I don't see how you conclude, from those red words, that it's a "nothing-burger". If Mueller actually believed Trump was guilty of a crime, those words tell us that he would not state it out loud.
When citizens of OTHER countries apply for 'asylum' in the United States using completely groundless and/or fraudulent, unsupportable claims of 'threats to their lives by a hostile government' in order, that is BULLSHIT and should be rejected just as soon as the bullshit coefficient is determined! Or, do you think that just any foreign peasant (and his entire entourage) who wanders across our border yelling, "Asilo!" should immediately be enrolled in a lengthy process -- on OUR soil -- providing him (and the entire entourage) with housing, food, clothing, medical services, legal council, et al, for indefinite periods of time?! That, too, is BULLSHIT. Please, Te, tell me that you aren't one of these who wants to see our borders thrown down to even MORE 'caravans' of tens of thousands of peasant-hordes from Mexico and Central America. Will Joe Biden? I sure as hell hope not -- we can't afford all the CITIZEN bums and beggars we have littering the cities of America already! . "ASILO! ASILO!" -- "Looks like we'd better print even more money!"
OK, Asherah... then exactly WHAT WAS the point of the "Mueller Investigation" in the first place? To find 'Easter eggs'...? To create tantalizing, labyrinthine, jurisprudential intrigues...? Maybe, like too many Americans, my attention-span has eroded to the point where I'm just about one level up from being a moron, but in my admittedly simple mind, either Mueller found something CRIMINAL, or, he DIDN'T. There may be fifty-thousand 'shades of gray' in there, too, but I fear I no longer have the mental breadth or the stoic patience necessary to appreciate them.... Have a lovely Sunday, Asherah. The closer we get to January 20th, the more I'm finding that I enjoy 'pandemic' isolation!
Pollycy- I discussed that in this post: .....I put this here so you can follow the link later, but please set that aside for the moment and respond directly to what I said about the words of Mueller that you quoted. TBH, I'm pretty sure I brought all this to your attention previously, so I'd like to take it one step at a time.
I certainly hope he does. It will never hold up, which he won't discover until after he is President.
To investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and to investigate contacts and coordination between the trump campaign and Russians. How do you not know this? It was spelled out in the mandate. By the way: he found mountains of all of that.
Truthfully, the only "mountains" of connections/collusion there was in the 2016 election was between foreign agents (Russia, British, whatever) and Hillary Clinton's DEMOCRAT NATIONAL COMMITTEE. Ooh, but the super-inquisitor, Robert Mueller, all the attorneys on his staff, all the millions of dollars spent on 'investigation, and over two years of effort somehow TOTALLY MISSED THAT! Amazing! Hint: the Russian FSB is good -- so VERY good at what it does that they probably knew what the pH factor of Hillary Clinton's URINE was at any point during the 2016 campaign. A real Russian intelligence agency, the FSB, run by a mastermind like Alexander Bortnikov, would not need to resort to silly, half-assed, 'playground' games like those alleged by the Democrat Party, by British 'agent', Christopher Steele, or by a Comey-lead FBI.... . "No fair! Steele gets to be 'James Bond', but I get FIRED...?!"
Personnally, I'm mostly interested in establishing once and for all that Presidents are not above the law, and that there are limits to the pardon power.
I'm feeling ignored. I don't agree with everything you said here, but I do agree Trump will not be indicted for conspiring with the Russians. His vulnerability is to obstruction. I'd appreciate a response to my last comment to you.
I've read and re-read your Post #102, and if you are so certain that Trump did deliberately 'obstruct' the Mueller investigation, won't he be eligible for charges to be brought against him for that once he's no longer a 'sitting president', at 12:01 PM, January 20th? Then, in your Post #126, you stated, "I don't see how you conclude, from those red words, that it's a "nothing-burger". If Mueller actually believed Trump was guilty of a crime, those words tell us that he would not state it out loud." That is an excellent example of why I'm having a hard time 'getting my arms around' the purpose and 'thrust' of the Mueller investigation and its results. WHY would Mueller choose to say that if he believed Trump was guilty of a crime, that he (Mueller) wouldn't come right out and SAY that...?!" Did Mueller refuse to say Trump committed a crime only because Trump was 'a sitting president'...? Did Mueller refuse to say Trump committed a crime because there wasn't sufficient evidence to make a case that Trump actually did commit a crime...? At some point, Mueller had to 'stop dancing', and for most of us, he did! No charges were brought against Trump or anyone in his campaign or his administration! But will charges be brought the moment that Trump is no longer 'a sitting president'? What a maze this has turned into... either Trump's eligible to be charged, tried, and sentenced for 'obstruction', or, violating good taste by wearing a red tie too often, or SOMETHING -- or he's not. I suppose we won't know for sure until ol' Joe is sworn in....
Yes - he did EXACTLY that: First, he states that he determined not to make a prosecutorial judgment: "a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment." Then he explains why: "The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of 'the constitutional separation of powers.' " That is the principle he was bound under because he was a part of the Justice Department, as he says next: "Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct." Then he goes on to say: "...while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available." This is all taken from page 1-2 of Volume 2 of the Mueller Report.
"No reasonable people or anyone of the stature of an Augustine or LeMaitre would tell you that Jack really climbed a beanstalk. They would be insane. " That is laughable, and i have a hard time believing that you believe something so laughably absurd and are not merely saying it for attention. If you do believe it, you can save your energy and stop trying to say it to me.
