[W:41]BOMBSHELL: Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow call on Sen. Feinstein to ‘resign tomorrow’ (1 Viewer)

[Fishking]

You've been taking Trumps redundancy for years now. The Twitee tweeted 142 times just yesterday. What a baby. And the deplorable's actually respect and believe this guy.

The U.S. is in trouble !!

Tell me why someone who decided to define themselves as "AntiDonald" should be taken seriously in any way?

 

[ultmd]

Maybe less "you people" type insults?

If you think "you people" is an insult, you might be suffering from that "snowflake" virus that's been going around.

"You people", means just what it says...YOU far-right wingers....YOU Trump acolytes....YOU alt-righties. Why would you feeling "insulted" by being correctly identified?

Take it however you wish, just please stop trying to play the "victim" card whenever you don't have anything of substance to offer in your defense, ok?

One comment you though...Listing ten possible obstruction of justice scenarios via Mueller repot does not mean the president has been found guilty of a crime.

Re-read my remarks. I neither stated, nor implied, any such thing. So why bring that up?

The FACT is that the Mueller Report was NEVER supposed to charge or indict this president with anything. That was NOT it's purpose. It did, however, indict and convict couple dozen of Trump's close associates and cohorts...because that WAS within the purview of the investigation. In the case of the president, the Mueller investigation was limited to only laying out the evidence, and leaving to Congress any decisions about indictment (i.e. impeachment). And yet, you and your ilk (is that less hurtful to you???) have repeatedly used that canard. The idea that the Mueller Report showed no evidence of criminality by Trump and his associates is, therefore, either a lie, or a reflection of profound ignorance.

Now...happy to clear that up for you. Hope I didn't hurt your feelings, this time.

 

[trixare4kids]

If you think "you people" is an insult, you might be suffering from that "snowflake" virus that's been going around.

"You people", means just what it says...YOU far-right wingers....YOU Trump acolytes....YOU alt-righties.

Take it however you wish, just please stop trying to play the "victim" card whenever you don't have anything of substance to offer in your defense, ok?



Re-read my remarks. I neither stated, nor implied, any such thing. So why bring that up?

The FACT is that the Mueller Report was NEVER supposed to charge of indict this president with anything. That was NOT it's purpose. And yet, you and your ilk (is that less hurtful to you???) have repeatedly used that canard. The idea that the Mueller Report showed no evidence of criminality by Trump and his associates is, therefore, either a lie, or a reflection of profound ignorance.

Now...happy to clear that up for you. Hope I didn't hurt your feelings, this time.

RTT
Someone claimed Trump has been found guilty.
I asked when and where, and then you came blasting in proceeding to correct me, disproving nothing I wrote.

If the above is your idea of educating anyone, God help us.

 

[ultmd]

RTT
Someone claimed Trump has been found guilty.
I asked when and where, and then you came blasting in proceeding to correct me, disproving nothing I wrote.

You're deflecting.

My remarks to you were ENTIRELY related to your "excellent summary" to ludin's ignorant, fact-free "analysis" of the Mueller report.

Sorry, but if you honestly believe the drivel that Ludin posted, you are as bad as anyone who may have allegedly said that Trump had been found "guilty" by the Mueller Report.

If the above is your idea of educating anyone, God help us.

I'll try to be more patient. But it takes blunt truth sometimes to break through the FauxNews bubble in which many of you reside.

 

[trixare4kids]

You're deflecting.

My remarks to you were ENTIRELY related to your "excellent summary" to ludin's ignorant, fact-free "analysis" of the Mueller report.

Sorry, but if you honestly believe the drivel that Ludin posted, you are as bad as anyone who may have allegedly said that Trump had been found "guilty" by the Mueller Report.



I'll try to be more patient. But it takes blunt truth sometimes to break through the FauxNews bubble in which many of you reside.

Oh, so you're not done yet, eh?

Wake me up when you disprove what I wrote originally.

 

[Condor060]

It's a trial about abuse of power, not a ******* rock concert. This isn't being done to entertain average voters, let alone the 100 Senators charged with behaving like we would expect from any responsible jury and listening to the arguments presented.

So I guess this doesn't make any sense to you but viewer participation governs interest. This one has none.

 

[bongsaway]

Guilty of what and when was he pronounced guilty by the senate?

:coffeepap

He's been proven guilty by his own actions.

 

[bubbabgone]

Yer right, it was actually 11.


Did Mueller find evidence related to potential issues of obstruction of justice involving the president? Yes.

