Yes after leaving office the indictment could be servered. And AGAIN Mueller backed off that premise and in fact it was his duty to report any crimes he discoverd to the AG. He reported none and the AG the DAG and the OLC AGREED. And the "rule" is from 1973. Mueller could have brought forward his findings of any crimes and was in fact charged with doing so just as with Starr. The fact is he could not find any crimes but members of his staff who write the report did not want to report that so they fame up with this absurd position that if theybfound crimes they wouldn't tell anyone. List no crimes. Yes they could ask the court to fast track and there is no need for this rush to judgement. So you did fall for it. Yes I think he would have been informed he was a target why should I believe he is under an investigation and for what? Schiff is the one who engaged with the person to whom classified information was leaked. If there is a fine Giuliani was engaged he can be called to testify.
That is not a national popular vote and claiming it is is statisitcal and election folly. It is merely trivia. Tallying up the results of those 51 totally serarate and unique votes does NOT represent what would be the results of a national vote after a national campaign. Hillary got 3 million more votes in the California. She got more votes in 21 of those elections against Trumps 30. So what? The STATES elect the President something you keep ignoring. The same reason that has always existed that derived from the great compromise andbit is not going to be eliminated. You are conflating the States with the Federal Government. Your voice is just as equal as anyone else's IN YOUR STATE. It wasn't just slavery you forget that the States considered their own sovereignty and for the smaller states that the larger, by population, would be dominated by the larger states. Even without the slavery issue we would have had something similar Tele tho smaller states would not have joined. And they go nowhere. And will not get the require number of states and faces the hurdle of the Constitution as being a compact between states. And it will go nowhere.
Why are you bringing up moot points that have nothing to do with what I said. I could care less about his self-serving conjecture. Oh so the PEOPLE are not relevant now.....................absurd. It's the PEOPLE who decide if a person is fit to serve as President not the Congress but feel free to point out where that is one of the four basis for impeachment as iterated in the Constitution. What happens IS important as prosecuted for any laws they violated, you know the high crimes you are asserting. But first they have to be found and no investigation has found one. And again "unfit" is not a Constitutional reason to impeach and remove. That's what elections are for.
ROFLMAO so let's have the investigation that we STILL need. OH that's right we are still involved in an impeachment because he asked the Ukraine President to cooperate as required by treaty.
If there were crimes in the report that would have been specifically referred to the Congress. It was reviewed by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the Office of Legal Counsel and no OOJ and Mueller himself found no collusion between Trump or any American with Russia. And AGAIN "“I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by [Rep. Ted] Lieu, who said, and I quote, ‘you didn’t charge the president because of the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller added. “As we say in the report and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”" His statements you keep repeating prior to that are moot. And more self-serving conjecture and projection, you have NOTHING to support those claims. And now the OLC is part of this big conspiracy. You got nothing. They just didn't want to say what the conclusion was. Note how he withdrew that after his staff corrected him during the break. Guilt of what? He said there was NO COLLUSION between the campaign and Russia. Campaigns talk to persons from MANY foreign countries and there is nothing that says they have to report them to the FBI. Russia interferred in lots of ways including AGAINST Trump. I don't care what a youtuber in Europe has to say about it, if YOU have something to say then YOU say it. It was dropped because of concerns it would put too much power to abuse by the Congress into the Constitution. That is the specious opinion of one Jon Roland and has NEVER been the interpretation. Those who are subject to impeachment are specifically listed in the Constitution. The term means SERIOUS crimes of a SERIOUS nature. Jaywalking would not be an impeachable offense, felonies are.
