Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
25 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (3 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,077 Year: 22,113/19,786 Month: 676/1,834 Week: 176/500 Day: 4/69 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Mueller Report On-Line and Downloadable
jar
Member
Posts: 31771
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 31 of 43 (867792)
12-03-2019 10:21 AM


On tomorrow and tomorrow
Does anyone still think that if on the very very unlikely chance il Donald was Impeached that he would accept that and step down? Do you think there is sufficient support in the Military, Law Enforcement, the Congress and in the Justice Department that would side with il Donald and simply refuse to acknowledge that he was not still POTUS?

Does anyone think that the Senate NOT Impeaching il Donald would simply be validation that il Donald really could shoot someone in front of Trump Tower at midday midweek and not lose ANY support?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by vimesey, posted 12-03-2019 12:08 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 33 by AZPaul3, posted 12-03-2019 12:25 PM jar has responded
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 12-03-2019 2:54 PM jar has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1017
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 32 of 43 (867798)
12-03-2019 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
12-03-2019 10:21 AM


Re: On tomorrow and tomorrow
I've said before - he could eat a baby on the front lawn of the Whitehouse, in front of TV cameras, and his supporters would still dismiss it as fake news.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 12-03-2019 10:21 AM jar has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 33 of 43 (867801)
12-03-2019 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
12-03-2019 10:21 AM


Re: On tomorrow and tomorrow
Does anyone still think that if on the very very unlikely chance il Donald was Impeached that he would accept that and step down?

Pedantic. Trump will be impeached by the House, but it is doubtful he would be convicted by the Senate.

Your question is: if Trump is convicted by the Senate would he accept that and step down?

Doesn't matter what Trump says or does at that point. As soon as the Senate says "guilty" he is no longer president, automatically without any delay or appeal, and Mike Pence becomes president.

If you were president would *you* let someone else occupy your Oval Office? If you were president, legally, constitutionally, officially, would you let someone else usurp your authority? Do you think Mike Pence lacks the political ego that he would say "Naw, I don't want the job,"?

Not going to happen. First official act of Pence Presidency would be to order US marshals to remove the usurper, bodily if necessary. And they would comply as is their duty, their pledge, their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Does anyone think that the Senate NOT Impeaching il Donald would simply be validation that il Donald really could shoot someone in front of Trump Tower at midday midweek and not lose ANY support?

Lose support from the die hard Trumpettes? Who cares. From the general public ... absurd.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 12-03-2019 10:21 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 12-03-2019 12:55 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31771
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 34 of 43 (867803)
12-03-2019 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by AZPaul3
12-03-2019 12:25 PM


Re: On tomorrow and tomorrow
AZPaul3 writes:

First official act of Pence Presidency would be to order US marshals to remove the usurper, bodily if necessary. And they would comply as is their duty, their pledge, their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I am less certain that they would do that.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by AZPaul3, posted 12-03-2019 12:25 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by AZPaul3, posted 12-03-2019 12:57 PM jar has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4785
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 35 of 43 (867804)
12-03-2019 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
12-03-2019 12:55 PM


Re: On tomorrow and tomorrow
I'm not.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 12-03-2019 12:55 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33886
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 36 of 43 (867812)
12-03-2019 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
12-03-2019 10:21 AM


Re: On tomorrow and tomorrow
Of course he would step down, he honors the rule of law even if that law is evil as such an impeachment would be. Accept it as fair. no of course not, not in the sense of treating it as righteous and honest. He'd probably send out a storm of tweets. Because it wouldn't be fair and honest, it would be merely the result of the endless invented excuses to get him out of office that the lerft has concocted and lied about for over three years now.

The Senate is certain not to impeach because they are sane compared to the House, but if they did yes he would leave and Pence wouldn't have to do anything. They would shake hands and exchange woeful looks over the state of the country that it should come to this but resist it, no, of course not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 12-03-2019 10:21 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2019 4:47 PM Faith has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 37 of 43 (867822)
12-03-2019 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
12-02-2019 10:29 PM


Re: Moderator On Duty
Faith writes:

Could you explain what you mean by "persisting in posting messages with asterisks?" Usually the words are quite neutral in themselves and may be necessary to expressing something neutral and simple. Are you saying we can't use them this way after you've taken away words for how they were used somewhere else? I'm serious, I'm having a problem understanding this. I usually don't know what post the word first occurred in you found to be offensive.

Most words have not just multiple definitions but also a multitude of appropriate contexts. Taking away words from those who use denigration and insult is intended to be a very significant inconvenience, one that discourages people from continuing in this way.

For example, in Message 232 of the Is The World Getting Better Or Worse? thread you wrote:

Faith writes:

You Lefties MUST have somebody to blame, right?. You are very good at saying nothing and blaming me for your illusions.

