So no need to clarify his testimony under oath then right if they’re equivalent. Why did he then?

I probably didn't explain what I meant very clearly. From Mueller's perspective they are both functionally identical. I can understand why someone less familiar with the report could interpret them differently though.

To me the more interesting comments were Mueller explicitly saying that Trump could be charged with obstruction of justice after his presidency and (although it was obvious from the report) him clearly stating that he believes Trump tried to get McGahn to create a false record because he was worried about the inquiry.

If you read the report and trust it, I'd say it's fairly evident that the sitting president of the USA committed crimes. The report does not conclude (or even seek to conclude) that he did, because it was never the intention of the investigation to do so.

Even if we accept the legal view that a serving president can't be indicted while serving, that does still not exonerate a president from criminal behavior.

There is a legal argument that some (or most depending on who you ask) of the actions committed are within the bounds of executive privilege, or what a sitting president can do. If that's the case, my personal opinion is that the War of Independence against monarchy was rather pointless and it would have been better to kiss the royal ring.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the report isn't the criminal behavior, because this was pretty well reported on. The real kicker is the incredible incompetence on display. Some of that one could glean from news reports, but the report is really damning on that.

Impeachment by the house is probably unlikely. The democrats seem opposed to it for political reasons. Even if does pass, a conviction by the senate is pretty much a guaranteed no, also for political reasons. It becomes rather moot to criticize one party over the other. The idea that election strategy is more important than oversight seems bi-partisan.

Imagine not being able to quit your job because you might be indicted for a bunch of fairly serious crimes it’s be offered openly that it’s reasonably suspicion that you did.

Kinda makes the top office look like it’s been turned into a hideout.

Who is the victim of the crime? What was the result of the crime, what was achieved?

You can believe me, or not, but I can't stand Trump, he is a national embarrassment. However, the focus on Trump breaking a rule or rules, that had virtually no impact on anything, is crying over spilled milk. I'm receptive to "rule of law" arguments, but not from the left. As the left does not seem all that concerned with rule breaking when it comes to issues they are concerned with. That's why there will be no impeachment.

I like that at least part of the obstruction claim is that the obstruction was to obstruct an investigation into.....obstruction.

There will probably be a small negative effect on the Biden and Bernie campaigns. Some people will be reminded that men (probably not woman) over 70, while still often having a good grasp of general concepts, struggle with details and specifics. Can any of you think of even two exceptions?


Of course to find one is easy.

https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Poker-...ZDTYA6P3DSZEJP

matt gaetz is one of the handful of dumbest people in congress. it comes as no surprise that a tweet of his shows up in this thread.

I thought he did really well today. Mueller was really bad, stuttering all the time, didn't seem to know what was in his own report. It doesn't seem like he was a man who could be in charge of such an important investigation...

To answer your argument, a crime is an unlawful act. Even if we take your claim at face value, that definition doesn't care.

As for victimless, I'd say that is a hopeful claim. People have lost their jobs, careers have been ruined, journalists persecuted and people have gone to jail on actions taken on behalf of the campaign candidate and later president.

And if you ignore all those, consider that the US has in recent years fallen quite dramatically on the the Economist's democracy index, largely due to reigning in the free press and becoming less transparent. A trend that became especially obvious under the Obama administration and have been doubled down on under the Trump administration. The index also notes that people have lost access to constitutional rights and that there are significant problems in the election process.

When you sprinkle that development with a campaign and president who are allowed to engage in obstruction of justice, lying to law enforcement and a congress unwilling to perform oversight, I think it is safe to say that it is not a development which is going to stop.

So I'd say there are about 330 million victims.

Outside the criminal argument, one thing many do not realize is that a modern democracy / republic is largely based on norms and tradition, not law. This is merely because laws that would cover every facet of democratic process would be too complex, and you also risk end up legitimizing loopholes. These are not norms as in "fluffy guidelines", but norms that historically directly dictate process. In practice they can have a larger impact on the introduction and upholding of law than constitutional practices. It has become clear over the last two years that the norms that uphold such processes are neither respected nor adhered to in the US anymore.

My prediction is that US trust in institutions will wane even more and partisanship will become even more rabid. Perhaps you are lucky and a generational counter-culture will save you, perhaps not.

This was the most interesting part to me.



Why wasn't Mifsud charged with a crime?

jim jordan oversaw minors systematically being sexually spied on and exploited.

lotta great heroes on the right you guys are stan'ing

one thing that didnt catch much news today.

the class action against trump, don jr, eric, and ivanka for running multiple fraudulent pyramid schemes to cheat people out of money will be going forward. this is not including the OTHER fraudulent university that the family ran that they already settled..

BS. Mueller corrected his testimony under oath that was in direct conflict with what Barr testified to under oath on May 1st.

Enjoy!

Good post.

The Democrats and their lib cheerleaders here out for blood and Trump’s scalp are too stupid to realize the best way to “win” isn’t to hector Mueller over his deference to the OLC opinion, but rather to find the common ground with Mueller, the witness: Trump and everyone around him are doddering incompetent morons that are less trustworthy than Nixon or Clinton when it comes to what matters: running the country effectively.

All the “legal” stuff is a huge red herring. Going over “the elements of obstruction” and tediously lecturing Mueller (and the audience, by extension) about how bad, no really he’s a criminal!, Trump is was a total waste of time.
This could have, should have, been political theater: A Comedy of Errors. March out all the idiots in Trump’s coterie, describe what they did, what Trump did in response, highlight how WEAK all of this makes Trump appear. He’s the Baltimore Orioles. The Democrats tried to argue OJ murdered Nicole to the jury that didn’t convict: why??????

It reminds me of that thing David Dunning once said to Justin Kruger:


"LOZL get a load of this ****ing idiot."

Another accused spy at Mar A Lago

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/pol...232973237.html

Whose Prime Minister?

Interesting take. So let's see, Mifsud sells George P a brick of cocaine, then GP sells it to the Trump campaign, where it's both snorted and resold by Manfort, Kushner, Trump Jr, and Trump himself in like 300 million dime bags. Manafort, Gates, and Flynn all then try to buy more cocaine so they too can make a bunch of cash, lie about it to investigators, and then when the DEA investigates the situation you have President Trump directing everyone to lie, destroy or tamper with evidence, tamper with witnesses, fire cops and ruin careers, create a national scandal and smear as many people as possible with lies, innuendos and made up bull****. Essentially a massive criminal conspiracy focused on cocaine trafficking with Trump and his campaign and family members right at the top of it.

But yeah, let's focus on the original coke seller and let all that other stuff go. Makes sense I guess.

Just wow. If a Democrat said that there would be anti-Semitism headlines for weeks. Oh wait, I don't have to speculate, Ilhan Omar used far less explicit anti-Semitic tropes and that was still in the news long after she realised the issue and apologised. What are the chances this makes any mainstream news and/or Trump ever apologises?

indeed, who started it? where did Misfud get it from? And you realize that's how investigations work, right? Keep going until you get to the source. you guys

Weak **** man, he was speaking to the Republican Jewish Coalition. Is that how sick some of you are that you must run to compare awful statements that are clearly antisemitic with something taken completely out of context? And they also support human rights for all, not just themselves. Defending Tlaib's and Omar's by referencing this is gross.

Trump is absolutely looking at the crowd through Gram's eyes.

I take 0 offense to that. If you are Jewish you can get citzenship in Israel. Even if that wasn't the case, its not antisemitic to me, because he has been so pro Israel, pro jews, he is an ally to us. Ilhan on the other hand seems like she hates Israel and maybe doesn't like the Jews.