Burisma Bombshell

It was not Mueller's job to vindicate anyone. It was his job to look forany crimes and bring those charges forward and report them to the AG if it involved the President who would then inform Congress. DOJ rules did NIT prevent him from reporting any crimes. As with Clinton the charges are brought then an impeachment on hose charges. Mueller did not bring them and punter to the AG and the AG, the DAG and the OLC all agreed and specifically said the declination had nothing to do with a "rule" it had to do with the law.

I believe Mueller revised that statement. They made no determination.

Yes he did abuse his office in trying to placate Lewinsky and then use persons in his office to help cover it up. And it remains he committed HIGH crimes in a federal court and then a federal grand jury. Perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering. Those charges, those crimes were brought to Congress by the OIC and the Democrats said those felonies did notnrise to the level of impeachment and removal from office.

But in Clinton's case they were high crimes and Trump has not been charged with a crime.

 

Although our individual partisan views are, to put it mildly, 'unalike', I cannot help but agree with the overall framework of your opinions (I think), and I do like your 'style'. Without trying to 'patronize' you, I'd say truthfully that I, too, view so very much of what we witness in contemporary American politics as orchestrated petty-drama for the 'cattle', and 'schauspiel'.

But I warn you, my ability to credit many 'conspiracy theories' with overall agreement is large! Examples: yes, FDR knew Pearl Harbor would be attacked, and even encouraged it, along with his buddy, "Winnie". The Federal Reserve completely took over the American economy in August 2007, and with other major central banks in "the West", launched an international power-play to effectively replace governmental 'processes' with its own dictates in the various economies (which is all that really matters anyway). There was at least one additional gunman, on 'the grassy knoll' in addition to whoever was really in the building ... Johnson lied completely about the 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident to drag the U. S. into the Vietnam War... etc., etc.

But regarding the "Burisma Bombshell", it is now an inescapable fact that after being thrown out of the U. S. Navy Reserves for huffing cocaine, Hunter Biden miraculously got a 'gig' making somewhere between $50K/month and $83K/month with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy corporation! And, equally inescapable now is the FACT that ol' Geriatric Joe made it clear for all the world to see that the only (ONLY) quid pro quo at work with the Ukrainian oligarchs in Kiev was achieved with his own now-infamous "son-of-a-bitch ploy", which I'm sure that a person of your perspicacity has already seen several times. ( https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/2...he-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-company/ )

Oh... one other conspiracy theory I'm a devout believer in -- we're headed toward becoming a world almost EXACTLY like the one George Orwell described in his masterpiece, "1984". Fortunately for me, because I'm an old guy, I surely won't live long enough to see this thing bloom fully into reality, but at the rate we're going, it may not take more than another ten years or so....

 

Your assigning specious motives to Republicans and I would say the rabid anger and attacks are FAR more on the Democrat side in this rabid attempt to impeach.

Get back to me when he's charged with a crime in the meantime there is no crime HERE please try to focus and a little more breveity.

None of which have anything to do with HERE. Again throwing spaghetti on the wall.

Because they don't have any else they would.

Has been wrong about everything I don't take her word on anything or give her conjecture any credence at all.

Hey you DO realize that Horowtiz vendicated Nunes and his memo which Maddow and Schiff and Schumer and Pelosi said was all a bunch of lies that the dossiers was NOT what was used for the FISA warrants that there were NO material errors or omissions and Trump was a Russian agent.

See above she's a partisan hack who has backed her party into a corner with this faux impeachment hole they have dug thremselves.

That would be the Obama administration which wired up human assets and sent them into meetings with the Trump campaign and transition an taped them. You know what the Nixon burglers were trying to do, surreptitiously tape the opposing campaign for dirt.

He's not law enforcement. He did not get a court order. People's rights were violated. He's about to have a lawsuit filed against him.

More spaghetti

Trump-Ukraine Fiasco: CNN Peddles Fake News About Devin Nunes and He’s Now Seeking Legal Action
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...nes-and-hes-now-seeking-legal-action-n2556964

 

FOX News & Trump tweets are manipulating its readers again I see. They're cherry picking specific quotes to distort & conceal the true context of the discussion. Recall when Trump lied about the transcript, claiming that it was a word-for-word accurate copy? FOX knew better than to repeat this lie because it'd be exposed...so they've opted to cherry pick phrases and give it their own interpretation.

In the transcript, Zelensky said the following:
"He or she will look into the situation, specifically to 'the company' that you mentioned in this issue."

Let's look at what Vindman said exactly about the change:
"I attributed that to the fact that this transcript that is being produced may have not caught the word 'Burisma' and in the transcript that was released, it was released as 'the company', which is accurate. It's not a significant omission."

Vindman was then asked by Schiff if the word 'Burisma' was used, and Vindman said "correct". (Recall that both Ms. Williams and Vindman said that Zelensky brought up 'Burisma' in the call.) Schiff then reconfirmed with Vindman that his edit was not included in the released transcript, and Vindman said "that's right".

Vindman's statement that the omission was not significant has nothing to do his assessment of Burisma as an issue in the conversation...but that the omission did not significantly change the general understanding of what was being discussed. Think about it. At the time, why would Vindman think the change from 'Burisma' to 'the company' would be a significant change? In his mind, it was accurate enough and in keeping with the context of the conversation. Only later would it become apparent that it was a major omission because of WHY it was omitted.

Other points to keep in mind:

* The call was 30 minutes long, but staffers estimated the released transcript only shows about 11 minutes of conversation. So what was discussed in the remaining 19 minutes?

* The ellipses appear only in parts where Trump is pressing Zelensky to investigate Biden and to help discredit the Russia investigation.

* Vindman couldn't understand why his edits were omitted in the released transcript, even though he had added it in earlier (because it was in his notes).

* Vindman felt it odd that Zelensky would bring up a single company (Burisma) because it didn't seem to fit the context of the call. Vindman felt as though Zelensky may have either been tracking it in the press, or been 'prepped' beforehand to anticipate this issue being raised in the call.

Remember. The devil is in the DETAILS!

'Bribery' (using taxpayer money to leverage a personal favor), and 'Treason' (colluding with a foreign power to manipulate elections, which compromises national security) are impeachable...and that's what Trump did, as detailed by the witnesses, documents & text records.[1] Additional offenses emerged with Trump's numerous acts of obstruction, bribery of Congressmen, witness tampering, etc. which Congress may deliberate on.

In Article II, Sec. 4, 'Bribery' is listed as an impeachable offense.

Another impeachable violation is Trump's removal (and attempted removal) of officials without sufficient warrant (as a high crime & misdemeanor):
"...in the First Congress’s “removal” debate, Madison maintained that the wanton dismissal of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration (now called 'high crimes & misdemeanors') which would render the President subject to impeachment."[1]

Trump also violated the Oath of Office in Article II, Sec. I, Clause 8. Trump failed to...
"...faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," nor "to the best of [his] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."[1]

I already posted the link showing all the points in the complaint that have been confirmed. There's no debate here.

And there's no purpose in interrogating or identifying the whistleblower because he/she's not a party to the wrongdoing that he/she exposed. So why do Trumpers keep demanding this? This is the kind of 'spaghetti' that the GOP keeps throwing in an attempt to distract from Trump's crimes & misconduct. Why is it the GOP never wants to question key witnesses like Trump, Pence, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Giuliani, Bolton, Perry, Parnas, Fruman, OMB officials, etc? If they were interested in the TRUTH they'd particularly want to hear from Trump & those in his circle, and demand to view specific documens & phone records. But the GOP isn't interested in the truth...only in protecting 'their man'.

And Mitch Mcconnell has already said he would defer to Trump's lawyers for guidance on creating the GOP strategy regarding an impeachment trial...he pledged to work in "total coordination" with the White House counsel as the GOP plotted out its political strategy...and he said, "There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this." This is a gross violation of his oath to exercise impartiality in impeachment trials. Truth & facts have never been of interest to those trying to protect Trump.[2]

[1] https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/50-impeachable-offenses.html
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/mit...ps-lawyers-impeachment-trial-strategy-2019-12

 

I already posted why Mueller didn't proceed with charging Trump...and, what you again fail to grasp is that NONE of the reasons had anything to do with a lack of evidence, but only DOJ policy & guidelines:

Mueller pointed to three factors that he said impeded prosecutors from making a decision on the obstruction case:

* The first is a 1973 decision by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. For that reason, Mueller said, charging Trump with a federal crime "is unconstitutional."
* He said it would be "unfair" to even suggest Trump had committed a crime, because it would deprive him of the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law.
* He said filing a sealed indictment was not an option because of the 1973 DOJ policy, and because there was a risk that it could leak.

