Bogie56

Trump's Biggest Whoppers

68,195 posts in this topic

Most is not all of the (stupid) questions that Republicans want to ask Mueller are not in the report.  What happens if he answers those questions to defend the integrity of the report but fails to answer questions from the democrats?

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BrownShoes said:

 

I can’t wait for the ones with Trump in handcuffs or, alternately, in a straitjacket. I will LMFAO, and the breathe a sigh of relief.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Mueller Report ...

Vol II. Page 9

Constitutional Defenses

.... With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.

... The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no one is above the law.

... 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, we were unable to reach that judgment.

 

A clear punt!

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mr6666 said:

NBC NewsVerified account @NBCNews 4h4 hours ago

 
 

WATCH: President Trump says that he could win the 18-year Afghan War in 10 days,

because he has plans that could wipe Afghanistan off the face of the Earth and kill 10,000,000 people,

but "I don't want to go that route."

:blink:

donald%20trump%20smirk.jpg

"I'm such a humanitarian."

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some suspicious details of the Mueller testimony negotiations have come to light.   As a now private citizen Mueller would have been free to say anything but by asking the committee for a subpoena he falls under the DOJ and its guidelines.  Furthermore Mueller himself requested by letter that the DOJ provide him with the parameters of his testimony.  He received the response letter yesterday from a very low-level assistant at the DOJ which as we know restricts his testimony.  

Is he going to talk about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page who are not part of the report?  Frankly, I don't care if he does but it would show a bias.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump

 

I am pleased to announce that a deal has been struck with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy

- on a two-year Budget and Debt Ceiling, with no poison pills....

....This was a real compromise in order to give another big victory to our Great Military and Vets!

 
 

Up until Trump signs it, he can renege on the deal as he has in the past.  Depends on how hard Fox News and "conservative" Republicans come down on him.

13 hours ago, hamradio said:

When the Constitution was drawn up, there was only the original 13 colonies.  Doubt if they knew how much the country would eventually expand and the issues with immigrants from the 19th century to today. The Lewis and Clark expedition was still about 30 years away. If our fore fathers had a crystal ball, maybe it would had been worded differently.

colonies-of-north-america-in-1776-at-the

Actually there are a lot of deficiencies in the Constitution if you look at it that way.  No protections for Native Americans or African-Americans (free or slave).  Regardless, the Amendments took care of the deficiencies eventually.

However, most or at least some of the Founding Fathers already believed in what came to be known as Manifest Destiny.  The destiny of the United States to rule as much of North America as they could grab from sea to shining sea.  Note that Florida was not part of US, but not long before it became part.  Also, the Louisiana Purchase as well as those areas soon negotiated out from under British dominion.

4 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

From the Mueller Report ...

Vol II. Page 9

Constitutional Defenses

.... With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.

... The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no one is above the law.

... 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, we were unable to reach that judgment.

 

A clear punt!

Your point?  Appears he issued a report and it is up to Congress to decide on any further investigations, inquires or actions re: Trump and his campaign.  He clearly states his investigation did not reveal any evidence that the president committed a crime or obstruction of justice.  NO proof of a crime does not mean a crime was committed.

Point is the Dems are hanging a lot on Mueller's testimony which in all likelihood will prove nothing and embarass the Dems.

2 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Some suspicious details of the Mueller testimony negotiations have come to light.   As a now private citizen Mueller would have been free to say anything but by asking the committee for a subpoena he falls under the DOJ and its guidelines.  Furthermore Mueller himself requested by letter that the DOJ provide him with the parameters of his testimony.  He received the response letter yesterday from a very low-level assistant at the DOJ which as we know restricts his testimony.  

Is he going to talk about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page who are not part of the report?  Frankly, I don't care if he does but it would show a bias.

Since Mueller was acting as an employee of DOJ and the US government, he would not "have been free to say anything."  His current status is not that relevant.

What kind of bias in either talking about or not talking about Strzok and Page?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheCid said:

He clearly states his investigation did not reveal any evidence that the president committed a crime or obstruction of justice.  

He didn't say anything like that. Try re-reading what you quoted from the Mueller Report.

" 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, we were unable to reach that judgment."

