The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
Fresno just sucks. Ironically, people in the Central Valley would probably benefit more than most from the kind of common sense changes AOC advocates but they just go on toasting Donald Tramp with their poisoned ground water.
had the advantage this a.m., while driving back from the orthopedist’s (yes, still), to hear Mueller’s speech. I think radio is superior when compared to watching congressional hearings or political addresses. None of the clowning, funny faces, waving hands. Just the words heard as spoken.
I think I will listen to, not watch, politicical speech as much as I can as the campaign go forward. It often is the distractions which garner the most comment rather than content.
No breaking news today — no collusion and, as to obstruction, no change to that finding as well. Mueller had the misfortunate to stumble over words ( think they were corporate and cooperate). He also drank water.
Really - you heard the same thing I did? Please show in the transcript where the words "no collusion" was said.
As for obstruction - he said he wasn't allowed to indict a sitting president and laid out all of the obstruction offenses for congress basically.
jamie said:
Really - you heard the same thing I did? Please show in the transcript where the words "no collusion" was said.
If he didn't say the word "collusion", that means there's no collusion, of course.
from the transcript Vox....
“Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts, addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.“
and he didn't say there was "no" evidence of conspiracy.
I'll pose my question again - where did Mueller say "no collusion"?
I know this is useless. Obstruction was proven, it's up to congress to decide what to do in regards to it.
This speech also completely rebutted Barr's "summary" and testimony as to his explanation for why Mueller didn't produce an indictment.
unless the USA wants to rewrite our legal system, a person is innocent until proven guilty in this country. After 2 years and $30M investigations involving hundreds of investigators, the evidence was “insufficient,”
If the only ammunition in the Democrats’ arsenal is threat of impeachment based solely on wishful thinking, let the game begin. POTUS will spend the months ahead actually campaigning for re-election.
mtierney said:
unless the USA wants to rewrite our legal system, a person is innocent until proven guilty in this country....
...
Oh, is that what "Lock her up!" means?
I didn't know.
Thanks.
So Mueller is basically saying that Trump is guilty of obstruction (because that is what "not not guilty" means), but he is afraid to say it out loud, so now he wants congress to say it. Congress should subpoena him to testify and if he doesn't comply they should throw his cowardly $*** in jail for contempt of congress. What a disgrace this guy.
basil said:
So Mueller is basically saying that Trump is guilty of obstruction (because that is what "not not guilty" means), but he is afraid to say it out loud, so now he wants congress to say it. Congress should subpoena him to testify and if he doesn't comply they should throw his cowardly $*** in jail for contempt of congress. What a disgrace this guy.
You may not be Klinker, but your posts are often just as stupid !
Dennis_Seelbach said:
basil said:You may not be Klinker, but your posts are often just as stupid !
So Mueller is basically saying that Trump is guilty of obstruction (because that is what "not not guilty" means), but he is afraid to say it out loud, so now he wants congress to say it. Congress should subpoena him to testify and if he doesn't comply they should throw his cowardly $*** in jail for contempt of congress. What a disgrace this guy.
Grow up dude, you are not in high school anymore
mtierney said:
unless the USA wants to rewrite our legal system, a person is innocent until proven guilty in this country. After 2 years and $30M investigations involving hundreds of investigators, the evidence was “insufficient,”
If the only ammunition in the Democrats’ arsenal is threat of impeachment based solely on wishful thinking, let the game begin. POTUS will spend the months ahead actually campaigning for re-election.
first of all, your description of the report is incomplete. It makes it very clear that there is sufficient evidence for a charge of obstruction of justice (and this makes me wonder if you were supportive of the impeachment charges against Bill Clinton, which were far flimsier).