Even The New York Times is finally admitting the now obvious truth. "Civil libertarians for years have called the surveillance court a rubber stamp because it only rarely rejects wiretap applications. Out of 1,080 requests by the government in 2018, for example, government records showed that the court fully denied only one. Defenders of the system have argued that the low rejection rate stems in part from how well the Justice Department self-polices and avoids presenting the court with requests that fall short of the legal standard. They have also stressed that officials obey a heightened duty to be candid and provide any mitigating evidence that might undercut their request. But the inspector general found major errors, material omissions and unsupported statements about Mr. Page in the materials that went to the court. F.B.I. agents cherry-picked the evidence, telling the Justice Department information that made Mr. Page look suspicious and omitting material that cut the other way, and the department passed that misleading portrait onto the court." THE NEW YORK TIMES, We Just Got a Rare Look at National Security Surveillance. It Was Ugly., By Charlie Savage, 12/11/19. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-security-surveillance-it-was-ugly/ar-AAK1QRS
And yet we have found a boatload of serious felons in the DOJ/FBI. "Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz said the FBI made serious and repeated mistakes in seeking under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to conduct surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser. The FBI's submission to the court made assertions that were "inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation," the report said. Rosemary Collyer, presiding judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, said in the unusual public order that the report "calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable." She ordered the FBI to explain in writing by Jan. 10 how it intends to remedy those problems." NBC NEWS, Secret FISA court issues highly unusual public rebuke of FBI for mistakes, By Pete Williams, Dec. 17, 2019. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...s-highly-unusual-rebuke-fbi-mistakes-n1103451
Perjury, subornation of perjury, OOJ, witness tampering.........with ACTUAL CHARGES submitted by the office which investigated the matter.
I don't think our friends on the left realize who serious is this matter and they should. They now support law enforcement using nefarious means to get warrants to spy on innocent citizens. They seem to have given up their crusade against law enforcement abuse of citizens rights just as easily and self-servingly as they gave up their crusades about protecting women from sexual harassment and holding male bosses accountable along with.
The Left has a long history of liquidating leftists for hypocrisy. These hypocrites should fear each more than their conservative, liberal, and libertarian reform opposition. We just want to vote them out of office. "When the FBI could not find significant "subversive" influence, the bureau abandoned all pretense that its intelligence was directed only at organizations under the control or influence of a foreign power or dedicated to "violence." The Socialist Workers party (SWP) was placed under heavy surveillance even through the bureau conceded it was "home grown tomatoes" and in active opposition to the Communist party. The bureau took aim at the SWP because it espoused the "revolutionary principles of Marx, Lenin, and Engles (sic) as interpreted by Leon Trotsky" by "running candidates for public office." The surveillance of Martin Luther King, Jr., as we have seen, was ostensibly to prevent "the rise of a 'messiah' who could unify and electrify the . . . black . . . movement," although King's criticism of the bureau may well have been the real reason." THE LAWLESS STATE, The crimes of the U.S. Inteligence Agencies, by Morton Halperin, Jerry Berman, Robert Borosage, Christine Marwick, Penguin Books, 1976. http://thirdworldtraveler.com/NSA/Lawless_State.html
I am keeping faith that Durham will hold these government officials who abused their power and violated the oaths they took and the LAW in order to spy on on opposition campaign accountable and at some point get to the point of asking "What did President Obama know and when did he know it".
I have lost faith in the DOJ/FBI. I expect to see a few scape dogs slapped on the wrist and nothing more. I hope Barr and Durham surprise me. If pressed Obama will probably say that he believed his secret police/spy agency briefings.
It just proves how corrupt and partisan Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and Nanacy Pelosi really are. They are exactly what our Founders feared when they created this country and wrote the Constitution. They are enemies within the gov't working to distort and destroy it for their own personal gain and for their own party.
