The TIC

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I guess members will ponder the matter ..... during their 6 WEEK summer recess!  WTF?!

They will probably be pondering the matter 2 months into Trump's second term.

Yeah. Well things would move a lot faster if the Trump administration would cooperate, instead of "fighting all the subpoenas." It causes lengthy delays as the matter goes before the courts.  Eventually the administration will lose the court battles and will have to comply anyway... so much of the delay has been, and will continue to be, caused by this administration.  

At this point, what do you think can or will happen regarding this matter?
The Mueller testimony, at best, sucked sump water.
How long can you possibly hold out hope for this fantasy of removing Trump from office?
Might as well just wait for the election, see what happens then.

If you had read The Mueller Report, you wouldn't be asking a question like this.  Nothing should be based upon Mueller's "performance."

Can't just "wait for the election," unfortunately, because Moscow Mitch is refusing to bring any bills to the floor that would help safeguard the 2020 election.  We know that Russia meddled in the last election in order to help Trump win... I find it highly suspicious that the Republicans refuse to do whatever can be done to ensure our elections are fair and free of foreign interference.  

And I have no "fantasy" of removing Trump from office.  I don't care if the Senate finds him guilty or not... but we really should hold this "president" accountable for his actions, regardless of how the whole thing plays out "politically."   It's the right thing to do, period.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

At this point, what do you think can or will happen regarding this matter?
The Mueller testimony, at best, sucked sump water.
How long can you possibly hold out hope for this fantasy of removing Trump from office?
Might as well just wait for the election, see what happens then.

If you had read The Mueller Report, you wouldn't be asking a question like this.  Nothing should be based upon Mueller's "performance."

Regardless of his performance, if there was anything at all specified in the Mueller report that the Democrats could have used to sink Trump once and for all, don't you think they would have cited it?

I don't really understand your question... The Democrats have cited many parts of the Mueller Report. It's loaded with evidence of Trump's guilt. All that's needed at this point is a formal impeachment inquiry.

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

At this point, what do you think can or will happen regarding this matter?
The Mueller testimony, at best, sucked sump water.
How long can you possibly hold out hope for this fantasy of removing Trump from office?
Might as well just wait for the election, see what happens then.

If you had read The Mueller Report, you wouldn't be asking a question like this.  Nothing should be based upon Mueller's "performance."

Regardless of his performance, if there was anything at all specified in the Mueller report that the Democrats could have used to sink Trump once and for all, don't you think they would have cited it?

I don't really understand your question... The Democrats have cited many parts of the Mueller Report.  It's loaded with evidence of Trump's guilt.  All that's needed at this point is a formal impeachment inquiry.

Once again:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/ted-lieu-mueller-testimony-gotcha-moment-reversed.html

"As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

        - Robert Mueller

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

At this point, what do you think can or will happen regarding this matter?
The Mueller testimony, at best, sucked sump water.
How long can you possibly hold out hope for this fantasy of removing Trump from office?
Might as well just wait for the election, see what happens then.

If you had read The Mueller Report, you wouldn't be asking a question like this.  Nothing should be based upon Mueller's "performance."

Regardless of his performance, if there was anything at all specified in the Mueller report that the Democrats could have used to sink Trump once and for all, don't you think they would have cited it?

I don't really understand your question... The Democrats have cited many parts of the Mueller Report.  It's loaded with evidence of Trump's guilt.  All that's needed at this point is a formal impeachment inquiry.

Once again:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/ted-lieu-mueller-testimony-gotcha-moment-reversed.html

"As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

        - Robert Mueller

Yeah. Well in order to fully understand what he means by that, let's go look at the actual report, shall we?

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Pages 1 & 2 of Part 2...

Mueller wrote:

First, a  traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a  binary determination to initiate or decline  a  prosecution, but we determined not to make a  traditional prosecutorial judgment.

Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

Mueller wrote:

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a  sitting President may not be prosecuted, it  recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is  permissible.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a  President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

Mueller wrote:

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.

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.

Mueller wrote:

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.

After this, the Mueller Report lays out 10 instances of Obstruction by Trump.  I really suggest that you at least skim Part 2 of the report.  Trump is clearly guilty, Jack... the evidence is overwhelming... please take a little time and check it out for yourself...

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

 

Mueller wrote:

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.

It is not up to Mueller, nor anyone in his capacity, to decide what someone under investigation did not do; it is up to him to decide what someone actually did do.

Whatever... the point is that Mueller’s team obtained indictments or guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies... and while Trump couldn't be charged because of a DOJ rule (See points 1-3 above), the report contains a mountain of damning evidence against Trump.  

Again, I suggest that you check it out yourself... maybe take an hour or so and at least skim part 2 of the Report?

Scorpion wrote:

 …. Trump couldn't be charged because of a DOJ rule ….

And he also couldn't be charged because:

"As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

       - Robert Mueller

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

 …. Trump couldn't be charged because of a DOJ rule ….

And he also couldn't be charged because:

"As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

       - Robert Mueller

Mueller also explained why:

Quote :

It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

. . .

And as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

But...  ya know...  details.  

Yeah. Well there is absolutely no evidence that Heretic was involved in the Dayton shooting... but there is overwhelming evidence that Trump is guilty of obstruction... you simply need to take a look at Part 2 of the Mueller Report...

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well there is absolutely no evidence that Heretic was involved in the Dayton shooting...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure of that.
And I'm pretty sure that there's no evidence that he was not not involved, which is apparently your new standard in establishing guilt or innocence.

On the contrary... evidence is my standard... and as I've pointed out repeatedly, there is a ton of evidence that establishes Trump's guilt... see Part 2 of the Mueller Report. Why is it that you resist checking out the evidence for yourself?

Scorpion wrote:

On the contrary... evidence is my standard... and as I've pointed out repeatedly, there is a ton of evidence that establishes Trump's guilt...  

Then exactly what does this mean?

"As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

      - Robert Mueller

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

On the contrary... evidence is my standard... and as I've pointed out repeatedly, there is a ton of evidence that establishes Trump's guilt...  

Then exactly what does this mean?

"As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

      - Robert Mueller

Man, this isn't difficult, Jack...

See the first sentence from "First" above?

Mueller wrote:

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a  binary determination to initiate or decline  a  prosecution, but we determined not to make a  traditional prosecutorial judgment.

So it was determined that no judgement was going to be made... but that doesn't mean that there was no evidence...

Again, from my post above...

Mueller wrote:

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a  sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

The evidence is contained in the report.  It's right there in Part 2 of the Mueller Report.  

Hopefully, this clears things up.  May I make a suggestion?  Take 30 minutes and skim Part 2 of the report. The evidence is presented well and it's fairly easy to read and understand. If you have any questions after your review, then just let me know.

Scorpion wrote:

 

Hopefully, this clears things up.  May I make a suggestion?  Take 30 minutes and skim Part 2 of the report. The evidence is presented well and it's fairly easy to read and understand. If you have any questions after your review, then just let me know.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to read 200 pages of legalese when the summary of those pages is nicely distilled in one very clear and simple statement:

"As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

     - Robert Mueller

If you have a satisfactory explanation for that statement, just let me know.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

 

Hopefully, this clears things up.  May I make a suggestion?  Take 30 minutes and skim Part 2 of the report. The evidence is presented well and it's fairly easy to read and understand. If you have any questions after your review, then just let me know.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to read 200 pages of legalese when the summary of those pages is nicely distilled in one very clear and simple statement:

"As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

     - Robert Mueller

If you have a satisfactory explanation for that statement, just let me know.

Yeah.  Well I don't agree that the statement functions as a "summary," but I do agree that it is a "very clear and simple statement."  

I don't disagree with Mueller's statement.  What, exactly, do you mean by a "satisfactory explanation?"  Please try to be precise... this exchange is beginning to bore me.

Scorpion wrote:

Trump:
"I am the Chosen One!"

"We are the ones we've been waiting for."
   - Barack Obama

Meet the new Messiah, same as the old Messiah.
(With apologies to Pete Townshend.)

State Dept. ramps up probe into Clinton email server

Quote :

The State Department reportedly intensified a probe into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server, contacting dozens of former aides involved in email exchanges that passed through Clinton's server.

The Washington Post reported Saturday that as many as 130 former Clinton aides have been contacted by State Department investigators in recent weeks, with many being informed that they have been found "culpable" for transmitting information that should have been classified at a higher level than it was originally sent.

Thank God.  I can't imagine anything else being more important to our national security than this.

Absolutely nothing.  Nothing at all.

Nope.  Only this.

It all boils down to this madman's fantasy...