Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[josh]

Just pointing out the nature of the beast, pal.

You have NO parallels, asshole.

How many bills is she holding out from a vote?

How many SCOTUS appointments did she prevent or lie about to the American people?

[NeedsAdjustments]

Silent Bob finally speaks*...

*but doesn't strike back. ;-(

I disagree.  As you say, he comes from an institution whose culture was built around respectful disagreement, not public calling out.  But you don't need to dig too deep to see what he said as a direct response to Trump/Barr claims:

"Witch Hunt!" - The biggest part of his statement was outlining what, exactly, Russia did to interfere in this election, while saying to Americans that this is something we should all be concerned about.  In other words, this was not some frivolous investigation based on a random oppo report.  And this goes right to the heart of Trump's call to investigate the investigators...its based on the premise that the investigation had no merit which Mueller came as close as he could to calling bullshit.

"No Collusion!" - Mueller pointed out that his report discusses the Trump Campaign response to the Russian meddling but could not find evidence of a "broader conspiracy."  That's not "no collusion."  That's collusion that was not blatant enough to charge.  Even better, Muller said "When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable."  In other words, these people did not cooperate, lied, erased emails, etc (all actions described in the report, and some charged in court) and that could be at least part of the reason he wasn't able to connect the dots to conspiracy.

"No Obstruction!"  - “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”   Mueller may have thought there was obstruction, but thought it would be unfair to make that charge with the "President" not being able to address that charge in court.  But he would have said so if he thought Trump was innocent.  He didn't.

Nothing new to any of this, which may be Mueller's point.  Note to Democrats:  Read the damn report, then do something about it.  Don't depend on Mueller to bail you out of your constitutional responsibility to make the "President" answer for his crimes. 

[REDSTATEWARD]

Mueller has produced the script it’s up to the Committees to put on the show. Mueller won’t testify but there’s a shitload of personnel and witnesses who can and will.

A matter of when, not if... this Administration is done. How will all those God loving gun toting “patriots” take it?

Achtung, bitches.

To clarify, Mueller didn't say he wouldn't testify, only that his testimony will not go beyond the report.  And I would say that given the number of Congresspeople who have evidently not read the report (not even getting into a certain AG) there is value to that even if it is behind closed doors.

I have an enormous amount of respect for Mueller but his reticense to "translate" his report for the American People is, I think, a failure to part of his job.  Even today, it was enormously valuable to hear him a) back up the importance of the investigation (as a response to the "witchunt" claims that will potentially motivate the AG to unmask sources) and b) explain clearly that he did not make a decision on obstruction only because you can't bring a sitting President to trial.

We know after the Clinton experience how even not bringing charges can still give your political opponents ammo when you get in front of the camera to tell the country what you think (thanks Comey) but Mueller need not do that.  Just say what is in the report.  People don't like to read and don't understand what they are reading anyway.

And while again, I wish I shared your optimism that Trump will be brought to justice, his fate will be decided in the election.  It shouldn't be, but it will.

Where in the Constitution does it prohibit a sitting President from being indicted?

[facilitatorn]

The constitution doesn’t prevent it. A Department of Justice worthy of its name would have indicted in the early months of the coup. That’s why pestilential trump subverted the DOJ first especially since Putin already had his hooks in McConnell and Chao.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Mueller has produced the script it’s up to the Committees to put on the show. Mueller won’t testify but there’s a shitload of personnel and witnesses who can and will.

A matter of when, not if... this Administration is done. How will all those God loving gun toting “patriots” take it?

Achtung, bitches.

To clarify, Mueller didn't say he wouldn't testify, only that his testimony will not go beyond the report.  And I would say that given the number of Congresspeople who have evidently not read the report (not even getting into a certain AG) there is value to that even if it is behind closed doors.

I have an enormous amount of respect for Mueller but his reticense to "translate" his report for the American People is, I think, a failure to part of his job.  Even today, it was enormously valuable to hear him a) back up the importance of the investigation (as a response to the "witchunt" claims that will potentially motivate the AG to unmask sources) and b) explain clearly that he did not make a decision on obstruction only because you can't bring a sitting President to trial.