* Refutes what exactly (I listed a lot of facts), and show me where it says it? Nothing was 'refuted'...only that gross errors were made. * Both IG Horowitz and FBI Director Wray concur that they "did not find political bias or improper motivations impacting the opening of Russia probe." * But let me put Nunes'/GOP's/Trump's debunked claim to rest by quoting directly from the report. From page ii of the IG report: "We did not find information in FBI or Department ECs, emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating that any information other than the FFG information was relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. [...] These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele's election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele's reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening." (FFG = Friendly Foreign Government, EC = electronic communication) From pages vi & viii of the IG report: "We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele's reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications." However... "We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page." BUT......Ex-FISA court chief (and now a Senior U.S. District Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), John Bates, a Republican appointed by Bush in 2001 says the exact opposite. So who should we listen to? An admonition by Rosemary Collyer (also a Bush appointee) is just that...an admonition. Collyer had ordered a review of the FBI's handling of the Carter Page case, resulting in a rebuke of its operations. But she said nothing about the dossier or whether the Russia probe was justified...only about the FBI's gross errors and the need to remedy those problems in the future. I understand that Trumpers will jump all over this with glee because there's no other real defense for Trump...but let's not be disingenuous and make more of it than than it is. If there was 'nothing to see' in the Russia probe, it would not have resulted in 37 indictments...not to mention Trump's suspicious refusal to be questioned by the FBI, and his 10 attempts at obstruction. Obviously the FBI smelled a rat, although its handling of it may have been sloppy. Nope. As posted earlier, the FBI became interested in Carter Page back in 2013, and acquired a FISA warrant in 2013/2014. If the warrant was allowed to expire in the interim up to 2016, then the dossier would only have re-ignited an interest in Page. And again... (1) The Oct. 2016 Carter Page FISA application was approved months after the Russia investigation began (July 2016)...and, several weeks after Page himself had left the campaign. It was the FBI's interest in George Papadopoulos that triggered the probe. (2) Only a portion of the FISA application relied on the dossier before the dossier was dropped in Nov. 2016 (due to a motherjones article). Nunes' memo doesn't even claim that the entire dossier is false --- just that the FISA warrant application to surveil Carter Page relied on portions of it...and acknowledges that the dossier formed only a "part" of the application. In the following article by three former federal prosecutors entitled, The FBI Would’ve Been Derelict Not to Use Steele Dossier for the Carter Page FISA Warrant, three important points made by Andrew McCarthy which Trumpers keep pushing are debunked. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...t-use-steele-dossier-carter-page-fisa-warrant * Opening an investigation and obtaining a FISA search warrant are two different things. Which one are you referring to? * If you're referring to FISA warrants, read the following article by Asha Rangappa, a former FBI agent who specialized in counterintelligence investigations: It Ain’t Easy Getting a FISA Warrant: I Was an FBI Agent and Should Know https://www.justsecurity.org/38422/aint-easy-fisa-warrant-fbi-agent/ Excerpt from end of Rangappa's article above: "In short, the FISA warrant process is designed to protect against the very abuse of power that the President has accused his predecessor of exercising. You could even say that FISA applications go through an “extreme vetting” process before being granted – something that the Trump administration ought to support." Again, the dossier comprised only a portion of the FISA application. There was much more involved in the application.
You're talking about a sealed indictment. But Mueller made it clear it wasn't an option either because it could leak. He submitted his report to Barr, and it was Barr's duty to thoroughly review it. But Barr didn't review the underlying evidence, and even admitted to it. Yet he stated his conclusion to Sen. Kamala Harris that the evidence was "not sufficient to support an obstruction of justice offense." After Harris questioned Barr, she told reporters that Barr should resign...and said, "I believe that was absolutely enlightening, and what should be deeply troubling to the entire American public, is that he made a decision and didn't review the evidence. No prosecutor worth her salt would make a decision about whether the president of the United States was involved in an obstruction of justice without reviewing the evidence. This attorney general lacks all credibility and has, I think, compromised the American public's ability to believe that he is a purveyor of justice." * Mueller never said he didn't find any crimes. He said, "we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime." * Mueller contradicted Trump's claims when he confirmed that his report does not exonerate the President...AND, that the President could be charged after leaving office. * Mueller agreed that the President's written answers were "generally" not truthful. (Remember, Trump refused to be questioned in person by Mueller's team.) * Mueller agreed that the report did not conclude that the President did not commit obstruction of justice. He said, "We did not make that calculation." * I already posted to you Mueller's reasons for not formally charging Trump. And as Schiff correctly reminded Mueller at the hearing, "Had it been anyone else in the country they would have been indicted." Yes they