|
Post by Skellinton on May 29, 2019 16:25:02 GMT
If all of the information needed to indict is in the report then, again, what is it? Indict on what grounds? If impeachment is on the table, what are the high crimes and misdemeanors that Trump committed? What is so damning in the unredacted report? I've not heard anything specific from anyone. Some are saying Congress needs to keep investigating to find proof but at the same time Mueller says everything we need to know is in the report, there's nothing more to find. Which is it? I want to be done with this. If there's a crime, impeach him. If there's no evidence of a crime, stop with the impeachment talk and let the American people decide in November 2020. Who has seen the complete report other then Barr? I am seriously wondering this, I don’t recall. He said that a sitting president can’t be indicted, so impeachment is the only option, but if no one who can start impeachment has seen the full report then what they do?
|
|
|
Post by busy on May 29, 2019 16:28:01 GMT
What is so damning in the unredacted report? Um, we don't know. Because it's redacted and Trump's lackey Barr won't release it. But there is plenty of evidence of multiple instances of obstruction of justice even in the redacted version. Which the House is trying to investigate (among other things), but Trump refuses to cooperate or allow any of his minions to testify, despite being subpoenaed.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on May 29, 2019 16:28:04 GMT
I'm annoyed with Mueller. He's saying something happened but there's not enough evidence of a crime to indict, right? Am I understanding this correctly? What is the *something* that happened??? TELL US. And if it's something extremely minor, that isn't evidence of anything criminal, then tell us that. I feel like he just muddied the waters even more and now is walking away. No, he’s not, he’s saying under law he can’t indict a sitting president. He clearly said if he thought the president was not, he would have said so. Seems pretty clear to me. 🤷🏻♀️ ^^^ yeah, that. He clearly said if he thought the president was not A CRIMINAL , he would have said so.
(the red text addition is mine) There's plenty of evidence of (multiple instances of) wrongdoing by DT- Meuller laid it all out in his report. But DT is the sitting president, which changes the rules. Mueller can NOT indict him due to the stupid (IMO) "rule" about not indicting a sitting President. The evidence is there; unfortunately Mueller can't go any farther with it. CONGRESS has to take it from here, because DT is the President. ETA: just a reminder that 'high crimes' does not refer to the TYPE of crime, but rather to the crimes taking place in a 'high office' in the government- in this case, the elected office of President. Another reminder: obstructing an investigation IS A CRIME, even if there is not enough evidence of an underlying crime (conspiring with the Russians) to indict on THOSE charges. The attempt to obstruct that investigation from moving forward is its OWN crime.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on May 29, 2019 16:34:19 GMT
PeachStatePea with all due respect, where are you getting your news? Because it seems like something is trying to spin this in circles in order to confuse you. I know there are some out there that are trying just that. Listen to exactly what Mueller said. He cannot confidently say the President didn't commit a crime. He would have said so if he believed the president innocent. Department of Justice cannot indict a sitting president as it is unconstitutional. In other words, his hands are tied. Reading the actual report, there are 12? Or 14? Instances that could be considered obstruction. I don't know how anyone could read that and *not* think at the very least there are huge ethical issues, maybe criminal. How anyone could possibly think Clinton deserved impeachment for what he did and this President's doings don't require an impeachment hearing, I don't know. At this point, I believe there is will full ignorance going on here.
|
|
|
Post by busy on May 29, 2019 16:38:16 GMT
Department of Justice cannot indict a sitting president as it is unconstitutional. A clarification - it is NOT unconstitutional. It's a DOJ policy that has been in effect since the Nixon era. ETA: By "not unconstitutional" I mean it's not specifically addressed in the constitution nor has the Supreme Court directly ruled on its constitutionality. The DOJ says it's unconstitutional, but it is not the Executive Branch's job to interpret the Constitution. www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on May 29, 2019 16:38:59 GMT
Oh and PeachStatePea I wasn't saying you are being willfully ignorant. I was meaning republican leaders and those media who are trying to spin things.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 29, 2019 16:42:52 GMT
If all of the information needed to indict is in the report then, again, what is it? Indict on what grounds? If impeachment is on the table, what are the high crimes and misdemeanors that Trump committed? What is so damning in the unredacted report? I've not heard anything specific from anyone. Some are saying Congress needs to keep investigating to find proof but at the same time Mueller says everything we need to know is in the report, there's nothing more to find. Which is it? I want to be done with this. If there's a crime, impeach him. If there's no evidence of a crime, stop with the impeachment talk and let the American people decide in November 2020. Of course there’s more. For one thing, the Mueller investigation did not encompass the possible financial misdeeds of Trump and Trump Org because it was not part of Mueller’s mandate. There are also the potential violations of the Emoluments Clause. Whatever might result from the House investigations can be added to the charges of obstruction. If some people think any potential financial wrongdoing before the presidency should not be investigated, then the country owes Bill Clinton an apology for even starting an investigation based on Whitewater.