But second, "high crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever Congress says they are. And unethical behavior that falls short of a criminal indictment could well fall under that label. These are the words of Steve Bannon, not some far leftist, about the infamous Trump Tower meeting:
“Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad ****, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”
Anyone in Congress who feels the same as Bannon should be seriously thinking about impeachment.
mtierney said:
unless the USA wants to rewrite our legal system, a person is innocent until proven guilty in this country. After 2 years and $30M investigations involving hundreds of investigators, the evidence was “insufficient,”
If the only ammunition in the Democrats’ arsenal is threat of impeachment based solely on wishful thinking, let the game begin. POTUS will spend the months ahead actually campaigning for re-election.
This reminds me of that time James Comey said the FBI had insufficient evidence to recommend Hillary Clinton’s indictment and mtierney and all the other conservatives agreed with him and never mentioned her emails ever again.
And of course there's what Robert Mueller actually said:
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.
It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
…
The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President … explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
Mueller uses precise language, but in his own way it's the equivalent of blasting an air horn and waving a sign telling the Congress what their next step is.
ridski said:
This reminds me of that time James Comey said the FBI had insufficient evidence to recommend Hillary Clinton’s indictment and mtierney and all the other conservatives agreed with him and never mentioned her emails ever again.
But, we now know a lot more about Comey — as well as Mrs. Clinton.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
basil said:You may not be Klinker, but your posts are often just as stupid !
So Mueller is basically saying that Trump is guilty of obstruction (because that is what "not not guilty" means), but he is afraid to say it out loud, so now he wants congress to say it. Congress should subpoena him to testify and if he doesn't comply they should throw his cowardly $*** in jail for contempt of congress. What a disgrace this guy.
A twofer. Right back at you dude.
basil said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:Grow up dude, you are not in high school anymore
You may not be Klinker, but your posts are often just as stupid !
Do we know that for a fact?
mtierney said:
But....Mrs. Clinton.
Just curious about your take, as our resident defender of the indefensible, on the following article.
NYT: White House Asked Navy to Hide John McCain Warship During Trump’s Visit
mtierney said:
But, we now know a lot more about Comey — as well as Mrs. Clinton.
And one day you might believe everything you've been told about Trump, his family and his crony administration. I doubt it, because you've resigned yourself to double down on your decision to get into the handbasket with him no matter which direction he's taking it.
mtierney said:
But, we now know a lot more about Comey — as well as Mrs. Clinton.
what does this even mean?
ml1 said:
mtierney said:what does this even mean?
But, we now know a lot more about Comey — as well as Mrs. Clinton.
This is the only appropriate response to this creature, but it really should only be thought, not written. If it takes the time to respond, the response will make less sense than the original post.
Red_Barchetta said:
This is the only appropriate response to this creature, but it really should only be thought, not written. If it takes the time to respond, the response will make less sense than the original post.
Does "it" also rub the lotion on it's skin, or else "it" gets the hose again?
Meanwhile, from our Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief:
Trump to reporters on the Constitution, just now: “Read Article Two, which gives the President powers you wouldn’t believe."
Source: https://twitter.com/beschlossdc/status/1134080822573707264?s=21
nohero said:
Meanwhile, from our Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief:
Trump to reporters on the Constitution, just now: “Read Article Two, which gives the President powers you wouldn’t believe."Source: https://twitter.com/beschlossdc/status/1134080822573707264?s=21
Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief? Apparently so.
Sadly the senate concurs and possibly the SC.
Who knew the power of the purse reserved by our constitution to the house can be changed by presidential decree, such as the paying for his border wall. Also his many other executive decrees such as national security tariffs.
The senate does not object. Will the SC object? Will the house really object or simply bloviate?
ridski said:
Does "it" also rub the lotion on it's skin, or else "it" gets the hose again?
It gets the hose anyway. I have no interest in the condition of its' skin.
ridski said:
Does "it" also rub the lotion on it's skin, or else "it" gets the hose again?
Really, Ridski, how can you expect people to understand if you write in some kind of code?
How many people are in the code club? Do you wear signet rings?
Human decency and reading comprehension are not the only things with which it has no familiarity.
For Sale
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
From that link, check out the video about the Republican candidate for Senate who is practically threatening to kill AOC and Sanders.
We're in very bad times.