Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Minoosh]

However Mueller proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was from day one looking to destroy Trump in that his little mention that as far as Obstruction he couldn't prove it nor could he disprove it...basically he restoked the fire for the Traitorous Demonrats to go for impeachment. THIS IS NOT a prosecutors job, his opinion is Non-Sequitor and he has no business giving an opinion PERIOD!

What did he say that was opinion? He reiterated what was in the report. Maybe he felt it was necessary to emphasize that he views his task as complete. But in any case, why do you think prosecutors are not supposed to have opinions? They do it all the time; for example in sentencing memos. It's part of their job to rely on their judgment, and they spell out the factors that led them to that judgment (IOW, that opinion).

 

[Minoosh]

It's not the same without the "Sighs" and the "Oh Dears."

You gotta find your own voice, though. Your character has to sound authentic.

 

[alfaniner]

The PDJT says "Impeachment is for 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. Not 'with', not 'or', but 'and'."

What that implies -- "I didn't commit any misdemeanors, so I can't be impeached!"

 

[Belz...]

Trump and his cult want to convince the public that Mueller exonerated Trump...
And they also continue to try to discredit Mueller...

Wow.

It's the "cover all your grounds" tactic. It makes no logical sense, but that doesn't matter.

 

[Paul2]

What stupid people think "Opinions are like buttholes, everybody has one."

What smart people understand "Opinions are like buttholes, you should have yours checked by an expert regularly and if they tell you something is wrong with it, you should take that seriously."

I swear I'm gonna use that next chance I get!

 

[Paul2]

It doesn't matter, as they're using that narrative already. You're right in that the best way to combat Trump is to bury him through the voting booth, but those Trumpistas are coming out to vote no matter what. What are they going to do with a knife-in-the-back narrative, vote harder?

Democrats need to forget about polling, stop worrying about what the Senate will do, and defend the Constitution as is their sworn duty. The whole argument for impeachment is that the POTUS has acted outside the bounds of the Constitution. With ample evidence to indicate his transgressions, Congress is shirking their duty if they fail to impeach. Plus, once impeachment hearings are opened, I assume it will be easier to get key players, e.g., Mueller, to testify before Congress. That will create an environment in which more Senate Republicans will be pressured into defecting back into reality.

Best-case scenario is that Pelosi is biding her time and waiting for the correct moment to strike. That correct moment could depend on a lot of things.

It appears that many pro-impeachment folk don't realize that not impeaching today does not preclude impeaching tomorrow, especially if one actually does intend to (eventually) impeach. Admittedly, we don't know that of Pelosi, but it's possible; she doesn't appear to be one to play checkers when the 3-D chessboard is available.

 

[Paul2]

Best-case scenario is that Pelosi is biding her time and waiting for the correct moment to strike. That correct moment could depend on a lot of things.

It appears that many pro-impeachment folk don't realize that not impeaching today does not preclude impeaching tomorrow, especially if one actually does intend to (eventually) impeach. Admittedly, we don't know that of Pelosi, but it's possible; she doesn't appear to be one to play checkers when the 3-D chessboard is available.

Furthermore, when is the best time to impeach? One square on the 3-D chessboard is to end the impeachment hearings in the House in, say, October of 2020.

 

[Matthew Best]

The man is an idiot.

 

[Cain]

Democrats need to forget about polling, stop worrying about what the Senate will do, and defend the Constitution as is their sworn duty. The whole argument for impeachment is that the POTUS has acted outside the bounds of the Constitution. With ample evidence to indicate his transgressions, Congress is shirking their duty if they fail to impeach. Plus, once impeachment hearings are opened, I assume it will be easier to get key players, e.g., Mueller, to testify before Congress. That will create an environment in which more Senate Republicans will be pressured into defecting back into reality.

All presidents break the law. It comes with the job. In terms of getting rid of Trump, we have another mechanism in place: next year's election.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The PDJT says "Impeachment is for 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. Not 'with', not 'or', but 'and'."

What that implies -- "I didn't commit any misdemeanors, so I can't be impeached!"

