DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,636
|
Post by DallasHoya on Jul 25, 2019 14:29:39 GMT -5
Uh, Lieu's a Democrat, so I guess I should have written that it's "a" rather than "the" Democrat's contention. Although it's shared by a lot of others on the left. I don't deny that the OLC opinion played a role in Mueller's determination not to make a determination. Of course it did. Again, my point is that Mueller has now made it clear that - contrary to Lieu's question - Mueller did not determine that Trump committed obstruction. I think what Barr stated to Congress was pretty clearly wrong. Fair enough... I disagree that is the prevailing opinion, so I don't think that part was that significant. But if you think that it was I could see how you would definitely see it differently. My understanding was Barr insinuated Mueller was unaffected by OLC view, and the response was people pointed out that the Mueller report contradicted that. It appears to be the prevailing opinion of the Democratic Chairman of Judiciary Committee today: “ Only the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president is saving the president from indictment." Link (emphasis added)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 14:39:43 GMT -5
Fair enough... I disagree that is the prevailing opinion, so I don't think that part was that significant. But if you think that it was I could see how you would definitely see it differently. My understanding was Barr insinuated Mueller was unaffected by OLC view, and the response was people pointed out that the Mueller report contradicted that. It appears to be the prevailing opinion of the Democratic Chairman of Judiciary Committee today: “ Only the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president is saving the president from indictment." Link (emphasis added) That's not him saying that Mueller is stating that though.. That's him looking at the evidence and giving his opinion. If a Mayor who is being investigated for a crime told a subordinate to fire the police chief/investigators, and lie about the reason why he did it. If he had knowledge that would impede the investigation into him, and did it anyway, that would appear to me to be obstruction of justice. He did it with Comey and he tried to do it with Mueller, but McGahn ignored him.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Jul 25, 2019 14:49:06 GMT -5
I think there's enough evidence to charge his campaign with conspiracy but because it's very circumstantial it'd be hard to convict... Continually asking subordinates to fire Mueller is definitely obstruction in my view, what more do you need? I'm not a criminal lawyer and I don't know the first thing about the elements of an obstruction charge. I have heard some highly qualified constitutional lawyers argue the position that if Trump had the constitutional right to fire an executive branch officer, it can't be obstruction as a matter of law. I don't know whether I agree with that or not; only that it's not crystal clear as some would like to believe. Of course a president can fire folks but not because they're investigating him... Doesn't that cross a line?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 15:13:58 GMT -5
Why do you need Mueller's opinion to determine yes or no? It doesn't change the evidence that was presented. Shouldn't you be able to look at it and come to a conclusion? I'd prefer to rely on the opinion from someone who conducted a two-year investigation that reviewed millions of pages of documents and interviewed over 500 people. And I have not read the report. Ok, that's fair, but let's look at what Mueller said in testimony, and in his report, combined with Trump's actions. 1) Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” More from the Mueller report: 2) Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.” This seems like common knowledge since everyone knew at this point the President knew he was being investigated. 3) Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]” From yesterdays testimony: I'm not a criminal lawyer either, but It seems like we're getting pretty close, if we're not there yet...
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 25, 2019 15:15:31 GMT -5
It was a nothingburger because there was nothing revealed that was not in the written report. Maybe SS can provide links to today's Wash Post that shows the Democratic/Liberal reactions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 15:19:49 GMT -5
It was a nothingburger because there was nothing revealed that was not in the written report. Maybe SS can provide links to today's Wash Post that shows the Democratic/Liberal reactions. And the report is pretty damning, so just confirming the elements of the report is enough in my view... I have a hard time believing you would have this stance if the President was a Dem. Do you find any of Trump's actions the slightest bit alarming, or is it ok for a President to do what Trump has done regardless of party affiliation?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Jul 25, 2019 15:50:53 GMT -5
It was a nothingburger because there was nothing revealed that was not in the written report. Maybe SS can provide links to today's Wash Post that shows the Democratic/Liberal reactions. And the report is pretty damning, so just confirming the elements of the report is enough in my view... I have a hard time believing you would have this stance if the President was a Dem. Do you find any of Trump's actions the slightest bit alarming, or is it ok for a President to do what Trump has done regardless of party affiliation? Of course, EasyEd EasyEd finds President Trump's actions alarming but since liberal/democrats stick these actions in the faces of right-leaning folks all the time which drives him crazy so he doesn't care all that much...
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 25, 2019 18:56:33 GMT -5
It was a nothingburger because there was nothing revealed that was not in the written report. Maybe SS can provide links to today's Wash Post that shows the Democratic/Liberal reactions. And the report is pretty damning, so just confirming the elements of the report is enough in my view... I have a hard time believing you would have this stance if the President was a Dem. Do you find any of Trump's actions the slightest bit alarming, or is it ok for a President to do what Trump has done regardless of party affiliation? I repeat, it was a nothingburger because there was nothing revealed that was not in the written report. That's all I said.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
Member is Online
|
Post by Elvado on Jul 25, 2019 19:45:52 GMT -5
Not true Easy Ed.
We learned that Mueller is likely hard of hearing and had almost nothing to do with either the investigation or the report.