* Mueller said, "Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."
* But Mueller emphasized that if prosecutors had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, they would have said so. He also implied that it is up to Congress to potentially pursue impeachment proceedings against Trump.

* Why Mueller's office accepted the OLC's recommendations:
In a key passage, Mueller accepted OLC’s controversial conclusion that a sitting president may not be subject to criminal indictment. He did so without analyzing the issue on his own, or explaining why and whether he thinks that OLC got it right.

Instead he made an institutional point. His office was part of the Justice Department, and for that reason, Mueller followed OLC, whether or not he agreed with it: “Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.”

Some people did not love that sentence. They think that OLC’s conclusion was wrong — that no one is above the law, which means that if the president has committed a crime, he can be indicted like anyone else. They also think that Mueller should have made up his own mind.

But Mueller made the right call. Whether or not the Office of Legal Counsel is correct, a special counsel within the Justice Department is bound by its legal conclusions; it has no power to reject them.[1]

* Recall that Mueller also stated that he chose not to subpoena Trump for questioning because, anticipating Trump's strong resistance following his declining a request to be interviewed, it would take much too long...and "because of the necessity of expediting the end of the investigation.”. Had Trump agreed to be interviewed, he no doubt would've been charged...with one of the charges most likely being perjury. However, 37 individuals in Trump's circle were indicted and found (or pleaded) guilty.

Not 'rule' (my error), but also not the law...but DOJ policy.

Recall an earlier quote I posted:

Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent and Yale Law School lecturer, told INSIDER, "The short answer is that right now it is [Department of Justice] policy not to indict a sitting president."

And also this...

Rep. Ted Lieu: "I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."

Yes, as I posted earlier. Mueller realized his original answer was not the 'proper' way to state it. The record stands, however, that Mueller revealed his opinion regarding Trump's guilt before revising his statement.

You still didn't explain how Clinton abused his office.

Like I said...Bill Clinton committed no act that compromised national security, nor did he abuse his powers. He was charged with lying under oath, and obstruction of justice...but both charges were defeated in the Senate with a vote of 'not guilty'.

The obstruction charge alone was very weak: "Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr attempted to charge former President Bill Clinton with obstruction of justice by accusing the latter of denying to friends and subordinates that he had had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, in hopes (according to Starr) that they would repeat the denials to the grand jury investigating the matter."[2]

Now how many times has Trump lied to virtually everyone? Do you understand now why Trump could never agree to a subpoena? He'd perjure himself as soon as he opened his mouth. And then we have bribery. Trump's big on that! And we have obstruction of justice. Trump's big on that too! And there's witness tampering/intimidation...and emolulments violation...and campaign finance violations...and charity fraud...and business fraud...and tax fraud...and foreign collusion/election interference...and 25 sexual misconduct allegations...and conflicts of interest in half of Trump's appointees. Must we continue?

Update: Lawyers representing the attorneys general of Washington, D.C., and Maryland, which brought the lawsuit, are optimistic. They are hoping the court will hand them a victory in the form of a court order declaring that Trump is in violation of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause.[3]

In Clinton's case, he didn't have the OLC's opinion as protection, but was still acquitted of all charges. In Trump's case, the OLC's opinion was issued in Oct. 2000, so he has the OLC's protection. This is why Trump has skated, despite the dozens of crimes he could otherwise be charged with.

And just so you know: 'high crimes & misdemeanors' just means 'allegations of misconduct by officials'. It makes no judgment as to the crime's seriousness, nor is it limited to only indictable criminality. The term was used by the British Crown long before Europeans landed in the New World. The precursor to it was 'maladministration'. Later, framers of the Constitution changed it to 'high crimes & misdemeanors' to better reflect a broad range of acts by officials that could be harmful to the nation and/or office.

[1] https://minnlawyer.com/2019/06/26/mueller-right-to-defer-to-office-of-legal-counsel/
[2] https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/obstruction-of-justice#section_4
[3] https://www.npr.org/2019/12/12/787167408/trump-still-faces-3-lawsuits-over-his-business-empire

 

Not 'specious', but practical motives. Why else would the GOP so staunchly defend an insane career criminal like Trump, when all they had to do is work WITH the Dems to remove him from office? This should've been a bipartisan effort simply because of the kind of person Trump is, his abuse of office, and his criminal history. Plus, he's an illegitimate President who lost the popular vote...and I would predict if he serves another term, it will again be the electoral college (not the popular vote) that puts him in office.

As I posted earlier, Mueller made it clear why Trump wasn't charged...or even subpoenaed. Re-read the post.

Trump hasn't been formally charged (while in office), but evidence is irrefutable that he's in violation of dozens of laws. However, the DOJ policy is shielding him. Perhaps, in the future, either the OLC recommendation will be removed/ammended and/or there will be a braver special counsel that's willing to charge the President (and AG Barr, Mitch Mcconnell, and others).

I'd like to ask you though: Would you be saying, "Get back to me when he's charged with a crime in the meantime there is no crime here" if the President was a Dem (like Bill Clinton, Hillary, Joe Biden, etc?), but was protected by the OLC guideline? Would you still support the policy of not indicting a sitting President, even despite the obvious criminal violations that were committed? I can't wait to see what the GOP does if/when a Dem President comes into office and commits crimes...especially if the Dems also end up controlling the Senate.

The evidence is overwhelming and crystal clear. It's the DOJ red tape (and time constraints) involved with removing a sitting President that poses the roadblock, and which the Trumpers exploit to make Trump look innocent by pointing to the fact that he's not yet been formally charged or indicted for a crime. And from this, they continue to toss spaghetti as a distraction, rather than directly addressing the evidence. (Note: Trump was fined $2 million and $25 million separately for fraud. So he commits no crimes?)

No. It's because (as was finally revealed in the press) it would take much much too long. So they had to narrow their focus to obstruction and abuse of power. Schiff made this very clear, as did Mueller (re. the enforcement of subpoenas).

And this is coming from someone who quotes from FOX News, believes AG Barr is honest, believes Trump never lies, and believes Trump has committed no crimes.

I don't follow any specific news anchor/commentator, but rather than make sweeping generalizations about Maddow, please let me know what is inaccurate about what she revealed here.

Heck, even Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Tucker Carleson are right some times (albeit rarely).

The Nunes' memo only relates to a FISA warrant as it relates to the Russia probe. It doesn't in any way vindicate Nunes in terms of his involvement with Parnas, Giuliani, Trump, and the Ukrainian issue. In truth, Nunes should've been barred from participating in the impeachment inquiry for potential conflicts of interest.

Regarding Nunes' involvement with Parnas, we'll have to wait and see how all this develops, because Parnas said he'll cooperate with prosecutors...especially now that his bail may be revoked and been denied house arrest due to being a flight risk after lying about a $1 million transfer he received from Russia.

Parnas had earlier stated that he helped arrange meetings between Nunes and Shokin in Vienna to help with Nunes' 'investigative work' aimed at discrediting Mueller’s investigation...but Nunes denies having met with Shokin, even though Congressional records show Nunes and members of his staff traveled to Europe in late November and early December 2018, though do not specify whether he went to Vienna or who he met with. Some even believe Nunes is a co-conspirator in the removal of Amb. Yovanovitch. We'll see.

Nunes has already lied (and lied badly) when asked on FOX News why phone records show calls between him and Parnas. On FOX News, he explained (in stammering fashion) the calls were from "a number that was Parnas’ wife". (Parnas' wife? Why would they be talking?) In a previous interview his story was different. He said, “I don’t really recall” Parnas’ name. "You know, it's possible, but I haven't gone through all my phone records. I don't really recall that name, but it seems very unlikely that I would be taking calls from random people."

