Christianity Today Op Ed

[JimL]

The precedent for this is Ken Starr who stated unequivocally that Bill Clinton broke the law. There was nothing to stop Mueller from the doing the same, if he really believed he had a case.

It's not the special prosecutors responsibility to to state whether or not a law was broken. That is the job of the House, it's called "impeachment."

To make matters worse, Mueller is a baldfaced hypocrite, claiming that he didn't want to say that the President was guilty of a crime because of "reasons", but then he included the "can not exonerate" disclaimer which deliberately implies, "Yeah, he's totally guilty."

That again is exactly what Mueller is supposed to do. He gathers evidence, the House decides whether the evidence is worthy of going to trial over, and the Senate decides guilt or innocence.

What a stand-up guy.

Exactly, he kept his personal opinion to himself leaving the rest in the hands of congress where it belongs.

And btw, Ken Starrs conclusion was not so much different than Muellers. In his report he said "That there is credible evidence that Clinton may have commited acts that are impeachable," not that they were impeachable, but that they might be. Mueller, obviously less of a political hack than Starr, remained silent regarding conlusions, due to his more ethical stance and informed understanding of the impeachment process according to the constitution and the OLC rules. Mueller left the determination as to whether to impeach or not, according to the evidence to be found in his report, in the hands of congress where it belongs.

[Mountain Man]

It's not the special prosecutors responsibility to to state whether or not a law was broken.

What do you think it is a prosecutor does, exactly?

[JimL]

What do you think it is a prosecutor does, exactly?

Special Prosecutor, MM, Special Prosecutor, which is really more aptly titled a Special Council, not a prosecutor. A Special Council is an investigator, not a prosecutor. The Prosecutors role in the case of a sitting President resides in Congress.

[Mountain Man]

Right... and his "counsel" to Congress was "I can't say he committed a crime, but I can't say he didn't commit a crime."

We really got our $30 million dollars worth, didn't we?

[Sam]

Right... and his "counsel" to Congress was "I can't say he committed a crime, but I can't say he didn't commit a crime."

We really got our $30 million dollars worth, didn't we?

The forfeitures from Manafort alone total over $35 million.

--Sam

[JimL]

Right... and his "counsel" to Congress was "I can't say he committed a crime, but I can't say he didn't commit a crime."

Again, that's correct, the Special Council doesn't indict, the House does. It's called "Impeachment."

We really got our $30 million dollars worth, didn't we?

Yes we did, unfortunately his toadie and personal protecter, the Atty Gen., swept it under the rug like any good defense attorney would do. Actually it didn't cost the taxpayers a dime, in fact more monies were recouped from those prosecuted due to the investigation than the Trump/Putin collusion investigation cost. Certainly did get our monies worth!

[Jaecp]

The forfeitures from Manafort alone total over $35 million.

--Sam

Didn't Mueller return 12 million more dollars to the treasury than he cost?

[Sam]

Didn't Mueller return 12 million more dollars to the treasury than he cost?

Not sure what's been forfeited, which assets sold, etc. but the revenue recovered from Manafort's numerous convictions is in the area of $36-$42 million, I believe, yes.

--Sam

[Jaecp]

Yeah, like, imagine if we had a special prosecutor whose job was to go after the rich people who are obviously evading taxes?

We'd be able to pay for so many social programs and it's get around the defunding of the IRS

[Tassman]

How DARE you agree with me agreeing with Sam, you... you.... you.... CAD!!!!

Yeah, McConnel and Graham are just a lot more honest about it.

https://time.com/5754646/impeachment-senate-trial/

[Cow Poke]

That remains to be seen.

So, your argument is that is refreshingly honest for the Senate Trial to be a farce with the conclusion already decided in advance by those in charge of the trial being in regular consultation with the accused.

Well, that might be the perverted drama queen version, but in the inverse is true. It's disgustingly dishonest of the Democrats to pretend they've done things decently and in order when they, in fact, have run an incredibly partisan sham.

https://time.com/5754646/impeachment-senate-trial/

And you're incredibly naive if you think Trump won't spin it that way. The whole thing is a political sham.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah, like, imagine if we had a special prosecutor whose job was to go after the rich people who are obviously evading taxes?

We'd be able to pay for so many social programs and it's get around the defunding of the IRS

[Jaecp]

Educate yourself

https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/

Dream a little higher

[Mountain Man]

Especially because rich people won't just sit there and let the government take their money. Like when New York tried to close a budget hole by raising taxes on the wealthy. In response, the wealthy moved out of state taking their money with them, and the next year, the budget hole was even bigger.

[lilpixieofterror]

Educate yourself

https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/

Dream a little higher