Live discussion of Robert Mueller's testimoony today - hopefully respectful

[Josie]

We aren't talking about what you claim to be aware of. We are talking about your claim that tres wants "could" to be interpreted as "would", and no amount of quote-chopping will change that.

Now maybe your intent was merely to aggravate her by snottily throwing "so in other words" back at her, but when you used that phrase you ended up accusing her of saying something she didn't say, which puts you in the wrong. See how that works?


And, PS, Mueller laid out the evidence of obstruction. He did not say it the way you described. He explained that DOJ policy - I actually posted a link to it several pages back - bars him from seeking to indict the president and thus it would be improper for him to say the president is guilty (or "would" be charged or any other wording) without providing him a forum to defend himself. However, he ALSO said that the report "does not exonerate" him.

"Does not exonerate" + "I can't say he's guilty or charge him" =/= "I can't determine."

What it means is "I can clear him on conspiracy but I cannot clear him on obstruction. However, I also cannot say he is guilty of obstruction. Here, congress, deal with the evidence. [448 pages of evidence]. Peace."

Yeah. That's what I've been saying since the report came out. So the Dems should start impeachment proceedings.

 

[Craig234]

The only loss here is the Republican's party loyalty to the rule of law.

Don't forget the American people and justice.

 

[Athanasius68]

Wrong. There was an investigation to obstruct, which trump did repeatedly, as over a thousand DoJ officials said was proven.

A job of the president is to ensure that the law is enforced. So he has a constitutional right to "interfere" in an investigation. And apparently Mueller testified today there was no interference. So even on your own standards there was no obstruction.

 

[jmotivator]

I checked your link. All he's saying is Pelosi doesn't want to impeach because she knows Repubs will all vote no so it's a waste of time.

The Democrats already tabled the impeachment. Mueller's testimony gave them nothing to validate taking another swing at it. As he said, it's over.

The only loss here is the Republican's party loyalty to the rule of law.

Oh please. Which party is the one demanding that the Special Counsel's inability to find Trump guilty was instead an inability to find him innocent? :roll:

 

[Mr Person]

Pi -- Mueller said no American - including Trump or anyone in Trump's administration - colluded with Russia in their interference in the election. You're living in a warped fantasy world here.

Dishonest again.

Actually, Mueller explained that part of the investigation was not into "collusion." It was into criminal conspiracy. What he did do is clear Trump of that criminal conspiracy, specifically because there was no evidence of an explicit agreement. However, as the report lays out, there was evidence that Russia interfered on Trump's behalf, that Trump new it, and that Trump welcomed it. There just was no evidence of an explicit agreement, therefore, he had to say he was cleared of the charge.

But again, "collusion" was never part of the investigation. That was just another right wing lie.

 

[jmotivator]

OK, if you're talking about whether Mueller was fired, rather than whether trump ordered him to be fired, that's fine. You ignored the rest of my post.

I did, because clearly your post was built on a false premise.

 

[Athanasius68]

It is illegal for a president to order a subordinate to fire Mueller for the purpose of obstructing an investigation, and other illegal purposes.

A job of the president is to ensure that law is enforced. So he has a right to direct how investigations develop.

 

[Craig234]

Yeah. That's what I've been saying since the report came out. So the Dems should start impeachment proceedings.

Legally, they should have long ago. Politically, people disagree. On the one hand, if you want to criticize Democrats for putting politics above the law, you can make that argument. On the other hand, the Republicans are doing far worse on that, by simply ignoring the law and refusing to convict because of politics, putting trump and themselves above the law for crimes THEY committed.

 

[vegas giants]

What crime?

You are clueless

 

[Josie]

You're right about could and would; and you're wrong in your omission of Mueller's presentation of clear evidence trump is guilty of the crimes, and your omission that over a thousand justice officials said the evidence shows trump guilty of crimes. Listen and comprehend the actual words of the evidence and the DoJ officials instead of imagining he said what you wanted him to say.

I never said he had no evidence of obstruction. Should I say you're wrong because you omitted that "grass is green" in your post?

I was speaking specifically about what Mueller said about how he "could" charge a president when he's out of office.

 

[Athanasius68]

Perhaps they can, perhaps they can't, but Mueller said he was following them - there's no evidence they were waived.

They weren't waived. But apparently Mueller never asked.

 

[vegas giants]

There was nothing to obstruct. There was no conspiracy

We have your opinion.....and then we have the opinion of 1000 prosecutors. Lol

 

[Craig234]

A job of the president is to ensure that law is enforced. So he has a right to direct how investigations develop.

Not only a right, an obligation. And when he violates that obligation by obstructing the investigation of crimes - his own - instead of performing the obligation, he's committed obstruction of justice. Just as Nixon did.

 

[vegas giants]

A job of the president is to ensure that law is enforced. So he has a right to direct how investigations develop.

Read the elements of the crime

 

[Josie]

Legally, they should have long ago. Politically, people disagree. On the one hand, if you want to criticize Democrats for putting politics above the law, you can make that argument. On the other hand, the Republicans are doing far worse on that, by simply ignoring the law and refusing to convict because of politics, putting trump and themselves above the law for crimes THEY committed.

