Trump the Autocrat.

[Mountain Man]

Or...we can take Mueller at his word. He has made clear, several times, that he interprets the DOJ/OLC policy on not indicting a sitting president seriously, and believes it extends to not even leveling an accusation of criminality that originates from the DOJ. His investigation cleared Trump of direct collusion with Russia (which many on the right appear to delight in), but could not clear him of accusations of obstruction of justice (which Mueller made clear when he said "could not exonerate," and many of those same voices on the right don't like THAT use of exonerate, but love to point to how "exonerated" Trump was from Russian collusion. Not exactly consistent.). Mueller provided the evidence, leaving it up to the one body that can make the decision on impeachment to make that decision based on the provided evidence.

And we can also see it as a sign of the neutrality Mueller brought to the investigation, a neutrality that Starr lacked.

I haven't spin like that since I watched a documentary about astronaut training.

[carpedm9587]

I know all that carpe, but thanks.

Well, that's what Nixon thought as well, but when his guilt was obvious to the public, then even the republicans were forced to oust him, or force him to resign first.

That was a different political time, my friend. Before Gingrich, Fox, Breitbart, and the T-Party.

As above, an informed public can even force the unprincipled republicans in both Houses to Impeach and oust the president, ala Nixon.

You mean the same "informed public" chanting "send her back" on the basis of a pile of steaming lies told by the president and circulated by various right wing sources? The amount of misinformation being generated about "the squad" is through the roof, and most of Trump's base is lapping it up and refusing to consider that the videos are doctored, the statements cherry-picked out of context, etc. Do you really think we have an "informed public" anymore?

Find anything, are you kidding me, carpe? Thare is an overabundence of evidence, of proof, that Trump is guilty of impeachable offences. Pelosi just wants more, wants all of it, including the financial aspect of Trumps corruption, and she want it all to be public knowledge. That would force the republicans hand. But they have more than enough to impeach Trump right now if they choose to do so.

Despite claims to the contrary here, Jim, I don't believe in assuming guilt before due process (unlike our president). Yes - there is a lot of evidence. Yes I think there is enough evidence to warrant a thorough investigation. Yes, I suspect those investigations will solidify the case and provide grounds for impeachment. But the only thing I know for certain is, "there is cause for suspicion and investigation." I'm not going to jump on the "guilty" bandwagon and scream "lock him up" until due process has occurred. We are either a nation of laws, or we're not.

Already found the criminal behavior, carpe. Did you watch the Mueller hearings, testimony? More revelations are coming whether they begin the impeachment process or not, the investigations are ongoing in either case.

Not in their entirety - I was working. And Mueller was clear in his report - he could not state (as he did with Russian Collusion) that Trump did NOT act criminally, and provided multiple scenarios in which obstruction of justice appears to have occurred. He did not state "he acted criminally," nor should he have. IF Mueller were to recommend impeachment, it should be in a closed hearing to the judiciary committee (I think - I'm not 100% sure which committee would handle that, maybe House Oversight?). Mueller has been clear from the get go that it is not his place to undermine a sitting president or leave implications of criminality. Personally, I think he's being a bit TOO scrupulous - but you have to respect the man's integrity.

Trumps base may never abandon him, they're a tad bit nutty, but that base, the ones Hillary dubbed the "basket of deplorables" isn't all that big. Trump can't win with just his base. I think there are probably even some conservatives on this site who, excluding MM of course that when the evidence becomes overwhelming, unrationalizable, will be able then to face facts and do the right, or should I say, do the left, thing.

Then I suggest you are not paying attention. Trump's "base" now encompasses the entire Republican party. His approval ratings within that party are above Reagan's. The GOP of old is gone and has been replaced by the party of Trump. Resistance to Trump within that party is negligible, and almost completely absent from any political face. There was some resistance at first, but most of them are now gone, and the rest know that if they take a position against Trump, they will be targeted, primaried, labeled RINO, and likely lose their seat in the next election. Romney is an isolated stand-out, largely because Trump is not as well liked in Utah. I guess the Mormons are the one conservative religious group not willing to sell their soul for a better economy and undoing anything Obama did.

Again, the dirt is already there, there is plenty more coming concerning this case, but also with Trumps financial dealings, which weren't, as Mueller put it, in his purview.

See my note above.

Well we will just have to disagree about that then. Pelosi is on the one hand, trying to make sure that this criminal president doesn't get 4 more years in which to destroy democracy, but she also has the principled duty as a member of Congress, not to mention the Speaker of the House, to act in the face of a criminal presidency.

Pelosi has an obligation to observe the constitution and provide congressional oversight. I understand the political issues at play, and her concerns about an impeachment "rallying the right" and playing right into Trump's hands. I repeat, investigations are not "an impeachment." They are the precursor, and she should be striking a compromise with the further left wing of the party and getting the investigations going to determine if impeachment is warranted. Public hearings with any of Trump's garbage hauled out for everyone to see. Get the tax records. He's fighting so hard to keep them out of view, there just HAS to be something there he doesn't want seen. Let's find out what it is, and have it thoroughly examined.