do...high crimes of office. Trump abused the powers of his office and also obstructed Congress by blocking subpoenas (which is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers). These are considered "high crimes & misdemeanors", because only a public official has the means to commit a violation of office. They are high crimes & impeachable...and not applicable under the criminal statutes. Actually, Trump could be said to have committed bribery and treason as well, but the House probably didn't want to complicate matters more by risking an endless debate on what constitutes "bribery & treason." "Fast track"?! You're funny! Trump's got the courts stacked with a conservative majority. One out of every four judges at the circuit court level (and 2 in the Supreme Court) is now a Trump appointee (45 appointees in three years to Obama's 55 in 8 years). And Trump can thank rogue Senator McConnell for that: "After taking control of the Senate in 2015, the Kentucky Republican spent the the final years of Obama’s presidency blocking new judicial appointments. The result was Trump entered office with 112 vacancies to fill. At a White House press conference this week touting his success with judicial appointments, Trump described how McConnell urged him to keep his focus on judges. “Of course, I’d like to get some other people confirmed too,” Trump said. “Mitch would say, ‘Well, we got to do the judges first.'" Pelosi said the 'founding fathers' anticipated the potential for a rogue President, for which they framed certain contingencies...but never anticipated a SECOND rogue...the Senate Majority Leader (McConnell). The House many months ago had already requested a 'fast-track' on a subpoena for Trump's 8 years of financial records. The judge 'fast-tracked' the hearing for MAY 14. So that was back in May 2019! It's DECEMBER now. Where are the financial records? Could Trump's immediate lawsuit (against Mazars USA & House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings) to block the subpoenas at that time have anything to do with it? You see now what Schiff is up against? "...without this [fast-track] ruling the case would have been heard by the same judge, but in a series of stages that could have stretched out over several months. Even that was considered to be speedy handling..." Yeah...fast-track. Great idea! BUT......have you asked yourself, why should Schiff have to fast-track court subpoenas in the first place if Trump and his minions are all innocent angels? Hmm.. See above. Did you forget? For meeting with Shokin/Ukrainians in Vienna, as per Parnas' claim that he helped arrange these meetings. And there's no logic in announcing to the suspect that you're investigating him...even if he has to be questioned. If possible, the investigation should be done in secret to gather further data first...unless it's a public crime, like a robbery, that one investigates after-the-fact. No doubt Nunes knows he's being watched a little more closely. First off, it needs to be understood that none of this is relevant, because it has nothing to do with the evidence thus far uncovered (and continues to be uncovered) pointing to Trump's abuse of power, which is what is under scrutiny. To target Schiff is an attempt to manipulate the outcome of the impeachment by casting doubt on Schiff's credibility (because there's no other means by which to defend Trump)...as if it would make any difference anyway. Schiff is not the one on trial here, and the whistleblower's complaint has long been confirmed by multiple sources of evidence. The GOP is beating a dead horse here. But this is typical behavior of guilty people. They can't defend themselves on evidence, so they resort to attacking prosecutors, investigators, and the court process. With that said... * The whistleblower reportedly met with an Intelligence Community aid with vague details of the complaint. The aid then apparently informed Schiff, but did not reveal the whistleblower's identity. So it's uncertain if Schiff actually met the whistleblower. The following source also confirms Schiff didn't meet with the whistleblower - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...et-or-talked-with-schiff-source-idUSKBN1XN2O5 “Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican- and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistleblower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community," Schiff's spokesman Patrick Boland said. “At no point did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance." Schiff's team said proper procedure was followed and that his panel advised the whistleblower to find a lawyer and file an official complaint. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...or-general-of-contact-with-adam-schiffs-panel * The GOP is bitching about this because they feel they were cheated out of finding a way to cover all this up before it could go public. Well...too bad! The cat's out of the bag, and it ain't going back in. I hope this encourages more whistleblowers to come forward, if it doesn't already cause public officials to watch their step more, because we have no other real means of transparency to expose corruption at the deeper levels. These watchdogs are particularly important in exposing public officials, because it is public officials that the people place their trust in and hand over their power to (which they should never have done in the first place). Get real. Giuliani will never testify. He and Trump will sue to block the subpoena at all costs if it goes to the courts.
