Team Mueller (and Their Report)

PJ_Soul

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yup. She's absolutely right. It's Pelosi's move first though. I'm not sure she can possibly resist any longer without risking her reputation.

My gut says Pelosi may have been waiting for the definitive “your move, Congress” for quite some time. Maybe I’m wrong though.

Maybe, but I hope you're right.... But it would beg the question: what if they do go ahead, and then it fails, which is very very likely, given where Congress stands right now? How will that play out politically? Pelosi is obviously wondering the same thing, and that is the whole reason she's hesitating.

I understand that Pelosi wanted to wait for political reasons. And those reasons made sense to me for a long time. Focus on 2020, etc... But at this point she needs to do her job. Her job isn't electioneering. It is leading the House. and the House has the responsibility of oversight. It is her Constitutional duty to hold Drumpf accountable for his actions. Just as I accuse Lindsey Graham Cracker and Cocaine Mitch of abdicating their responsibilities, I'm about ready to do the same with Pelosi. She needs to quit hiding from the reality of the current situation. Your move, Nancy.

I agree.

But that question still remains. What WILL happen when impeachment proceedings fail?? How will the voters react? How will it affect the election? Will it be a black mark against any Dem nominee? Will it basically guarantee another Trump win?

OnWis97

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yup. She's absolutely right. It's Pelosi's move first though. I'm not sure she can possibly resist any longer without risking her reputation.

My gut says Pelosi may have been waiting for the definitive “your move, Congress” for quite some time. Maybe I’m wrong though.

Maybe, but I hope you're right.... But it would beg the question: what if they do go ahead, and then it fails, which is very very likely, given where Congress stands right now? How will that play out politically? Pelosi is obviously wondering the same thing, and that is the whole reason she's hesitating.

I understand that Pelosi wanted to wait for political reasons. And those reasons made sense to me for a long time. Focus on 2020, etc... But at this point she needs to do her job. Her job isn't electioneering. It is leading the House. and the House has the responsibility of oversight. It is her Constitutional duty to hold Drumpf accountable for his actions. Just as I accuse Lindsey Graham Cracker and Cocaine Mitch of abdicating their responsibilities, I'm about ready to do the same with Pelosi. She needs to quit hiding from the reality of the current situation. Your move, Nancy.

I agree.

But that question still remains. What WILL happen when impeachment proceedings fail?? How will the voters react? How will it affect the election? Will it be a black mark against any Dem nominee? Will it basically guarantee another Trump win?

Trump is going to win either way.  Right now they have to do what's right and not worry about the election.  You know who does everything based on party victories?  Today's GOP...and we're becoming an authoritarian nation.

mfc2006

They need to forget about 2020 and move forward to impeach. It is clear as day.

dignin

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yup. She's absolutely right. It's Pelosi's move first though. I'm not sure she can possibly resist any longer without risking her reputation.

My gut says Pelosi may have been waiting for the definitive “your move, Congress” for quite some time. Maybe I’m wrong though.

Maybe, but I hope you're right.... But it would beg the question: what if they do go ahead, and then it fails, which is very very likely, given where Congress stands right now? How will that play out politically? Pelosi is obviously wondering the same thing, and that is the whole reason she's hesitating.

I understand that Pelosi wanted to wait for political reasons. And those reasons made sense to me for a long time. Focus on 2020, etc... But at this point she needs to do her job. Her job isn't electioneering. It is leading the House. and the House has the responsibility of oversight. It is her Constitutional duty to hold Drumpf accountable for his actions. Just as I accuse Lindsey Graham Cracker and Cocaine Mitch of abdicating their responsibilities, I'm about ready to do the same with Pelosi. She needs to quit hiding from the reality of the current situation. Your move, Nancy.

Agreed.

I suspect she was waiting because democrats in congress weren't fully on-board. Hopefully after today they will unite around impeachment.

PJ_Soul

OnWis97 said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yup. She's absolutely right. It's Pelosi's move first though. I'm not sure she can possibly resist any longer without risking her reputation.

My gut says Pelosi may have been waiting for the definitive “your move, Congress” for quite some time. Maybe I’m wrong though.

Maybe, but I hope you're right.... But it would beg the question: what if they do go ahead, and then it fails, which is very very likely, given where Congress stands right now? How will that play out politically? Pelosi is obviously wondering the same thing, and that is the whole reason she's hesitating.

