Oh, that's easy. If nothing changes, then the coup is completed. The Constitution is meaningless, and I'm curious to see which states secede before being absorbed into the rising oceans, but that detail hardly matters. Putin wins as Russia becomes the dominant super power of the world.His base is around 30% and that has been unwavering. Absolutely unwavering. Anything above 30% is a bonus. The problem is that he is unchallenged in his own party. They all tail tuck and bend the knee to him. Resist and face a primary. Impeachment will not alter that 30% and will just make for a higher chance of getting primaried if a Republican goes against him. So nothing changes the calculus there. Republicans are just going to run the clock out to 2020 and do anything they can to prevent any meaningful legislation for a hopeful democrat to hang their hat on for reelection. We're in for 15'ish months of pure gridlock and misery. And after that, who knows.
Trump already knew that. The alternative is a pardon from President Pence. Picture it- Trump loses the election. The day before inauguration of his succesor, Trump pardons everybody & their dog including Pence, then resigns. Pence is sworn in, then pardons Trump & they all ride off into the sunset. So long, chumps.
I'm glad you mentioned the reasoning for Trump being investigated. The "shady" stuff with Russia has been proven to be false and now will be proven that it was started under knowingly false pretenses.
As others have stated, the report only lays out the evidence, it DOES NOT give a recommendation on indictment or not based on that evidence.Again, using news articles as evidence is not valid. Then why didn't Mueller and his report say they have sufficient evidence of that obstruction charge?
Oh, that's easy. If nothing changes, then the coup is completed. The Constitution is meaningless, and I'm curious to see which states secede before being absorbed into the rising oceans, but that detail hardly matters. Putin wins as Russia becomes the dominant super power of the world.
I like your optimism about being able to vote!I think China will surpass Russia if it hasn't already. Judging from the people who control impeachment's actions so far we have a done deal regardless of the election as precedent unchallenged is perpetual. The idea that standing up for what people want in their party is going to cost the election makes no sense. The Faithfull will vote for Trump if God Himself testified against him, and that's the fundies alone. So I'll hold my nose and vote for any Dem but nothing will have changed at the most basic and important level. My hope is that people will put their nation and Constitutional obligations above self interest, but I'm not sure if that's more than a futile with. We'll see.
The report literally states the opposite. Are you living in some sort of conservative media alternate reality where the report exonerated Trump instead of delivering damning evidence of his guilt for multiple felonies?
Here's a summary from Lawfare of the various obstruction of justice charges. The dark orange indicates that the report says there is 'substantial evidence' for that element of obstruction of justice.
Liar.Cool chart bro, but the man charged with finding evidence for those charges disagrees with those conclusions. Glad you found a nice chart that puts a visual spin on the news article summaries from where these are derived from. Mueller: Going thru elements does not to mean I subscribe to what you're trying to prove through those elements. Remember those 1,000 former prosecutors that said Trump was guilty of obstruction? Mueller debunked them very quickly with "they have a different case" statement.
Just stop. Mueller's testimony and report did nothing to advance the notion that Trump obstructed justice and colluded/conspired with Russia or foreign entities and should be impeached. Mueller's testimony was a perfect setup for the GOP to keep advancing the notion that the Mueller investigation was a setup and a sham , and Mueller was little more than a figure head for a bunch of partisans out to get the President. Remember the glove from the OJ trial, well.... "if the Mueller don't fit, you must acquit.".
Nothing new really came out from the Mueller circus other than he appeared to have very little to do with his investigation.
Cool chart bro, but the man charged with finding evidence for those charges disagrees with those conclusions.
Glad you found a nice chart that puts a visual spin on the news article summaries from where these are derived from. Mueller: Going thru elements does not to mean I subscribe to what you're trying to prove through those elements. Remember those 1,000 former prosecutors that said Trump was guilty of obstruction? Mueller debunked them very quickly with "they have a different case" statement.
Just stop. Mueller's testimony and report did nothing to advance the notion that Trump obstructed justice and colluded/conspired with Russia or foreign entities and should be impeached. Mueller's testimony was a perfect setup for the GOP to keep advancing the notion that the Mueller investigation was a setup and a sham , and Mueller was little more than a figure head for a bunch of partisans out to get the President. Remember the glove from the OJ trial, well.... "if the Mueller don't fit, you must acquit.".