|
|
|
Post by thundergal on May 29, 2019 16:47:49 GMT
I'm annoyed with Mueller. He's saying something happened but there's not enough evidence of a crime to indict, right? Am I understanding this correctly? What is the *something* that happened??? TELL US. And if it's something extremely minor, that isn't evidence of anything criminal, then tell us that. I feel like he just muddied the waters even more and now is walking away. I'm curious...did you read the report? There are so many "somethings" spelled out in the report.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on May 29, 2019 16:56:08 GMT
Department of Justice cannot indict a sitting president as it is unconstitutional. A clarification - it is NOT unconstitutional. It's a DOJ policy that has been in effect since the Nixon era. ETA: By "not unconstitutional" I mean it's not specifically addressed in the constitution nor has the Supreme Court directly ruled on its constitutionality. The DOJ says it's unconstitutional, but it is not the Executive Branch's job to interpret the Constitution. www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdfI think there is some confusion on this topic too. Mueller used the word unconstitutional so that's why I used it above. Either way, all arrows point to DOJ hands being tied here. It's up to Congress. And lizacreates makes a good point. You cannot be on the side that Clinton deserved what he got (and I supported the whitewater investigation) and not think that Trump deserves the same treatment here. It's just so hypocritical. I'm looking straight at the Trump apologist Newt.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on May 29, 2019 16:56:43 GMT
I'm annoyed with Mueller. He's saying something happened but there's not enough evidence of a crime to indict, right? Am I understanding this correctly? What is the *something* that happened??? TELL US. And if it's something extremely minor, that isn't evidence of anything criminal, then tell us that. I feel like he just muddied the waters even more and now is walking away. I'm curious...did you read the report? There are so many "somethings" spelled out in the report. Not to mention that Congress has not been allowed by Barr to even see the unredacted report nor any of the underlying evidence that supports the obstruction claims. I’m sure Congress could be more confident moving forward toward impeachment if they could see all the stuff they haven’t been allowed to see.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 29, 2019 17:01:33 GMT
I'm annoyed with Mueller. He's saying something happened but there's not enough evidence of a crime to indict, right? Am I understanding this correctly? What is the *something* that happened??? TELL US. And if it's something extremely minor, that isn't evidence of anything criminal, then tell us that. I feel like he just muddied the waters even more and now is walking away. I'm curious...did you read the report? There are so many "somethings" spelled out in the report. Therein lies the problem. The majority of the public did not read the report and are unlikely to do so. That’s why I believe it’s vital that Mueller testify in Congress so that he can give life to this report. I’m back to where I was before – I do not understand his reticence. If he believes that his report is of such import that it should be used as a basis for a possible impeachment, then having a televised series of hearings such as we had during the Nixon impeachment inquiry will go a very long way in informing the public and building a consensus.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on May 29, 2019 17:02:15 GMT
I'm annoyed with Mueller. He's saying something happened but there's not enough evidence of a crime to indict, right? Am I understanding this correctly? What is the *something* that happened??? TELL US. And if it's something extremely minor, that isn't evidence of anything criminal, then tell us that. I feel like he just muddied the waters even more and now is walking away. I'm curious...did you read the report? There are so many "somethings" spelled out in the report. At the very least, he's guilty of arm twisting to try to shut down this investigation. That's very clear in the report. That's obstruction any way you want to look at it. I just am tired of watching the mental gymnastics going on here trying to spin this to the point of confusion for those who want desperately to support the president. IMO, it's like trying to argue the sky is red. It's so very blatant at this point.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on May 29, 2019 17:03:14 GMT
If all of the information needed to indict is in the report then, again, what is it? Indict on what grounds? If impeachment is on the table, what are the high crimes and misdemeanors that Trump committed? What is so damning in the unredacted report? I've not heard anything specific from anyone. Some are saying Congress needs to keep investigating to find proof but at the same time Mueller says everything we need to know is in the report, there's nothing more to find. Which is it? I want to be done with this. If there's a crime, impeach him. If there's no evidence of a crime, stop with the impeachment talk and let the American people decide in November 2020. Again, according to DOJ guidelines you can not indict a sitting president. Impeachment is on the table for obstruction. I think there were 10 instances listed. For obstruction charges, 3 criteria must be met. If you google you can find charts laying out the possible obstruction and whether or not they meet these requirements. I think you are confused a little bit as well as there are multiple things going on at once. 1) IIRC there are currently at least 12 investigations ongoing on that SCO farmed out to various entities like SDNY, DC, etc. Only the SCO investigation is complete. 