Parnas' attorney told NBC News, “I can confirm that Victor Shokin told Lev Parnas that he had met with Nunes in Vienna in late 2018, and that [Nunes aide] Derek Harvey informed that they were investigating the activities of Joe and Hunter Biden related to Burisma.”

Also, Nunes tried to distract from his calls by pointing the finger at Schiff: "But you know who's working with Parnas if Parnas is such a bad guy? Adam Schiff is the guy working with Parnas. Adam Schiff and the Democrats are the ones that are talking with Parnas and Parnas' lawyers. Not me." (Well...of course, because they're investigating the Trump-Ukraine issue.) Obviously Nunes is hiding something.

The cat's out of the bag, and we need to know what Nunes was doing chatting with Parnas and Giuliani (and probably Shokin).

It's apparent the GOP can't defend the President by addressing the evidence...so they targeted the process. But that didn't work...so now they're trying to get him out on 'technicalities' (eg, FBI errors & violations). This is typically how guilty people, who are faced with a mountain of evidence, try to get acquitted.

I'm not interested in your opinion of her, but what she said. What she recently stated makes perfect sense...particularly in light of Trump's connections to Putin, Russian election interference, Trump-Russia business interests, and so on. Basically, Putin has been playing Trump (and probably Hillary), the Ukraine, American politicians, and Americans in general the whole time. Whether Trump is aware of it or not probably doesn't matter, as he's easy to manipulate. Trump is morally bankrupt and holds allegiance only to money & power. So he'll do anyone's bidding if they dangle money and power in front of his face. (And Putin can do this. His net worth is estimated at over $200 billion, and he and his circle of managers dominate Russia with an iron hand, controlling a vast amount of labor & resources.)

Like I said before...even people we don't like to listen to get things right some times.

This claim was refuted by the DOJ Inspector General. You should know better than to trust anything at face value from FOX News & Trump's tweets. Always fact-check first. (Except, of course, Trump's tweets. One can assume they're ALWAYS wrong.)[1][2]

This would mean that AG Barr is lying too (no surprise here). He's asserted that Obama wire-tapped Trump Tower as well.

Trump also admitted his Obama-wire tap claim was based on a 'bit of a hunch'[3]

'Seeking legal action' means nothing. Trump's been trying to 'seek legal action' and sue people for decades either because he got exposed, to prevent being exposed, or to screw them in some way...even though he has no basis for doing so, and always loses. Nunes may or may not win a suit, but this is still a ploy to distract from his links to Parnas and Giuliani (and probably Shokin). Just wait til Parnas/his lawyer reveals what they know.

And speaking of 'people's rights being violated', how many rights were violated by Trump before and during his presidency?

[1] https://thehill.com/policy/national...ral-refutes-trump-claim-that-obama-tapped-his
[2] https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/revisiting-trumps-wiretap-tweets/
[3] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dona...an-hannity_n_5cc2d049e4b08846403c8644[/QUOTE]

 

Check out these heavily redacted documents (146 pages) that the White House was forced to hand over to Congress on the communications between the DoD and the OMB regarding Trump's Ukraine aid hold up.

https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/ukraine-documents-dod-omb-foia/

 

I challenged another poster to show the statutes on abuse of power and obstruction of congress, still no answer.

 

Perhaps you should warn me before you start using big words. You're slowing me down by making me look up words I've never seen before, because I can't look stupid in front of everyone.

Anyway... I'm with you. Researching conspiracy topics is a far more productive avenue to understanding our past, our present, and our potential future than can anything found in a college textbook. Afterall, if the ruling class believes so strongly that their survival depends on protecting certain truths from being exposed, then perhaps it would behoove the people to make an effort to uncover what that is.

As long as we don't obsess over it, conspiracy research can pull one out of the bubble of self-imposed ignorance & despair. If anything else, it's a wakeup call to exactly what we, as a people, have been allowing to happen in plain sight for millenia. That is, why it always seems to be the FEW that control the MANY. And by knowing the 'cause', the 'solution' becomes a simple matter. Because, afterall, the benefit of exploring conspiracy topics should, ultimately, be to learn how to remove ourselves from the tentacles of those doing the conspiring.

Actually, this is false...and I discovered this rather recently. What you're seeing in the video with Joe bragging is just...well...Joe being Joe, being braggadocios and taking credit for what he didn't do. The Ukrainian parliament should be given major credit, if not final credit, for removing Shokin when they voted him out...and this took place in March 2015, around two months after the date (January) Biden said he demanded Shokin's removal.[1][2]

Joe/Obama may or may not be able to take partial credit leading ultimately to Shokin's removal ($1 billion certainly didn't hamper his removal), but I feel it was a bit of an exaggeration on Joe Biden's part. Nevertheless, it further discredits the GOP's claim that it was solely Biden that removed Shokin, as well as their claim that Shokin was removed to stop an investigation into Burisma.

Well, you may not be missing much. Just same sh!t, different era.

Throughout human history, members & victims of various civilizations/empires had to endure 1984. Those societies rose, and then collapsed. The only difference now is that advanced technology has allowed this cancer to metastasize globally...but ultimately, the enablers are the people who remain steadfastly convinced that a 'leader' is a necessity, and that money is the only means by which to raise productive people. The FEW have done a splendid job of convincing the MANY that they need not only the FEW, but also money...and not only that, but that the FEW should be entrusted with, and to regulate this money. Not too many scams can take credit for lasting thousands of years. This is one of the best.

Hey, if the people want to be led by the hand, there will be those who will jump to grab that opportunity. But hey...at least in ancient times the people didn't have the additional threat of environmental contamination & destruction, overpopulation, food toxins, GMO's, vaccines, wireless radiation, and techno-boredom to deal with...not to mention, there was always a clean, safe place to escape to.

Trump says, "Make America Great Again!"

I say, "Make Earth Great Again!"

[1] https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html
[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...r-joe-investigation-impeachment-a9147001.html

 

Specious as I noted and I'm am sure the Republicans reject out of hand as I do the premise of your argument. Note there are no crimes in the articles of impeachment. Also note there is no popular election for President nor a national popular vote.

The special prosecutor not only could have but if fact had a duty to bring any charges of any crimes his office determined just as in the Clinton impeachment. The DA along with the DAG and the OLC all reviewed the evidence and agreed that there were no charges to bring forward and present to the Congress and request impeachment and removal so that they could be prosecuted.

If it were it would be in the articles of impeachment.

And you fall for these canards?

And he was right and a boatload of Democrats and MSM pundents owe him an apology.

There us no involvement your conjecture notwithstanding.

Me
Bluesguy said: ↑
That would be the Obama administration which wired up human assets and sent them into meetings with the Trump campaign and transition an taped them. You know what the Nixon burglers were trying to do, surreptitiously tape the opposing campaign for dirt.

He CONFIRMED it in his report, they sent in human assets sewing wires and recorded conversations.

 

Yes he said they did not reach a determination that trump had committed a crime so I don't know why you are posing the previous exchange.

He could not present the indictment to the President and begin a prosecution. HIS DUTY was to bring any charges of a crime to the AG then the AG deciedes whether to wend the referral to Congress for impeachment and removal or simply wait until he otherwise leaves office. No charges were brought. No reccomendation for impeachment no referral. I don't know wht you are missing here. Mueller went so far as to get the rule wrong foe as we saw with the Clinton impeachment specific charges of FELONIES were submitted to the Congress. You can't getaround that fact.

Yes I did

Doesn't matter if it were national security although the argument is made that Trumps alleged behavior makes him susceptible to blackmail or extortion and at the time there were reports Mossad knew about Lewinsky and had used that information to pressure him. And the charges, glad you finally admit charges of criminal acts fan be brought, were not defeated the Democrats simply said that perjury, subornation of perjury and OOJ did not warrant removal from office.

He submitted a false affidavit into a federal court. That is prima facie evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice. He suborned the perjury of another person to create that create affidavit. It wasn't statements to friends.

No you're wasting time and space with your conjecture and suppositions speghetti trying to get something to stick.

No we had the same principle 2000 on confirmed that position. As with Clinton the specific charges, specific crimes, could have been presented to the Congress.
And again Mueller had to revise his statement.

