• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
phiwum said:
Perhaps it wasn't a slip of the tongue, but it would be a very aggressive prosecutor who would try to argue that was lying under oath. "Slip of the tongue" is a very vague phrase.
Click to expand...

It was untrue, and she knew it was untrue. She was under oath when she said it. I don't know how "lying under oath" isn't a completely accurate and appropriate description.

But, yes, you're right that it would have to be a particularly aggressive prosecutor who would try to prosecute that. That's why it's a good example of how Mueller isn't the kind of prosecutor that the Republicans have been trying to paint him as ever since the first prosecutions of Trump associates for perjury started rolling in.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
trump tweets

Can you believe that I had to go through the worst and most corrupt political Witch Hunt in the history of the United States (No Collusion) when it was the “other side” that illegally created the diversionary & criminal event and even spied on my campaign? Disgraceful!
Click to expand...

No, Donald. No I can't.
 
dejudge said:
Nixon was pardoned for crimes he committed or may have committed between 20th July 1969 and 9 August 1974.
Click to expand...

And that does not mean he admitted guilt to a damned thing, contrary to your claim that accepting a pardon requires that one accept guilt
 
Childlike Empress said:
While we're at press secretaries, for your amusement and enlightenment, here's Lavrov's trusty Maria Zakharova on prime time Russian television ripping into the then-unreleased Mueller report (English subtitles):

Click to expand...
Darn, propaganda based on not knowing what is in the Mueller report. Big fail, like CIT and clownstick.

She could work for clownstick or CIT. Poor russia, with an economy less than clownstick's "favorite" state, california. Was she indicted by mueller?

It was amusing, she has no clue what "possibly" means.

lol, russia, russia, russia, russia... twelve Russians were indicted in July 2018 on charges related to a conspiracy to hack Democratic computers with the goal of influencing the 2016 election. Charges included aggravated identity theft and money laundering. Twelve russian witches, oh my
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Why would a return US Government back to what the founders intended - three CO-EQUAL branches, be limiting?

The Executive branch has become far too powerful in recent years - it needs reining in. At the very least, the President's power of veto needs to be removed, and his power to pardon must no longer be absolute.
Click to expand...


You'll get no argument from me that we need to return to a Constitutional form of government. I just find it ironic that these arguments of limiting the power of the federal government are always put forward when there are Republicans in office. For instance, when President Eisenhower was trying to get Civil Rights legislation through Congress and was met by all the Democrats suddenly becoming fans of State Rights.

As far as the specific plans you put forth, I agree that there should be a Constitutional Amendment limiting presidential pardons, depending on how the Amendment was worded, but I would argue that presidential vetoes are already limited sufficiently since they can be overridden by a 3/5ths vote of Congress.
 
cmikes said:
As far as the specific plans you put forth, I agree that there should be a Constitutional Amendment limiting presidential pardons, depending on how the Amendment was worded, but I would argue that presidential vetoes are already limited sufficiently since they can be overridden by a 3/5ths vote of Congress.
Click to expand...
No. 2/3rds.
 
Minoosh said:
I don't think he's gloating. I think he's suffering. Really.

But I might be the only one.
Click to expand...

No, you're not the only one. He seems to be bouncing back and forth between berating 12 angry Democrat witch hunters and yippee! no collusion no obstruction.

I think he knows that Barr lied and the report is out now.
 
Stacyhs said:
What we now have to endure is at least 1.5 years of gloating from Drumpf. At least one and a half years of watching the self-satisfied smirk on the face of an orange turd with the emotional maturity of a 10 year old bully. :yikes:
Click to expand...

He's ramping up to arresting the 'plotters'
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Accepting the Pardon is an admission is it not?
Click to expand...

It's an admission that you think you'll be convicted; not that you think the conviction would be the correct outcome. Of course, Nixon was guilty as hell so it would have been foolish of him not to accept. Slate's Slow Burn covered the major parts of Watergate and how in the thick of it he was.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Accepting the Pardon is an admission is it not?
Click to expand...

It's not clear to me that pardons need to be accepted at all.

Far as I understand it, Ford's pre-emptive pardon of Nixon does not mean that Nixon admitted any guilt at all.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, you're not the only one. He seems to be bouncing back and forth between berating 12 angry Democrat witch hunters and yippee! no collusion no obstruction.

I think he knows that Barr lied and the report is out now.
Click to expand...
Even if the media back-burnered it, which it won't, I think Trump would continue bouncing back and forth, brutalizing his fragile ego/nervous system.

Do you mean he knows Barr lied to him?
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
What we now have to endure is at least 1.5 years of gloating from Drumpf. At least one and a half years of watching the self-satisfied smirk on the face of an orange turd with the emotional maturity of a 10 year old bully. :yikes:
Click to expand...
I agree with Minoosh, he is only gloating outwardly. He must be miserable these days, what with both Mueller's report and his obvious deteriorating mental state.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Then he could have refused the pardon and stated his innocence.
Click to expand...

Or he could have done nothing at all and admitted nothing at all, which is what happened.

You might argue that his actions implied guilt, but I don't think it's compelling. There are many reasons an innocent person would prefer a pardon to the time, expense and uncertain outcome of going to trial. I'm not saying Nixon was innocent, of course, but that being pardoned is very poor evidence of guilt generally speaking.
 
phiwum said:
Or he could have done nothing at all and admitted nothing at all, which is what happened.

You might argue that his actions implied guilt
Click to expand...

You mean "implied acceptance of guilt". He did commit crimes and he knew he had committed crimes (right?). That doesn't mean he was going to admit to the American people he was a crook.

being pardoned is very poor evidence of guilt generally speaking.
Click to expand...
Given the legal expenses involved in defending a court case, I would agree. I would certainly take a pardon over a long drawn out criminal trial, if I got into that situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom