It's true. Kavanaugh showed the poised, fair, calm, introspective, judicious & respectful temperament necessary for a Supreme Court judge. & as proof - screaming at senators and repeating "I like beer" is everything we have never seen in a SC judge nominee.
Far left: we're gonna get everyone's needs met but first we need to liquidate people who look, believe, and act a certain way
Far right: we're gonna get everyone's needs met but first we need to liquidate people who look, believe, and act a certain way
Centrist: we're gonna have to settle for a more complex arrangement than ideological purity if we want to get most people's needs met without killing anyone
Nothing...the democrats aren't going to impeach. Pelosi has already said it's not going to happen. If the committee chairs, like Schiff, get too far off the reservation and start looking for trouble she'll have to reign them in. Nothing could be better for Trump right now than for democrats to continue this shit after the Mueller report has come out and most of America is done with this "muh Russia" shit.
Mueller said the report was not allowed to conclude Trumo violated the law, it could only absolve him or not absolve him.
On the issue of obstruction Mueller found Trump not not guilty.
Trump obstructed justice. You'd have to be a braincell to not see it. You can read for yourself what Trump did to obstruct justice including witness intimidation and firing Comey. Don't take my word for it read the report yourself it is clear as day.
Actually, reading the report shows that all those bits taken out of context as "witness tampering" are actually times where they were given marching orders for what they tell the media. Dishonest, but legal.
Re: Comey, that guy was getting booted out no matter what. No president wants an FBI director who is so obviously working to undermine him.
If that's what you think then you didn't read the report. Mueller clearly states the osc can absolve the president or it can not absolve the president. The report did not absolve the president.
Concluding thay the president ovstructed justice was never on the table
Its so fun talking to you guys because you're so uninformed lol. You cant even be bothered to read the executive summary so I'll quote you the relevant part
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .
5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report ,
could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term ,
OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment 's] secrecy, " and if an
indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to
govern." 6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the
person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Fourth, 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 , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. 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. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
The govt cannot exonerate you by definition of their actions. The govt can only convict you every man even the guilty are exonerated until tried and convicted
This has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty... This has to do with the bounds of the investigation... The investigation was artificially limited so that under no situation could it ever conclude that the president obstructed justice.
When you wrote
Trump did not obstruct justice or [Mueller would] have said he did
You were fucking wrong you goddamn braincel. I literally can't explain it any better so...
Mueller clearly states the osc can absolve the president or it can not absolve the president.
I don't care if Jesus descended from Heaven with Clarence Darrow and Justice John Marshall and said it. That's not how our fucking legal/Constitutional system works, you mong. It wasn't Mueller's place to "absolve" or to "exonerate" anyone. Our system doesn't work that way. He could, at most, charge people he had evidence were breaking the law, or recommend charges/impeachment against the president. That's it. If he didn't have enough evidence to charge someone or make those recommendations they're "not guilty" under our system.
You should be able to read the report yourself and understand that Mueller constructed a legal framework where under no circumstance whatsoever would he ever recommend charging the President for obstruction. He would only absolve the president or not absolve him.
There's a mountain of evidence for Trump's obstruction of justice. It's all in the report. But Mueller viewed his role in the obstruction case as one of fact finding not as one of a prosecutorial nature.
You should be able to read the report yourself and understand that Mueller constructed a legal framework where under no circumstance whatsoever would he ever recommend charging the President for obstruction. He would only absolve the president or not absolve him.
If you really believe that, all I can say is that if Mueller did that, he's in the wrong. That's not how our legal system works, and despite his dubious record even Robert Mueller knows that.
It's all in the report. But Mueller viewed his role in the obstruction case as one of fact finding not as one of a prosecutorial nature.
Yes, I'm sure Robert Mueller didn't think his role as "SPECIAL PROSECUTOR" was prosecutorial in nature (despite all the crimes he prosecuted while acting in that role during the course of the last two years).