That reminds me of the interpretation that to be unconstitutional, a punishment must be both cruel AND unusual. Just cruel or just unusual is fine.

 

[The Shrike]

All presidents break the law.

We normalize Trump's crimes and other transgressions at our own peril.

 

[The Shrike]

It appears that many pro-impeachment folk don't realize that not impeaching today does not preclude impeaching tomorrow, . . .

We realize this. But as Mueller's investigation has ended, it's not likely that there will be any more bombshells between now and Nov. 2020.

 

[plague311]

All presidents break the law. It comes with the job. In terms of getting rid of Trump, we have another mechanism in place: next year's election.

There's a lot of truth in this, and I think voting him out would be best.

Impeachment now would be useless if we can just let him bluster, boast, and use his crimes (and the silence of the GOP) as campaign slogans. I don't want Pence in charge either, or anyone else in that chain of stupidity.

I vote for letting him talk himself into a corner and then voting him out. In the interim, the Dems should be doing nothing but focusing on passing bills and laws that help the American people. Nothing else. Stop acknowledging this fool (Trump, not Cain).

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Thank you Cain, you magnificent bastard.

Gold.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That isn't clear at all.

Yes, it is. Nuff said.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, there were some Facebook ads, but can we please just admit this was blown way out of proportion? The Koch Brothers have spent HUNDREDS of millions of dollars, and, unlike Putin, they don't have America's best interests at heart.

Good point.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Furthermore, when is the best time to impeach? One square on the 3-D chessboard is to end the impeachment hearings in the House in, say, October of 2020.

Timing will be critical. Don't give the GOP time to reject the impeachment until after the election when it will be meaningless.

Also Trump will be preoccupied crying witch hunt and trying to attack the Democrats and the impeachment committee.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All presidents break the law. It comes with the job. In terms of getting rid of Trump, we have another mechanism in place: next year's election.

Not mutually exclusive.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We normalize Trump's crimes and other transgressions at our own peril.

And this is one of the key reasons to impeach!

 

[Ambrosia]

My opinion is that, like marxism/leftism generally, anyone who still cleaves to such a demonstrably destructive, so-called ideology into adulthood is simply weak-minded.

Your opinion tells a lot about you.

Assuming that you are from the USA you should know that the line between left and right politics is shifted real far to the right in the USA.

In all (or at least all that I can think of) western democracies the Democrats in the USA would be considered centre right leaning conservatives.

In the USA over the past 40 odd years socialism, liberalism and leftism have become dirty words. The subject of a long running smear campaign to equate those words, in the minds of the public, with extreme left wing views (i.e communism)

Communism is bad, we all agree on that, but "socialism" outside of the USA has a totally different meaning. You can't even have a discussion in the US about socialised healthcare without the connotations of Americans perceived meaning of "socialism" completely poisoning the well.

Recently (I think it started around the time Obama got into office) US politics has got hyper partisan. The GOP decided back then to oppose everything Obama did on general principle. The Tea Party wing got more vocal and more powerful and because politics in America is all about winning votes to the detriment of all else, hyper partisan is the new normal. The same is happening elsewhere in the world to a lesser degree too.
Xenophobic, tribal, fear stoked politics gets headlines and media coverage and votes. (It's all about the votes) This emboldens previously disenfranchised racists and bigots and more extreme right wingers, who now also have the ability to spread their style of message further and wider thanks to social media and here we are today. The USA has Trump, the UK has Farage, France has le Pen etc etc

This is a site for critical thinking and skepticism. Generally we should not believe a thing because we are told that it is so. We should think critically about a thing and question it and weigh up evidence.

Life is rarely black and white. I'd suggest that instead of thinking along with the tribe, evaluate individual policies and ideas. Critically examine policies suggested by the "other" party. How would you feel about them if they'd been proposed by "your" party instead. Do the same with ideas from "your" party.

Going along with your tribe, only getting information from sources that support your tribe, and repeating their talking points without thinking about them first. I'd suggest that that is weak minded.