We know after the Clinton experience how even not bringing charges can still give your political opponents ammo when you get in front of the camera to tell the country what you think (thanks Comey) but Mueller need not do that.  Just say what is in the report.  People don't like to read and don't understand what they are reading anyway.

And while again, I wish I shared your optimism that Trump will be brought to justice, his fate will be decided in the election.  It shouldn't be, but it will.

Where in the Constitution does it prohibit a sitting President from being indicted?

Great question!  The OLC did not found its opinion on the literal text.  It was a finding that said that a criminal charge would interfere with the President doing his job, and would therefore violate the Constitution's separation of powers. 

This argument has been criticized as a weak one, but it is one that the DOJ follows, and which Mueller respected (though some people are arguing that his office really wrestled with it, given how explicitly the thinking was laid out in the report.)

Still, the point is that this is what guided Mueller's decision not to make a finding on Obstruction.  It was not the impression that Barr gave, that he might have made that finding if the evidence was strong enough.

[LarryBnDC]

Mueller has produced the script it’s up to the Committees to put on the show. Mueller won’t testify but there’s a shitload of personnel and witnesses who can and will.

A matter of when, not if... this Administration is done. How will all those God loving gun toting “patriots” take it?

Achtung, bitches.

To clarify, Mueller didn't say he wouldn't testify, only that his testimony will not go beyond the report.  And I would say that given the number of Congresspeople who have evidently not read the report (not even getting into a certain AG) there is value to that even if it is behind closed doors.

I have an enormous amount of respect for Mueller but his reticense to "translate" his report for the American People is, I think, a failure to part of his job.  Even today, it was enormously valuable to hear him a) back up the importance of the investigation (as a response to the "witchunt" claims that will potentially motivate the AG to unmask sources) and b) explain clearly that he did not make a decision on obstruction only because you can't bring a sitting President to trial.

We know after the Clinton experience how even not bringing charges can still give your political opponents ammo when you get in front of the camera to tell the country what you think (thanks Comey) but Mueller need not do that.  Just say what is in the report.  People don't like to read and don't understand what they are reading anyway.

And while again, I wish I shared your optimism that Trump will be brought to justice, his fate will be decided in the election.  It shouldn't be, but it will.

Where in the Constitution does it prohibit a sitting President from being indicted?

Where in the Constitution did it say you can’t appoint SCOTUS Justices during an election year? Oh, wait, that didn’t count because of the “Biden Rule” which Mitch McConnell just said wasn’t really a thing.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Just pointing out the nature of the beast, pal.

You have NO parallels, asshole.

How many bills is she holding out from a vote?

How many SCOTUS appointments did she prevent or lie about to the American people?

How quickly does McConnell tee up an impeachment inquiry after the release of a Mueller report on a Democratic President?  The next day, or does he wait about a week?

[REDSTATEWARD]

Just pointing out the nature of the beast, pal.

You have NO parallels, asshole.

How many bills is she holding out from a vote?

How many SCOTUS appointments did she prevent or lie about to the American people?

How quickly does McConnell tee up an impeachment inquiry after the release of a Mueller report on a Democratic President?  The next day, or does he wait about a week?

McConnell has no jurisdiction over an impeachment.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Just pointing out the nature of the beast, pal.

You have NO parallels, asshole.

How many bills is she holding out from a vote?

How many SCOTUS appointments did she prevent or lie about to the American people?

How quickly does McConnell tee up an impeachment inquiry after the release of a Mueller report on a Democratic President?  The next day, or does he wait about a week?

McConnell has no jurisdiction over an impeachment.

Its a hypothetical REDSTATEWARD, just like the Mueller report does not actually describe the crimes of a Democratic President, but the crimes of a Republican "President."

And yes, McConnell does have jurisdiction over an impeachment.  He quite literally runs the show once he receives the articles of impeachment from the House.  And its that very same "party-over-country" ideology that makes us all know that he wouldn't give it a fair hearing if they do.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Just pointing out the nature of the beast, pal.

You have NO parallels, asshole.

How many bills is she holding out from a vote?

How many SCOTUS appointments did she prevent or lie about to the American people?

How quickly does McConnell tee up an impeachment inquiry after the release of a Mueller report on a Democratic President?  The next day, or does he wait about a week?