The total tally of votes that a candidate receives nationwide is called the "national popular vote." Nope. 3 million more votes nationwide (ie, from different states). Hillary Clinton received 65,853,514 to Trump's 62,984,828 votes...almost three million more votes than Trump, giving Clinton a popular vote lead of 2.1% over Trump. This difference was not all from California. Where did you get that idea? And why would it matter anyway? And you don't see how unfair it is to base the final results by states (electors) rather than by direct (popular) democratic votes? I'm not ignoring it. I'm telling you THAT'S exactly what's WRONG with it. The electoral college is not, and never was a democratic institution. It's function is to thwart direct democracy by sublimating votes down to a middle-man (Congress). This middle-man is stacked by wealthy, career politicians, and each House favors either one of two parties. So, what if the majority of Americans vote for a Dem, but Congress is stacked with Repubs (and vice versa)? What if the majority of Americans want neither a Repub. nor a Dem...but Congressional electors will only elect one or the other? As you can see, the electoral college is far from democratic. And neither can it be said that the electoral college 'generally works' because it usually votes in parallel with the national popular vote, and only a few times did not. The problem with this argument is that (1) it should NEVER go against the national popular vote, and (2) people are essentially given only two party choices, as dictated by the electors. If things were truly fair, every single person running for office (rich or poor) would be given free & equal air time in the media, allowed to debate in all debates, and the people given a direct vote for their candidate of choice and not held in check by Congressional electors. Here's another simple way that shows how illogical the electoral college is: Say, nationwide there are 100 people. Let's say 51 voters choose candidate X, and 49 voters choose candidate Y. but the state electors elect candidate Y. The effect is that 49 people are granted their choice for President, but at the expense of the remaining majority of Americans. As you can see, the will of the Few (wealthy electors) violates the will of the Many (as happened with the Clinton-Trump election). Another reason the electoral college doesn't work is that the electors for each state are fixed, while the voter turn-out for each state is variable (the variability of which is highly rigged). See the Nine Ways the U.S. Voting System Is Rigged, But Not Against Donald Trump https://theintercept.com/2016/11/06...ystem-is-rigged-but-not-against-donald-trump/ "The Senate’s ability to slow or stop change is why it was created in the first place. As James Madison, the main author of the Constitution, put it in 1787: “Our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation” and “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” The Senate, Madison said, should be the part of the government designed to do this." (Hence, each state gets two senators, no matter what its population.) The Constitutional framers were uncomfortable with giving power to the people. So the electoral college had its purpose (though unfair) in the past...which was to benefit & protect the Few (wealthy slave holders) from the Many by giving slave states greater political influence. Today it still serves to protect & benefit the wealthy minority, but without the slave issue (although essentially, we're still enslaved...but now paid slaves). The electoral college serves no democratic, logical, or fair purpose. It's a vestige of the dark ages. It will be eliminated one day...once people like Trump are no longer given an audience...when the ruling class/elites are no longer enabled...when the older generations die out and new ideas begin to germinate...and when people finally realize that they no longer need politicians. Hardly. I'm speaking of the general facts of voting itself...anywhere in the world. A direct popular vote has the same result no matter WHO the people vote for. But the U.S. is still living in the dark ages. Because the President holds such a high seat, the voting process for presidential candidates is rigged (in several different ways) to control who ends up in office...designed ultimately to benefit the Few against the will of the Many. After a president is sworn in, both the President and Congress (and Supreme Court) work in concert to run the nation like a corporation (with its owner/ruling class, its President/CEO, Vice President, political managers, secretaries, accountants, PR staff, laborers, etc.). There really are no check & balances...only one wealthy party vs another wealthy party. As the saying goes: Presidents are selected...not elected. So Trump was right about one thing. The elections are indeed RIGGED...but in Trump's favor, because the globalist/ruling class/elites wanted him to win. Trump is a pawn, but thinks he's a King. He has no idea to what extent he's being used as a tool to do the elite's dirty work, and then set up to take the blame for it...all the while he's protected from criminal indictments. And Trump is an easy target for the elites. He only listens to those who can offer him greater wealth and influence (even if they're dictators, like Putin & the Saudi's)...because that's all he lives for. I can see Trump's puppet master, Putin, laughing at us right now...and all because Americans gave Trump an audience. But not nationwide...where it really matters. If everyone had an equal vote nationwide, Trump wouldn't be President. Nope. Keep in mind, slavery was there from day ONE, and this was long before the Civil War. The 'founding fathers' were very wealthy slave owners, so the manner in which they framed the political system, the Constitution, and elections would be set up to benefit them & other wealthy slave owners. It's all about slavery, all about the Southern (slave) states exerting enough influence in politics. That's why the 3/5ths Compromise was spun off from it...to reward slave owners who owned/bred more slaves by giving them greater Congressional representation. And that's why 12 of the first 16 presidential elections were won by a Southern slave owner. The argument about smaller/bigger states, and many more arguments for the electoral college are debunked here. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...he-electoral-college-is-wrong-warren-cnn.html We'll see. Things are changing that aren't being talked about in the MSM.
