15
   

Mueller: No further indictments

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 Mar, 2019 04:47 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
Forgive me if I am wrong but arnt 35 or so Trump people either in jail or on their way?

Most of them were jaywalking caliber offenses that only resulted in a couple weeks in jail.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 Mar, 2019 06:20 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Their job wasn't to indict Trump, despite what conservatives keep parroting. Their job was to investigate what happened, and hopefully we'll know soon enough.


Mueller's job was to investigate the Russian collusion allegations to see if there was probable cause to bring criminal charges against anyone involved in it. He brought probably unenforceable charges against a number of Russians on the matter, but that was it. Case over. He also charges on entirely unrelated matters, against others (probably incidental to efforts to force them to testify or perjure themselves).
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 Mar, 2019 06:24 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
Robert Mueller is suddenly not a bad guy and his team of democrat lawyers are suddenly not crooked or evil.

You can try to point out the demerits of individual Republicans if you like, but the report, as well as those of the Senate and House, have concluded that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 Mar, 2019 06:25 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
Forgive me if I am wrong but arnt 35 or so Trump people either in jail or on their way? That ought to say something about Trumps honesty which was questioned years before he became president.

Please list the indictments which relate to Trump working with Russia to fix the 2016 elections.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 Mar, 2019 06:28 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Please list the indictments which relate to Trump working with Russia to fix the 2016 elections.

I would like to see those too. He won't post any. Because there are none.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Mar, 2019 08:25 pm
@Brandon9000,
If your that interested look them up yourself. While your at it you might look up the news of Russia flying 100 armed troops into Venezuela.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 Mar, 2019 08:43 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
If your that interested look them up yourself.

Predicted no answer. The above qualifies.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Mar, 2019 06:28 am
Adam Schiff said on March 22, 2017.

'WASHINGTON — The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee claimed Wednesday evening that he has seen "more than circumstantial evidence" that associates of President Donald Trump colluded with Russia while the Kremlin attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the Ranking Member on the committee, was asked by Chuck Todd on "Meet The Press Daily" whether or not he only has a circumstantial case.

"Actually no, Chuck," he said. "I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now."

Questioned whether or not he has seen direct evidence of collusion, Schiff responded, "I don't want to get into specifics but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of an investigation."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/schiff-more-circumstantial-evidence-trump-associates-colluded-russia-n737446
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 25 Mar, 2019 07:40 am
@ggreenwald

'And as for the growing "isn't-it-time-to-move-on-dot-org" sentiment: no way. This wasn't some 2-week story. This was the single biggest story the US media fixated on for *3 years* & got the crux of it totally & completely wrong in a very damaging way. It's accountability time.'
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Mar, 2019 07:50 am
Trump’s Shamelessness Was Outside Mueller’s Jurisdiction

A demagogic president can walk right up to the edge of committing a crime, so long as he operates brazenly in public view.

Quote:
Attorney General Bill Barr’s summary of the report from Robert Mueller is only a first step in the accounting of this president’s behavior, but it is not too early to reach this conclusion: It marked a good day for some norms — but a much, much worse one for others.

A special counsel’s investigation of a president is first and foremost a mechanism for addressing strictly legal questions. But it is necessarily always more, and the investigative process and the ultimate legal and factual findings reflect, help shape and often reinforce the state of key norms — fundamental expectations of presidential conduct.

Legal process norms have mostly emerged in sound condition. The Mueller investigation was completed without, as Mr. Barr affirmed, any action rejected by the attorney general or Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general. Soon after Mr. Barr had received the Mueller report, he released a summary of the principal conclusions. So far, the attorney general is proceeding in compliance with the special counsel rules for congressional notification and a more general, “public interest” release. And he has pledged additional transparency.

The attorney general’s involvement in the final decision on potential obstruction of justice is more questionable. After all, Mr. Barr’s views were well known to the White House on this topic: He did not bring an open mind to it.

Still, the Senate confirmed him, and he was clear that he would not recuse himself on these grounds. And in reaching a prosecutorial judgment on obstruction, Mr. Barr consulted Mr. Rosenstein, who concurred in the decision to decline prosecution; he also claims to have engaged the Office of Legal Counsel.

These process norms fared well. But the Mueller report marked a low point for more substantive norms of presidential conduct. It shows that a demagogic president like Donald Trump can devalue or even depart radically from key norms, just short of committing chargeable crimes, so long as he operates mostly and brazenly in full public view. For a demagogue, shamelessness is its own reward.

Such a president can have openly, actively encouraged and welcomed foreign government support for his political campaigns, and his campaign can reinforce the point in direct communications with that government’s representatives. The Barr summary reveals that the special counsel uncovered not just a couple but “multiple offers” of support from the Russians, and yet neither Mr. Trump nor his campaign reported them to counterintelligence or law enforcement authorities. Mr. Trump went further still — while in office, he dictated a statement for his son and campaign aide, Donald Trump Jr., that falsely represented the purposes of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between senior campaign representatives and a Kremlin-connected representative (and others) offering assistance in the 2016 election.

Mr. Mueller proceeded cautiously on this and other evidence. Federal campaign finance laws prohibit soliciting and receiving support from foreign nationals or “substantially assisting” them in their efforts to influence an American election, but Mr. Mueller concluded that the rules as applied to the facts did not support a criminal prosecution. This was a conservative judgment — but it underscores again the urgent work norms must do if the law is inadequate to the task.