[rogue06]

Or...we can take Mueller at his word. He has made clear, several times, that he interprets the DOJ/OLC policy on not indicting a sitting president seriously, and believes it extends to not even leveling an accusation of criminality that originates from the DOJ. His investigation cleared Trump of direct collusion with Russia (which many on the right appear to delight in), but could not clear him of accusations of obstruction of justice (which Mueller made clear when he said "could not exonerate," and many of those same voices on the right don't like THAT use of exonerate, but love to point to how "exonerated" Trump was from Russian collusion. Not exactly consistent.). Mueller provided the evidence, leaving it up to the one body that can make the decision on impeachment to make that decision based on the provided evidence.

And we can also see it as a sign of the neutrality Mueller brought to the investigation, a neutrality that Starr lacked.

For someone who is always talking about memes you sure like to disseminate them.

[rogue06]

That was a different political time, my friend. Before the Democrats under Clinton turned character assassination into a fine art

FIFY n/c

[rogue06]

And it was a bad call...anyone who has seen Mueller speak would know he was not going to bring anything "to life." And he was there under duress to boot. The whole thing was badly conceived from the outset.

TDS rarely leads to rational thought or wise decisions.

[rogue06]

00000000000000ab000-00xz.jpg

[Cow Poke]

They knew Mueller would not go beyond the report (even though they pitched a hissy fit about the DOJ guidelines he requested and received that made that certain). They were hoping he would "bring the report to life," because "the movie is usually better than the book." (So said various leftie pundits.)

It will be GREAT, they said. It will convince the American people we are right to impeach, they said!

[Cow Poke]

That's because there was incontrovertible evidence that Bill Clinton had indeed committed at least one crime whereas with Trump Mueller and his team of rabid Democrat investigators were unable to find sufficient evidence that Trump also broke any laws.

I read an article from Newt that he believed he acted too aggressively to pursue impeachment of Clinton, and actually praises Pelosi for restraint.

I think I was too aggressive and I think both Pelosi and Tip O'Neill have handled impeachment better than I did. They deliberately took a half step back and made the Judiciary Chairman more important. I was such a large figure at the time in the Republican Party that it was hard to do. I think I would give myself bad marks.

He also points out that Starry erred by focusing too much on the sex, and too little on the actual crime.

-- and I think Starr also made a mistake because his report is too much about sex and not enough about the law -- if he had indicated the risk to women of allowing an employer to commit perjury without consequence he would have had a much stronger case.

[Cow Poke]

Right on cue...

Did you ever watch that exchange where Mueller was clueless on Fusion GPS?

Or is your intellectual curiosity only aroused when you think you can support your anti-Trump views.

[Mountain Man]

I read an article from Newt that he believed he acted too aggressively to pursue impeachment of Clinton, and actually praises Pelosi for restraint.

I suspect her "restraint" is driven largely by the fact that she knows they have no case, and that any attempt at impeachment will go down in flames.

[Cow Poke]

I suspect her "restraint" is driven largely by fact that she knows they have no case, and that any attempt at impeachment will go down in flames.

You are not usually given to such profound statements of the obvious.

It is POSSIBLE that the House could impeach, but the chances of the Senate removing have decreased from "a snowball's chance" to even less.

[rogue06]

Did you ever watch that exchange where Mueller was clueless on Fusion GPS?

Or is your intellectual curiosity only aroused when you think you can support your anti-Trump views.

Or when he couldn't remember which president appointed him as a U.S. Attorney.

Or when he was asked about collusion and struggled for a few minutes trying to explain that "collusion" wasn't the word that they used since it has no legal standing but just couldn't remember what the legal term that his report used. Finally the person interviewing interceded and helpfully offered "conspiracy."

Or when he declared that "conspiracy" isn't synonymous with "collusion" only to quickly backtrack after it was pointed out that his own report said it was.

[Cow Poke]

Or when he couldn't remember which president appointed him as a U.S. Attorney.

Or when he was asked about collusion and struggled for a few minutes trying to explain that "collusion" wasn't the word that they used since it has no legal standing but just couldn't remember what the legal term that his report used. Finally the person interviewing interceded and helpfully offered "conspiracy."

Or when he declared that "conspiracy" isn't synonymous with "collusion" only to quickly backtrack after it was pointed out that his own report said it was.

But I think the Fusion GPS thing is even more outstanding --- how could he NOT know what Fusion GPS is or was? Pretty much his entire investigation was rooted in Democrat paid opposition research from them.

Even if he didn't believe that was true, he would HAVE to have been aware that that was the allegation from so many. It makes it appear even more that he not only didn't WRITE the report, but that he was not very involved in the process himself.

(I suppose there's another possibility -- that his memory and/or cognitive issues accelerated during the report process, and became more evident as he was pushed by the Democrats into testifying)

[Mountain Man]

But I think the Fusion GPS thing is even more outstanding --- how could he NOT know what Fusion GPS is or was? Pretty much his entire investigation was rooted in Democrat paid opposition research from them.

Even if he didn't believe that was true, he would HAVE to have been aware that that was the allegation from so many. It makes it appear even more that he not only didn't WRITE the report, but that he was not very involved in the process himself.

(I suppose there's another possibility -- that his memory and/or cognitive issues accelerated during the report process, and became more evident as he was pushed by the Democrats into testifying)

At the very least, you would expect him to have at least heard about Fusion GPS in the news.

[Cow Poke]

At the very least, you would expect him to have at least heard about Fusion GPS in the news.

EGGzackly!