I understand that Pelosi wanted to wait for political reasons. And those reasons made sense to me for a long time. Focus on 2020, etc... But at this point she needs to do her job. Her job isn't electioneering. It is leading the House. and the House has the responsibility of oversight. It is her Constitutional duty to hold Drumpf accountable for his actions. Just as I accuse Lindsey Graham Cracker and Cocaine Mitch of abdicating their responsibilities, I'm about ready to do the same with Pelosi. She needs to quit hiding from the reality of the current situation. Your move, Nancy.

I agree.

But that question still remains. What WILL happen when impeachment proceedings fail?? How will the voters react? How will it affect the election? Will it be a black mark against any Dem nominee? Will it basically guarantee another Trump win?

Trump is going to win either way.  Right now they have to do what's right and not worry about the election.  You know who does everything based on party victories?  Today's GOP...and we're becoming an authoritarian nation.

Trump winning is absolutely not a foregone conclusion. I don't understand why some of you act as though there is literally no other possible scenario. Obviously it is possible (horrifically), but there are plenty of people who will be voting against him, and possibly many people who don't normally vote will come out to do so. Some swing states may swing the other way. Remember how damn close it was in 2016, and that was amid all that completely irrational, Russian-propagated hate puked on Clinton. I'll be pretty fucking surprised if they manage to make America hate the next Democratic nominee that much again... If they do, then all hope is lost for America, seriously. And I'm definitely not saying the don't think Trump will win. Just that I still think he might not.

Meanwhile, NOTHING is still being done about a foreign aggressor interfering with America's elections. Trump loves it! I'm sure he's managing to find new ways to encourage it this go-round.

josevolution

Porn star fornicator ..

tbergs

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yup. She's absolutely right. It's Pelosi's move first though. I'm not sure she can possibly resist any longer without risking her reputation.

My gut says Pelosi may have been waiting for the definitive “your move, Congress” for quite some time. Maybe I’m wrong though.

Maybe, but I hope you're right.... But it would beg the question: what if they do go ahead, and then it fails, which is very very likely, given where Congress stands right now? How will that play out politically? Pelosi is obviously wondering the same thing, and that is the whole reason she's hesitating.

I understand that Pelosi wanted to wait for political reasons. And those reasons made sense to me for a long time. Focus on 2020, etc... But at this point she needs to do her job. Her job isn't electioneering. It is leading the House. and the House has the responsibility of oversight. It is her Constitutional duty to hold Drumpf accountable for his actions. Just as I accuse Lindsey Graham Cracker and Cocaine Mitch of abdicating their responsibilities, I'm about ready to do the same with Pelosi. She needs to quit hiding from the reality of the current situation. Your move, Nancy.

I agree.

But that question still remains. What WILL happen when impeachment proceedings fail?? How will the voters react? How will it affect the election? Will it be a black mark against any Dem nominee? Will it basically guarantee another Trump win?

How many people were really banking their decision on if they will vote for Trump based on an impeachment hearing? Those people are a lost cause. If there aren't enough stable minded people who think his whole presidency is destroying this country, then we will get what is coming to us the hard way.

PJ_Soul

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yup. She's absolutely right. It's Pelosi's move first though. I'm not sure she can possibly resist any longer without risking her reputation.

My gut says Pelosi may have been waiting for the definitive “your move, Congress” for quite some time. Maybe I’m wrong though.

Maybe, but I hope you're right.... But it would beg the question: what if they do go ahead, and then it fails, which is very very likely, given where Congress stands right now? How will that play out politically? Pelosi is obviously wondering the same thing, and that is the whole reason she's hesitating.

I understand that Pelosi wanted to wait for political reasons. And those reasons made sense to me for a long time. Focus on 2020, etc... But at this point she needs to do her job. Her job isn't electioneering. It is leading the House. and the House has the responsibility of oversight. It is her Constitutional duty to hold Drumpf accountable for his actions. Just as I accuse Lindsey Graham Cracker and Cocaine Mitch of abdicating their responsibilities, I'm about ready to do the same with Pelosi. She needs to quit hiding from the reality of the current situation. Your move, Nancy.

I agree.

But that question still remains. What WILL happen when impeachment proceedings fail?? How will the voters react? How will it affect the election? Will it be a black mark against any Dem nominee? Will it basically guarantee another Trump win?