Because YOU did. You claimed some Democrats might change their mind. So I'm just countering with the same thing. The people are relevant...not their reactions. Trump needs to be removed because that's good for the people, the nation, and our natural resources...regardless of who might react negatively (or even violently). When it comes to doing what's best for everyone, then we shouldn't be concerned about how the naysayers react. We should just do it. The reason things continue to degrade is precisely because we don't choose what's best for all...but rather, base our choices on petty concerns. I don't believe the average American, being so heavily programmed, even really know what's best for them. Because Trump's blocking a full investigation. Still, there's already been overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt. It's never been in dispute on a factual & common sense level, despite the background noise coming from the GOP. By the way, and I'm not attacking you...but do you ever listen to yourself? You and other Trumpers demand that the rules for impeaching a President are followed...yet you don't complain when Trump blocks all the subpoenas for witnesses, documents, and records. Then...you boldly claim there's "no evidence" for impeaching Trump. If you truly want the whole, unassailable truth to come out, then you should be concerned as to why the subpoenas continue to be blocked. Think about it. Trump is unfit because of his multiple abuses of office and his obstruction of separation of powers (both Constitutional violations). He's also using the Presidency to enrich himself, his family, his donors, and the ultra-rich...all at the expense of the nation's people and its natural resources. He's also unfit because of his lengthy criminal history, his Mafia ties, bigoted attitudes & divisiveness, arrested development, irresponsible behavior, debilitating narcissism, and belligerence towards anyone who disagrees with or exposes him. He's also unfit because he thinks, talks, and behaves in a manner that would be expected of a tyrant (which is why he admires Kim Jung-Un, Putin & the Saudi's). Essentially, Trump is continuing, in the White House, the same behavior & activities he has his whole life.
The DoD and Congress had already determined that the Ukraine satisfied the conditions for aid, and approved its readiness to receive the aid allocated to them. Trump had no business leveraging or holding up the aid for ANY reason...even if it was to 'investigate corruption' (which it wasn't). Trump was never interested in corruption to begin with. How could he have been anyway? He is the poster child of corruption! Biden, and only Biden was his focus, because he has always feared Biden beating him in an election. Giuliani and Biden also have a decades-long grudge against one another...hence, Giuliani's relentless persistence in looking for dirt on Biden. So Trump & Giuliani were destined to form a strong bond to mutually seek out and destroy Biden.
I already covered all this to great extent. Go back and re-read it. Then explain why Barr lied, and why he whitewashed the report without reviewing it. Yes, a good possibility because they're blocking the FOIA request, and because the OLC officials may be trying to protect Trump. We're dealing with corruption at all levels, but especially among the courts because Trump & McConnell have stacked the courts in Trump & the GOP's favor. Exactly!!!! And you know why? Because he KNOWS Trump is guilty. How do I know? Because recall when Mueller said that if he felt confident that the President committed no crime, he would have said so. And since he never said so...well, do the math...Trump MUST be guilty. Case Closed! Something else to consider: You may not know it, but Mueller was subpoenaed by both Houses because he didn't want to testify. Now, think about it. Why would he wish not to testify if he felt confident that Trump didn't commit a crime? I'd think there would be no stress to state, happily, to everyone that Trump was completely exonerated. But if he felt Trump was guilty, it would be up to him to declare it...and what kind of stress would that subject him to? This was the President of the U.S...not just one of Trump's 37 indicted minions! What would the ramifications be on Mueller...from Trump...from AG Barr...from the GOP? So if I'm correct, this is why Mueller refused to make a determination on the investigation...and handed it off to Barr, Rosenstein, and perhaps even hoping Congress might further deliberate on if they so desired. Common sense, dude! This is not the statement he came back to clarify. That was another time when he was asked if the OLC's opinion was the reason he didn't charge Trump.
Nope. Russia helped Trump. Trump knew it...and knowingly welcomed it. Trump even openly asked Russia for dirt on Hillary. Trump incriminated himself multiple times. But read the following for a better, more detailed explanation debunking this "no collusion" myth that the GOP/Trump keeps spewing. (You're free to contradict any facts in this report, but please stick to FACTS ONLY. Stop making stuff up and presenting them as 'facts' without providing your sources. If you provide the source, I can review the exact source material without having to hunt around for where you got it. It's just an issue with time. Thanks.) Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.” Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents. While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up. Mueller found other contacts with Russia, such as the sharing of polling data about Midwestern states where Trump later won upset victories, conversations with the Russian ambassador to influence Russia’s response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to election interference, and communications with Wikileaks after it had received emails stolen by Russia. While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.” And while we're at it...here's another myth you've repeatedly promulgated: Myth: Case closed. No do-overs. Response: Mueller investigated the case under criminal statutes, which is a narrow and specific window of inquiry. Congress has a different and broader responsibility to determine whether the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors for which impeachment is appropriate. Congress is not bound by the high standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that Mueller used for his criminal inquiry. Our system reserves that burden of proof for cases where someone’s liberty is at stake and they may be incarcerated as a result of proceedings. That is not the case with impeachment. https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/ What this means is that Congress can still use Mueller's evidentiary material in future impeachments, because the weight of this evidence clearly points to Trump's guilt.