If someone were to type this into a message in this thread then I would take away the words "left*", "blam*" and "illusion*" (* is the wildcard character, meaning any number of any characters). If the person attempted to avoid the disallowed words, for example by typing "lleft" then I would change the words in their list to include regular expressions. For example, "left" would become "l\S*e\S*f\S*t\S*".

Taking away people's words is intended as a more gentle reminder than suspension that they're crossing the boundaries of the Forum Guidelines. I gather from what people have posted about it that they think it a poor moderation tool, but I am not ready to discard it yet. One possibility I'm considering is to simply not allow the posting of messages that contain disallowed words. This way the person writing the message knows from the asterisks what words must be changed before they can post their message, and no messages containing asterisks will ever actually be posted.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 12-02-2019 10:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20327
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 38 of 43 (867825)
12-03-2019 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
12-03-2019 2:54 PM


On Trump leaving according to fantasy
Of course he would step down, he honors the rule of law ...

Nope. He breaks the law every day that he gets profits from his companies that he failed to distance himself from.

Especially Trump Tower with foreign government representatives renting luxury suites while waiting to get an audience.

Every time he plays golf on one of his golf courses and pays himself for the privilege plus the cost of admission for the secret service. He charges us, the taxpayers so he can play.

It's called emoluments.

... even if that law is evil as such an impeachment would be. ...

Was the impeachment of Clinton "evil"? Nixon? The charges he could face could be worse than both Clinton and Nixon were charged with, but he would face those charges as well (obstruction of justice, abuse of power, lying to congress). What could be new would be endangering national security by weakening our relationship with Ukraine, his abandonment of the Kurds in Syria, weakening NATO, and helping /being weak on Russia.

... Accept it as fair. no of course not, not in the sense of treating it as righteous and honest. ...

Trumpty doesn't know what either of those words mean. He has demonstrated that multiple times.

The hearings to date have been as rightious, honest and fair as the impeachment of Cliniton, the impeachment of Nixon and the numerous hearings on Bengazi with Hillary.

That means you can't complain about it if you think those were righteous, honest and fair.

... Because it wouldn't be fair and honest, it would be merely the result of the endless invented excuses to get him out of office that the lerft has concocted and lied about for over three years now.

Charges we have evidence for, as much evidence or more than was ever found for Nixon, Clinton or Hillary.

The Senate is certain not to impeach because they are sane compared to the House, ...

You mean convict, not impeach.

And no they are not saner than the house, they are craven shadows of what used to pass for senators. The only thing that might move them to serve the country would be large crowds of people protesting to get them to convict or lose their seats.

... but if they did yes he would leave and Pence wouldn't have to do anything. They would shake hands and exchange woeful looks over the state of the country that it should come to this but resist it, no, of course not.

The state of the country that Trump has reduced it to, woeful that they couldn't wreck it more. Still leaving Pense to do further damage in the brief time he might have in office.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 12-03-2019 2:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 12-03-2019 5:17 PM RAZD has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 39 of 43 (867826)
12-03-2019 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
12-03-2019 8:09 AM


Re: if this were Obama instead of Trump, what would you say.
I'm moderating this thread and hence cannot participate. This post only provides some additional information and should not be construed as part of the discussion. Please, no replies.

RAZD writes:

The conclusion was a bunch of weasel words to get around - imho - the restriction AG Barr put on the probe to not indict a sitting president. Barr was their boss, so they had to comply.

The Mueller report describes how Mueller and his team decided early on to follow the OLC (DOJ's Office of Legal Council) advisory that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, well before Barr became AG. One of the disappointments Barr expressed about the report was that it made no effort to decide criminality. Barr made this determination himself, deciding with assistant AG Rosenstein's concurrence to absolve Trump of any criminal acts.

Starr was not hampered by an AG with an unorthodox concept of excessive presidential rights that was trying to stop him, and even still he didn't prove the cases of obstruction of justice that he gave to the congress, he gave them a list of incidences which they used to write up articles of impeachment and which were then tried in the Senate.

Starr operated under different rules. He was an independent prosecutor who operated outside the DOJ under the Independent Counsel law and therefore *could* allege criminal acts, such as that Bill Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Starr was not subject to DOJ rules, such as the OLC advisory about not indicting a sitting president.

The Independent Counsel law expired in 1999 and and was replaced with the Special Counsel law where special counsels operate within the DOJ. Mueller operated as a special counsel reporting to assistant AG Rod Rosenstein in the DOJ. Mueller served within the executive branch investigating the executive branch.

Edited by Admin, : Incorrectly referred to Sessions when I meant Rosenstein, fixed now.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2019 8:09 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33886
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 40 of 43 (867827)
12-03-2019 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
12-03-2019 4:47 PM


Re: On Trump leaving according to fantasy
Your opinion about Trump's use of his money is probably not legally correct. I'd want to wait and see a legal decision about these things before coming to any conclusion.