Similarly, the letter notes that much of the president’s obstructive behavior during the investigation was in “public view.” This was apparently a significant consideration in the decision by Mr. Barr and Mr. Rosenstein not to prosecute (along with the determination that there was no underlying “collusion” legal offense). Here, once again, the president who is a demagogue — who is fully prepared to flaunt well-established, vitally important expectations about how American presidents faithfully execute the laws — can safely bring self-interested, self-protective pressure on the Department of Justice and undermine its public standing and authority.

In this case, the president’s all-out assault on the department, the special counsel and the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not prevent Mr. Mueller from completing his investigation and reporting his conclusions (or his reasons, in the case of obstruction, for not reaching a conclusion and leaving it to the attorney general to decide). Who is to say that the next demagogue to occupy the Oval Office won’t follow this same path but take it one or more steps further? Mr. Trump has shown the way.

For the classic demagogue, so feared by the founders, the only question is what works to serve his own interests. He will do, and he will say, what it takes, weighing only the personal costs against the personal benefits. In the polarized politics of the day, Mr. Trump is bolstered in his demagogic conduct by a passionately loyal “base” impressed by his norm-busting.

So, even before other facts emerge, the urgent question is how to revive and even strengthen the norms. We have reason to salute Mr. Mueller: As a prosecutor, he did his job conscientiously, and the process generally worked as designed. But we now have cause to worry about the future of the norms that Mr. Trump could trash on a calculation that he could get away with it.

It was a good moment for the demagogue.

nyt/bob bauer
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 25 Mar, 2019 10:11 am
@hightor,
Quote:
A demagogic president can walk right up to the edge of committing a crime, so long as he operates brazenly in public view.

When is he whining going to stop? We do have a country that needs to get things done. Democrats do not give a ****. Journalists (right Laughing) do not give a ****. The NYT is ****.


0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 25 Mar, 2019 10:14 am
Jimmy Dore checks in on Maddow who had to rush to a network affiliate from her trout fishing trip to respond to the Mueller findings....and he throws in a vid clip of Mueller lying to congress on WMD just for good measure, pure gold!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qe7A58TEms
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 25 Mar, 2019 10:41 am
@Brand X,
Quote:
Mueller lying to congress on WMD

So your Golden boy is no longer golden? You people are a joke, and would no doubt sell your own mother for power. People have just stopped listening.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 25 Mar, 2019 02:15 pm
@maporsche,
Quote:
Their job wasn't to indict Trump, despite

You sure about that? Have you listened to anything that Brennan was saying for the last two years? Brennan, Schiff and Swalwell have been on the news talking about the "proof" they saw and how the indictments are coming, they all openly called Trump a traitor... Don't piss on my show and tell me it's raining, you know damn well what the aim of the "investigation" was about, to remove Trump from office by any means necessary. The leftist MSM is in full spin mode right now, trying to cover the lies they were telling for 2 years.

maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Mar, 2019 02:25 pm
@Baldimo,
I'm absolutely positive about that. 100%.

Here is the mandate from the very republicans who started the investigation. Can you tell me where any of the people you mentioned have changed the original mandate of the Special Counsel?

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/17/us/politics/image-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia/image-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia-articleLarge.gif

georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 25 Mar, 2019 02:48 pm
@hightor,
It appears to me that the author of the NYT piece you quoted is very deliberately vague about just what "norms" he is applying here. Mueller was tasked to investigate the assigned matters relative to the "norms" established in law. On those his findings are quite clear. Anything apart from these legal norms is outside the domain of the Special Counsel's investigation. That abundantly evident fact should not surprise anyone - even NYT writers.

It appears the author wishes to prosecute the President for being loud, outspoken and at times a bit vulgar in defending himself from what were clearly partly politically motivated attacks. None of these things are illegal and many of them are indeed occasionally required of effective leaders (Though I'll readily concede that Trump often goes beyond the largely social "norms" in those areas. )
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 25 Mar, 2019 02:57 pm
@maporsche,
I will point you again towards Brennan former head of CIA and his comments, Adam Schiff and his comments and claims, and Eric Swallwel on his comments and claims. Each one of these people were given hours upon hours of time on television claiming that Trump was a traitor and that they had seen the "evidence".

What you are doing here is ignoring what has been claimed for the last 2 years in some lame attempt to be seen as "neutral", no one is buying it.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Mar, 2019 03:09 pm
@Baldimo,
So, you're telling me that none of those guys mentioned changed the mandate of the special counsel? And that same mandate doesn't mention anything about being required to make a case against Trump? Cool.

The Mueller report was ran by Robert Mueller and his team; not Brennan, Schiff, or Swallwel. Lots of people say lots of ****, but Mueller and his team appear so far to have not been swayed by any of it and appear to have done their job.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 25 Mar, 2019 04:36 pm
@maporsche,
Quote:
So, you're telling me that none of those guys mentioned changed the mandate of the special counsel? And that same mandate doesn't mention anything about being required to make a case against Trump? Cool.

I'm not talking about the mandate, I'm talking about how they along with the MSM shaped the public's perception of the investigation and pushed a plainly false narrative.

Quote:
The Mueller report was ran by Robert Mueller and his team; not Brennan, Schiff, or Swallwel. Lots of people say lots of ****, but Mueller and his team appear so far to have not been swayed by any of it and appear to have done their job.

Do you not understand the BS public perception they were pushing? We have Rex/Cobbler and a few others on this site who still think there was something to the hookers and the pissing tape...

Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 25 Mar, 2019 07:10 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
If your that interested look them up yourself. While your at it you might look up the news of Russia flying 100 armed troops into Venezuela.

Non-answer. Which of those indictments involved Trump colluding with the Russians to fix the election?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/10/2021 at 03:05:35