Volume I of the special counsel’s report dealt with Russia’s attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Volume II focused solely on the issue of obstruction of justice. In the latter, Mueller highlighted 11 issues related to potential obstruction of justice by Trump.

Each of the following listed items is linked to the relevant portion of Mueller’s report:

The campaign’s response to reports about Russian support for Trump.
Conduct involving FBI Director James Comey and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
The president’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation.
The president’s termination of Comey.
The appointment of a special counsel and efforts to remove him.
Efforts to curtail the special counsel’s investigation.
Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence.
Further efforts to have the attorney general take control of the investigation.
Efforts to have White House Counsel for U.S. President Donald Trump Don McGahn deny that the president had ordered him to have the special counsel removed.

Conduct towards Flynn and Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
Conduct involving Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen.

Did Mueller Conclude Trump Committed 'No Obstruction' in the 2016 Election Probe?

Oh dear. Deja Vu all over again.
Let me explain ...
Picking "out in his opinion ten instances of obstruction of justice" is not the same as "Mueller highlighted 11 issues related to potential obstruction of justice by Trump."
In addition, as I pointed out at the time, while Mueller said he couldn't exonerate or conclude guilt regarding obstruction because of an OLC opinion.
Which is preposterous because he exonerated Trump on collusion.
But he could still have concluded there was a crime of obstruction (or collusion). He didn't. Maybe because Weissman was the one calling the shots and he needed to give the crazies something? Ya think that was it?
The OLC opinion didn't prevent him finding a crime. He punted.
In any event, as you see Mueller didn't say he found 10 (or 11) instances of obstruction ... Snopes and Nadless notwithstanding.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Oh dear. Deja Vu all over again.
Let me explain ...
Picking "out in his opinion ten instances of obstruction of justice" is not the same as "Mueller highlighted 11 issues related to potential obstruction of justice by Trump."

You are NOT 'splainin" any "difference" between the two, the report as a whole was his opinion.

In addition, as I pointed out at the time, while Mueller said he couldn't exonerate or conclude guilt regarding obstruction because of an OLC opinion.

False, he clearly countered comments that his report exonerated, especially since we are discussing his 11 points of obstruction by orange.

Which is preposterous because he exonerated Trump on collusion

He found multiple orange campaign members had lots of interactions with Putin operatives. For someone who claims to have read the transcript, you missed a lot.

But he could still have concluded there was a crime of obstruction (or collusion). He didn't.

False, not according to DOJ rules which was operating under.

Maybe because Weissman (sic) was the one calling the shots and he needed to give the crazies something? Ya think that was it?
The OLC opinion didn't prevent him finding a crime. He punted.

from falsehoods....to fantasies, in one post...crazy talk...good grief.

In any event, as you see Mueller didn't say he found 10 (or 11) instances of obstruction ... Snopes and Nadless notwithstanding.

CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

 

[bubbabgone]

You are NOT 'splainin" any "difference" between the two, the report as a whole was his opinion.



False, his clearly countered comments that his report exonerated, espsecially since we are discussing his 11 points of obstruction by orange.
He found multiple orange campaign members had lots of interactions with Putin operatives. For someone who claims to have read the transcript, you missed a lot.
False, not according to DOJ rules which was operating under.

from falsehoods....to fantasies, in one post...crazy talk...good grief.CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Offering instances of obstruction isn't the same as issues related to potential obstruction. Simply not the same
I didn't say he exonerated Trump on obstruction. He exonerated Trump on collusion.
You're mistaken. I didn't say he would charge Trump but he could still have identified crimes. He didn't.
If you read that section carefully you'll see the distinction he was making. The OLC opinion didn't prevent him from identifying crimes.
And what you quoted supports that. He was saying that any instances of what some might identify as obstruction was lacking an element needed for an obstruction charge. Namely intent. You can also add that actions that you might want to interpret as obstruction may be normal actions taken by a President not motivated by an urge to obstruct.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Offering instances of obstruction isn't the same as issues related to potential obstruction. Simply not the same

Differences without distinction, yer gettin semantic on me.

I didn't say he exonerated Trump on obstruction. He exonerated Trump on collusion.

False

You're mistaken. I didn't say he would charge Trump but he could still have identified crimes.

False.

If you read that section carefully you'll see the distinction he was making. The OLC opinion didn't prevent him from identifying crimes.

False: determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment

And what you quoted supports that. He was saying that any instances of what some might identify as obstruction was lacking an element needed for an obstruction charge. Namely intent.