"MSNBC legal analyst Ari Melber was less sure about the meaning of the exchange.

"Lieu's suggestion is along the lines that 'a crime was found but could not be charged.' But that’s not what the report says. So there may be further debate about what Mueller meant by his reply to Lieu," Melber wrote.

The former FBI director had said in his report he never reached a decision on whether Trump could or should be charged with obstruction because of the OLC guidance.

In Mueller's opening statement that came later before the House Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to "correct the record" on his exchange with Lieu.

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.""
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...ump-could-be-indicted-when-he-leaves-n1033901

He left that decision to the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and OLC which said there was no crime and the OLC opinion about indifting a sitting President had nothing to o wit that determination.

Actually it does, "high" and nowhere does it say abuse of power which Hamilton warned against.

 

Two of the main reasons that we should take Biden very seriously in his boast about forcing the Ukrainian oligarchs to bow down to his personal, dictatorial demand that the prosecutor be fired immediately are that he made the stipulation regarding the billion dollars, from himself, acting as the Vice-President of the United States, quite clear -- and that is a thing that no Ukrainian government official or Ukrainian oligarch ('the-man-behind-the-curtain') could do....

The other reason is that Joe, and Joe alone, further stipulated a specific time frame within which the Ukrainians MUST do his bidding -- or -- no United States money -- period! You remember the timeline FACT that applies here...? In Joe's own words, “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours,’” Biden told the crowd, taking a long look at his watch for effect. “‘If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch.” Here the audience laughed. “He got fired.” Ukrainian President, Porky Poroshenko certainly didn't dream up something like that, which only made him look like Biden's 'bitch' -- completely under ol' Joe's command!

Ah, where is Asimov's "Hari Seldon" of "The Foundation Trilogy" when you need him?! Indeed, every major era in civilization's long, turbulent history could have used an able, far-sighted "psychohistorian", and who among us has not felt that he is able to make accurate predictions about "what's coming"...? Truth? There never was a time when "Earth" (under all of mankind) was "great". And what Trump has been opining for is much more limited and 'parochial'... what Trump wants is the post-World War II American prosperity and omnipotence again! That certainly wouldn't break my selfish little heart, but it isn't going to happen.

The next great power in the world will be a hegemonic combination of China, Russia, and the EU (meaning, mostly Germany). Over the next ten years, this alliance will take over the entire Eastern Hemisphere, and then move even more pervasively into South America, and, Mexico. The United States will doggedly continue our series of political civil wars (and maybe worse) as we become a decayed, pathetic, 'over-with' country with nothing left but cultivated self-hatred, the ideological pursuit of 'racial/political correctness', and mixed-messages to the rest of the world, while still being able to wield the threat of thermonuclear hydrogen bombs.

A real 'Hari Seldon' might have told us in 1950 not (NOT) to squander and throw away what we had been mostly LUCKY enough to benefit from during the first-half of the 20th-century, but now that time and those opportunities have passed....

 

That's not saying much. The Repubs are the very same folks who think (or at least pretend) Trump can do no wrong. They've lost all credibility, they've embraced Trump's "the President is above the law" stance, they act & think like Trump, and is why more and more Repubs running for Congress are being defeated by Dems. Even Mitch McConnell is increasingly losing favor with his own Kentucky voters, as protests are increasing to vote him out. If the GOP isn't careful with their blind loyalty to this insane, career criminal we call the 'President', the people will feel no choice but to choose only Dems, in which case the GOP will lose all control (and rightly so).

You know, it's OK to show some loyalty to one's party if there's a real benefit to the nation/citizens/environment/etc. in doing so, but to blindly support an insane career criminal with arrested development like Trump goes beyond reason. If they can try to remove Bill Clinton for trying to cover up his sexual affairs, why is it Trump can't be removed for his laundry list of much more serious (and ongoing) crimes he's been committing even during his 2016 campaign?

Impeachment is a means by which to remove high officials...not to indict them.

What are you talking about? The Presidential popular vote is the people's vote for a Presidential candidate (assuming it's not doctored). The electoral college should never have been instituted. No other nation is stupid enough to use anything like it.

Did you even read or did you forget what I posted earlier? Here it is again:

Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent and Yale Law School lecturer, told INSIDER, "The short answer is that right now it is [Department of Justice] policy not to indict a sitting president."

And...

Rep. Ted Lieu: "I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."

So there would be no purpose to bringing any charges if there can be no indictment of those charges in the first place.

It is. It's called "Bribery, Treason, and high crimes & misdemeanors"...and Trump satisfies them all.

Of course. How is Mueller or the House supposed to implement legal action against their main suspect (Trump) if he refuses to comply with legal subpoenas that take so many months through the courts to enforce...that is, if the courts even decide to enforce any? Trump is already in the last year of his term, and we still haven't even seen his tax returns. But I'm sure you think that's OK, right?

Hardly. Nunes needs to explain his links to Parnas, Giuliani & Shokin, and should have recused himself from the impeachment inquiry in the first place. I know he's scared of what might be exposed.

Odd that Parnas would single out Nunes (and did you see his look of dread?). His travel records coincide with Parnas' statement too. Let's wait and see what more is revealed by Parnas.

Again, the IG has debunked this claim. Where's the evidence of Obama doing this...AG Barr's claim and Trump's tweets? Really? You do know all this is just more distraction, right? Because even if it were true, it has nothing to do with Trump's crimes in office. So why even bother with this distraction? Why bother with Biden, or the whistleblower, or Schiff, or Pelosi? What's your point? When will the Trumpers address the EVIDENCE? When will the Trumpers demand to question the prime witnesses (Trump & his circle) that refuse to testify? Where are all the documents & phone records that were requested?

Sorry...but it's all there in the video testimony: Senator Coons directly asked Horowitz if any evidence of Obama ordering the FBI to wire-tap Trump's phone was found, and he said no. The only wire-tapping that occured was on Carter Page, and this was in connection with the Russia investigation. Of course Trump & AG Barr would say otherwise, but (as usual) provide no evidence. And AG Barr has been lying and covering up crimes & misconduct of high officials for decades. He's another one that should be impeached/removed. Perhaps he will be one day.

 

Did you not read the three points Mueller made? Here it is again:

* The first is a 1973 decision by the Justice Department's OLC stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. For that reason, Mueller said, charging Trump with a federal crime "is unconstitutional."
* He said it would be "unfair" to even suggest Trump had committed a crime, because it would deprive him of the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law.
* He said filing a sealed indictment was not an option because of the 1973 DOJ policy, and because there was a risk that it could leak.

Mueller handed off the final decision to the AG and DAG. But Barr, as expected, didn't even review the report and fabricated his own baseless 'summary'.

Because Clinton didn't have the DOJ's OLC protection, but Trump has that protection and Mueller decided to honor it in keeping with DOJ policy. That's why he had to say he was unable to make a determination for the three reasons listed above...a primary reason being that Mueller thought it would be UNFAIR to even SUGGEST Trump had committed a crime, as it would compromise his ability to defend himself should he later be tried in court. And that even filing a sealed indictment would be risky because it could leak. Why does this not make sense to you? Mueller never gave any indication that Trump did no wrongdoing. Mueller's language is all about DOJ policy only, and you're falsely taking that to mean Trump committed no crime.

It matters in determining whether the offense is impeachable and/or warrants removal from office.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

(1) Clinton was subject to indictment because his alleged crimes took place prior to the new OLC's recommendation (and these changes were made near the end of his last term in office). But after being acquitted by the Senate, there was no need for further charges or indictments to be filed, unless new evidence emerged.

(2) No...the two charges were DEFEATED. Clinton was found NOT GUILTY. If the charges were NOT defeated, Clinton could've been removed.

From wikipedia:

"The perjury charge was defeated [...] and the obstruction of justice charge was defeated [...] Senator Arlen Specter voted "not proved" for both charges, which was considered by Chief Justice Rehnquist to constitute a vote of "not guilty". All 45 Democrats in the Senate voted "not guilty" on both charges, as did five Republicans; they were joined by five additional Republicans in voting "not guilty" on the perjury charge."