And this is a reason why my lean is "libertarian" instead of adhering to any political party.

 

[Craig234]

They weren't waived. But apparently Mueller never asked.

It's not his job to ask. He followed orders. If DoJ wanted to waive them, they'd have waived them from the start.

 

[Mr Person]

We aren't talking about what you claim to be aware of. We are talking about your claim that tres wants "could" to be interpreted as "would", and no amount of quote-chopping will change that.

Now maybe your intent was merely to aggravate her by snottily throwing "so in other words" back at her, but when you used that phrase you ended up accusing her of saying something she didn't say, which puts you in the wrong. See how that works?


And, PS, Mueller laid out the evidence of obstruction. He did not say it the way you described. He explained that DOJ policy - I actually posted a link to it several pages back - bars him from seeking to indict the president and thus it would be improper for him to say the president is guilty (or "would" be charged or any other wording) without providing him a forum to defend himself. However, he ALSO said that the report "does not exonerate" him.

"Does not exonerate" + "I can't say he's guilty or charge him" =/= "I can't determine."

What it means is "I can clear him on conspiracy but I cannot clear him on obstruction. However, I also cannot say he is guilty of obstruction. Here, congress, deal with the evidence. [448 pages of evidence]. Peace."

Yeah. That's what I've been saying since the report came out. So the Dems should start impeachment proceedings.

Nothing I said means they "should", in fact I've been saying the opposite: this hearing is just about getting the most important bits of the report into the kind of soundbite the lazy American public needs, since just about none of you seem to have so much as skimmed the report.

Impeachment is hopeless because the GOP will never vote to convict in the senate. That means they "should not" start impeachment proceedings. Dishonest Trump supporters will only use the GOP's refusal to vote to convict as "proof" of innocence, even though it is no such thing. All it would be is a Might Makes Right policy.

 

[HumblePi]

Pi -- Mueller said no American - including Trump or anyone in Trump's administration - colluded with Russia in their interference in the election. You're living in a warped fantasy world here.

You heard it as I did, only you're transcribing it differently in your mind, because you want to. As Robert Mueller clearly said is that "collusion" isn't even a crime listed in the OLC rule book. It just isn't. Okay, now that this is clear, lets go to the tape and what Mueller actually established. What Mueller said is, "The word we usually use is, well, not 'collusion' but one of the other terms that fills in when 'collusion' is not used. So, what words could he mean in place of collusion? I'll give you a hint, 'conspiracy'.

Facts:

1. Russia interfered in the election.

2. Russia did it to help Trump.

3. The Trump campaign welcomed the help from Russia. The president's own son welcomed it, 'I love it'.

4. Trump himself sought to make money from the Trump Moscow tower.

 

[vegas giants]

Its not illegal for the president to order a subordinate to fire Mueller.
The analogy fails.

Yes it is

 

[Athanasius68]

Not only a right, an obligation. And when he violates that obligation by obstructing the investigation of crimes - his own - instead of performing the obligation, he's committed obstruction of justice. Just as Nixon did.

there was a crime behind what Nixon was doing. No such crime exists with respect to Trump.

 

[Craig234]

And this is a reason why my lean is "libertarian" instead of adhering to any political party.

And yet 'libertarian' is nothing but a smoke screen for the most anti-democratic, corrupt, plutocratic interests in the country, led by the Koch brothers while the manipulate the simple-minded with debates about things like drug legalization, when the real and only agenda is to dismantle the power of the people to protect themselves from powerful private forces. Today's Republican Party effectively is the real 'libertarian' party - they've taken it over.

 

[Josie]

Dishonest again.

Actually, Mueller explained the investigation was not into "collusion." It was into criminal conspiracy. What he did do is clear Trump of that criminal conspiracy, specifically because there was no evidence of an explicit agreement. However, as the report lays out, there was evidence that Russia interfered on Trump's behalf, that Trump new it, and that Trump welcomed it. There just was no evidence of an explicit agreement, therefore, he had to say he was cleared of the charge.

But again, "collusion" was never part of the investigation. That was just another right wing lie.

You cannot be serious. "Collusion" has been the buzzword in EVERYONE'S mouths for 2 years now -- right and left. Shall I look for all of the times YOU called it "collusion"?

 

[Athanasius68]

It's not his job to ask. He followed orders. If DoJ wanted to waive them, they'd have waived them from the start.

That's fine. But Mueller didn't bother asking apparently.

 

[Josie]

And yet 'libertarian' is nothing but a smoke screen for the most anti-democratic, corrupt, plutocratic interests in the country, led by the Koch brothers while the manipulate the simple-minded with debates about things like drug legalization, when the real and only agenda is to dismantle the power of the people to protect themselves from powerful private forces. Today's Republican Party effectively is the real 'libertarian' party - they've taken it over.

Hahahahahaha!

 

[Craig234]

there was a crime behind what Nixon was doing. No such crime exists with respect to Trump.

Whether there was a crime or not isn't relevant. Some still dispute there was a crime (by Nixon) in Nixon's case, yet that's not the issue there either.