Like I said, specifically for obstruction, Mueller's charge was fact finding. All the crimes not rekated to obstruction he persecuted. Which is real convenient for Trump let me add.
I think he should be impeached for violating the emoluments clause. He is clearly compromised by the KSA and really anyone who rents rooms at Trump Tower to curry favor from the president. Trump would gladly implement Sharia Law or do anything the muslims ask if they simply purchase rooms at his hotel. I fucking hate Islamist and to see them own our president is insulting. Their backwards culture and brutal nature really does make them inferior but Trump is basically their whipping boy because they have oil. It's insulting.
OK but FYI the impeachment vote will be along party lines, he won't be convicted, and this entire worthless exercise improves his chances of a 2020 electoral victory. So if you think that he shouldn't be president, supporting impeachment isn't the way to go.
Wait do they actually think he was going to the scotus to ask them to prevent the impeachment? How stupid are they? There's never been precedent for impeachment for just not liking the president a lot. Presumably that's unconstitutional and most likely will be. This could set a huge precedent in the future. The GOP could just whine in the future that the leader is mean to them and impeach the next dem president if it rules this way.
There has been precedent for impeachment over obstruction of justice, which Trump absolutely did. The only problem is that Nixon was also linked to a linty of other charges so it would be a stretch.
Uhhh Mueller restricted himself in his report to either conclude that Trump was
Not guilty
Or
Not not guilty.
Mueller did not allow the osc to conclude Trump violated the law, he was only allowed to conclude that Trump was not guilty, or if he wasn't not guilty.
Mueller concluded Trump was not not guilty.
But why take my word for it? Read the report yourself lol it is clear as day.
Not fucking CA you moron, that's for fucking sure. You should go back there and ... oh shit I forgot you guys were found to be TOO racist and removed from the website, why are you in here polluting this sub again?
Probably, but there’s still never been precedent for it. Which is relevant because the actual debate over what exactly counts as an impeachable offense hasn’t happened yet. For instance, the question about whether or not a law of congress can place restrictions on powers granted to the President by the constitution was never tested. Nixon would still have been impeached, but he also did a lot more than just fire the head of the FBI. If the proceedings had moved forward I doubt that would have ended up being the basis for impeachment.
Well, it’s really the political game that’s stopped people from being impeached. Nixon would’ve been impeached because his party no longer backed him, the firing of the head of the FBI occurred to cover other crimes he has committed before that point which is taken into account during impeachment proceedings. Clinton wasn’t because he had enough congressional support to stop the impeachment. Clinton was voted out by the house for merely lying under oath. The real reason Democrats won’t try to impeach Trump is due to the crazy backlash that happened after Clinton, you really need both parties to disavow the president which won’t happen in today’s climate.
Congress also succeeded many of their powers to the office of president, but the constitution permits them to place restrictions on the executive branch. That’s like literally one of the reasons why they exist. Hence why they can overturn the president’s will to invoke a national emergency or go to war. It would obviously go to the Supreme Court, but I think with all of the “constitutionalists” on the board right now it would probably be upheld. But that’s just speculation obviously.
There is a difference between placing restrictions on the executive branch, and placing restrictions on powers granted explicitly by the constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled previous attempts to place limitations on the President’s ability to remove appointed officials as unconstitutional. The obvious difference here is that laws regarding obstruction of justice are not unconstitutional in and of themselves, so the question is whether an otherwise constitutional law can still be used to limit the circumstances under which a president can exercise his constitutional powers.
Like you said though, impeachment is ultimately a political process. The problem the democrats have is that for the last two years the competing narratives have been “we need to investigate Trump’s collusion with Russia” vs “this is a witch hunt looking for an excuse to impeach Trump”. Now that collusion is a bust, it would be a huge mistake to try to impeach Trump anyways, especially for the “attempted obstruction” of an investigation that ultimately went unimpeded and found nothing anyways.