Nothing new really came out from the Mueller circus other than he appeared to have very little to do with his investigation.
Cool chart bro, but the man charged with finding evidence for those charges disagrees with those conclusions. Glad you found a nice chart that puts a visual spin on the news article summaries from where these are derived from. Mueller: Going thru elements does not to mean I subscribe to what you're trying to prove through those elements. Remember those 1,000 former prosecutors that said Trump was guilty of obstruction? Mueller debunked them very quickly with "they have a different case" statement.
Just stop. Mueller's testimony and report did nothing to advance the notion that Trump obstructed justice and colluded/conspired with Russia or foreign entities and should be impeached. Mueller's testimony was a perfect setup for the GOP to keep advancing the notion that the Mueller investigation was a setup and a sham , and Mueller was little more than a figure head for a bunch of partisans out to get the President. Remember the glove from the OJ trial, well.... "if the Mueller don't fit, you must acquit.".
Nothing new really came out from the Mueller circus other than he appeared to have very little to do with his investigation.
Cool chart bro, but the man charged with finding evidence for those charges disagrees with those conclusions. Glad you found a nice chart that puts a visual spin on the news article summaries from where these are derived from. Mueller: Going thru elements does not to mean I subscribe to what you're trying to prove through those elements. Remember those 1,000 former prosecutors that said Trump was guilty of obstruction? Mueller debunked them very quickly with "they have a different case" statement.
Just stop. Mueller's testimony and report did nothing to advance the notion that Trump obstructed justice and colluded/conspired with Russia or foreign entities and should be impeached. Mueller's testimony was a perfect setup for the GOP to keep advancing the notion that the Mueller investigation was a setup and a sham , and Mueller was little more than a figure head for a bunch of partisans out to get the President. Remember the glove from the OJ trial, well.... "if the Mueller don't fit, you must acquit.".
Nothing new really came out from the Mueller circus other than he appeared to have very little to do with his investigation.
He doesn't need to read the report, Fox tells him everything he needs to know.These are actually all lies.
Maybe you should read the report? It's obvious to most people that you haven't.
He doesn't need to read the report, Fox tells him everything he needs to know.
With him I find most of his talking points align with Fox's. But, in all fairness, all right-wing talking points align.With some people like SlowSpyder it's easy to tell he knows he's lying but with people like brandonbull it's harder. I'm genuinely unsure if he's a liar or if he's just super indoctrinated by right wing propaganda.
With him I find most of his talking points align with Fox's. But, in all fairness, all right-wing talking points align.
I agree. They are the masters of propaganda. Democrats can't stay on message nearly as well and it hurts their overall messaging. Right wing media also are the masters of keeping it simple for the less intelligent in their camp.I’ve always been impressed by the message discipline in the modern right wing propaganda machine. When they decide to push a new narrative everyone immediately falls into line. Doesn’t matter if it contradicts the prior narrative, if they’re going to look stupid, if the point itself is insane, they put out the message because that’s the job.
As others have stated, the report only lays out the evidence, it DOES NOT give a recommendation on indictment or not based on that evidence.
There are clear examples of obstruction of justice in the report, which is a crime. If you read the wording in the report and his careful statements you will realize that the report is not meant to lay out charges, only evidence.
In fact he EXPLICITLY said that the report does NOT exonerate Trump.
I’ve always been impressed by the message discipline in the modern right wing propaganda machine. When they decide to push a new narrative everyone immediately falls into line. Doesn’t matter if it contradicts the prior narrative, if they’re going to look stupid, if the point itself is insane, they put out the message because that’s the job.
The report or the SC was never tasked to exonerate/not exonerate anyone. Mueller was tasked to investigate and provide back a determination/recommendation. Report: "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
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.
The report or the SC was never tasked to exonerate/not exonerate anyone. Mueller was tasked to investigate and provide back a determination/recommendation. Report: "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
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.
Russian/ alt-right propaganda need not be consistent. It merely needs to lead to confusion & paralysis.
You're supposed to provide a link when you copy & Paste and also use quotes.The report or the SC was never tasked to exonerate/not exonerate anyone. Mueller was tasked to investigate and provide back a determination/recommendation. Report: "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
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.
You're supposed to provide a link when you copy & Paste and also use quotes.