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheCid said:

What kind of bias in either talking about or not talking about Strzok and Page?

The Republicans have repeatedly put forth that Strzok and Page were part of a deliberate conspiracy to remove Trump from office, and that the Mueller investigation was the tool with which they would achieve it. To give credence to this notion would show a clear bias toward the Republicans, particularly if the Democrats were not allowed to ask for any elaboration on other matters that concerned them and were not explicitly detailed in the report.

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

He didn't say anything like that. Try re-reading what you quoted from the Mueller Report.

" 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, we were unable to reach that judgment."

The post I quoted does not contain the complete information from the report.  Mueller states in it that they did not find evidence that the president committed a crime or obstruction of justice, either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheCid said:

The post I quoted does not contain the complete information from the report.  Mueller states in it that they did not find evidence that the president committed a crime or obstruction of justice, either way.

Can you quote the section where that is stated? In the manner that Bogie quoted from the report above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Can you quote the section where that is stated? In the manner that Bogie quoted from the report above?

Sorry, I don't have a copy of the report, but I do remember it from Mueller's public comments on the report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Actually it wasn't TheCid - he was quoting

When the Constitution was drawn up, there was only the original 13 colonies.

The British actually founded 14 colonies on the Atlantic coastline of North America. Officially, Nova Scotia had been a colony from the time of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, and had a tiny garrison and a Governor in Annapolis Royal, a small settlement on the Bay of Fundy. 

The same things that caused the AmRev effected Nova Scotia. Instead of a "Tea Party"  they had a "Hay Party"  In the fall of 1775 a great hay stack in Halifax ready to be sent to Boston to help feed the horses of the British was set on fire and completely destroyed. In early August a group of Nova Scotian rebels traveled to the tiny town of Machias on the border of Maine, which was at that time a section of Massachusetts colony. They were promised weapons and help from the Continental Army under George Washington in clearing the few remaining Redcoats from the two remaining garrisons in Nova Scotia. 

The assembly of the Nova Scotia Colony had not sent representatives to the Continental Congress because they were surrounded by Redcoats and imperial Sailors and any such attempt would be learned of and quashed aborning. The 14th colony was under Martial Law with every ships Captain ready, willing, and able to act as a hanging judge at the first hint of open rebellion. Therefore while the Assembly of Nova Scotia had not sent representatives to Philadelphia for either the First or Second Continental Congress it was not from lack of will, but rather fear of retaliation, as was demonstrated in many of the acts of Sabotage preformed in Halifax.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

The British actually founded 14 colonies on the Atlantic coastline of North America. Officially, Nova Scotia had been a colony from the time of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, and had a tiny garrison and a Governor in Annapolis Royal, a small settlement on the Bay of Fundy. 

 

Actually North and South Carolina were originally founded as one colony - Carolina.  Was later split into two colonies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Sorry, I don't have a copy of the report, but I do remember it from Mueller's public comments on the report.

Thanks, but I'll go by the direct quote above for now.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Sorry, I don't have a copy of the report, but I do remember it from Mueller's public comments on the report.

Your memory is off the mark here.  I have the report and it is clear that he is NOT absolving Trump from any crime of obstruction and furthermore he leaves OPEN the question of criminal conspiracy as much of the evidence had been destroyed and may come to light later and that Trump himself avoided answering most of the questions.  That is in the summation of Part One.  Get it from your library and read the summaries.  There is too much in it to type out every point you are unfamiliar with.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Since Mueller was acting as an employee of DOJ and the US government, he would not "have been free to say anything."  His current status is not that relevant.

That's not what John Dean and another constitutional lawyer had to say this morning.  His asking for a subpoena changed it.

Boy you do like to challenge everything, don't you.  :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Your memory is off the mark here.  I have the report and it is clear that he is NOT absolving Trump from any crime of obstruction and furthermore he leaves OPEN the question of criminal conspiracy as much of the evidence had been destroyed and may come to light later and that Trump himself avoided answering most of the questions.  That is in the summation of Part One.  Get it from your library and read the summaries.  There is too much in it to type out every point you are unfamiliar with.