2) Mueller is saying everything SCO finished investigating is in the report. Like obstruction. 3) Congress needs to continue the investigations in order to do their job, provide checks and balances. Trump, GOP, et.al are making this very difficult because they won’t release redacted report (including the evidence used to write report) and are blocking people from testifying. How are they supposed to impeach without investigating? The full (redacted) report is available for the general public to read, I think Amazon has it. Reading it will go a long way to help clear up your confusion. Adding different news sources would as well.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 29, 2019 17:05:36 GMT
If all of the information needed to indict is in the report then, again, what is it? Indict on what grounds? If impeachment is on the table, what are the high crimes and misdemeanors that Trump committed? What is so damning in the unredacted report? I've not heard anything specific from anyone. Some are saying Congress needs to keep investigating to find proof but at the same time Mueller says everything we need to know is in the report, there's nothing more to find. Which is it? I want to be done with this. If there's a crime, impeach him. If there's no evidence of a crime, stop with the impeachment talk and let the American people decide in November 2020. Many documents are not available.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 29, 2019 17:16:37 GMT
How anyone could possibly think Clinton deserved impeachment Clinton faced Articles of Impeachment because he LIED to Congress, not for what he did with 'her'.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on May 29, 2019 17:18:52 GMT
How anyone could possibly think Clinton deserved impeachment Clinton faced Articles of Impeachment because he LIED to Congress, not for what he did with 'her'. I understand full well. I was there to see it. And I understand it. But the magnitude of what is unredacted in the Mueller report is much, much more damning IMO. What is good for the goose and all...
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 29, 2019 17:22:22 GMT
A question for our legal peas........ I think I had heard that if Congress states they are proceeding with an investigation toward impeachment, there is great possibility that they would get the papers/documents more easily.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 29, 2019 17:23:40 GMT
But the magnitude of what is unredacted in the Mueller report is much, much more damning IMO. What is good for the goose and all... Oh absolutely, but others do not understand the difference.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 29, 2019 17:24:30 GMT
I'm curious...did you read the report? There are so many "somethings" spelled out in the report. At the very least, he's guilty of arm twisting to try to shut down this investigation. That's very clear in the report. That's obstruction any way you want to look at it. I just am tired of watching the mental gymnastics going on here trying to spin this to the point of confusion for those who want desperately to support the president. IMO, it's like trying to argue the sky is red. It's so very blatant at this point. Not to mention that to-date 800 former federal prosecutors, Republicans and Democrats both, have signed onto a letter asserting that the evidence definitively supports the charge of obstruction.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on May 29, 2019 17:26:48 GMT
At the very least, he's guilty of arm twisting to try to shut down this investigation. That's very clear in the report. That's obstruction any way you want to look at it. I just am tired of watching the mental gymnastics going on here trying to spin this to the point of confusion for those who want desperately to support the president. IMO, it's like trying to argue the sky is red. It's so very blatant at this point. Not to mention that to-date 800 former federal prosecutors, Republicans and Democrats both, have signed onto a letter asserting that the evidence definitively supports the charge of obstruction. Yeah well Sean Hannity disagrees...lol...
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 29, 2019 17:28:44 GMT
A question for our legal peas........ I think I had heard that if Congress states they are proceeding with an investigation toward impeachment, there is great possibility that they would get the papers/documents more easily. Yes, because the reasoning is that having a specific and narrow legal purpose for subpoenas as opposed to the more generalized Article I powers of Congress, will make it easier for House Dems to prevail in court challenges.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 29, 2019 17:36:08 GMT
Yes, because the reasoning is that having a specific and narrow legal purpose for subpoenas as opposed to the more generalized Article I powers of Congress, will make it easier for House Dems to prevail in court challenges. Thought I had heard that, THANKS!