False, in a traditional prosecutorial judgment, you don't need intent to make a criminal charge of wrongdoing.

You can also add that actions that you might want to interpret as obstruction may be normal actions taken by a President not motivated by an urge to obstruct.

May be, your operative phrase.

 

[bubbabgone]

Differences without distinction, yer gettin semantic on me.
False
False.
False: determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment
False, in a traditional prosecutorial judgment, you don't need intent to make a criminal charge of wrongdoing.

May be, your operative phrase.

Ain't semantic.
The quote from the report you reproduced should have made it clear to you.
They couldn't say there was obstruction.
"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

 

[Gimmesometruth]

They couldn't say there was obstruction.

because...they were NOT "making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

hurr durr

 

[bubbabgone]

because....they were NOT "making a traditional prosecutorial judgment"

hurr durr

Right.
They were NOT making a traditional prosecutorial judgment because of those difficult issues that would need to be resolved about the President's actions and intent.
Sooooo ... What were those difficult issues that would need to be resolved about the President's actions and intent?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

They were NOT making a traditional prosecutorial judgment because of those difficult issues that would need to be resolved about the President's actions and intent.

Wrong.

Again, it is a matter of DOJ precedent on charging a potus.

 

[snakestretcher]

Got anything else besides the above non-sequitur fallacy?

Sorry, was it 141 times, maybe 144? Easy mistake to make among the tsunami of tweets your toddler in a suit spews every day.

 

[bubbabgone]

Wrong.

Again, it is a matter of DOJ precedent on charging a potus.

The report said "The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.".
You didn't answer.
What were those difficult issues that would need to be resolved about the President's actions and intent?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The report said "The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.".
You didn't answer.
What were those difficult issues that would need to be resolved about the President's actions and intent?

Uh, that would be.....the charging and prosecuting a potus. Mueller, operating under DOJ rules could NOT do that. He clearly said it would be up to Congress to deal with those issues since his authority, as far as he saw it, limited his ability to resolve the difficult issue of prosecuting a potus.

 

[trixare4kids]

Sorry, was it 141 times, maybe 144? Easy mistake to make among the tsunami of tweets your toddler in a suit spews every day.

Why should I care what you think of my country's president? You don't even live here.

 

[snakestretcher]

Why should I care what you think of my country's president? You don't even live here.

I care because what happens in your country eventually affects mine-like, for example, your wars which we are invited to attend and get our men and women killed in; your hapless fiscal adventures which result in global recessions, including in my country. So, yes, you bet I care about what passes for your 'president'. Don't like it? Tough, don't read my posts.

 

[bubbabgone]

Uh, that would be.....the charging and prosecuting a potus. Mueller, operating under DOJ rules could NOT do that. He clearly said it would be up to Congress to deal with those issues since his authority, as far as he saw it, limited his ability to resolve the difficult issue of prosecuting a potus.

That would mean ...
(a) an OLC position about charging the POTUS
is the same as
(b) resolving difficult issues involving the President's actions and intent before making a prosecutorial judgement .

Those are obviously 2 completely different concepts.
Yet you think they're the same.
Is that your position?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

That would mean ...
(a) an OLC position about charging the POTUS
is the same as
(b) resolving difficult issues involving the President's actions and intent before making a prosecutorial judgement .

Those are obviously 2 completely different concepts.
Yet you think they're the same.
Is that your position?

No, your argument is confused, resolving the issues of the potus's actions was NOT within the scope of Muellers' investigation.

the resolve was up to Congress. That is how it werkz.

 

[bubbabgone]

No, your argument is confused, resolving the issues of the potus's actions was NOT within the scope of Muellers' investigation.

the resolve was up to Congress. That is how it werkz.

What does "issues involving the President's actions and intent" mean to you?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

What does "issues involving the President's actions and intent" mean to you?

lets try the full sentence:

The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.

Here is a heat map of the issues of bones spurs conduct in obstructing justice during the Mueller investigation:

 

[bubbabgone]

lets try the full sentence:

The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.

Here is a heat map of the issues of bones spurs conduct in obstructing justice during the Mueller investigation:


View attachment 67273204

Going in circles again.
Your pretty colored chart isn't relevant.
I already reproduced the sentence from the report.
Let's go with what you quoted and my question you never answered.
"The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."
What do you think was meant by "the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues"?
What is meant by "intent presents difficult issues" and why would they "prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred?"
It should be clear that it had nothing to do with the OLC statement.
Think.