How many people were really banking their decision on if they will vote for Trump based on an impeachment hearing? Those people are a lost cause. If there aren't enough stable minded people who think his whole presidency is destroying this country, then we will get what is coming to us the hard way.

Seriously? A LOT I think would do that, judging by how the American voters are now behaving. They are simply in the closet IMO.

But yeah, agreed. if Trump wins again, America is fucked.

OnWis97

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yup. She's absolutely right. It's Pelosi's move first though. I'm not sure she can possibly resist any longer without risking her reputation.

My gut says Pelosi may have been waiting for the definitive “your move, Congress” for quite some time. Maybe I’m wrong though.

Maybe, but I hope you're right.... But it would beg the question: what if they do go ahead, and then it fails, which is very very likely, given where Congress stands right now? How will that play out politically? Pelosi is obviously wondering the same thing, and that is the whole reason she's hesitating.

I understand that Pelosi wanted to wait for political reasons. And those reasons made sense to me for a long time. Focus on 2020, etc... But at this point she needs to do her job. Her job isn't electioneering. It is leading the House. and the House has the responsibility of oversight. It is her Constitutional duty to hold Drumpf accountable for his actions. Just as I accuse Lindsey Graham Cracker and Cocaine Mitch of abdicating their responsibilities, I'm about ready to do the same with Pelosi. She needs to quit hiding from the reality of the current situation. Your move, Nancy.

I agree.

But that question still remains. What WILL happen when impeachment proceedings fail?? How will the voters react? How will it affect the election? Will it be a black mark against any Dem nominee? Will it basically guarantee another Trump win?

How many people were really banking their decision on if they will vote for Trump based on an impeachment hearing? Those people are a lost cause. If there aren't enough stable minded people who think his whole presidency is destroying this country, then we will get what is coming to us the hard way.

I think the concern is whether the Democrats will be seen as being petty and/or unfair to Trump.  Trump's always tried to drum up sympathy for himself and it oftent works.

tbergs

PJ_Soul said:

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yup. She's absolutely right. It's Pelosi's move first though. I'm not sure she can possibly resist any longer without risking her reputation.

My gut says Pelosi may have been waiting for the definitive “your move, Congress” for quite some time. Maybe I’m wrong though.

Maybe, but I hope you're right.... But it would beg the question: what if they do go ahead, and then it fails, which is very very likely, given where Congress stands right now? How will that play out politically? Pelosi is obviously wondering the same thing, and that is the whole reason she's hesitating.

I understand that Pelosi wanted to wait for political reasons. And those reasons made sense to me for a long time. Focus on 2020, etc... But at this point she needs to do her job. Her job isn't electioneering. It is leading the House. and the House has the responsibility of oversight. It is her Constitutional duty to hold Drumpf accountable for his actions. Just as I accuse Lindsey Graham Cracker and Cocaine Mitch of abdicating their responsibilities, I'm about ready to do the same with Pelosi. She needs to quit hiding from the reality of the current situation. Your move, Nancy.

I agree.

But that question still remains. What WILL happen when impeachment proceedings fail?? How will the voters react? How will it affect the election? Will it be a black mark against any Dem nominee? Will it basically guarantee another Trump win?

How many people were really banking their decision on if they will vote for Trump based on an impeachment hearing? Those people are a lost cause. If there aren't enough stable minded people who think his whole presidency is destroying this country, then we will get what is coming to us the hard way.

Seriously? A LOT I think would do that, judging by how the American voters are now behaving. They are simply in the closet IMO.

But yeah, agreed. if Trump wins again, America is fucked.

Right, unless he is forcibly removed or voted out (which even then I am unsure of whether he will quietly step aside) some people will check the box for his dumb ass and the slimy Mitch and Lindsey show will continue to do his dirty work. Mitch has to be one of the worst ever politicians this country has ever seen. He is 10x worse than Trump.  

tbergs

OnWis97 said:

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yup. She's absolutely right. It's Pelosi's move first though. I'm not sure she can possibly resist any longer without risking her reputation.

My gut says Pelosi may have been waiting for the definitive “your move, Congress” for quite some time. Maybe I’m wrong though.

Maybe, but I hope you're right.... But it would beg the question: what if they do go ahead, and then it fails, which is very very likely, given where Congress stands right now? How will that play out politically? Pelosi is obviously wondering the same thing, and that is the whole reason she's hesitating.