I've been saying pretty much the same thing...using FACTS...but I'm not sure you're taking the time to read the tons of facts I've presented. I know it can be long sometimes, but there's a lot of good info there. Besides, it's no big deal. I posted this European's comment only to illustrate how ridiculously obvious it is, even to a foreigner, that Trump has committed dozens of crimes before, and during, his time in office. It took very little for you to jump all over Bill Clinton's sexually motivated crimes (even despite being acquitted)...yet you can't (or won't) even acknowledge a single crime that Trump has committed. According to Madison, the term 'maladministration' wasn't concise enough. "As the delegates considered this, Mason argued that “attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be treason,” and proposed adding “maladministration.” James Madison replied that maladministration was too “vague,” leading Mason to withdraw the suggestion, and replace it with “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The suggestion passed, 8 votes to 3." https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...s-and-misdemeanors-trump-impeachment-whitaker So you think you know better than Roland (a National Merit Scholar) about this? With all due respect, I think I'll take Roland's opinion on this over yours. Jon Roland's CV https://www.constitution.org/jr_cv.htm And why do you say Roland's opinion is "specious"? You think there's an evil agenda behind his opinion? These are the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the U.S. So what's your point? * Are "high misdemeanors" serious? * Show me where it says only "serious" crimes and I'll believe you. * "High crimes & misdemeanors" are not necessarily the same as crimes & misdemeanors that fall under criminal statutes. It doesn't have to be a criminal act, but an act that betrays the oath & duties of the office. "Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person." https://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm "High crimes and misdemeanors are not limited to actual crimes but extend to an abuse or violation of the public trust in carrying out those duties." https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/what-does-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-mean/ And from wiki: "The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials." Felonies are a type of crime that falls under criminal statutes. A public official who commits a felony will have violated a criminal statute, but it would not be regarded as a "felony" in an impeachment...but a violation that may be impeachable, depending on its nature as it relates to the oath & duties of the office. Recall what I posted earlier regarding Mueller's investigation vs a Congressional impeachment: "Mueller investigated the case under criminal statutes, which is a narrow and specific window of inquiry. Congress has a different and broader responsibility to determine whether the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors for which impeachment is appropriate. Congress is not bound by the high standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that Mueller used for his criminal inquiry. Our system reserves that burden of proof for cases where someone’s liberty is at stake and they may be incarcerated as a result of proceedings. That is not the case with impeachment." https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/ "...the Founding Fathers sought to establish a mechanism for removing a corrupt or incapacitated president. Drawing on British practice, their use of the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” covered crimes against the state, not necessarily criminal violations." https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbobelian/2019/12/04/what-is-an-impeachable-offense/#4f4840c55819 "The question of impeachment depends less on a strict legal definition than it does a dedication to political and moral principle. Impeachment exists to protect the public while encouraging those entrusted with political power to live up to the high responsibilities of their office." https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/what-does-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-mean/ Ask yourself: Has Trump lived up to the high responsibilities of his office? By the way...I'm going to give you the last word on this debate we've been having. I've been spending too much time on this topic and would like to move on to other topics. It's been a lot of fun though...and I hope I didn't offend you in any way. So, thanks for the stimulating exchange!
And Russia held phony anti-Trump rallies hut in the end there is no proof anything they did was effective nor evidence Trump knew about it. What dirt did Trump ask for? Her official State Department emails were dirt? And what he JOKED about was Russia helping the FBI recover those emails she had tried to destroy which the NYT had just reported on those efforts. Those emails belong to US. They should have been archived for public record. So what's the dirt? And again no collusion in the Mueller report, not one American charged with collusion.
And it is the PRESIDENT who makes the final decision. Ukraine was in the middle of a transfer to a new leader and yes Trump ran on the issue of foreign aid going to corrupt countries. On top of that the reporting about the Biden's, Hunter's pay for play position and the surfacing of Joe's threat, and STILL needs a full investigation.