Clinton's impeachment rested on actual felonies. I think Nixon's also did but I'd have to review it. Trump's absolutely definitely does not.

You again accuse Trump and again I answer that you are calling criminal what is not, what is merely a style you don't like. That's what most, no probably all, of the allegations against Trump have been.

The hearings to date have be4en a travesty. Hearsay upon hearsay accepted as evidence, emotion in the place of facts, Presidentially correct decisions treated as criminal, Schiff disallowing Republican response, a complete lack of due process for the defendant. It's a travesty of justice, a violation of every principle that made America great.

Trump has increased employment and reduced unemployment enormously, meaning he's improved the economy enormously, that Obama nearly destroyed with his policies, having millions on food stamps and so on. All that is improved under Trump. He's made tons of other improvements according to the people I hear every day but I dobn't trust myself to describe them properly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2019 4:47 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Admin, posted 12-03-2019 5:47 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 42 by DrJones*, posted 12-03-2019 6:08 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2019 3:30 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 41 of 43 (867830)
12-03-2019 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
12-03-2019 5:17 PM


Re: On Trump leaving according to fantasy
Just providing more information. Please, no replies.

Faith writes:

Clinton's impeachment rested on actual felonies.

This is true. The report produced by Ken Starr alleged that Clinton committed multiple acts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering, all felonies. The articles of impeachment voted on by the House included all of these.

I think Nixon's also did but I'd have to review it.

Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. Though articles of impeachment were approved by the Judiciary Committee, they were never voted on by the full House.

Trump's absolutely definitely does not.

Because the process is only just now reaching the Judiciary Committee, which will decide whether to recommend any articles of impeachment to the full House, it is premature to say this. For example, the Committee might include obstruction of justice articles, and obstruction of justice is a felony.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 12-03-2019 5:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2025
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 42 of 43 (867832)
12-03-2019 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
12-03-2019 5:17 PM


Re: On Trump leaving according to fantasy
Hearsay upon hearsay accepted as evidence

people reporting what they directly heard is not hearsay

Schiff disallowing Republican response

lie

a complete lack of due process for the defendant

it was not a trial so there is no defendant.

All that is improved under Trump

that doesn't give him free reign to abuse his power.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 12-03-2019 5:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20327
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 43 of 43 (867847)
12-04-2019 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
12-03-2019 5:17 PM


Here's the House Report, complete with list of facts.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6566087-F...

The table of contents starts on page 6 - a quick reading of these section titles gives you a quick jist of the report.
The preface starts on page 7
The executive summary starts on page 12
The key findings of facts starts on page 34
Section I. the president's misconduct starts on page 37
Section II. the president's obstruction of the house of representative's impeachment inquiry starts at page 202 and ends at page 292

For anyone who has claimed that they want the full truth to come out, it would be a good start to read this document in it's fullest. For anyone who has claimed that they want to see the facts. it would be a good start to read this document in it's fullest.

Anything less means you can't handle the truth and will only accept partisan lies from the right wing echo chamber.

There is not one iota of exculpatory evidence that has been provided by the GOP, the witnesses they called, or the president and members of his staff.

The hearings to date have be4en a travesty. Hearsay upon hearsay accepted as evidence, emotion in the place of facts, Presidentially correct decisions treated as criminal, Schiff disallowing Republican response, a complete lack of due process for the defendant. It's a travesty of justice, a violation of every principle that made America great.

Which is false, and just dodges the facts in favor of misinformation from the right wing echo chamber.

THERE IS NO LEGALLY REQUIRED "DUE PROCESS" IN A HEARING, that is saved for the TRIAL. There is no "due process" in any Grand Jury that is reviewing information to see if charges could or should be brought against the accused. If there are, then the Grand Jury prepares indictments and the accused goes to trial before a judge and jury.

The RULES of the hearing were written and adopted by the GOP for their impeachment hearing and the hearings on Bengazi.

If they don't like their own rules that is their problem. It's called KARMA.

Trump has increased employment and reduced unemployment enormously, meaning he's improved the economy enormously, that Obama nearly destroyed with his policies, having millions on food stamps and so on. All that is improved under Trump. He's made tons of other improvements according to the people I hear every day but I dobn't trust myself to describe them properly.

Because it's BS. Job increase is due to people working multiple jobs to earn enough to live, wages for the middle class and poorer people have remained static or declined, reduction is food stamps is due to cuts in the program not to any reduction in the number of people needing them -- mostly in the MILITARY or people working for below starvation wages for Walmart, Amazon, etc.

Get out of the right-wing bubble and take a look at reality. Read or watch all information on a topic.

Start at 9am with the next hearing on compiling the articles of impeachment (ie -- "the indictments") ... sadly without the president because HE chose to be absent.

Watch it directly and DO NOT rely of any filtered media report on it (they ALL have agendas).

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 12-03-2019 5:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019