Well see here’s the crux of the problem. Robert Mueller wasn’t looking for “collusion”, collusion isn’t a legal term and isn’t a prosecutable offense. Mueller was looking for “conspiracy”, which has an incredibly high bar of prosecution. It would literally need a smoking gun to prove that Donald Trump knowingly recruited a foreign government to do work on the behalf of his campaign team.
There was collusion with Russia during the campaign process on behalf of the Trump campaign team. With the Trump tower meeting being the best example of this. The way Donald Trump operates would make it almost impossible to actually charge him with conspiracy, as he himself had no contacts with Russian foreign agents. We know that Michael Flynn and Trump Jr. had contacts with Russian agents, with Trump Jr. going as far as setting up a meeting to get “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.
Also, Trump‘s impeachment proceedings would have moved forward if he was allowed to be interviewed by the Mueller team. Dude can’t stop himself from lying, hence why his lawyers didn’t let him do it. With lying under oath and obstruction of justice there would have been precedent to proceed with impeachment. As it stands now it in no way should move forward, unless the house does it for their voters.
Except Trump obstructed justice which is the only reason anyone is talking about impeachment. Are you too stupid being on The Donald all day to think this is just about people not liking him?
Those two things that you quoted aren't actually even relevant to what I said. Mueller pretty much said that there was evidence of obstruction. Mueller also said that he would leave the decision for further action to Congress. Mueller never had the ability to indict a sitting president, not to mention collusion and obstruction are two different things.
OP still kinda has a point given that Andrew Johnson’s impeachment is now pretty universally regarded as the most bullshit thing to ever happen is US politics.
100 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-04-25
You're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of adding nothing to the discussion.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 notagiantdolphin 2019-04-25
We've reached the point where all r/politics comment threads are fungible commodities. Booo.
1 Megazor 2019-04-25
The virgin politics capeshiter vs the Chad beer and rape enthusiast judge
1 headasplodes 2019-04-25
When you're actually such a fucking retard that you think Barr tried to stop the report from being released
1 strathmeyer 2019-04-25
I always wonder how hard it is for the propagandists to keep up with what they're trying to sell.
1 Ziggs_Boson 2019-04-25
It's pretty easy to do when a solid chunk of them are bots.
1 BeiberFan123 2019-04-25
Hey buddy, it’s not like the report was announced to be released a month before and released actually ahead of the projected timeframe.
1 dbooth1111 2019-04-25
He did by first offering an e-mail instead to Congress - just like he did in Iran-Contra.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2019-04-25
Holy shit, they're still mad about Kavanaugh 😹😹😹
1 xlhat 2019-04-25
Well yeah, Kavanaugh was the personification their successful bully.
1 Alicesnakebae 2019-04-25
More like alcoholic step dad
1 dbooth1111 2019-04-25
More like alcoholic step dad that started raping you a when he turned 13.
1 RecallRethuglicans 2019-04-25
The drunk frat boy who organized gang rape parties, yeah.
1 xlhat 2019-04-25
Then prosecute him do an OJ i.e. a civil suit, yeah.
1 birfing 2019-04-25
It's called having fun in college
1 cheers_grills 2019-04-25
Were there any new developments or is this all?
1 RecallRethuglicans 2019-04-25
Twenty years ago, he slammed a woman against a wall while drunk.
1 strathmeyer 2019-04-25
It's sort of like the people who are mad about Hillary but Kavanaugh is still around affecting our lives.
1 ArtisanalCollabo 2019-04-25
Cope
1 djlewt 2019-04-25
"I don't know what it means, but I like this word so lets use it everywhere!"
1 ArtisanalCollabo 2019-04-25
Cope
1 cheers_grills 2019-04-25
Cope
1 BeiberFan123 2019-04-25
It’s her fault for in the first place and Barry Os for not ignoring him which just pushed him to run on the first place.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2019-04-25
I mean she does leave dirty dishes in my room and refuses to help with housework so she definitely affects my life and stress levels.
1 dbooth1111 2019-04-25
It's true. Kavanaugh showed the poised, fair, calm, introspective, judicious & respectful temperament necessary for a Supreme Court judge. & as proof - screaming at senators and repeating "I like beer" is everything we have never seen in a SC judge nominee.