I understand that Pelosi wanted to wait for political reasons. And those reasons made sense to me for a long time. Focus on 2020, etc... But at this point she needs to do her job. Her job isn't electioneering. It is leading the House. and the House has the responsibility of oversight. It is her Constitutional duty to hold Drumpf accountable for his actions. Just as I accuse Lindsey Graham Cracker and Cocaine Mitch of abdicating their responsibilities, I'm about ready to do the same with Pelosi. She needs to quit hiding from the reality of the current situation. Your move, Nancy.

I agree.

But that question still remains. What WILL happen when impeachment proceedings fail?? How will the voters react? How will it affect the election? Will it be a black mark against any Dem nominee? Will it basically guarantee another Trump win?

How many people were really banking their decision on if they will vote for Trump based on an impeachment hearing? Those people are a lost cause. If there aren't enough stable minded people who think his whole presidency is destroying this country, then we will get what is coming to us the hard way.

I think the concern is whether the Democrats will be seen as being petty and/or unfair to Trump.  Trump's always tried to drum up sympathy for himself and it oftent works.

I know, but he is only going to appeal to those who already voted for him or were in his corner. Is there a belief that Trump could get more votes than last election if impeachment proceedings are brought forward? I can't fathom anyone all of a sudden voting for him because he keeps screaming "Presidential harassment!" People that buy in to that are morons and hypocrites. No one harasses people more than that asshole. Fuck him and anyone who continues to support him. It's beyond embarrassing.

Bentleyspop

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yup. She's absolutely right. It's Pelosi's move first though. I'm not sure she can possibly resist any longer without risking her reputation.

My gut says Pelosi may have been waiting for the definitive “your move, Congress” for quite some time. Maybe I’m wrong though.

Maybe, but I hope you're right.... But it would beg the question: what if they do go ahead, and then it fails, which is very very likely, given where Congress stands right now? How will that play out politically? Pelosi is obviously wondering the same thing, and that is the whole reason she's hesitating.

I understand that Pelosi wanted to wait for political reasons. And those reasons made sense to me for a long time. Focus on 2020, etc... But at this point she needs to do her job. Her job isn't electioneering. It is leading the House. and the House has the responsibility of oversight. It is her Constitutional duty to hold Drumpf accountable for his actions. Just as I accuse Lindsey Graham Cracker and Cocaine Mitch of abdicating their responsibilities, I'm about ready to do the same with Pelosi. She needs to quit hiding from the reality of the current situation. Your move, Nancy.

I agree.

But that question still remains. What WILL happen when impeachment proceedings fail?? How will the voters react? How will it affect the election? Will it be a black mark against any Dem nominee? Will it basically guarantee another Trump win?

How many people were really banking their decision on if they will vote for Trump based on an impeachment hearing? Those people are a lost cause. If there aren't enough stable minded people who think his whole presidency is destroying this country, then we will get what is coming to us the hard way.

Seriously? A LOT I think would do that, judging by how the American voters are now behaving. They are simply in the closet IMO.

But yeah, agreed. if Trump wins again, America is fucked.

Right, unless he is forcibly removed or voted out (which even then I am unsure of whether he will quietly step aside) some people will check the box for his dumb ass and the slimy Mitch and Lindsey show will continue to do his dirty work. Mitch has to be one of the worst ever politicians this country has ever seen. He is 10x worse than Trump.  

Mitch is definitely a terrible politician 
The president, however,  is not a politician. What he is is a.....
Reality game show show host
Con artist
Flim flam man
Snake oil salesman
And a narcissist 

Hi!

Terrible person, best politician ever.

tbergs

Hi! said:

Terrible person, best politician ever.

You know it's sad, but truuuuuuuue.

PJ_Soul

Report: Massive Hypocrisy Just Flat-Out Gets The Job Done

WASHINGTON—Revealing that bald-faced lies and shameless double standards are the most reliable way to outmaneuver one’s opponents, a report released Wednesday confirmed that massive hypocrisy just flat-out gets the job done. “Changing your stance based on temporary expediency has proven time and again to be a slam dunk in terms of advancing an agenda,” read the report, which went on to state that there are no major downsides to doing one thing one year and doing the exact opposite the next because the majority of people do not remember anything that happens in the world for more than a week or so. “Whether you are engaged in a carefully calculated strategy of dishonesty or just spouting the first lie that comes into your head, hypocrisy works wonders. You will never be held accountable and will instead be admired for your strength and pragmatism as a leader. Evidence also suggests the only way to defeat a hypocrite in power is to become an even bigger hypocrite yourself.” The report went on to conclude that not only is brazen, amoral hypocrisy the best way to enact your personal vision, it’s also fun.