(3) Julian Epstein was the chief Democratic counsel for the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) during Clinton's administration. The HJC decided not to conduct its own investigation, but use Starr's instead. Here is what Epstein said prior to reviewing the Starr report:
"We were pretty sure by March, with all the overheated rhetoric from the Republican leaders, that they were going to impeach. I started making hires for impeachment staff in March."

And here is what he said after receiving the Starr report:
"The day we got that report, we knew it was over. We were certain of two things. One is that there wasn’t a strong legal case, either on perjury or on obstruction. The second thing was how much ammunition the report gave us—just the countless pornographic details and how unprofessional the work itself was from a legal standpoint. All this stuff about cigars and all the other gratuitous sexual things were absurd. The foolishness of Starr and the Republicans not to see how the sexual material in the report would backfire was just jaw-dropping to us."

I never denied he lied under oath...only that his violations had no bearing on national security, nor was it an abuse of power (I will admit though he shouldn't be having extra-marital sexual affairs in the White House). Having extra-marital sex and lying about it, and trying to get others to lie about it is not something that requires Presidential powers. By contrast, Trump exploited the Presidential office in his attempt to use taxpayer money as leverage to pressure (bribe/extort) a foreign nation to help him in his bid for re-election. And this is not the only time he tried to do so. He openly invited Russia, China, and Norway to do so also.

Actually it is you that's wasting time by harping on Clinton, Biden, the whistleblower, Schiff, and Pelosi...none of which have any relevancy to Trump's crimes.

They WERE presented to Congress (the House Judiciary Committee) by independent counsel Starr after he noted Clinton lying under oath in the Jones trial. Starr was hoping for Clinton's impeachment, and is why he submitted his report to the House.

I already posted some of this...and listed why Mueller chose to use this language. Again, it has nothing to do with a lack of evidence to charge Trump. (Note that Mueller told Mr. Lieu that it was the OLC opinion, NOT Trump's innocence, that influenced his decision to not charge Trump --- another clue Mueller is giving us that he believes Trump to have committed a crime.) I believe Mueller was showing weakness (or ulterior motives??) when he decided to punt HIS duty of rendering a decision/judgment to someone else. Unfortunately, Cover-up General Barr was the worst person to take up that decision/judgment.

Wrong. No one stated that there was 'no crime'...although Cover-up General Barr jumped on Mueller's punt with his lackluster, biased & uneducated 'summary' that there was no violation...which is patently false. Mueller's decision to not charge Trump was purely a DOJ policy decision, and does not in any way reflect Trump's innocence. Mueller made this very clear (go back up and read my posts on this matter). Mueller also said that if he felt Trump was innocent of the allegations, he would've made that clear...so, the fact that he did NOT suggests that Mueller felt Trump was guilty of the allegations. Instead, he agreed that Trump could be charged once he leaves office. Many legal experts feel it was an act of weakness for Mueller to decline to make a personal judgment on Trump's guilt or innocence, and instead hand off the hot potato to someone else.

The 'high' part refers to a person holding a high govt. seat...not to the actual nature/severity of the crime. That's why 'misdemeanor' is included in it.

 

I have addressed what he said including his backtracking at the hearings. And you continue conflate "bring charges" and "indicting and prosecuting".

This was not about SERVING an indictment

Then why did we have an investigation at all? He would have an opportunity after he was out of office either by removal or end of term AS HAPPENED before.

He did not have to file it, as with Clinton.

He submitted his report with it's lack of any charges to the AG who consulted with his DAG and the OLC and they found no chargeable OOJ or anything and that the OLC rule had nothing to do with the decision.

Yeah he did the rule dates back to 1973.

Where does the Constitution state that the high crime must involve national security? That being said again, there is the compromising ones self which can endanger national security as the argument is made against Trump.

The national security thingy.

.
The law goes back to 1973. Starr reporting to Congress they had clear convincing evidence of 11 felones was not INDICTING HIM or even charging HIM. That would happen after he was out of office but his DUTY as with Mueller was to specifically report and crimes his office discovered and present the evidence to support those charges. It was not to willy-nilly issue a report that says that after two years all we will say is "well maybe he did maybe he didn't we're not gonna say".

(2) No...the two charges were DEFEATED. Clinton was found NOT GUILTY. If the charges were NOT defeated, Clinton could've been removed..............................


I never denied he lied under oath...only that his violations had no bearing on national security, nor was it an abuse of power (I will admit though he shouldn't be having extra-marital sexual affairs in the White House). Having extra-marital sex and lying about it, and trying to get others to lie about it is not something that requires Presidential powers. By contrast, Trump exploited the Presidential office in his attempt to use taxpayer money as leverage to pressure (bribe/extort) a foreign nation to help him in his bid for re-election. And this is not the only time he tried to do so. He openly invited Russia, China, and Norway to do so also.[/QUOTE]

Bill Clinton wasn't in a federal court because he had a consensual sexual affair. It wasn't a "private" matter he used his Presidential powers to facilitate the sex with a subordinate worker in a federal office and then try to keep her placated so as not to threaten him by arraigning a better job, higher pay to get her out of the White House and then conspired with her to create the false affidavit deny they were engaged in sexual behavior and she was getting special treatment and rewards and benefits because that would harm his case in court. It wasn't about the sex it was about did he trade special treatment and rewards for sex with subordinate workers. Testimony Paula Jones had a right to in her lawsuit for sexual harassment.

If he committed crimes why isn't he being impeached for them, who has charged a crime. Quote from the articles where it says he committed a crime and what crime it was.

It was his duty to do so and report to them the crimes they were prepared to charge. In Mueller's case under the SC law that report went to the AG who would then make referrals to the Congress if necessary. They weren't here.

It had everything to do with a lack of evidence first to the material issue, Russian collusion, and then to any obstruction of justice. Had Mueller determine an OOJ had occurred it was his duty to say so in his report to the AG, remember the SC statute says he submits a CONFIDENTIAL report to the AG, and the the AG can issue what reports or referrals he sees fit. The AG took the additional step of bringing in the DAG and the OLC into the matter and consulted with them and they all determined there was no chargeable OOJ. So if you are going to charge a cover-up then that cover-up would include DAG Roseinstein and the Officie of Legal Counsel. That the road you're going down?

They found no chargeable crimes.

He said ANY president could be charged once they leave office.

No it means SERIOUS crimes as in perjury and misdemeanors. They specifically did not include maladministration or abuse of power.

"At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the Framers debated impeachment of a president. Some argued for the power of Congress to remove the president for “maladministration” or other open-ended terms that appeared in several state constitutions. Others, including James Madison, opposed such vague criteria, fearful that they would turn the republic into a British-style parliamentary system, in which Congress could remove a president over political differences—effectively a vote of no confidence. That, Madison argued, would be the “equivalent to tenure during pleasure of the Senate.”........
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

.....

 

I think it is the Dems that are on the worry side of this politically. Impeachment has been losing favor and we now have the first Democrat revolt.

Well tell that to the Democrats how put party and political power above everything and have led us blindly down this path that is going to divide the country even more.

Yes and they get removed so those crimes can have the indictments served. There are no crimes here just vague abuse of power.

There is no national popular vote for President, we do not vote in a single national election we vote in 51 separate and unique elections for our State electors. The STATES elect the President by design and it was one of the more brilliant things to come out of the Constitutional Conventions, the Great Compromise.

And...

Rep. Ted Lieu: "I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."

So there would be no purpose to bringing any charges if there can be no indictment of those charges in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Of course there is a purpose, to remove the person from office so they CAN be served the indictment and prosecuted. And again I posted Mueller taking back his response to Lieu.

Then how come they are not listed in the articles of impeachment?

They go to court. None did. And please don't tell me you fell for the "it would take too much time" canard.

Nunes is not under investigation but if Schiff wants to start investigating and getting private records of other members of Congress how about the Senate Republicans getting his?

It's in his report, they wired human assets and sent them to record conversations of Trump officials. And everything they recorded was exculpatory but they left that out of their FISA applications. That is why they had to turn to the fake dossier.

I'm not talking phone taps, they sent operatives into meetings wearing wires to record conversations. You know, they were spying. That at the time Trump thought it was a phone tap is of no matter, the issue was his campaign was being spied on.

 

It was a clarification which he felt needed to be to made since he had decided (in the report) not to make a decision on Trump's obstruction.

