Anti-Trump Harvard Law prof Laurence Tribe calls Mueller hearing ‘disaster’ that helped the president
Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe, a fierce critic of President Trump, said Wednesday that former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's House Judiciary Committee hearing was a "disaster" that set back impeachment efforts.
“Much as I hate to say it, this morning’s hearing was a disaster," Tribe tweeted. "Far from breathing life into his damning report, the tired Robert Mueller sucked the life out of it. The effort to save democracy and the rule of law from this lawless president has been set back, not advanced."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/anti-trum … -president
Results from the Muller report as interpreted by the internet;
You finally did it Onusonus. A post I can agree with.
However, I do think, relative to the non-political junkie general public, this was a win for the Democrats.
I would be terribly interested to read your explanation in detail as to how this was a win for the Democrats, where the non-political junkie general public is concerned.
I deal with and talk to a great many "non-political junkies" and I can say the Mueller hearing wasn't on their radar, as in no-one even knew it was going on, nor did they care.
In general, for ALL those who are not part of the "political junkie" crew, they don't trust Congress, they don't believe Congress, and the more Congress screams about Trump, the more they will trust & believe in Trump.
Congress has had below a 10% approval rating for a loooong time.
You must be something alright....
There is a net profit of 10 million dollars due to fines and other seized property during the Mueller investigation. How much did we gain on Hillary's case? Memes are often misleading, apparently intentionally so by the looks of this one.
It's funny. If a person on the left brings up Trump and a person to the right mentions Hillary. That is bad and uncalled for.
Does the same apply to a comment from the left?
You agreed with the meme, didn't you? I merely pointed out Mueller's investigation netted a profit while Hillary's cost many millions and didn't accomplish anything.
I didn't say anything about either "being bad and uncalled for."
Had this been reversed, you would have.
That's the point.
No, the point is on top of your head...
Do you care if Trump broke the law or not?
Randy, do you care about the laws that were broken, and the overall corruption and abuse of power that fabricated the Russian Collusion investigation in the first place?
Do you care that a CIA director, FBI director, Head of the DOJ all colluded to create the impetus to try and destroy a candidate who was elected POTUS and those who supported him?
Do you care about the information that has been exposed such as the Susan Rice E-mail which proved Obama’s Involvement With DOJ/FBI During “CollusionGate”?
Do you care that it seems an entire body of senior people throughout D.C. worked to destroy the reputation and life of Donald Trump and all those around him, and set the process up to do so before he was ever sworn in as President?
If you don't care to prosecute the corruption rife in the Obama administration that created the false Russian Collusion investigation, from a fabricated dossier, or pursue any of the other corruption that was the cause of it... why would you be bothered with some BS obstruction charges that came because of a BS investigation into a false accusation?
Ken, all you're doing is speculating about crimes not charged because there's no proof. Not even a good try. Mueller listed several instances of obstruction of justice, but could not indict Trump because of the OLC ruling.
Unless you have you can prove your claims you are simply opining.
Once again, do care if Trump is a criminal or not?
Were you surprised at the amount of criminality exposed by the Mueller interview, Mike? That he refused to answer the written questions from Mueller? That he lied when he said he didn't know anything about the payoffs to the two paramours? Or that he wasn't exonerated by Mueller? Or did you already know he was a crook?
LOL! at the Fox News take, what did you expect from them?
Randy I am tempted to check Fox News for their take on these hearings.
Nah, no need. Onusonus' post covered it.
Democrats: "See, he is guilty."
Republicans; "See, he is innocent."
However, as mentioned, relative to his post, I think this was a win for the Democrats. Nothing new for 'us', but, from what I am hearing from different news sources, it was impactful for the non-political junkie general public.
It's the best we could hope for, Gus. A lot came to light for those ignorant of Mueller's report. I really do not believe the republicans want a future liberal POTUS to act as if he/she is above the law.
Mueller did find at least 10 counts of obstruction. But he shouldn't have wasted all that time and money if he wasn't going to indict a sitting President. It seems different lawyers have different views on that.
I don't think D's want to impeach, they don't have the votes. Yes, Fox tried to divert by talking about the four women of color in the House again. It's amazing how little the public in general knows about the Mueller report, it's been out for some time now. Is reading a lost art?
No Jean, I don't think reading is a lost art, I just think the political preoccupation we have is understandably not the norm of the general public.
Probably true. It's worrisome that the Russians did interfere with our election though. Shouldn't both parties be concerned about that? I realize it's summer and to most, the election is far away. Situations can change a lot by the time next Fall rolls around.
Yes Jean, both parties should be concerned about election interference. Factually I don't know that they aren't--even with the latest McConnell headlines.