Ledbetterman10

I still don't get this DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president. Such a policy even existing kinda suggests that many presidents might have been involved in criminal activity, but Trump's the worst of the bunch, and the dumbest, so he's the one in hot water. I guess the argument in favor of such a policy could be that if there was a partisan hack appointed as the special counsel, he'd be inclined to indict someone from the opposing party but might not indict someone from his own party? I guess? Otherwise, all this policy means it that the president is truly above the law. 

Hypothetically, what if Mueller's investigation showed proof that Trump had a political opponent murdered? I guess he wouldn't indict him because of the almighty DOJ  policy. So what would he do? Leave it up to congress to impeach and remove him from office? Oh that'll show him. You've had someone murdered. Your punishment? You MUST leave the White House immediately and retire to one of your golf courses. 

mickeyrat

Ledbetterman10 said:

I still don't get this DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president. Such a policy even existing kinda suggests that many presidents might have been involved in criminal activity, but Trump's the worst of the bunch, and the dumbest, so he's the one in hot water. I guess the argument in favor of such a policy could be that if there was a partisan hack appointed as the special counsel, he'd be inclined to indict someone from the opposing party but might not indict someone from his own party? I guess? Otherwise, all this policy means it that the president is truly above the law. 

Hypothetically, what if Mueller's investigation showed proof that Trump had a political opponent murdered? I guess he wouldn't indict him because of the almighty DOJ  policy. So what would he do? Leave it up to congress to impeach and remove him from office? Oh that'll show him. You've had someone murdered. Your punishment? You MUST leave the White House immediately and retire to one of your golf courses. 

at which point, in such a case, indictment could be brought.

benjs

mickeyrat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I still don't get this DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president. Such a policy even existing kinda suggests that many presidents might have been involved in criminal activity, but Trump's the worst of the bunch, and the dumbest, so he's the one in hot water. I guess the argument in favor of such a policy could be that if there was a partisan hack appointed as the special counsel, he'd be inclined to indict someone from the opposing party but might not indict someone from his own party? I guess? Otherwise, all this policy means it that the president is truly above the law. 

Hypothetically, what if Mueller's investigation showed proof that Trump had a political opponent murdered? I guess he wouldn't indict him because of the almighty DOJ  policy. So what would he do? Leave it up to congress to impeach and remove him from office? Oh that'll show him. You've had someone murdered. Your punishment? You MUST leave the White House immediately and retire to one of your golf courses. 

at which point, in such a case, indictment could be brought.

Could Mueller also be subpoenaed to testify at that point?

Ledbetterman10

mickeyrat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I still don't get this DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president. Such a policy even existing kinda suggests that many presidents might have been involved in criminal activity, but Trump's the worst of the bunch, and the dumbest, so he's the one in hot water. I guess the argument in favor of such a policy could be that if there was a partisan hack appointed as the special counsel, he'd be inclined to indict someone from the opposing party but might not indict someone from his own party? I guess? Otherwise, all this policy means it that the president is truly above the law. 

Hypothetically, what if Mueller's investigation showed proof that Trump had a political opponent murdered? I guess he wouldn't indict him because of the almighty DOJ  policy. So what would he do? Leave it up to congress to impeach and remove him from office? Oh that'll show him. You've had someone murdered. Your punishment? You MUST leave the White House immediately and retire to one of your golf courses. 

at which point, in such a case, indictment could be brought.

You're saying after he's out of office. And I don't think there are statue of limitations when it comes to murder charges, so for this hypothetical, he'd face the music. As for real life and this Mueller business, the house can impeach but the Senate won't convict. And if he's indicted on anything in the report following his presidency, it'd be too little, too late, for me anyway. I know many others would be on the edge of their seats for post-presidency charges against Trump. 

vaggar99

let's face it.  The United States is a facade.  We have bullied our way into world dominance.  At the same time, the education of our population has not kept up with other world powers.  Trump is merely a symptom of this illness.  We are approaching the stage where left untreated,  this disease will kill us.