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2019-04-25
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
1 6PoundsSoft 2019-04-25
I'm starting to think that trump derangement syndrome is actually a real thing.
Just image being am r/politics user.
1 Zac1245 2019-04-25
Imagine waking up everyday SEETHING that Trump still exists and he occupies your mind all day, everyday.
1 ShitTornadoToOz 2019-04-25
If magatards got anything right it's the rent free meme.
1 SpiceAndEvNice 2019-04-25
Man, going through that thread about Kavanaugh... that sub is a mirror of TD. It’s the same level of insanity TD displays sometimes. It’s amazing.
Also, didn’t that sub had some site where they were planning some massive protest if Trump was found guilty of collisions OR obstruction?
1 Imgur_Lurker 2019-04-25
Oh yea in a surprising turn they all just talked about doing something and didn't actually do anything.
It's almost as hilarious as when they arrested a bunch of people Protesting Trump in Portland and they were canadian lmao leafs
1 LucidHuckleberry 2019-04-25
Admin should just merge T_D and politics. Same coin, different sides.
1 2Manadeal2btw 2019-04-25
I don't think we could handle such a spike in Dramacoin.
1 KrapTacu1ar 2019-04-25
BotH SIdeS
1 SpookMook 2019-04-25
Tfw no minority death camps yet 😔
1 Starship_Litterbox_C 2019-04-25
Far left: we're gonna get everyone's needs met but first we need to liquidate people who look, believe, and act a certain way
Far right: we're gonna get everyone's needs met but first we need to liquidate people who look, believe, and act a certain way
Centrist: we're gonna have to settle for a more complex arrangement than ideological purity if we want to get most people's needs met without killing anyone
You: OMG centrists are just so....uhnnn 😒
1 J_D_1350 2019-04-25
Center right: Lets stop illegal immigration, then we can let in more legal immigrants.
Far left: Open borders now! Fuck fascist racist immigration control!
Centrists: Obviously the best solution here is non-partisanship and compromise, that's the only way a government works...
1 cheers_grills 2019-04-25
bOtH sIdEs
1 -Kite-Man- 2019-04-25
wait whats he being impeached over?
1 jubbergun 2019-04-25
Nothing...the democrats aren't going to impeach. Pelosi has already said it's not going to happen. If the committee chairs, like Schiff, get too far off the reservation and start looking for trouble she'll have to reign them in. Nothing could be better for Trump right now than for democrats to continue this shit after the Mueller report has come out and most of America is done with this "muh Russia" shit.
1 KrapTacu1ar 2019-04-25
The report restricted their judgements to either
Not guilty
Or
Not not guilty
Mueller said the report was not allowed to conclude Trumo violated the law, it could only absolve him or not absolve him.
On the issue of obstruction Mueller found Trump not not guilty.
Trump obstructed justice. You'd have to be a braincell to not see it. You can read for yourself what Trump did to obstruct justice including witness intimidation and firing Comey. Don't take my word for it read the report yourself it is clear as day.
1 Anus_of_Aeneas 2019-04-25
Actually, reading the report shows that all those bits taken out of context as "witness tampering" are actually times where they were given marching orders for what they tell the media. Dishonest, but legal.
Re: Comey, that guy was getting booted out no matter what. No president wants an FBI director who is so obviously working to undermine him.
1 djlewt 2019-04-25
Imagine the syndrome required to think the guy that handed you the election is "out to get you" lol.
1 Party_Independence 2019-04-25
Man is always innocent if the state can't clap you then you are by all the rights of man and the rights given by God a free man.
You can't be not not guilty
Trump did not obstruct justice or he'd have said he did
1 KrapTacu1ar 2019-04-25
If that's what you think then you didn't read the report. Mueller clearly states the osc can absolve the president or it can not absolve the president. The report did not absolve the president.
