr said:
    brianlux said:
    It seems most here are in favor of impeachment.  I have to admit, I'm on the fence of this.  It certainly appears now that he should be.  But what are the consequences? 

    This: 

    This would be our next president, at least until 2020 if not longer.  Trump is not a great president but he is transparent.  You know what he is up to.  Pence would be opaque.  He would be more apt to be able to achieve the following:

    - Allow firearms to be kept in vehicle on school property.
    -Defund or even shut down Planned Parenthood.
    -Make abortion illegal.
    -Outlaw gay marriage.
    -Restrict LGBT rights.
    -Eliminate embryonic stem cell research.
    -Reverse legal cannabis efforts.
    -And (in the long run), worst of all, reverse efforts to stem global warming.   He's already voted to eliminate funding for climate education programs and voted against energy efficiency and renewable energy funding and rules and has supported offshore drilling.

    Sure, Trump is bad news on these issues, but Pence?  Think about it.



    Yeah, Pence scares the shit out of me. But his term would be very limited in nature (finish out Donny's term). He'd be considered a lame-duck from day 1. And he has no ability to win the election on his own, so he'd do a partial term and slink back home. A CNN poll a few months ago highlighted Pence's favorability, he had a 39% approval rating and a full 12% of those surveyed said they had never heard of him! lol. I think his impact would be very limited. He'd basically be a care taker until the election.
    I tend to agree.  The populist fervor that got Trump elected would die with Pence.  I'd be very, very curious to see who gets the nomination in 2020, because I still think Trump (or a version smart enough to not get in legal hot water) is the model.  But Pence is a short-term annoyance.  I doubt he'd even seek the nomination.  He may be worse than Trump on some issues.  But this is not about issues anymore.  This is about the survival of the republic.  
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
Sign In or Register to comment.