Clarifying his previous reply to Mr. Lieu, Mueller stated, "That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.” This wasn't a statement of exoneration.

"Mueller determined that Trump was unsuccessful in influencing the 22-month-long investigation largely because the president's aides refused to carry out his orders. Mueller later told lawmakers that Trump could be charged with obstruction once he leaves office. In his report and his previous public remarks, Mueller has reiterated that "if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
https://www.newsweek.com/olc-opinion-mueller-doj-memo-indict-trump-sitting-president-1450896

I think you're nit-picking here. An indictment is a formal notice of CHARGES pointing to alleged crimes. No doubt Mueller was referring to formal charges (indictment) when he said, “Under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

(1) Due to the nature of the probe involving Russian election interference, waiting until the end of the term would be risking future election interference.

(2) Because, if Trump is President largely because of Russian election interference, then he is an illegitimate office holder, and should be removed.

(3) Because, as with Ken Starr's report, Mueller's investigation would be the first step before the report would find its way to Congress for impeachment.

However, Mueller & his team decided they wouldn't make a decision, which then left it up to AG Barr. Barr did not read the 448-page report, and then whitewashed the report with his so-called 'summary' concluding that Mueller's evidence was "not sufficient to establish that the President had committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

Mueller afterwards criticized Barr in a letter stating that Barr's memo to Congress "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the investigation. This is Mueller's diplomatic way of saying that Barr lied.

Barr was obviously covering for Trump, and Rosenstein followed suit because he didn't want to be fired by Trump.

It would be a sealed indictment. Mueller might use it if (1) he wanted to avoid the statute of limitations from running out while the President was still in office, and/or (2) he wanted to avoid 6th Amendment violations. But Mueller knew there was a risk it could leak.

Again, Barr never reviewed the report, so what was there to consult about? The Cover-up General had his mind made up even before the completion of the investigation.

And, no one really knows what was going through Mueller's mind when he chose not to make a decision (Barr & Rosenstein were even surprised by this). But likely, Mueller refrained from making a decision partly because of the OLC's opinion, partly because Trump refused to be questioned, and partly because Trump's obstruction efforts failed. So Barr (with Rosenstein in tow) simply covered for Trump's guilt. This is not, and never was, about a lack of evidence (37 people were indicted, except for THE CENTRAL FIGURE, Trump). Barr also had no involvement in the investigations, nor did he bother reviewing the 448-page report. Yet Barr is afforded the final decision that there was "insufficient" evidence?? Talk about conflict of interest!

Sen. Mazie Hirono to Barr: "You knew you lied"
(video) youtube.com/watch?v=-1QiIYvCZGo

William Barr stumped by Kamala Harris' question
(video) youtube.com/watch?v=ktdi_L0rYkk

Ex-DOJ Official: 'Weak' Rod Rosenstein Let Trump, Barr Use Him
(video) youtube.com/watch?v=PzliOQbrd9g

True. I stand corrected. The OLC's 1973 opinion was simply reaffirmed in 2000. I had already posted this fact a few times but forgot I posted it.

 

It doesn't HAVE to involve national security. It's a question of whether the crime warrants removal. The impact on national security (from bribery, treason, other crimes/misdemeanors) is only one possible effect of a high crime since it's committed by a public official. That's why it's called a 'high' crime. Clinton, being a top public official, could easily have committed a crime impacting national security if he wanted to. However, he didn't. I suspect a major part of the reason he was acquitted (despite the Repubs outnumbering the Dems) was because his actions were neither a gross abuse of the office's powers, nor did it compromise national security, nor was his ability to govern impaired by the scandal. By contrast, look at Trump's crimes.

The 1973/2000 OLC opinion is not a law, nor is it Constitutionally mandated. It's just that it has become DOJ policy to 'honor' it. Logically, this 'honor' should be revoked. It gives the President far too much power & immunity from corruption (as we've been seeing lately).

The DOJ and the Attorney General are also not even established by the Constitution. Logically, they should be abolished by Congress because they are unnecessary, and they pose a high risk of abuse of powers, conflict of interest, and lack of oversight (not to mention the cost, time & red tape).

I'm not a Clinton fan, but this is hardly an abuse of Presidential powers. His violations were purely sex-oriented...not political. It didn't impair his ability to administer his duties, did not compromise national security, there was no conspiring with a foreign power, and it did not give him an unfair advantage in elections. Essentially, the charges were centered around his sexual habits and his attempts to cover them up. Whether this necessarily warrants removal from office is a matter of opinion.

As you can see, I base my opinions on both facts & common sense. So I acknowledge Clinton's violations. I don't pretend he's innocent just because he was acquitted by the Senate, or because he's a Dem, or because he's likeable, etc. In my view, Clinton was guilty for what the impeachment charges alleged, but they do not necessarily warrant removal from office. However, I would've removed Clinton for other crimes. I feel Clinton could've been investigated, impeached, and possibly removed for other, more serious crimes that were not presented to or addressed by the Senate (eg, Vince Foster). Even as Governor of Arkansas, there is evidence he helped the CIA traffic drugs into the U.S. through Mena, Arkansas from Central/South America.

Now, when will the Trumpers admit to Trump's criminal history and Presidential abuses? Trumpers are no different than a person claiming that John Gotti must be innocent simply because he wasn't formally charged with a crime for so many years...despite being THE central figure in a circle of criminals (ie, doing his dirty work) who were indicted & sent to prison. In terms of how he operates, explain how Trump is any different than Gotti, 'The Teflon Don'.

There's even a book documenting Trump's long history of intimate Mafia ties. The book's author not only predicted he would rise to the Presidency, but that he'd bring his Mafia connections & crimes to the White House. Some intriguing info on this book site.
http://trumptrophy.com/index.html
https://www.amazon.com/MAFIA-Don-Donald-Trumps-years/dp/1537454692

Yet you ignore the 25 sexual harassment allegations against Trump?

He is being impeached. He just hasn't been removed. Here's why Trump has skated so far (as President) for his crimes:

AG Barr's & Rosenstein's (resigned) coverup/whitewashing, Mueller's weakness/passivity, the DOJ's adherence to the OLC's opinion, firing investigators & other political threats, stacking the courts, blocking of subpoenas for witnesses & documents/records, stonewalling/stalling investigations, refusing to hand over tax returns, hush money, foreign & corporate donors, McConnell's protection & influence, Congressional GOP loyalty, bribing Congressmen, Russian/Putin help, and FOX News. No doubt I'm missing a lot more (like Mafia connections) that has yet to be uncovered.

Other than Clinton's impeachment (in which he was acquitted), tell me what crime(s) Clinton has ever committed?

You see how that can work the other way? This is the tactic you're using. At least I acknowledge that Clinton committed crimes. I won't hide behind his Senate acquittal, nor pretend he wasn't involved in other crimes for which he wasn't formally charged/indicted for.

Trump hasn't spent time in prison or been indicted, but he was found in violation of laws for which he had to pay heavy fines (more recently, $2 million and $25 million). And he's been involved in 3500 lawsuits over three decades, 179 while in office. Is this a man who never commits crimes? Was Michael Cohen just lying when he said he violated laws under the direction of 'individual 1' (Trump)? Was Trump just an innocent bystander having no criminal involvement with the 37 indicted individuals around him? What happened to common sense? Trump's skated all these years because the system is rigged to promote & protect criminals. It's not rocket science.

Trump still faces more federal and state investigations
https://www.wired.com/story/trumps-world-faces-16-known-criminal-probes/

Tracking 30 ongoing investigations related to Trump
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/13/us/politics/trump-investigations.html

 

Barr did submit a letter (his so-called 'summary') to Congress. But it was a whitewashing of the Mueller report, and he admitted to not reviewing the report. There was ample evidence in the report to conclude the President committed obstruction & conspired with a foreign power to interfere in elections, but Mueller chose not to make a decision for the multiple reasons I already mentioned.

Yep...I'm saying exactly that. Both Barr and Rosenstein covered up for Trump's obvious guilt: Barr, because he was appointed by & is loyal to Trump, and because he's a liar & coverup artist...and Rosenstein (now retired) because he followed Barr's lead, and also didn't want to be fired by Trump (which Trump had threatened to do). There may be other ulterior motives going on here I'm not aware of, but I definitely smell a rat on a deeper level.