While Mueller doesn't spell it out in black and white to me the report makes it clear the evidence points to the President committing crimes and,  as you note,  that there is evidence that is either missing or was destroyed that may have provided more collaboration of said crimes,  and that there is no Trump testimony that may also have exposed crimes by the President.

I didn't think there was any need for this hearing since to me the above is a DUH,  but if NON Trump supporters like Cid still don't get it,   maybe the hearing will enlighten them.     

Still since nothing will move GOP Senators to ditch Trump,  the end result is that the Dems still have to defeat him at the ballot box.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Your memory is off the mark here.  I have the report and it is clear that he is NOT absolving Trump from any crime of obstruction and furthermore he leaves OPEN the question of criminal conspiracy as much of the evidence had been destroyed and may come to light later and that Trump himself avoided answering most of the questions.  That is in the summation of Part One.  Get it from your library and read the summaries.  There is too much in it to type out every point you are unfamiliar with.

We're getting into semantics here.  While he did not absolve Trump of a crime, he also did NOT say he committed a crime either in the report or in his public statement after that.  Saying that is up to Congress is NOT saying there is evidence he committed a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

That's not what John Dean and another constitutional lawyer had to say this morning.  His asking for a subpoena changed it.

Boy you do like to challenge everything, don't you.  :lol:

Only when it is wrong or misleading.  And no more than you.  I served in the US Army and worked for state government and served on a city council.  As an "employee," there are a lot of things you are not free to divulge.  Heading an investigation under the DOJ is even more restrictive.

However, Mueller did solidify his position by getting them to suponea him and to have DOJ give him a letter.  But he still could have claimed not to have authority to discuss issues he deemed "not public."  I'm sure he signed the equivalent of a non-disclosure agreement when he signed on with DOJ.

Hopefully Mueller will reveal more, but I just don't believe you and others and the Dems. should place as much faith in that as you do.  I just don't see Mueller coming up with evidence that Trump knowingly committed crimes for which he could be charged in a court of law or for impeachment AND conviction.

As for John Dean, he is another paid consultant with his opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TheCid said:

We're getting into semantics here.  While he did not absolve Trump of a crime, he also did NOT say he committed a crime either in the report or in his public statement after that.  Saying that is up to Congress is NOT saying there is evidence he committed a crime.

He said he could NOT say Trump committed crime because it was against the rules to do say so he didn't go there.  But he went as far s to say that if he could clear him of these crimes he would have done so - so in other words he is NOT clear.  And yes because his hands are tied he has punted to Congress.

  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Hopefully Mueller will reveal more, but I just don't believe you and others and the Dems. should place as much faith in that as you do. 

If you have read my posts as of this day and my suspicions that Mueller is gagged you wouldn't say that I have this faith for I do not.

But I would ask him if he knows if Barr has shut down the 12 or 13 ongoing investigations to see what he says.  For instance, great swaths of the report on the Trump Tower meeting which we think we know all about are blacked out/redacted and the reason given is "Harm to Ongoing Matter."

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Hopefully Mueller will reveal more, but I just don't believe you and others and the Dems. should place as much faith in that as you do.  I just don't see Mueller coming up with evidence that Trump knowingly committed crimes for which he could be charged in a court of law or for impeachment AND conviction.

Don't misunderstand me - I don't think anything will come from Mueller's testimony. But I'm cynical and pessimistic enough at this point that I believe that if Mueller came on national television and said that there was evidence that Trump murdered 50 people, Congress would still do nothing. The Democrats would be too afraid of upsetting some "independent voters" by making Trump feel sad, and the Senate would clap if Trump urinated on the original Constitution right in front of them.

 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCid said:

As for John Dean, he is another paid consultant with his opinion.

Both Dean and the constitutional lawyer were citing case law.  It wasn't my impression that it was an 'opinion.'  Dean knows a thing or two about what government witnesses are allowed to talk about.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Both Dean and the constitutional lawyer were citing case law.  It wasn't my impression that it was an 'opinion.'  Dean knows a thing or two about what government witnesses are allowed to talk about.

As a former White House counsel, John Dean's opinion is not on the same level of any layperson..

I have a vivid memory of how his Congressional testimony led the Watergate investigations against Richard Nixon.

It's heartening to see him involved in this constitutional crisis today.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us