Quote meant to be referenced: "Truthfully, the only "mountains" of connections/collusion there was in the 2016 election was between foreign agents (Russia, British, whatever) and Hillary Clinton's DEMOCRAT NATIONAL COMMITTEE."
What truly baffles me is that this is allowed in the USA, yet they still claim to be a free and democratic people.
Are you trying to tell me that YOU have ZERO RECOLLECTION of St Reagan's Iran-Contra SCAM, Cy? St Reagan turned THREE central American nations into "****-holes" where CRIMINALS are now in charge. These Asylum seekers are the VICTIMS of what St Reagan did in OUR NAME! We DO have a RESPONSIBILITY for what happened to them and to PRETEND otherwise is DENIALISM of factually documented history. If YOU seriously want to stop these Asylum seekers then DO something PRACTICAL to put an END to the nefarious rule of those Crime Lords. FACTS matter!
OK, good! Then, we finally have an 'anchor-point' in facts, thanks to you, and therefore we may expect that one of three things is going to happen: 1. Trump will resign sometime between now and January 20th and let Mike Pence become president... whereupon Pence issues a pardon to Trump. 2. Trump tries to pardon himself, which sets off a constitutional crisis that is quickly resolved by the Supreme Court saying, "No F-n' way, Mister President!" 3. Trump does nothing, and Joe Biden gets sworn-in on January 20th... but soon afterwards, Biden's Attorney General (Sally Yates?) issues indictment(s) against Donald Trump for crimes -- which now are recognized as 'full-blown', not-beating-around-the-bush CRIMES because Trump is no longer the president. Am I close, or is there some other ARCANE, DEEPLY-NESTED, JURISPRUDENTIAL PRECEPT INVOLVED that didn't occur to me...?
President Reagan's last day in office was in 1989, Te. But you want to say its perfectly fine for CARAVANS of hordes of illegal aliens to come pouring across our southern border -- TODAY -- because somehow the "Iran/Contra Affair" of forty years ago put 'criminals' in charge of Central American governments...? Got any proof of that, any evidence of that, or anything but your own opinion...? If you dig into history, Te, you'll see that the United States of America had been deeply (DEEPLY) involved in the 'affairs' of Central America since at least the Spanish-American War over Cuba, in 1898! Did you never read about the "Banana Wars" that went on between the U. S. and various Central American countries from 1898 until the 1930's...? Did you never read anything about the dynasty of tyrants begun by Anastasio Somoza...? Here... let me give you just two links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars https://www.thoughtco.com/latin-american-dictators-2136482 Truth? Central America has always been an aggregation of 'shithole' countries, ruled by tyrannical dictators, from the earliest days of the Spanish invasions and enslavement of native populations throughout nearly all of Mexico, Central America, and deep into South America, too. But in your mind, somehow none of this was a reality before the presidency of Ronald Reagan...?! Now, please consider returning with me to the thread topic, which concerns the possibility of Donald Trump pardoning himself....
That's about right. The only other deep-nested precept is that they will only indict if they believe they have a strong argument for corrupt intent (that would be a fun discussion), AND IF the bosses (probably up to the Attorney General) sign off. AG could block it because it looks bad to go after a political opponent. I hope you see that I am trying to be objective. I've just been saying that he's vulnerable to an indictment, and that would be a good reason to pardon himself.
I'm still trying to understand the 'raison d'être' for your 'beanstalk'-preamble schtick. If you know anything (ANYTHING) about the great "Trump-Russia Collusion Affair", the "Steele Dossier", or the rotten, underhanded way that careerist Hillary-stooge, Jimmy Comey, deliberately let her totally 'off the hook' for breaking the law governing classified information, you'd know a lot more than you evidently do.... You suggest that I not waste my energy trying to convince you of anything, and I am more than willing to comply. I wouldn't expect to be able to drive a nail into a solid slab of onyx, either.... But, just so you don't embarrass yourself so obviously in future posts, I suggest that you become familiar with at least two things: 1. "SCIF" (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) Hint: Hillary didn't use one with her 'private server' which did have classified information on it, which was sent and received "in the clear". 2. "FSB" (the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation) Hint: Run by extraordinarily gifted, experienced, and capable intelligence agency professionals, headed by genius Director, Alexander Bortnikov. Welcome to Political Forum, by the way... I see you're newly-registered. We have a lively 'trench-warfare' going on here between the various political factions, and it's always informative and entertaining.
I don't "follow" many people on the Forum anymore, but I will add you to the list of people whose opinions matter to me! I have always admired posters who are FACT-BASED and "objective" (our departed Forum friend @Iriemon comes immediately to mind). We probably hold quite a few dissimilar political viewpoints, and that's actually something I prize highly. I can LEARN a LOT from those I may disagree with, and it's always a pleasant surprise to find areas in which we can agree -- and to explore the reasons for why we think what we think. Cheers!
Thank you, I feel exactly the same. I'd much rather have an intelligent discussion with someone I disagree with, than a high-fiving mutual admiration interaction with someone I agree with.
more nonsense... this is daytime television stuff, the mainstream media have sunk lower than the Bold and the Beautiful
I'd appreciate it if you could explain what it is that's nonsense. If I made a serious mistake, I'd like to know what it is.