McConnell has no jurisdiction over an impeachment.

Its a hypothetical REDSTATEWARD, just like the Mueller report does not actually describe the crimes of a Democratic President, but the crimes of a Republican "President."

Say What? Mueller was investigating Trump collusion.  He found no " crimes".  What " democratic President" are you referring to?

And yes, McConnell does have jurisdiction over an impeachment. 

He has none. Read the Constitution.

[kiidcarter8]

Just pointing out the nature of the beast, pal.

You have NO parallels, asshole.

How many bills is she holding out from a vote?

How many SCOTUS appointments did she prevent or lie about to the American people?

Eaaaaaaaasy, boy.

[whiskeypriest]

"Freedom gas!"

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/29/energy-department-molecules-freedom-fossil-fuel-rebranding?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=fb_us&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1559162438

[NeedsAdjustments]

Say What? Mueller was investigating Trump collusion.  He found no " crimes".

Say what?...Nope.  you are incorrect.  He did not say that he found no crimes, observers who have read the report say he describes them, and today Mueller came as close as he could to say he found them.  He could not say that he did because of that OLC finding (you know, how this thread started.)

 

What " democratic President" are you referring to?

REDSTATEWARD apparently does not know what "hypothetical" means.

He has none. Read the Constitution.

REDSTATEWARD has read the Constitution from cover to cover.  And knows exactly how to interpret it.  SCOTUS has nothing on him.

The Senate runs the "trial" once the articles are issued by the House.  You don't know that, then you should "read the Constitution."

[REDSTATEWARD]

Say What? Mueller was investigating Trump collusion.  He found no " crimes".

Say what?...Nope.  you are incorrect. 

No, I am correct.  He found no crimes of collusion.  Read the report.

 

What " democratic President" are you referring to?
REDSTATEWARD apparently does not know what "hypothetical" means

What hypothetical President are you talking about?

He has none. Read the Constitution.
REDSTATEWARD has read the Constitution from cover to cover.  And knows exactly how to interpret it.  SCOTUS has nothing on him.

The Constitution is not a tome. It fits every easily into a wallet. 

The Senate runs the "trial" once the articles are issued by the House.  You don't know that, then you should "read the Constitution."

  According to the Constitution The Senate is the jury.After House indicts( impeaches) the House prosecutes with the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presiding.  You reading a different constitution?

[NeedsAdjustments]

Say What? Mueller was investigating Trump collusion.  He found no " crimes".

Say what?...Nope.  you are incorrect. 

No, I am correct.  He found no crimes of collusion.  Read the report.

 

What " democratic President" are you referring to?
REDSTATEWARD apparently does not know what "hypothetical" means

What hypothetical President are you talking about?

He has none. Read the Constitution.
REDSTATEWARD has read the Constitution from cover to cover.  And knows exactly how to interpret it.  SCOTUS has nothing on him.

The Constitution is not a tome. It fits every easily into a wallet. 

The Senate runs the "trial" once the articles are issued by the House.  You don't know that, then you should "read the Constitution."

  According to the Constitution The Senate is the jury.After House indicts( impeaches) the House prosecutes with the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presiding.  You reading a different constitution?

I truly have zero interest in a point-by-point back and forth with a trash poster.  I'll leave you with a few thoughts relevant to what you say above:

- The report was not about "collusion."  Mueller did not investigate "collusion" but criminal conspiracy.  He found numerous instances of collusion, but could not charge conspiracy.  Further, fully half of it was about Obstruction of Justice.  Mueller found numerous instances of obstruction of justice, a crime in and of itself, but has now made clear for people who did not read the report why he did not charge.

- You need to look up what "Hypothetical" means.

- They make pocket sized Constitutions but if you tried to fit one in your wallet you would give George Constanza a run for his money.  And the Constitution is a document that requires not just "reading" but interpretation.  Which you would know if you actually read it.   See Article III, Section 1.

- The Senate is not only the "Jury", they set the terms for the trial, and McConnell runs that process.  Which is how GOP Senators can say with such confidence that any article of impeachment won't get a hearing:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/445512-senate-gop-pledges-to-quickly-quash-any-trump-impeachment-charges