Do you mean to ask what the evidence of crimes committed are for Congress to file for impeachment?
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
IG's FISA Probe May Hamper Dems' Impeachment Plans
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThat's in the prosecutor's job description, kiddo.
He at the very least could have recommended indictment, or short of that, he could have followed the precedent of Ken Starr who clearly spelled out which crimes Bill Clinton had committed without addressing the matter of indictment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostNot in the special prosecutors job description concerning a sitting president, kiddo. And if you actually listened to Mueller, he made that exeedingly clear.
He explained that as well. You really didn't listen to the statement did you. In fairness he could not accuse the President since, according to the constitution and the DOJ guidelines, he could not be indicted and could therefore not defend himself in court. He explained that due to the law, the criminal court was not the place to try the President, that place is Congress.
In his statement today, Mueller said, "It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge," which is bull, and he knows it. The procedure, of course, is 1) The special counsel presents a clear case of criminal wrongdoing; 2) Congress uses that case to remove the president from office so that he can be held accountable; 3) The former president is formally indicted and his case is tried in court.
Again, the legal precedent for this is Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton where he unambiguously said which crimes Clinton had committed, and the evidence to support the allegations. Mueller's report, in contrast, is extraordinarily vague and wishy-washy for what's supposed to be a legal brief.
By Mueller declining to clearly spell out evidence for a crime, he is attempting to establish a scenario where a president is removed from office but never charged with a crime, which is shady business.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostDumbell, Mueller made clear why he didn't indict, or did you miss that part of his statement? It isn't up to him to indict, it was up to him to investigate, to present that to Congress and for Congress to then decide on impeachment.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostWhich apparently contradicts previous statements on his part.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI explained that in another thread:
In his statement today, Mueller said, "It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge," which is bull, and he knows it.
The procedure, of course, is 1) The special counsel presents a clear case of criminal wrongdoing; 2) Congress uses that case to remove the president from office so that he can be held accountable; 3) The former president is formally indicted and his case is tried in court.
Again, the legal precedent for this is Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton where he unambiguously said which crimes Clinton had committed, and the evidence to support the allegations. Mueller's report, in contrast, is extraordinarily vague and wishy-washy for what's supposed to be a legal brief.
By Mueller declining to clearly spell out evidence for a crime, he is attempting to establish a scenario where a president is removed from office but never charged with a crime, which is shady business.
Comment
-
Mueller just decided to egg on congress to keep the nonsense going. I think he knew what he was doing. He dragged the investigation along for 2 years without coming to any definitive decision. Then he gets up before congress, makes a convoluted speech that actually says nothing but leaves enough of a hint that Trump could have maybe somehow done something but there was no evidence. Just enough to keep congress going on their conspiracy drive, then he says he has nothing more to say and he is retiring to private life. It was a big fat middle finger to everyone. He stirred the pot then left the stage. He trolled congress.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostMueller just decided to egg on congress to keep the nonsense going. I think he knew what he was doing. He dragged the investigation along for 2 years without coming to any definitive decision. Then he gets up before congress, makes a convoluted speech that actually says nothing but leaves enough of a hint that Trump could have maybe somehow done something but there was no evidence. Just enough to keep congress going on their conspiracy drive, then he says he has nothing more to say and he is retiring to private life. It was a big fat middle finger to everyone. He stirred the pot then left the stage. He trolled congress.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostDo you mean to ask what the evidence of crimes committed are for Congress to file for impeachment?"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostReally? No evidence, Sparko? Where have you been hiding? Mueller investigated and left the evidence for Congress to make a determination on just as the Constitution requires being that a sitting President can't be indicted."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostReally? No evidence, Sparko? Where have you been hiding? Mueller investigated and left the evidence for Congress to make a determination on just as the Constitution requires being that a sitting President can't be indicted.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Actually no, a crime, an illegality, does not have to be committed for impeachment. Impeachment is not a criminal process it's a political process and high crimes and misdemeaners has to do with the Presidents behavior, actions in office, whether illegal or not. But, the evidence for actual criminal behavior, both collusion and obstruction by the president is both obvious and voluminous.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostReally? No evidence, Sparko? Where have you been hiding? Mueller investigated and left the evidence for Congress to make a determination on just as the Constitution requires being that a sitting President can't be indicted.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostActually no, a crime, an illegality, does not have to be committed for impeachment. Impeachment is not a criminal process it's a political process and high crimes and misdemeaners has to do with the Presidents behavior, actions in office, whether illegal or not.
But, the evidence for actual criminal behavior, both collusion and obstruction by the president is both obvious and voluminous.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostMueller: We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by eider, Today, 12:12 AM
|
0 responses
23 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 12:12 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 12:53 PM
|
0 responses
119 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Yesterday, 01:07 PM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 06-14-2024, 08:57 PM
|
56 responses
237 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 09:17 AM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 06-14-2024, 11:25 AM
|
51 responses
271 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 09:30 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 06-14-2024, 10:38 AM
|
14 responses
73 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
06-14-2024, 03:43 PM
|
Comment