Concluding thay the president ovstructed justice was never on the table
Its so fun talking to you guys because you're so uninformed lol. You cant even be bothered to read the executive summary so I'll quote you the relevant part
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .
5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report ,
could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term ,
OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment 's] secrecy, " and if an
indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to
govern." 6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the
person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Fourth, 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 , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. 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. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
1 LongPostBot 2019-04-25
Ma'am we've been over this before. You need to stop.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Party_Independence 2019-04-25
Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
The govt cannot exonerate you by definition of their actions. The govt can only convict you every man even the guilty are exonerated until tried and convicted
This is the core of the western legal traditions.
1 KrapTacu1ar 2019-04-25
This has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty... This has to do with the bounds of the investigation... The investigation was artificially limited so that under no situation could it ever conclude that the president obstructed justice.
When you wrote
You were fucking wrong you goddamn braincel. I literally can't explain it any better so...
1 Party_Independence 2019-04-25
Yes the reason you can't prove crimes which didn't happen is because the evil rethuglikkkans stopped you
1 KrapTacu1ar 2019-04-25
Your reading comprehension skills seriously worry me. Best of luck.
1 Party_Independence 2019-04-25
Seething
1 jubbergun 2019-04-25
I don't care if Jesus descended from Heaven with Clarence Darrow and Justice John Marshall and said it. That's not how our fucking legal/Constitutional system works, you mong. It wasn't Mueller's place to "absolve" or to "exonerate" anyone. Our system doesn't work that way. He could, at most, charge people he had evidence were breaking the law, or recommend charges/impeachment against the president. That's it. If he didn't have enough evidence to charge someone or make those recommendations they're "not guilty" under our system.
1 KrapTacu1ar 2019-04-25
You should be able to read the report yourself and understand that Mueller constructed a legal framework where under no circumstance whatsoever would he ever recommend charging the President for obstruction. He would only absolve the president or not absolve him.
There's a mountain of evidence for Trump's obstruction of justice. It's all in the report. But Mueller viewed his role in the obstruction case as one of fact finding not as one of a prosecutorial nature.
1 jubbergun 2019-04-25
If you really believe that, all I can say is that if Mueller did that, he's in the wrong. That's not how our legal system works, and despite his dubious record even Robert Mueller knows that.
Yes, I'm sure Robert Mueller didn't think his role as "SPECIAL PROSECUTOR" was prosecutorial in nature (despite all the crimes he prosecuted while acting in that role during the course of the last two years).
1 KrapTacu1ar 2019-04-25
Like I said, specifically for obstruction, Mueller's charge was fact finding. All the crimes not rekated to obstruction he persecuted. Which is real convenient for Trump let me add.
https://youtu.be/f71Rasj_0JY
1 KrapTacu1ar 2019-04-25
https://www.needtoimpeach.com/impeachable-offenses/
Wow it's almost lile you have access to literally the sum of human knowledge and could seek some for yourself instead of asking know-nothing redditors
1 -Kite-Man- 2019-04-25
so hes not being impeached
1 KrapTacu1ar 2019-04-25
I think he should be impeached for violating the emoluments clause. He is clearly compromised by the KSA and really anyone who rents rooms at Trump Tower to curry favor from the president. Trump would gladly implement Sharia Law or do anything the muslims ask if they simply purchase rooms at his hotel. I fucking hate Islamist and to see them own our president is insulting. Their backwards culture and brutal nature really does make them inferior but Trump is basically their whipping boy because they have oil. It's insulting.
1 -Kite-Man- 2019-04-25
nobody asked what you think
1 KrapTacu1ar 2019-04-25
You support Islamists?
1 -Kite-Man- 2019-04-25
no
1 GeorgeKalmer 2019-04-25
Yes. I can't wait for the US to finally get a third party that actually stands for something.
1 KrapTacu1ar 2019-04-25
Wait didn't you literally ask?
1 -Kite-Man- 2019-04-25
no i didnt ask what you think
1 FloatyFish 2019-04-25
Allah willing this will actually happen.
