Jump to content
luv2 luv2 (New Member) New Member

Special Council Muller Report

Politics   (10,155 Views 541 Comments)
6,756 Visitors; 138 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 45 of Special Council Muller Report. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Who should redact the Muller’s Report?

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Who should redact the Muller’s Report?

    • Attorney General William Barr
      1
    • House Intelligence Committee
      4
    • Who Cares
      1

6 members have participated

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 04/20/2019 at 07:28 PM

Maybe, similarly to Pres. Clinton's response to a question long ago,: "It depends on what your definition of 'IS' is." [You could also substitute the word 'good'...]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who actually care about interference in our election process, the Mueller report contains some items that are easy to overlook, given the bigger picture.

One element easily overlooked, is the involvement of the UAE.

I heard an interview on Fresh Air yesterday, with David Kirkpatrick from the NY Times.

As complicated as it all is, he broke down relationships between Erik Prince and Jared Kushner and the UAE.

Prince, is of course, Betsy DeVos' brother, and founder of Blackwater.

The connection between UAE and Russia isn't obvious at first, but goes back to Iran.

Interesting stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

So, in light of the Mueller report, where are the hearings into what his team found out and what we are going to do about it?

Instead, it would seem the focus of the Democrats and the liberal media is getting Trump for wanting to, (but not actually doing), stop people from investigating him for a crime he knew he didn’t commit.

It doesn’t seem there is much concern about Russian interference.

Its more of a rhetorical question.  I think you know exactly what I meant, and lately these threads deteriorate more in quality everyday.  

I’m done for awhile.

As I've said before, I don't want impeachment to happen, the effect would be a less functional government than it already is and would add more divisiveness to an already sharply divided electorate.  Republicans would claim there are democrats who want to impeach mainly because of political differences with Trump, and they'd be right, and Democrats would claim Republicans are only opposing impeachment because they politically ally with Trump, and they'd also be right.  But there does come a point where impeachment has to happen because that's what a truly great country does when faced with a fundamentally corrupt President, and I think we might be at that point.

Russian interference is a basic threat to our sovereignty, and we have a President who traded the protection of that sovereignty for protection of himself and his inner circle, that's a level of corruption that exceeds what we should allow in the position of President.

Even with a generous benefit of the doubt, there doesn't appear to be any basis for believing that Trump wasn't concerned about the investigation, and there's plenty of reasons why he had good reason to be concerned, so I'm not buying that he just accidently acted really guilty.  He knew his campaign had been at least attempting to coordinate with the Russian government, and publically admitted to interfering with the investigation because they were looking into Russian interference and Trump campaign ties to the Russian government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

No discussion of the John Dean testimony?  😝 

 

 

I'll bite.  

While there are any number of reasons to justify impeachment, it is compelling to hear a direct comparison of Nixon's actions and those of his staff that led to impeachment, and those of Trump and his staff.  It is a bit eerie how nearly identical the circumstances, the only differences between Trump and Nixon is that there is arguably a more compelling case for impeaching Trump than there was for Nixon.

Having Dean lay this comparison was a bit of political theater, but the substance behind it is still the same.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/10/full-text-watergate-john-dean-trump-obstruction-1358916

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched much of the hearing from yesterday. I guess I don't understand why they had John Dean testifying, unless it was to serve as a punching bag for Jordan, Gohmert, and Gaetz. I suspect those 3 were playing to an audience of one, but they looked pretty silly. Especially when Gaetz brought up healthcare and Dean reminded that Nixon had a plan for that, 😂. 

I don't remember who mentioned that they should have factual not historical  witnesses, but I like how it was pointed out that many had been asked, but the White House was blocking access. 

TMB mentioned the aspersions/asparagus guy the other day, and then like magic, there he was! Impugning a former US attorney and law professor. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement
On 6/7/2019 at 7:00 PM, MunoRN said:

As I've said before, I don't want impeachment to happen, the effect would be a less functional government than it already is and would add more divisiveness to an already sharply divided electorate.  Republicans would claim there are democrats who want to impeach mainly because of political differences with Trump, and they'd be right, and Democrats would claim Republicans are only opposing impeachment because they politically ally with Trump, and they'd also be right.  But there does come a point where impeachment has to happen because that's what a truly great country does when faced with a fundamentally corrupt President, and I think we might be at that point.

Russian interference is a basic threat to our sovereignty, and we have a President who traded the protection of that sovereignty for protection of himself and his inner circle, that's a level of corruption that exceeds what we should allow in the position of President.

Even with a generous benefit of the doubt, there doesn't appear to be any basis for believing that Trump wasn't concerned about the investigation, and there's plenty of reasons why he had good reason to be concerned, so I'm not buying that he just accidently acted really guilty.  He knew his campaign had been at least attempting to coordinate with the Russian government, and publically admitted to interfering with the investigation because they were looking into Russian interference and Trump campaign ties to the Russian government.

This statement is very accurate. This is why this country we are so divided we are sticking to party lines instead of doing what is best for the United States of America.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, luv2 said:

This statement is very accurate. This is why this country we are so divided we are sticking to party lines instead of doing what is best for the United States of America.

 

Why are we divided?

The political divide in this country was heated up over a dumpster fire by Russian efforts during the 2016 election cycle.  Conservative Americans were the largest targeted group, but all of us were exposed.  The conservative leadership of Trump has continued to intentionally fan those flames of animus and division. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SC_RNDude said:

Dershowitz’s opinion:

“Prosecutors have a right to say only one thing: We have concluded there's no evidence sufficient to charge the president with Russian collusion or obstruction of justice, period. I'm taking no questions, I'm making no public report. I'm giving my findings to the attorney general.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alan-dershowitz-mueller-report-trump-russia

What a shocking opinion from Trumplandia. Nevertheless, Congress now has a constitutional obligation to impeach the president who personally owns so much evidence of criminal intent. Prosecutors can fight over who prosecutes his crimes after he's no longer in the presidency. 

If the Mueller report was about oral sex would Republicans want it read out loud in Congress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are Trumpsters so silent about the opinion of Representative Justin Amash?

He is a Republican, who believes Trump should be impeached.

Yet, Trumpsters are silent.

Have they asked themselves why Amash believes as he does?

Nah. They're too busy watching Candace Owens videos.

😝

In the meantime, Rep. Amash has left the Freedom Caucus, a group he helped to form.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

Dershowitz’s opinion:

“Prosecutors have a right to say only one thing: We have concluded there's no evidence sufficient to charge the president with Russian collusion or obstruction of justice, period. I'm taking no questions, I'm making no public report. I'm giving my findings to the attorney general.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alan-dershowitz-mueller-report-trump-russia

In a special counsel investigation the appointed special counsel not only has the right, but is required to present the findings of the investigation based on the directives given by the person appointing them.  Investigations into impeachable offenses are not limited to criminal charges and never have been. In the case of both Watergate and the Starr investigation, both were to investigate wrongdoing by the President and refer those findings to congress for consideration of impeachment, the same thing that has happened here.  

Do you disagree that impeachment should have been pursued against Nixon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×