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on May 29, 2019 17:45:12 GMT
Well, honestly, I think that's right. He put everything he and his team learned in the report, which is what I'd hope for. If he had some bombshells to drop that weren't in the report, I'd wonder about the report as a whole. Bombshells are not what I was referring to. What I was expecting/hoping for were clarifications on the debatable parts of the report such as the evidence on the ten or so instances of obstruction, or why he abandoned the idea of subpoenaing the president’s direct testimony, that sort. Given the current DOJ policy, he likely did not subpeona trumps testimony because it would not have mattered at the end.
|
|
|
Post by peano on May 29, 2019 17:55:26 GMT
In a nutshell.. Trump committed a crime. The DOJ can't touch him. Congress it's your ball..do your job. That was his message. Congress is trying but when the perps won’t comply with subpoenas...I heard Congressman Cicciolline from Rhode Island say something that resonated with me because I’ve been on the fence about impeachment. Basically that in times of uncertainty, the bottom line has to be doing the morally and ethically right thing, and stop focusing on political expediency. I think Congress has to take a stand for the safety of our democracy.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 11:14:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 19:08:24 GMT
Oh Lord......... and so begins the spin...... I was out this morning. I came home & DH told me that I missed Mueller giving a speech basically "admitting that there was nothing 'there' on Trump, et al." OMFGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG! WHAT? ? I go to look up the link and that is NOT what I heard, but I'm 100% positive that Fox, etc., are all celebrating by pulling tiny soundbytes and spinning them to look all clear. Yeesh!!!!!!!!! And, Mueller *won't* testify before Congress? Is that true?? He might have info besides his report to be questioned on! Since he's not working for the gov't now, why won't he cooperate? This is a tad perplexing to me, and this is NOWHERE finished.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 29, 2019 19:13:33 GMT
Oh Lord......... and so begins the spin...... I was out this morning. I came home & DH told me that I missed Mueller giving a speech basically "admitting that there was nothing 'there' on Trump, et al." OMFGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG! WHAT? ? I go to look up the link and that is NOT what I heard, but I'm 100% positive that Fox, etc., are all celebrating by pulling tiny soundbytes and spinning them to look all clear. Yeesh!!!!!!!!! And, Mueller *won't* testify before Congress? Is that true?? He might have info besides his report to be questioned on! Since he's not working for the gov't now, why won't he cooperate? This is a tad perplexing to me, and this is NOWHERE finished. The spin began the moment Mueller stepped away from the podium! Seriously. My news feed on my phone went nuts. Here’s one of them: "Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s remarks today confirmed what we already knew. There was no collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign, and there was no case for obstruction. President Trump has been fully and completely exonerated. Mueller said his investigation is over. The case is now closed.”
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on May 29, 2019 19:22:16 GMT
Here you go! Glass half full, I guess...
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on May 29, 2019 19:29:51 GMT
why can't they at least admit that Mueller COULDN'T 'find him guilty' because it wasn't his JOB to do so?!?
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on May 29, 2019 19:59:04 GMT
Oh Lord......... and so begins the spin...... I was out this morning. I came home & DH told me that I missed Mueller giving a speech basically "admitting that there was nothing 'there' on Trump, et al." OMFGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG! WHAT? ? I go to look up the link and that is NOT what I heard, but I'm 100% positive that Fox, etc., are all celebrating by pulling tiny soundbytes and spinning them to look all clear. Yeesh!!!!!!!!! And, Mueller *won't* testify before Congress? Is that true?? He might have info besides his report to be questioned on! Since he's not working for the gov't now, why won't he cooperate? This is a tad perplexing to me, and this is NOWHERE finished. The spin began the moment Mueller stepped away from the podium! Seriously. My news feed on my phone went nuts. Here’s one of them: "Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s remarks today confirmed what we already knew. There was no collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign, and there was no case for obstruction. President Trump has been fully and completely exonerated. Mueller said his investigation is over. The case is now closed.” What news outlet was that? 😨 I only had CNN alerts which said “Mueller: 'If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'”
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 29, 2019 21:06:02 GMT
The spin began the moment Mueller stepped away from the podium! Seriously. My news feed on my phone went nuts. Here’s one of them: "Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s remarks today confirmed what we already knew. There was no collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign, and there was no case for obstruction. President Trump has been fully and completely exonerated. Mueller said his investigation is over. The case is now closed.” What news outlet was that? 😨 I only had CNN alerts which said “Mueller: 'If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'” CNN.
|
|