But, and this has no basis other than my political cynicism, I can see the Republicans as less than enthusiastic about the issue for a couple of reasons; 1) the presented bills were Democrat sponsored and supported efforts--and the Republicans don't want the Dems to get any positive credit for anything in the run-up to the election, and, 2) would it be crazy to think that they might see future interference as beneficial to their party?
Hmm . . .
Yes, Republicans don't want Democrats to get positive credit for anything. But they are all doing a bad thing by holding up all legislation that could be helpful in other areas. It would be nice to vote them all out of office....
As far as the separation of parents and children at the border, that's squarely a Republican error, and Trump and Sessions reinterpreted the laws to be able to terrorize families so they wouldn't cross the border. There should have been a plan to track these children so they could be returned to their deported parents, some of them were infants. And they have been sneaky in moving these kids around and hiding them in different states.
Jean, to get the obvious out of the way, yes, the separation policy was a horrific mistake and the Republicans do own it. And yes, both sides are acting politically instead of responsibly.
As for the rest of your comment . . . sounds right to me.
The Russians did nothing compared to the Chinese and Saudis.
https://www.investors.com/politics/edit … en-return/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 … rms-deals/
Buying influence, the way of D.C. ... and Trump ruined it for a whole bunch of them. That's his biggest crime, interfering with the corruption and payoffs going on with D.C. lifers.
"I don't think D's want to impeach"
Of course they want to impeach; they are practically slavering and frothing at the mouth to do so. And they claim that it is for the good of the country to do so. They even have the votes to impeach, although the Senate will not vote to remove Trump from office. (Impeachment does not include any punishment, just an "indictment" so to speak).
But good for the country or not, it is not politically good for the Democratic party so they won't do it. The good of the party trumps the good/needs of the nation every time.
Some Americans dislike a liar who tells them he's building the wall, when he's not. And he is still separating children and parents on the border. It's inhumane, and there should have been a system in place to reunite these families, but they didn't think that far ahead.. I don't care if they shut the border down, I said that in another thread, if that's what it takes until we get a decent border security plan.
Not all of the D's want to impeach, Pelosi won't let them if she can stop it. It went badly for the R's when they did it to Bill Clinton, or at least for Newt Gingrich. But it is sad the good of parties trumps the needs of the nation. I think people are getting sick of it.
Shouldn't Mitch McConnell stop not letting votes come to the floor no matter what the subject is? I never got paid for a job where I did nothing, nor did you. His wife is an heir of one of the richest shipping companies in China, and she was found trying to give business to them. And McConnell gets a lot of money for KY. Those two really need to go.
We need to make sure our voting machines can't be hacked by the Russians in 2020, or that we don't have so many false videos circulating the web, and nobody is doing anything about it.
"It's inhumane, and there should have been a system in place to reunite these families, but they didn't think that far ahead"
You're right; they didn't. So we blame Trump for their failure.
"I think people are getting sick of it. "
I hope so. Trump was elected, IMO, because "we the people" are sick and tired of politicians that put themselves and their party ahead of the nation. They don't seem to have learned the lesson, though - it appears more and more likely it will need to be repeated. With a national referendum on term limits, or by simply voting them all out of office. And after the fiasco of Trump's election it just might be possible to do that, for "we the people" really are getting sick of the sewage pit known as Capital Hill.
You're never going to stop foreign interests from attempting to affect our elections, any more than we'll stop trying to affect theirs. It's up to us to isolate what is true and what is false. We'd better get cracking on learning how to set aside our own personal prejudices and view the world as it is rather than what we'd like it to be or what we think it is.
It was not a waste of time and money. By law, Mueller couldn't indict. Trump will likely get indicted after he leaves office based on the evidence that Mueller found.
My answer will be short and not so sweet. I found it very sad. Mueller's performance was sad... The Dems should have left this man alone, and let him retire with dignity. The Dems got nothing of value out of the circus, just more media coverage that in the end has shown them as being very desperate. It just seems they can't pull it together and move forward with some form of attractive agenda. With this kind of bitter attitude and the far left pushing socialism, they should realize the path they are on is to nowhere.
All and All there was nothing new gained from the hearing for either side. The only one that's life was changed by the hearing was Mueller's.
Very sad to see his performance...
They got proof from Mueller that there were many counts of collusion and obstruction. We just can't indict him right now. So when Trump keeps telling people, "No collusion, no obstruction" it's just another lie. His supporters don't care that he just makes things up as he goes along.
I'm not saying the Dems are doing anything to be proud of right now. They always eat their own, and if the Presidential hopefuls don't get it together, Trump will win again.
Actually Jane, it's unclear as to whether or not Donald can be indicted now for his crimes because the only thing that stands in the way is a flimsy DOJ Policy which I'd like to see challenged, not a law, and the Dems are doing many critically important things that we can be proud of like FIGHTING Trump's DOJ which is trying to destroy our HealthCARE System as we speak, Fighting for a Minimum Wage increase for ALL American Workers, Fighting for Women's Rights and OBSTRUCTING Bozo Trump and his republicans from GUTTING Social Security and Medicare: Don't falsely compare republicans who are trying to take everything you own away, with Democrats who are trying to enhance your life:
We are actually forced to live in an era where DEMS must fight mightily to preserve the health and financial well being of 99% of Americans and that's a testament to the Trump / Republican INSANITY:
To summarize, Nancy "POWERHOUSE" Pelosi and the new Progressive Congress are doing critically important work to HALT, Stop and OBSTRUCT further destruction of our institutions by Trump and the Communist Russian Loving Republicans:
I know the Democrats are trying hard to preserve health care, protect the environment, try to solve border issues, and more. Its a shame McConnell is blocking everything they do. I hope they are successful and stay with their goals.
Hi Jean: Nancy Pelosi and Progressive Dems are indeed accomplishing many positive things behind the scenes and thank GOD for that, it doesn't receive much notice in the news because we are forced to follow very closely the oval office maniac who exhibits almost every "Symptom of Psychopathy" and that's ALARMING:
I don't know if you've read the news, but Mitch McConnell has BLOCKED legislation which would impede Vladimir Putin's ability to STEAL another election for his little poodle named Donald, if that's not TREASON I honestly don't know what is: in addition, the Muller testimont the other day also uncovered yet another Trump Crime when Mueller said and I paraphrase that Donald was less than truthful to FBI Agents and that's called Perjury and potentially another count of OBSTRUCTION:
We certainly walked away with diddering opinions on the hearing? Did you hear Mueller correct his statement to Congressmen Lieu?
"Now, before we go to questions, I want to add a correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said Wednesday afternoon. “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, ‘You didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’”
Mueller, who had agreed with Rep. Ted Lieu in the first hearing, said he now disagreed with that framing.
“That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “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.”
One would think no crime was committed if the evidence had not been found to substantiate a crime? He could have meant no crime was found as of yet?
I guess if the congressional committee continues an investigation, they may find something Mueller did not find? But I doubt it, I would think no stone wen unturned.
Mueller specifically laid out evidence that there were at least 10 acts of obstruction of justice in the report and said that when he was interviewed the other day. I also read the report. You don't want to see or believe the truth. He just can't be indicted right now. Turn off Fox News.
I don't believe collusion is a crime, but he is guilty of that too. A President isn't supposed to get "dirt" or take information from foreign countries, it opens him up to blackmail
Wonder why he said he could not find a crime, then? Perhaps none of those 10 acts of obstruction actually rose to the level of criminality? Perhaps he could not link Trump to them?
Why would he report 10 criminal acts and then say he couldn't find any? Something seems amiss here.
Yes, collusion is a crime, but Trump appears guilty of that about as much as guilty of criminal obstruction. As no collusion (with Trump) was found your unsupported opinion that there just had to be some somewhere doesn't mean much.
Jean, you are entirely right. Don't let harrassment by Trump apologists stop you from speaking the truth.
And yes, collusion is not a crime. Nor was it even in the DOJ authorization letter for Mueller. "No collusion" is another Fox News fantasy for Trump and his supporters.
Hold on a minute Jean. I know that in the world of legalese collusion must be addressed as conspiracy, but, whether called collusion or conspiracy the report did not find "proof" of either.
Of course, if we just want to judge by our own opinions and prejudices then that is a different matter. Forget the courts and the rule of law, let's just judge by what we think.
So in essence, and legally, there was no collusion/conspiracy found. You are going to have to accept that.
And to your final point, I can also, and again, agree. Both parties are playing politics with the American public be damned.
I forgot to say it, but I know collusion is not a crime.
I understand Jean. We were bombarded by "collusion" for over two years, yet when it came to legal conclusions we had to shift gears to "coordinated conspiracy." I think for most folks the two are seen as synonymous.
"Coordinated conspiracy?" God. That's a new one on me. I guess I haven't been watching much news lately. But it gets depressing.
I gotcha Jean. Collusion/conspiracy the point remains.
According to CNN, the Mueller report makes former president obama look very bad.
“(CNN)The partisan warfare over the Mueller report will rage, but one thing cannot be denied: Former President Barack Obama looks just plain bad. On his watch, the Russians meddled in our democracy while his administration did nothing about it.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions … LrB-wt5Ltg
That's an opinion piece by a Republican. No surprise he think Obama looks bad. Anything to deflect from the real issue.
What is the real issue?
Wasn't that COLLUSION?
Wasn't it about Trump being a traitor and Russian puppet?
And he is not.
So... if we don't care to prosecute the corruption rife in the Obama administration that created the false Russian Corruption investigation, from a false dossier, or pursue any of the other corruption that was the cause of it... why would we bother with some BS obstruction charges that came because of a BS investigation into a false accusation?
Americans are smart enough to see the BS... and I love it, because the more this is pushed, the further they go with it, the more it will inspire people to get out and vote for him in 2020 rather than sit on their arses and do nothing.
This continued assault on Trump is practically insuring he gets elected even if the economy starts to tank next year... people were sick of D.C. and the sick and twisted people we have running the show in Congress before Trump, that's the biggest reason why there is a President Trump.
But the idiots don't get it in D.C., they double down, they get even more extreme, they go after Trump with more BS even after all the BS they came out with against him before the election made no difference.
Maybe they think the Green New Deal will get them the votes despite their incessant stupidity.
So what is Trump doing to stop the Russians, Mike?
It's up to Congress to do something, which they have been trying to do. It well appears M. Oconnell will not call for a vote. Not sure why the President is getting the heat? There is no indication he would not sign a bill to aid in stopping Russian interference in our elections.
bipartisan bill - https://www.lankford.senate.gov/news/pr … rs-support
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news … 16119.html
Trump doesn't want McConnell to allow the bills to be voted on, Shar. This should be plain to anyone with a lick of sense. "Moscow Mitch" knows Trump needs all the help he can get, just like last time.
I have not read or heard that Trump has stuck his nose in to prevent this bill from passing? It is my opinion the congress is at fault. This time it is Mc Connell holding the bill up. I was simply pointing out that perhaps it is not Trump, but congress. I am not pointing the finger at Trump, he, as a rule, makes a statement when he is planning to not sign a bill. This is fair play, Randy... You may be assuming too much. Why not go with the facts as they are, and not add the opinion Trump is the one stopping the progress of the bill? M. McConnell made a statement of why he won't proceed with the bill. It is his doing that the bill will not proceed. I have not heard any statement from Trump on he bill as of yet. It could be coming this week?
Really Randy, and how did you come about your knowledge of what Trump wants? I have not heard him say anything about the bill, not yet anyway.
Once again common sense has Trump winning... Better come up with some new conspiracy. You will need it.
I watched the majority of both parts of this hearing...there was a lot of questions that was diverted. And for an investigation that was supposed to be looking into Russia meddling into our election process, it was highlighted as being very one-sided.
To be honest, there was nothing that I saw or heard, that I think will do much to change anyone's previous opinions...
However, I do think pressing with impeachment will do more harm to Dem's than good.
From some of the things I have seen on various social media platforms, it appears that this may have been hurtful to the Dem's...I suppose we will see come election time.
"I watched the majority of both parts of this hearing...there was a lot of questions that was diverted. And for an investigation that was supposed to be looking into Russia meddling into our election process, it was highlighted as being very one-sided."
Dodging my question again, Mike? What is Trump doing to prevent the Russians from interfering in the next election? You were bitching about Obama's efforts so I'm sure you're not afraid to answer this simple question, bless your heart.
Do your OWN research. When you ask me a question that you can find the answer to with a little effort, I'm not going to answer.
I thought you'd figure you that one out by now.
So, impress me with your research skills, find the answers, come back, and prove your point with your own research.
Waiting to be impressed.
Have a good day.
No Mike, you open your mouth to blame Obama for Russian meddling when your hero Trump still denies they did anything. You know that and no simple excuse of me not searching for something which doesn't exist is merely deflecting because you don't have an answer.
And yes of course, I know by now you like to state opinions but you don't like to be questioned about them. You got that right!
Randy, The Mueller report is in... There was nothing really new that we did not already know.
Soon the Horowitz report will be done. It will be very interesting to see what he uncovers in regards to how the FBI, and CIA, felt the need to investigate Trump. It will be interesting to see if there were FISA irregularities. It may open a big can of worms? The Mueller report stands to open nothing but more investigations that will end at dead ends.
I think you are giving Randy too much credit.
And I think you're giving yourself too much credit, Ken. Not impressed by you either....
One ould think after all this time, and investigating, if Trump split on the sidewalk it would have been unearthed? The Dems constantly accuse, maybe time to prove their accusations. It just seems many are not their innate common sense. No impeachment, just a lot of blubbering.
Right, just blubbering. Only 37 indictments including multiple Trump aides.
Enough evidence that more than 1,000 former federal prosecutors say Trump can be indicted for obstruction after he leaves office.
All just blubbering.
Yes, correct 37 indictments, and all associates of Trump. Need I go through how many interviewd< and how much cash was spent. No need... If there was anything under the sun they could have indicted Trump on they would have recommended it be considered by the DOJ for indictment after he leaves the office. If there was anything he could be impeached on, he would be being impeached... Just time to use common sense. I posted a link to the Mueller hearing in regards to the 3 criteria question asked by Congressmen Jeffries. Mueller actually offered his view on the criteria. he had no respect for it. I suggest you read it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … ce/594634/
No, Mueller could not have indicted Trump.
He is a sitting President, and Mueller's boss already said in public that it was not possible. Your own link explains why Mueller didn't pursue an indictment.
"Mueller had decided at the outset of his report that he could not and would not charge the president with crimes, thanks to Justice Department guidance."
"could have indicted Trump on they would have recommended it be considered by the DOJ for indictment after he leaves the office.". I am very aware Mueller could not indict a sitting president, never said he could? He certainly could report any crimes he may have committed to the DOJ. he then could be indicted after he leaves office in 5 years.
Let me ask a question. If congress has a case against the president they can by law impeach him. Have missed something have they started an impeachment process? I mean would they not if they found actual indictable crimes?
You said Mueller could indict Trump: "If there was anything under the sun they could have indicted Trump...".
The House leaders can impeach Trump whenever they are ready. They have plenty of ammunition, but they are waiting for the right time.
The Republican Senate would not convict. So there is no point in starting the impeachment process yet.
But if we get a recession by the end of next year, Trump's approval will dive. The odds of an impeachment will go way up.
In the meantime, Trump will make more racist statements and offend many more people.
Not sure if you read my comment correctly?
Here is my comment the one you just replyed, and seem to be claiming I do not have a grip on the fact that Mueller could not indict a sitting president.
" If there was anything under the sun they could have indicted Trump on they would have recommended it be CONSIDERED by the DOJ for INDICTMENT AFTRE HE LEAVES OFFICE. " ONCE AGIAN I AM AWARE MUELLER COULD NOT INDICT THE PRESIDENT.
Mueller certainly had a right to list in his report any and all evidence he found that would indicate Trump may have broken any form of law. As he did. His 10 concerns in regards to obstruction appear to have not been enough for the DOJ be concerned about. In my opinion, if congress felt there were any impeachable crimes they would start an impeachment process. I am not sure why you would think they will wait and proceed at some other time? This certainly would be a dereliction of duty.
And yes my resource did explain Mueller could not and would not charge the president with crimes. I felt the article was very informative in regards to Mueller's line of thinking, and why he did not feel he could indict the president.
It was a disaster for Trump. Mueller testified Trump lied on numerous occasions and especially on the written answers he--his lawyers--bothered to answer. Mueller also agreed Trump committed at least 5 obstruction of justice infractions and also lied about his deals with Putin on the Moscow Tower Project.
If Obama had broken the law this many times, the Right would have stormed the Oval Office. Get real folks. The Russians don't care which party is in power. They only want to divide the country and you guys on the Right are falling for it.
Do you even care if the POTUS is a criminal?
Randy. Not sure if your sentiment is correct. Does it seem the Dems are the ones running around like chickens with their heads cut off? The Republicans have pretty much stayed balanced.any of us never bought into Russia Russia Russia. They certainly did try to interfere with our election. However, they did not have to do anything to divide us. That's to be expected when two sets of views are so far apart and collide.
The question was, "Do you even care if the POTUS is a criminal"? Or do you believe Mueller and his aides lied in the report? One or the other...
Randy, Trump has not committed any form of crime? Not sure why you would continue down this path? I think you need to listen in full to the Mueller hearing. There just were no crimes... Did you ever slow down and consider if congress while reading the Mueller report found Trump had crimes committed any form of a crime they would not at best start impeachment? You can be assured they went over the report with a fine-tooth comb. Just time to drop all this. Trump did not commit any form of an impeachable or indictable crime or he would have been on the hot seat. Now as I have been predicting, get ready for some real crimes... The Horowitz report is coming. Lots of proof to lots of crimes. It's all about common sense, and a sloppy trial.
"“Now, before we go to questions, I want to add a correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said Wednesday afternoon. “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, ‘You didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’”
Mueller, who had agreed with Rep. Ted Lieu in the first hearing, said he now disagreed with that framing.
“That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “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.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … ging-trump
All 3 of the criteria of obstruction of justice fit exactly 5 of the attempts by Trump. These are crimes which Mueller agreed when asked. What do you not understand about them?
One more time. Do you care if he broke the law?
Do you ever feel like you're talking to an undulating bank of opaque fog?
I am not trying to be obstinate PrettyPanther, but I think there might be a couple of reasons for that fog.
1. Is "Did not determine" the same as "Made no determination"?
In other words did Mueller truly make no determination because they couldn't be sure, or, because of the OLC? I think the fog around that 'determination' is why one side is honestly claiming no crime and the other is claiming obvious crime.
2. "Corrupt intent" - That seems to be a biggie.
Anti-Trumpers clearly see corrupt intent, even if for no other reason than Trump is Trump. Pro-Trumpers say since no crime of collusion, (yes, I know the "conspiracy" clarification), was found there can be no corrupt intent. How could there be if he had no crime to try to hide from investigation.
Speaking to the "3 points" that make 5 of his efforts an obvious obstruction crime--I don't know that Mueller affirmed that in his testimony, I don't remember--it may be that all we have to help our opinions are the offerings of pundits. It doesn't matter if it is dozens of station-proffered pundits or 1000 prosecutors - it is still an opinion and not a finding.
Until a true court or proceeding offers actual findings on these points, the real source of your fog is Vol. 2 of the Mueller report.
As things stand, I can see possible, (I am not smart enough to say "probable"), validity for Sharlee's comments. Particularly with Mueller's most recent clarification.
And just so you don't wonder about my 'fence sitting'; from what I read in the report, I could see about three of those ten instances possibly being obstruction crimes, but that is possibly - not certainly.
Mueller was asked specifically about the criteria of several of the 10, Mueller answered yes to each of the 3 criteria when questioned by the particular congresspersons. Especially of which included Don McGann's interview by Mueller's team.
He admitted Trump asked him to fire Mueller. He also said Trump ordered him to write an untrue statement to cover Trump's denial of the attempt. I mean Dam Gus, do you see why Trump is trying so hard to keep McGann from testifying?
I do see why Pres. Trump doesn't want McGann to testify. It was those "charges" that I found most likely amounting to obstruction. I missed Mueller's testimony as you indicated, but I am only surprised that he affirmed "corrupt intent," otherwise I agree.
And there is where I have a bit of fog in my own decision-making process; does "corrupt intent" require a crime? I am already leaning to agreeing with the obstruction claims, and if the criteria were simply "intent" it would be a slam-dunk for me.
But . . . the law clearly says corrupt intent, and I truly don't know if an intent can be corrupt if the 'intender' is not trying to hide a crime. I understand that is giving Pres. Trump a huge benefit of the doubt--he may have thought a crime of collusion, (yes, conspiracy), was a possible finding, and if so his intent was corrupt. But, what if, (again a huge benefit of the doubt), his intent was merely to end the investigation because he knew there was no crime? Then his intent would not be corrupt.
I am giving you some honest non-partisan thoughts here bud. It would be much easier to stand on one side of the fence, or the other and stake a position, but there is just enough ambiguity to leave the door open for either possibility.
As you can see, I am also in that "undulating fog" you spoke of.
For me it's clear. Trump's actions are impeachable offenses. Sorry, but I believe the fog is not justified in this case. Minimum standards of conduct for a president.must be maintained or our future as a nation of laws will be forever altered.
I can see that PrettyPanther. Who sets the minimum standards?
ps. I am still listening to Pink, here is where I am now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZbj_caIAUE What a talented performer!
Who sets the minimum standards?
Following the law would be a start. Beyond that, the voters, who I hope will throw his and his grifter children's sorry a$$es out the door in 2020.
(Listening now.... )
What is the Law regarding the President being investigated by his political opponents?
Who decides what information is to be reserved for the benefit of the Nation's best interests, and what can be exposed for all to see and judge?
In this "obstruction" is in the eye of the beholder, there is no clear cut obstruction in this scenario, we are talking Presidential/Executive privilege, the goal was to determine "collusion" supposedly, anything else is beyond the scope of the intended "investigation".
As for the 2020 election... the Polls have his approval ratings at 45% if you take the average.
But as was shown in the past election, these polls aren't capturing the voters that are coming out and voting accurately enough to be relied upon, and if the coming election is anything like the past election, things will be substantially better for Trump than polls suggest.
I don't believe dragging on these investigations and hearings regarding Russian Conspiracy, or Obstruction are doing the Democrats any good at all, those not firmly in the Democrats camp are sick of it, or are ignoring it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but at the end of the day the Democrats have to put someone up there that America really wants to be President, nothing else is going do for 2020... Trump's 45% is looking pretty solid.
"the goal was to determine "collusion" supposedly, anything else is beyond the scope of the intended "investigation"."
Disagree. The intended goal was to find something, anything, that could be used against the President. It was not what was presented to the public, but it was the intent.
I am well aware of your views on Trump's actions and I see no point in reiterating what has been stated dozens of times in these forums. At this point, if you still support Trump,there is pretty much nothing he can say or do to lose your support. You will either claim it is lawful or acceptable or it didn't happen as described.
We already know the majority of Americans do not think like you. Now we just have to wait to see if he once again is elected by the minority.
Yes, following the law would be a good start. At this point, whether he did that or not is still just opinion.
I understand that it seems clear to you. And I don't have enough footing to say you are wrong, but, I do think there is enough footing to say you may be wrong.
I also think your reference to minimum standards of conduct, (which I agree with), is not part of these legal determinations. Someone can be a jackass and still be innocent of a crime.
Not fog exactly. More like bovine excretion....
How crude.. But that is what I have come to expect when you're cornered... Has Trump been arrested yet? Has Congress voted on Impeachment? No, they never will. Like I said common sense can be so hard to take.
Sharlee, this is what happens when a rural school system fails to properly educate their students about American history, government or culture. Yes, when these inadequately educated individuals, with very limited ability to properly analyze facts, as well as no ability to be objective, respond we can always expect such things. Of course proving a point with research is a concept beyond them. I say let them have their delusions and enjoy the comedy. All we can say is "Bless their heart."
It is very obvious there is a hand full of users o the political forum here at HP.
It is also clear they don't appreciate other views to which they don't agree with. I think it futile to try to have any form of conversation with anyone that can't accept other views. They attack with vigor, but it is clear they can't take what is directed at them. They very rarely seem to state full facts, only bits, and pieces or they go so far overboard they drownd in their own crazy. They insult, but can't take an insult, go figure.
Kinda like when you appreciate other views so much you tell someone to "get lost"?
Yes, like that. After a while, one gets a bit tired of taking it. And it is very clear the ones giving it can't take a bit of it back. get lost is mild compared to some of the responses I have received. Guess one does not have to reply to my comments if they can't take what they hand out. I never was one to let a vague insult go unchallenged.
When a view is salted with personal insults, I consider that the person has opened an ugly door. The trouble with me, I don't do vague very well.
Mike, that is pure BS and does nothing to enhance your credibility. More succinctly, that thing about school systems was rubbish.
Is all you have for support . . . Ad hominems?
GA, thank you for providing the perfect example of an Ad hominem attack.
I suggest you worry less about what I say unless you are willing to spend equal time learning about what has been said to me. I think not doing this does nothing to enhance your credibility.
I am not sure my comment rises to the level of an ad hominem attack. I addressed a point you made - not you or your abilities. I'm sorry that you took it that way.
And I have spent equal time learning 'the other side,' I have followed all your exchanges; the most recent pertinent ones would be in the "Why do Americans Hate America" thread, and seen the level of attacks directed at you. You did very well not falling to the temptation to respond in kind.
But consider this:
". . . this is what happens when a rural school system fails to properly educate their students about American history, government or culture. Yes, when these inadequately educated individuals, with very limited ability to properly analyze facts, as well as no ability to be objective, respond we can always expect such things."
How is that any different from the attacks that were launched at you and Sharlee - except the inference being to the other end of the spectrum?
You endured a lengthy exchange with two primary protagonists calling you ignorant and saying your opinions just show your ignorance. How did you view their credibility after such exchanges?
Perhaps "BS" was a little strong, maybe I should have posted this response first, in its place. Even though the point remains the same, would that have similarly affected my credibility?
Please realize nothing written on these posts or in these forums offend or upset me in the least.
I don't take them that serious.
I view it as a word game. It is sort of a battle of wits to see if someone can get into your head or if you can get into someone else's head.
So, people can say whatever they want to me and that opens up the gate to have some fun with a battle of verbiage.
I don't take anything anyone writes to me or about me personally. If they want to engage in a war of words that's fine. I don't take it that serious. It doesn't bother me at all.
Give me your best shot, but only if you can handle what will come back at you.
Alright buddy, you asked for it. I am going to ask Brandon if I can borrow his list so I can put you on it.*
*Geesh, now I am thinking I have to add the disclaimer that the above comment was intended jokingly . . . *sigh, what are these forums coming to . . .
As if Mike would be an intellectual challenge to anyone, Gus. Never match wits with the witless...
That's cold Randy, and I would say dangerous too. I suspect that Mike might be more than up to the task of matching wits with both substance and rationality.
Quips are one thing, realistic discussions are another. My bet is with Mike.
But I do agree with your caution about matching wits with the witless.
You can't arrest or indict a seating President. That will come later after Trump leaves office.
Yes, just like Trump colluded with the Russians... What will come next is his reelection. And you are correct Mueller could not indict, he was hired to find any crimes, as he did... He indicted many, and some are in or will do time in jail... He had the authority to investigate the president for crimes. He made no determination of any crimes, or set any evidence forth that could be proved to be a crime. One is not convicted or charged with a crime unless a crime was committed. One is not arrested or accused of a crime while they are investigated to find a crime. Just does not work that way, not even for Dems...
And you have what level of education to assert this opinion?
As I said, no laws actually broken. And you are dreaming Mueller at no point agreed any laws were broken? I would be glad to see a quote or two. Plenty of info on the hearing. You may just be reading to produce what you had hoped to hear. At any rate, it's over, it's a dead issue.
Here is Mueller's testimony on 3 criteria. This should work to clarify your opinion on how Mueller felt about the 3 criteria question. The resource link below the quote. It is clear he did not ascribe to the 3 criteria Congressman Jeffries spoke of. It was the media that jumped on the 3 criteria question. They just reported it out of context. Guess you picked it up on CNN? Talk about "bovine excretion"... Randy, you must do a bit of real research. I mean being nasty can only take you so far.
Mueller Testamony - "During today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, Democratic Representative Hakeem Jeffries sought to demonstrate the disconnect by walking Mueller through the three-prong test.
“Let me refer you to page 87 and 88 of volume 2 where you conclude the attempt to remove the special counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand-jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry. Correct?” Jeffries asked.
“Yes,” Mueller said, confirming the obstructive act.
“Your report found on page 89, volume 2, that substantial evidence indicates that by June 17, the president knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who would present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury. True?” Jeffries asked.
“True,” Mueller said, confirming the nexus to an official proceeding.
Jeffries then moved on to the third element, corrupt intent, and Mueller once again effectively affirmed the point:
Jeffries: Is it fair to say the president viewed the special counsel’s investigation as adverse to his own interest?
Mueller: I think that generally is true.
Jeffries: The investigation found evidence, quote, “that the president knew that he should not have directed Don McGahn to fire the special counsel.” Correct?
Mueller: Where do you have that quote?
Jeffries: Page 90, volume 2. “There’s evidence that the president knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn,” closed quote.
Mueller: I see that. Yes, that’s accurate.
Mueller, seeing the trick, tried to cut it off. “Let me just say, if I might, I don’t subscribe necessarily to your—the way you analyzed that. I’m not saying it’s out of the ballpark, but I’m not supportive of that analytical charge,” he said.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … ce/594634/
No, they did not lie in the report. The Attornies that wrote the report were very careful not to lie. They listed ten well thought out inuendos. Ten points that they well knew could never be considered or even proven in a court of law. It' all "he said she said crap". However, it was enough to stir up hysteria and well played in the media. I do not believe Trump committed any intentional crime, I very much believe none of the ten points could be argued in a court of law. The Cohen campaign violation by paying two women off was thrown out of court two weeks ago. We are down to nine.
Trump will never be indicted on any of these points of contention. Once again another waiting game. And we sort of know the end results, now don't we? This above comment is just my opinion. As you feel Trump broke the law, I disagree, as you feel he will be indicted at some point, I don't. I do realize it's hard for you to see my point of view. It's equally hard for me to see yours. I guess it's time to come up with a little insult? I can't wait... I do know Libs just can't be wrong, so no problem if you must vent. It's become expected and gives me a good laugh.
Even if all 3 criteria of OJ are met you still believe he didn't break the law? Mueller said all 3 were met in 5 of the OJ incidents in his report.
After reading the long boring Mueller report and seeing him testify in front of congress. I don't even think he wrote the report. I will say once again I do not think Trump committed any form, of a crime he could be indicted for or impeached for.
If ur congress has a case against the president they can impeach. Have I missed something have they started an impeachment process? I mean would they not if they found actual crimes? It is their duty.
I was impressed with Mueller's refusal to be dragged into the drama. He had a job. He did it. End of story. Make of it what you will.
The guy's a lone swimmer trying to navigate through a sea of sharks and come out intact.
What it really all boils down to...
Trumps opposition, a very large swath of the media, D.C. and quite a few billionaires, spent over two years trying to convince America that Trump was guilty of heinous crimes.
After which, his approval is still sitting at 45% and half the country still believes all this is political garbage not criminal.
And most likely, they never will convince half the country he is guilty of anything more than telling those in D.C. and the media exactly what 45% or more of the country thinks of them, and their lies and political agendas.
by Scott Belford 3 hours ago
Today, September 24, 2019, for only the third time in American history, the Speaker of the House announced a formal impeachment inquiry into the actions of a President of the United States - Donald Trump. (Nixon would have been the fourth, but he resigned before it was over.)- Johnson's...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 months ago
According to the Washington Examiner, based upon the findings of the Mueller report, some Democrats such as Elijah Cummings, House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairperson, are certain that President Trump will be impeached. Yes, Democrats are pressuring Nancy Pelosi to impeach Trump...
by John 2 months ago
Prof Jonathan Turley who is not a Trump supporter gave a very reasoned and impassioned message to the house judiciary. In essence, he criticized the impeachment hearings as rushed, improperly conducted, and based on shoddy evidence. It will do more damage to our country as a whole than to just one...
by Sharlee 3 months ago
Would the current Senate vote to Impeach President Trump? I would like to hear your thoughts, please share.
by Jack Lee 21 months ago
This investigation is going off the rail.Mueller has a short memory. It was a mere 20 years ago that Clinton was impeached...Dragged the country down the road in a two years distraction...eventually lead to the attack of 9/11.This obstruction of justice, if exist, does not rise to the “high crime...
by Readmikenow 11 months ago
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is setting a high bar for impeachment of President Donald Trump, saying he is “just not worth it” even as some on her left flank clamor to start proceedings. Pelosi said in an interview with The Washington Post that “I’m not for impeachment” of...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|