The OLC's role is to "assist the Attorney General's position as legal adviser to the President and all executive branch agencies."

However, the OLC may also be involved in the coverup. Free speech & watchdog groups, and scholars have filed a lawsuit against the OLC for not honoring FOIA requests for 25-year old OLC documents that might shed light on Trump's policies & decisions:
https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2...opinions-public-scrutiny-suit-alleges/159415/

Mueller didn't say that. After being asked if there was sufficient evidence to charge the President with obstruction, Mueller replied, "We did not make that calculation."
(video) youtube.com/watch?v=TiTreSzOGxY

He didn't use the word 'any'. Several times Mueller was asked if 'THE President' (and another time, 'THE President of the United States') could be charged with a crime after leaving office. (Note in each video Mueller reiterates that his decision to not charge the President was due to the OLC's opinion. He gave no other reasons for doing so.)

(video) youtube.com/watch?v=G1KdLMKtpsw

(video) youtube.com/watch?v=oaeeTldkEk4

Here is Adam Schiff questioning Mueller. Mueller acknowledges to Schiff key elements that point to Trump's guilt.
* Russia interfered in our election to help Trump.
* Russians made numerous contacts with the campaign.
* Campaign welcomed their help.
* No one reported these contacts or interference to FBI.
* They lied to cover it up.
(video) youtube.com/watch?v=sWiFpxxWFlQ

Here's an interesting comment posted by a youtube viewer, and which echoes my own thoughts and probably that of many others. It is probably why so many Europeans view Americans as idiotic.

"The handling of this is really very strange for people in Europe. In any true democracy, this president would have been indicted or forced to leave office for less than 10% of what was revealed in those hearings. And his supporters in his own party would have been forced to leave the party. Next president (democrat) should try to decrease the power of the presidency."
(video) youtube.com/watch?v=iifYnNIuFU0

There's no mention or allusion to 'serious' offenses here...only 'maladministration', which was the original term before it was changed to 'high crimes & misdemeanors.'

But since you won't take my word for it, read it from constitution.org:

"It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons."
https://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

 

And then there's Senator Chris Murphy who said on MSNBC that if there was a secret ballot, he knows of some GOP colleagues that would vote for impeachment.
(video) youtube.com/watch?v=NWf3vLEBjEw

But none of this means anything anyway because Trump is guilty of criminal acts & is unfit for office no matter what the vote, and should be removed. Either after this term or the next, he will have to face serious charges when he leaves office. There are at least 30 other ongoing active investigations as we speak, pursued by Federal prosecutors, Congressional committees, and State & Local authorities.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/13/us/politics/trump-investigations.html

How the citizens react is irrelevant. The govt. rarely does what's best for the people, but removing Trump is the best thing right now, no matter what one side of the country feels about it. The bottom line is that Trump is unfit for office and needs to be removed, including his family, his appointments and anyone else who aided Trump in his criminal enterprise.

What happens to them after they're removed is not as important as removing them from a public office that gives them undue influence & power over the nation's people & its natural resources. I don't care what happens to Trump after he's out of office...only that, as THE most unfit President ever, he should never have been allowed any measure of influence or power.

 

First: I understand the process, but this isn't what I'm arguing about.

My concern here is that once all voters in all States have cast their vote, there exists a nationwide tally of popular votes for a specific candidate. (eg, This is how we know that Hillary had 3 million more popular votes than Trump...and is why news stations like to compare popular votes to electoral votes.) What you're ignoring is the fact that each voter does not see a list of State electors on the ballot, but a list of Presidential candidates from which to choose. The voter is therefore being screwed because his vote isn't directly counted as part of the total popular votes for a specific candidate, but instead goes to an elector. The State electors, which is not of interest to the voter (only the President), have the final say.

"Electors are typically required to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, but there is an ongoing legal dispute about whether electors are required to vote as they pledged." (Note: Abolishing the Electoral College would abolish this the middle-man, which would eliminate this petty dispute.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

Second: Except as a means of rigging the election, there's no logic in continuing the Electoral College:

* What's the point in having a popular vote if electors can simply supersede it? Is Congress assuming they are smarter or wiser than the people, and should make the final selection? Does Congress really represent the people, or is it really a regulatory buffer between the people and the ruling class?

* Every elected public official (including governors), except the President, is elected solely by popular vote...and that works great. So why not for Presidents?

* The electors act as middle-men, depriving each person an equal voice. If the elector's go against the popular vote, then it is going against the popular will...basically, telling the people that Congressional will supersedes that of the people. All other nations that have voting use nothing but a nationwide popular vote. It's a no-brainer.

Third: There's nothing 'brilliant' about the Electoral College:

* The 'Great Compromise', from which the Electoral College emerged, has its roots in the founding fathers' racist fears of slave states having too little power. Its effect was to give slave states greater representation in Congress. The 3/5ths Compromise later emerged out of this and increased the South's representation in Congress and the Electoral College, such that in 12 of the first 16 presidential elections, a Southern slave owner won.

"Perversely, the more slaves a slave state bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes. [...] It is the 12th Amendment’s Electoral College system, not the Philadelphia Framers’, that remains in place today. If the general citizenry’s lack of knowledge had been the real reason for the Electoral College, this problem was largely solved by 1800. So why wasn’t the entire Electoral College contraption scrapped at that point? Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: SLAVERY. [...] Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election."
https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

Forth: There's been a movement to abolish the electoral college since at least 1960's:

* Amendments introduced to abolish the Electoral College - Several bills have been filed in Congress to abolish or reduce the power of the Electoral College:
(1) Bayh-Celler Amendment
(2) Every Vote Counts Amendment
(3) Boxer & Cohen Proposals

* National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)
As of July 2019, the NPVIC has been adopted by 15 states. The compact is an agreement among these states (and the District of Columbia) to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

* Senator Brian Shatz together with other Senators have introduced a Constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College
(video) youtube.com/watch?v=iwq1bPAlIH0

 

But Mueller stated multiple times that he would not charge the President because of the DOJ's policy of adhering to the OLC's opinion. (Apparently, this policy wasn't as strong during Clinton's time.) So just charging the President would not be an option because it would essentially become a formal indictment...and this is what he wanted to avoid. I believe Mueller was hoping that Congress would take it up after handing over the final 'conclusion' to Barr.

The two articles of impeachment (Abuse of Power & Obstruction of Congress) have been introduced within the category of 'high crimes & misdemeanors':

Rep. Nadler submitted the following resolution to the committee:

"RESOLUTION

Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors."

A 'canard'? Hardly.

* Why did it take over 8 months to get a court order to enforce Don McGahn's subpoena?

* Why did Mueller state that "expediting the end of the investigation" stopped him from subpoenaing Trump?
(video) https://twitter.com/NewsHour/status/1154107742749175819/video/1

* Now, what makes you think the House Dems wouldn't want to subpoena the many other key witnesses if they could? That's what they've wanted all along. Why doesn't Trump testify? Why does Trump keep blocking the subpoenas (and those in his circle that have been subpoenaed refuse to testify)? We know why. Trump's guilty and his circle of minions are guilty of colluding with him.

* Just look how long it's been since Trump's taxes were subpoenaed. We're still waiting. And what about all the documents & phone records too? So of course it takes too long, but only because Trump is allowed to get away with it. Essentially, Trump's lack of cooperation with investigations is what's saved his ass more than anything else. But it also exposes his guilt. Innocent people don't behave this way. Common sense.

If Schiff wanted to give the courts time to decide on more key witnesses, we'd be well into Trump's next term before they'd even start testifying.

How do you know Nunes isn't under investigation? You think they would announce an investigation? Or would they conduct it in secret to gather evidence before any charges/indictments can be filed?

For what purpose would the Senate need Schiff's private records? Schiff isn't the one being impeached...nor is he the one named by Parnas to have met with Shokin/Ukrainians in Vienna to dig up dirt on Biden. How about staying on track & getting Trump and his circle of criminals to testify for once? How about handing over the requested documents & phone records? How about seeing Trump's taxes? One can assume Trump's guilt simply by his efforts to resist the truth from being exposed. Again...common sense.