1 UmmahSultan 2019-04-25
OK but FYI the impeachment vote will be along party lines, he won't be convicted, and this entire worthless exercise improves his chances of a 2020 electoral victory. So if you think that he shouldn't be president, supporting impeachment isn't the way to go.
1 KrapTacu1ar 2019-04-25
Yeha that's what they said at the beginning of Nixon's impeachment lol
1 BCUOSPSEY 2019-04-25
Going to some blog spam website doesn’t tell you what Democrats are moving to impeach him for lol
1 Sunspots111 2019-04-25
I think the person who made this article doesn’t like trump.
1 Party_Independence 2019-04-25
Not colluding with Russia, not obstructing. Justice and not being Clinton
1 RecallRethuglicans 2019-04-25
This issue, for one
1 -Kite-Man- 2019-04-25
the nerve!
1 FearOfBees 2019-04-25
Wait do they actually think he was going to the scotus to ask them to prevent the impeachment? How stupid are they? There's never been precedent for impeachment for just not liking the president a lot. Presumably that's unconstitutional and most likely will be. This could set a huge precedent in the future. The GOP could just whine in the future that the leader is mean to them and impeach the next dem president if it rules this way.
1 Ravensthrowit 2019-04-25
There has been precedent for impeachment over obstruction of justice, which Trump absolutely did. The only problem is that Nixon was also linked to a linty of other charges so it would be a stretch.
1 FearOfBees 2019-04-25
Where do you people crawl out of?
1 Ravensthrowit 2019-04-25
🤣🤣🤣 didn’t even read the report...didn’t even read the introduction! Go read the introduction to section 2 and get back to me dumbass
1 KrapTacu1ar 2019-04-25
Uhhh Mueller restricted himself in his report to either conclude that Trump was
Not guilty
Or
Not not guilty.
Mueller did not allow the osc to conclude Trump violated the law, he was only allowed to conclude that Trump was not guilty, or if he wasn't not guilty.
Mueller concluded Trump was not not guilty.
But why take my word for it? Read the report yourself lol it is clear as day.
Trump fired Comey
Trump intimidated witness
Trump publicly threatened investigators
It's not that complicated lol
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-04-25
> report carefully lays out how stupid, derelict in duties to protect infrastructure, and compromised president is.
DDF: this is good for president
1 djlewt 2019-04-25
Not fucking CA you moron, that's for fucking sure. You should go back there and ... oh shit I forgot you guys were found to be TOO racist and removed from the website, why are you in here polluting this sub again?
1 thebuscompany 2019-04-25
Also the fact that Nixon was never actually impeached.
1 Ravensthrowit 2019-04-25
Yeah, he just resigned because he totally wasn’t going to be impeached
1 thebuscompany 2019-04-25
Probably, but there’s still never been precedent for it. Which is relevant because the actual debate over what exactly counts as an impeachable offense hasn’t happened yet. For instance, the question about whether or not a law of congress can place restrictions on powers granted to the President by the constitution was never tested. Nixon would still have been impeached, but he also did a lot more than just fire the head of the FBI. If the proceedings had moved forward I doubt that would have ended up being the basis for impeachment.
1 Ravensthrowit 2019-04-25
Well, it’s really the political game that’s stopped people from being impeached. Nixon would’ve been impeached because his party no longer backed him, the firing of the head of the FBI occurred to cover other crimes he has committed before that point which is taken into account during impeachment proceedings. Clinton wasn’t because he had enough congressional support to stop the impeachment. Clinton was voted out by the house for merely lying under oath. The real reason Democrats won’t try to impeach Trump is due to the crazy backlash that happened after Clinton, you really need both parties to disavow the president which won’t happen in today’s climate.
Congress also succeeded many of their powers to the office of president, but the constitution permits them to place restrictions on the executive branch. That’s like literally one of the reasons why they exist. Hence why they can overturn the president’s will to invoke a national emergency or go to war. It would obviously go to the Supreme Court, but I think with all of the “constitutionalists” on the board right now it would probably be upheld. But that’s just speculation obviously.