We learned he does not even know what Fusion GPS is and we learned he did not even write his own statement for the May press conference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 20:15:53 GMT -5
And the report is pretty damning, so just confirming the elements of the report is enough in my view... I have a hard time believing you would have this stance if the President was a Dem. Do you find any of Trump's actions the slightest bit alarming, or is it ok for a President to do what Trump has done regardless of party affiliation? I repeat, it was a nothingburger because there was nothing revealed that was not in the written report. That's all I said. Ok Ed, I understand. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just asking your opinion. After the Barr summary I pointed out a lot of things that were bad in my view that actually ended up in the Mueller report and your response was "Guess you are more informed than Mueller." hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/825186/threadThen when I followed with it's in the Public record you basically called it fake news hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/825250/threadAll of this doesn't include the obstruction of justice elements presented in the report. So I'm just asking, with all due respect, do you find any of Trump's actions the slightest bit alarming, or is it ok for a President to do what Trump has done regardless of party affiliation?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 26, 2019 9:09:28 GMT -5
I repeat, it was a nothingburger because there was nothing revealed that was not in the written report. That's all I said. Ok Ed, I understand. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just asking your opinion. After the Barr summary I pointed out a lot of things that were bad in my view that actually ended up in the Mueller report and your response was "Guess you are more informed than Mueller." hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/825186/threadThen when I followed with it's in the Public record you basically called it fake news hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/825250/threadAll of this doesn't include the obstruction of justice elements presented in the report. So I'm just asking, with all due respect, do you find any of Trump's actions the slightest bit alarming, or is it ok for a President to do what Trump has done regardless of party affiliation? I choose not to engage in discussion with you on this subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2019 9:28:42 GMT -5
Ok Ed, I understand. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just asking your opinion. After the Barr summary I pointed out a lot of things that were bad in my view that actually ended up in the Mueller report and your response was "Guess you are more informed than Mueller." hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/825186/threadThen when I followed with it's in the Public record you basically called it fake news hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/825250/threadAll of this doesn't include the obstruction of justice elements presented in the report. So I'm just asking, with all due respect, do you find any of Trump's actions the slightest bit alarming, or is it ok for a President to do what Trump has done regardless of party affiliation? I choose not to engage in discussion with you on this subject. 👍🏾 Ok Ed. I think I know the answer anyways.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
Member is Online
|
Post by Elvado on Jul 26, 2019 9:28:49 GMT -5
I think a good long look should be taken at the cruelty of Messrs. Nadler and Schiff in forcing an obviously enfeebled Mueller to publicly perform this past week.
The man wanted no part of being there and his performance calls into question his competence to have “run” this investigation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2019 9:30:33 GMT -5
I think a good long look should be taken at the cruelty of Messrs. Nadler and Schiff in forcing an obviously enfeebled Mueller to publicly perform this past week. The man wanted no part of being there and his performance calls into question his competence to have “run” this investigation. Not really, but I guess that's what your running with now...
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,331
|
Post by tashoya on Jul 26, 2019 11:06:17 GMT -5
I think a good long look should be taken at the cruelty of Messrs. Nadler and Schiff in forcing an obviously enfeebled Mueller to publicly perform this past week. The man wanted no part of being there and his performance calls into question his competence to have “run” this investigation. He was really only there to read a report for those that didn't feel like reading it themselves. At a minimum, Mueller was able-bodied enough to handle the task of reading it. The same, apparently, can't be said for many of his questioners in the proceeding.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
Member is Online
|
Post by Elvado on Jul 26, 2019 11:59:44 GMT -5
I think a good long look should be taken at the cruelty of Messrs. Nadler and Schiff in forcing an obviously enfeebled Mueller to publicly perform this past week. The man wanted no part of being there and his performance calls into question his competence to have “run” this investigation. He was really only there to read a report for those that didn't feel like reading it themselves. At a minimum, Mueller was able-bodied enough to handle the task of reading it. The same, apparently, can't be said for many of his questioners in the proceeding. So it was always a meaningless charade? I am sorry but when the man who presided over the investigation does not know who Fusion GPS is, something is quite amiss.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,331
|
Post by tashoya on Jul 26, 2019 12:04:13 GMT -5
He was really only there to read a report for those that didn't feel like reading it themselves. At a minimum, Mueller was able-bodied enough to handle the task of reading it. The same, apparently, can't be said for many of his questioners in the proceeding. So it was always a meaningless charade? I am sorry but when the man who presided over the investigation does not know who Fusion GPS is, something is quite amiss. Nope. I think it's important that the people who weren't diligent enough to read the report actually had someone tell them what's in it.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
Member is Online
|
Post by Elvado on Jul 26, 2019 12:17:11 GMT -5
So it was always a meaningless charade? I am sorry but when the man who presided over the investigation does not know who Fusion GPS is, something is quite amiss. Nope. I think it's important that the people who weren't diligent enough to read the report actually had someone tell them what's in it. Next we can have people chew their food and breathe for them...
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,331
|
Post by tashoya on Jul 27, 2019 21:56:47 GMT -5
I choose not to engage in discussion with you on this subject. 👍🏾 Ok Ed. I think I know the answer anyways. In fairness to Ed, he's been very upfront about the fact that he puts abortion above all other issues. But I think there's a way to have that be understood and also engage on other issues. My $.02. If, however, the other stuff isn't worthy of discussion as long as everything is done to forward a pro-life agenda in Ed's estimation, I guess that's all there is to say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 20:36:33 GMT -5
New tonight: Given NYT has now made details on Russian spy public, I can now report additional info we had withheld. Asset had direct access to Vladimir Putin, including the remarkable ability to take photos of presidential documents, and had served US for more than a decade. Asset had risen to the highest levels of Russia’s national security infrastructure. US offered extraction months earlier during Obama administration, but asset refused. Asset’s information was crucial to IC assessment that Putin had directed election interference to favor Trump.
This is based on Trump and Obama administration ofcials with direct knowledge.
No wonder they felt like Trump might mess this up...
|
|