 

Here are a few key facts that FOX News, Trump, Barr, Nunes & the GOP won't mention:

* The FISA warrant to surveil Page was issued in Oct. 2016, several weeks after Page left the Trump campaign, and months after the Russian investigation had begun.

* The Nunes memo applies only to a more recent (Oct. 2016) FISA warrant against Page, not the original one issued years before, and long before the Steele dossier.

* The Nunes memo fails to mention that, because of Carter Page's contacts with Russian spies, he attracted the FBI's attention in 2013, and was under surveillance since 2013/2014, long before he joined Trump's campaign. This may be a factor in why FBI Director, Chris Wray, concurred with IG Horowitz that there was no evidence of political bias or improper motivations underlying the Russia probe, nor in the decision to implement a FISA warrant.

* According to the Nunes memo, the DOJ used the dossier to support an application for a warrant to conduct surveillance of Page without fully informing the court of the funding source or of Steele’s anti-Trump comments. Therein, purportedly, lies the scandal. As legal experts have pointed out, this allegation, on its own, proves exactly nothing. Informants frequently come with their own agendas and biases. This alone does not bar the government from using the material they provide. Nor is disclosure to the court required as a blanket matter. Context is critical.

* The Nunes memo leaves out several other things: It doesn't accuse anyone at the DOJ or the FBI of violating the law. It doesn't claim that the entire dossier is false—just that the FISA warrant application to surveil Carter Page relied on portions of it. And most importantly, the memo doesn't say whether law enforcement corroborated the Steele dossier claims that appeared in that warrant. The Nunes memo itself acknowledges that the Steele dossier formed only a "part" of the application.

* House Democrats produced their own counter-memo to Nunes', but both memos contain classified material from the DOJ and FBI documents, and congressional committees cannot legally disclose classified material unless they vote to do so. The intelligence committee’s Republicans, who outnumber the Democrats, decided that Nunes can release classified material about the warrant application — but Democrats cannot. Playing political games with classified information, sinister as it is, is nothing new. Executive branch officials routinely make selective disclosures in order to put the administration’s spin on news stories or gain support for its policies. Inconvenient facts remain classified. It’s a flagrant abuse of the classification system that happens every day; Congress is just getting in on the act.

* While the secrecy of the process could allow all the players to cut corners, FISA judges were unusually tough on the Justice Department in 2016, rejecting or requiring changes to one in every five warrant applications. They would have given particularly close scrutiny to an application targeting a former presidential campaign aide.

Conclusions:

* The FBI's original interest in Page was not motivated by party politics or an attempt to undermine a Presidential campaign, but to review the evidence for probable cause that the target is an agent of a foreign power. (This is precisely what a "Traditional FISA" is designated for.)

* The Steele dossier did not trigger the Russia investigation, but some portions of it may have fueled it: "Despite what this [Nunes] memo tries to imply, it’s not like the Steele dossier turned the FBI onto Page." - Elizabeth Goiten, Brennan Center for Justice

* The Nunes memo is wrong that the DOJ has to inform the FISA Court of potential sources of funding and/or biases behind the information they submit for a warrant. The court is to make an assessment on the material presented regardless of funding or bias.

* "In short, there is every indication that the Nunes memo was designed to present a misleading picture that can serve as a pretext to end the Mueller investigation. This is simultaneously an abuse of the classification system, a betrayal of the public trust, a violation of longstanding norms shielding the Justice Department from political forces and — quite possibly — attempted obstruction of justice." - Elizabeth Goiten, Brennan Center for Justice

Makes no difference if it's phone taps or wired agents. It's all electronic surveillance.

And who is "they"? If you mean the FBI, then they weren't 'spying'. Spying denotes an illicit activity. It was surveillance, and they had the proper warrant for it. The IG found a lot of sloppiness, errors, and carelessness, but no overt evidence of malice intent or biased motives.

FBI Director, Chris Wray, said the following on ABC: "The inspector general did not find political bias or improper motivations impacting the opening of Russia probe, or the decision to use certain investigative tools...including FISA."
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1204127022156369920

Trump's activities and the many shady people in his circle stood out like a sore thumb during his campaign, particularly in their business activities, meetings, contacts, and monetary transactions with Russians. Of course they would capture the attention of the FBI.

Further reading:

* The #ReleaseTheMemo campaign was always disingenuous at best.
https://www.wired.com/story/release-the-memo-nunes-fisa-702/

* As was the previous Devin Nunes campaign against "unmasking," another easily misrepresented cornerstone of the FISA process.
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/sorry-susan-rice-not-smoking-gun/

* Devin Nunes has frequently gone out of his way to cloud FISA issues, seemingly at the White House's bidding. Here is a Running Timeline of His Surveillance Claims and White House Ties.
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/devin-nunes-white-house-trump-surveillance/

 

Well, is there a record of what Biden actually said at that time? If not, all we have is his word. If he was exaggerating & bragging in the video, then what other parts of his story can we believe?

Again...we have only Biden's word to go on. What was the actual exchange between the two men? I suspect there was probably no "I'm leaving in six hours" talk. That sounds like a bit of sensationalizing to me. I'd guess it was a lot more cordial. But who knows.

You sure there was never a time when earth was great? Just look at the incredible evidence of highly advanced ancient knowledge & technology from around the world: ancient megalithic ruins built with precision...ancient stories, myths, legends, and manuscripts detailing high tech weapons & flying craft, star knowledge & star visitors, high tech wars in the heavens, genetic hybridization, and prehistoric civilizations. And merge that with today's overwhelming evidence of ET visitations...and it all makes sense.

Do you think these ancient megalithic cultures reached such heights by using a monetary system, and voting for monkey's in three-piece suits who play golf while the earth burns and who tell us how we should live? We should be flying to the stars and learning how to manipulate energy with our minds. Instead, we're checking our bank accounts, watching Modern Family, and making trips to the mall to buy the newest sneaker or iPhone...all the while, trying to stay healthy against the onslaught of man-made toxins, drugs, wireless radiation, and stress.

Yes...earth was great a long long time ago. Then the scam of money, government, and religion was foisted upon earth's survivors...their true origins & history wiped clean.

Who cares what Trump wants! Who cares what Hillary or Obama or Biden want! They & all other public officials in existence, along with their manager-handlers, the so-called unelected 'ruling class' (ie, the old-money 'illuminati' families), don't matter. Neither do Putin or Kim Jong-Un or Xi Jinping or Erdogan or Rouhani or Boris Johnson or Merkel or Trudeau matter. Neither do Zuckerberg or Bezos or Soros or Gates or Musk or Kurzweil matter. Neither does the U.S. or the 'founding fathers' or the Constitution...nor international borders...nor the churches or the banks or corporations matter. These are all prisons of the mind. They represent bubbles within bubbles of reality that are ready to be burst.

"The important thing is this: to be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become." ~ Charles Du Bos

"...political civil wars (and maybe worse) as we become a decayed, pathetic, 'over-with' country with nothing left but cultivated self-hatred..." Isn't humanity already well into this? Technology has made the world smaller so that this cancer can spread quicker & keep itself alive through its global tentacles.

The remedy is simple. Stop thinking, talking, and acting the way "they" want us to think, talk, and act.

Caveat: It's fun/stimulating to debate politics. Just don't live it. Keep it in the forum bubble where it belongs, because it's not what life is about.

If Seldon said that to the native American Indians, they'd laugh at him.

 

The IG report refutes what you claim as does the just released admonition from the chief judge of the FISA court. The dossier was the KEY element for the FISA warrants and it was based in phony uncorroborated statements.
Spying = surveillance
Opening the investigation only requires the slimist of grounds and even those were not founded here.
And even when that initial spying only turned up exculpatory information they turned to the false dossier and withheld that exculpatory information.


WASHINGTON — The secret federal court that approves orders for conducting surveillance on suspected foreign terrorists or spies issued a strong and highly unusual public rebuke to the FBI on Tuesday, ordering the agency to say how it intends to correct the errors revealed last week by a Justice Department report on one aspect of the FBI's investigation of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign..."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...s-highly-unusual-rebuke-fbi-mistakes-n1103451