1 thebuscompany 2019-04-25
There is a difference between placing restrictions on the executive branch, and placing restrictions on powers granted explicitly by the constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled previous attempts to place limitations on the President’s ability to remove appointed officials as unconstitutional. The obvious difference here is that laws regarding obstruction of justice are not unconstitutional in and of themselves, so the question is whether an otherwise constitutional law can still be used to limit the circumstances under which a president can exercise his constitutional powers.
Like you said though, impeachment is ultimately a political process. The problem the democrats have is that for the last two years the competing narratives have been “we need to investigate Trump’s collusion with Russia” vs “this is a witch hunt looking for an excuse to impeach Trump”. Now that collusion is a bust, it would be a huge mistake to try to impeach Trump anyways, especially for the “attempted obstruction” of an investigation that ultimately went unimpeded and found nothing anyways.
1 Ravensthrowit 2019-04-25
Well see here’s the crux of the problem. Robert Mueller wasn’t looking for “collusion”, collusion isn’t a legal term and isn’t a prosecutable offense. Mueller was looking for “conspiracy”, which has an incredibly high bar of prosecution. It would literally need a smoking gun to prove that Donald Trump knowingly recruited a foreign government to do work on the behalf of his campaign team.
There was collusion with Russia during the campaign process on behalf of the Trump campaign team. With the Trump tower meeting being the best example of this. The way Donald Trump operates would make it almost impossible to actually charge him with conspiracy, as he himself had no contacts with Russian foreign agents. We know that Michael Flynn and Trump Jr. had contacts with Russian agents, with Trump Jr. going as far as setting up a meeting to get “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.
Also, Trump‘s impeachment proceedings would have moved forward if he was allowed to be interviewed by the Mueller team. Dude can’t stop himself from lying, hence why his lawyers didn’t let him do it. With lying under oath and obstruction of justice there would have been precedent to proceed with impeachment. As it stands now it in no way should move forward, unless the house does it for their voters.
1 LongPostBot 2019-04-25
Good job bobby, here's a star
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 leparsdon 2019-04-25
Except Trump obstructed justice which is the only reason anyone is talking about impeachment. Are you too stupid being on The Donald all day to think this is just about people not liking him?
1 FearOfBees 2019-04-25
Except mueller said he didn't. Are you now calling the report a farce? What was he obstructing the witch hunt that turned out bunk? In his own words:
1 leparsdon 2019-04-25
Those two things that you quoted aren't actually even relevant to what I said. Mueller pretty much said that there was evidence of obstruction. Mueller also said that he would leave the decision for further action to Congress. Mueller never had the ability to indict a sitting president, not to mention collusion and obstruction are two different things.
You are an idiot.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-04-25
Did you actually read any of the damned thing? It winks heavily towards an Article 1 solution.
1 djlewt 2019-04-25
Why is this sub suddenly all out in favor of these uneducated right wing morons? We're supposed to be centrist here, not fucking idiots like this.
1 thebuscompany 2019-04-25
Andrew Johnson
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-04-25
I was about to say. His impeachment was literally because he was a dick to congress.
1 thebuscompany 2019-04-25
OP still kinda has a point given that Andrew Johnson’s impeachment is now pretty universally regarded as the most bullshit thing to ever happen is US politics.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-04-25
He was a bastard but his impeachment is up there with the Dredd Scott decision and Buchannan doing fuck all about thr seccession crisis
1 betazoom78 2019-04-25
Nah it's because he was a manlet compared to the 6'4 KING Lincoln.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2019-04-25
Savior of the republic. Inventor of the Chokeslam
1 Sub_to_pdp 2019-04-25
Literally the top comment. Jesus theyve become a parody of themselves
1 djlewt 2019-04-25
Imagine even thinking the Supreme court has anything to do with impeachment.
1 dbooth1111 2019-04-25
B/c it is not constitutional. I know the constitution does not mean anything to MAGA's; but to patriots its everything.