Discussion of the Mueller Report

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by fast4522

Perhaps it is always good to surround yourself with other sharp people who are not in the same area of expertise. Not that I qualify as a expert, but President Donald J. Trump has always kept a flow of diverse people around him that can qualify as expert in several areas. An example is that the POTUS can be impeached for "High crimes and misdemeanors" only, those who define what "High crimes and misdemeanors" are not the court of public opinion. We may get to see the Supreme Court step in, and it will not be favorable to the left if it does. So "is as vague as vague can be" just might not be the case.

The Supreme Court has absolutely nothing to do with the impeachment process. It is solely handled by the House and Senate. Any change to this process would also have to come form the very same people in Congress.

There is no repeal process or intervention process other than a hostile takeover of our current governmental system, laws, and constitution. (aka a 2nd Civil War).

[hcap]

Originally Posted by delayjf

Define attempt.

Investigators try to investigate and the dufi attempt to block it. But the dufus is not swift enough and the investigators realize the dufus put his foot in their path and see it (his mouth too), and don't trip
...............................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I'm house sitting and cops show up with a warrant to search it. I refuse entry.

I committed a crime.

Hmmm interesting.....
what caused the warrant? Do they not need a probably cause to obtain said warrant? Not some made up or validated charges? Im curious as to what judge would issue such a warrant without a reason for said warrant....
Ohhh wait...FISA.

[hcap]

More problems for the Chump

Trump’s DHS Pardon Promise Is As Serious As Anything in the Mueller Report
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...eenan-dhs.html

Trump had told Kevin McAleenan, who at the time was commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, that “he would grant [McAleenan] a pardon if he were sent to jail for having border agents block asylum seekers from entering the US in defiance of US law.

....there is no question that the constitutional pardon power is broad. It covers all federal crimes, both civilian and military, committed by individuals dead and alive—although it doesn’t cover state crimes, and it is generally understood that a president cannot pardon himself.

....granting a pardon before a crime has been prosecuted is a far cry from promising one before a crime has even occurred. In the case at hand, the promise of a pardon in the event of some future criminal act certainly sounds like it might itself be a crime, but it is at least an abuse of presidential power to offer an inducement to break the law.

Oops

[hcap]

It is not going to end well for Chumpy

Trump’s retaliation against witnesses could get him 10 years in prison: Ex-Nixon lawyer

On Wednesday’s edition of “The Rachel Maddow Show,” former Nixon lawyer William Jeffress warned President Donald Trump that his behavior could put him in legal jeopardy.

“Through his tweets if nothing else, President Trump has made it clear that he’s furious at a number of people, certainly including Don McGahn, including Michael Cohen, likely including others who provided information to Mr. Mueller,” said Jeffress. “And that information made its way into the report and was embarrassing to President Trump.”

Now there is a criminal statute on the books. It’s called retaliation against witnesses,” said Jeffress. “It punishes anybody who takes action to retaliate against a witness who has provided truthful information to law enforcement authorities. And President Trump and his lawyers have got to be very cautious in taking any action other than words against any of these people who he is angry at.”

....“The way the statute reads is, if the president causes any harm to an individual in retaliation for his testimony, that’s a criminal offense carrying a prison sentence of up to 10 years,” said Jeffress. “And, yes, I think if you caused the firing of a law firm that caused harm to the witness, and you did that specifically with intent to retaliate against the witness’ testimony, that would unquestionably be a crime.”
.................................................. .

Too bad you righties hate Rachel. She is an award winning journalist and finds lots of pertinent info. Anyone want to see the video so you can cry yourself to sleep?

[hcap]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/polit...rds/index.html

On Wednesday, Deutsche Bank has started the process of turning over President Donald Trump’s financial records, according to CNN.

“Deutsche Bank has begun the process of providing financial records to New York state’s attorney general in response to a subpoena for documents related to loans made to President Donald Trump and his business, according to a person familiar with the production,” the report said.
...........................................

It is only a matter of time.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by newtothegame

Hmmm interesting.....
what caused the warrant? Do they not need a probably cause to obtain said warrant? Not some made up or validated charges? Im curious as to what judge would issue such a warrant without a reason for said warrant....
Ohhh wait...FISA.

It doesn't matter and it's another goalpost move to talk about something else. Obstructing justice is obstructing justice.

You can obstruct justice without committing a crime...

I've actually discussed this DIRECTLY with you in a couple other posts. More proof you don't actually read what I post and seek to either personally attack, change the subject, or disagree reflexively...

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

But if you actually read the report and what is in it there is a big difference between Barr's summarization and what's actually in it.

For Instance:

Barr made the decision that Obstruction didn't occur using the following logic: Since there was no underlying crime, in this case conspiracy (we need to stop using collusion because that happened), the President was just using his powers of the office. There was essentially nothing to "obstruct."

That's a pretty rational argument to the layperson and even though I think its a pretty crazy standard that would only be afforded to the President it is a legitimate argument.

Mueller however did not use that logic in making his "non-decision." His was essentially that the President attempted to Obstruct but on the whole was largely ineffective due to the actions or lack of actions of others. He rejected Barr's reasoning. Because of that Mueller cited that a body exists to enforce any criminality and leaves it up to others (Congress) to decide.

Regardless of anything else its a matter of interpretation based on the facts presented. You and others here however have demonstrated no interest in the facts and are merely trying to shout over the opposition as if its a winning or even sensible argument.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

Read me the Mueller report now, I demand it and quit your bitchin!!

You have to understand, Burls read the METRIC copy of the report.
Everything is bigger and badder in metric.

[Tom]

Trump may well lose his efforts to block this, but we need this kind of thing to happen to further define the boundaries.

I see nothing to warrant it, but at least while congress is busy on this witch hunt, they are not destroying our country or fundamentally changing our culture.

A distracted congress is a good congress.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Tom

Trump may well lose his efforts to block this, but we need this kind of thing to happen to further define the boundaries.

I'm completely happy with the Executive Branch being taken to the woodshed... regardless of where you stand on Trump... the pummeling of the Imperial Presidency is a good thing.

[Tom]

I would expect no less from you.
But you mean THIS executive branch, right?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

I would expect no less from you.
But you mean THIS executive branch, right?

More like his expletive deleted branch.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Tom

I would expect no less from you.
But you mean THIS executive branch, right?

No...

I mean ANY Executive Branch.

I argued against Obama using War Powers when we intervened in Libya.

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller to MostPost

Or the fact we attempted to assassinate Gadhafi today? You can call it protecting civilians, most of us will call it regime change.

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I completely agree with you that we need to view our foreign policy differently.

The downside now would be walking away from a liberation movement in the Middle East, something we are in favor of, after lending military assistance. You would lend credence to despots while angering reformers. Lets face it these rebels have no chance of surviving without our assistance and to leave would mean allowing the slaughter of people fighting for "American" ideals. In the case of these revolutions we are much better served doing nothing than just "a little something."

I blasted Trump for Vetoing the Yemeni Resolution...

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Trump vetoes congressional resolution to end U.S. involvement in Yemen war

I'm sure everyone agrees with this too right?

Congress: Stop fighting there.

WH: **** off.

Again... I'm consistent.

PS) It should be noted Congress also did eventually pass the Libya involvment.

[Tom]

Again... I'm consistent.

Are you trying t convince me or you?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Tom

Are you trying t convince me or you?

So again you say something stupid and eat your words... cool.

How did you feel about Trump telling Congress to piss-off for Yemen?

I know you were mad about the Libya stuff... I was just in the thread.

Jokes...