Mueller investigation outcome predictions (Poll)

MiamiSpartan wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Miami, even the link I posted had experts saying you can’t indict a sitting president. Did you read it? Everything you posted about some say you can, some say you can’t and bunch said there was uncertainty or it was a complicated answer was covered in that Vox article. They had 16 different legal experts give their takes and none were the same. Probably the best one was we won’t know for certain until someone battles it out in court. Regarding Mueller  It’s just a department guideline that he followed to which I say courageous people in dire situations work around guidelines to do what’s right. FDR did. Lincoln did. Martin Luther King did. My opinion is that Mueller’s big moment in history came up and he handled it like a coward. I also think the Dems won’t impeach which is also cowardly and disappointing. I also think this idea that meuller laid out evidence for a prosecutor to prosecute once trump is out of office is laughable. His report did make it clear that Russia meddled in our election but our current administration is fine with that so here we are same is it ever was in Trumpistan. I guess on the bright side we got to see Manafort, Cohen, Flynn, Papadopoulos and several other scumbags associated with Trump go down.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but it seemed that you had forgotten that many law experts are saying that he can't be indicted, since in the post I was responding to, you only said that many experts say that he CAN be indicted.  That's my whole point, that it's very ambiguous, and the best constitutional law experts in the country have varying opinion on that.

If you really want to see Trump's ludicrous "witch hunt" claims to gain some traction among neutrals, a good way to accomplish that would be to have Mueller cast aside historical precedent and policy that was twice confirmed in the last half century when other Presidents had committed crimes, just to go after Trump. I know that Mueller's actions don't end in the result that we wanted, but it is absolutely imperative that this was handled by the book.

Bobby Sak wrote:it means a lot of people thinking that Mueller and the GOP were coming to save America are going to be sad.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Miami, even the link I posted had experts saying you can’t indict a sitting president. Did you read it? Everything you posted about some say you can, some say you can’t and bunch said there was uncertainty or it was a complicated answer was covered in that Vox article. They had 16 different legal experts give their takes and none were the same. Probably the best one was we won’t know for certain until someone battles it out in court. Regarding Mueller It’s just a department guideline that he followed to which I say courageous people in dire situations work around guidelines to do what’s right. FDR did. Lincoln did. Martin Luther King did. My opinion is that Mueller’s big moment in history came up and he handled it like a coward. I also think the Dems won’t impeach which is also cowardly and disappointing. I also think this idea that meuller laid out evidence for a prosecutor to prosecute once trump is out of office is laughable. His report did make it clear that Russia meddled in our election but our current administration is fine with that so here we are same is it ever was in Trumpistan. I guess on the bright side we got to see Manafort, Cohen, Flynn, Papadopoulos and several other scumbags associated with Trump go down.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but it seemed that you had forgotten that many law experts are saying that he can't be indicted, since in the post I was responding to, you only said that many experts say that he CAN be indicted. That's my whole point, that it's very ambiguous, and the best constitutional law experts in the country have varying opinion on that.

If you really want to see Trump's ludicrous "witch hunt" claims to gain some traction among neutrals, a good way to accomplish that would be to have Mueller cast aside historical precedent and policy that was twice confirmed in the last half century when other Presidents had committed crimes, just to go after Trump. I know that Mueller's actions don't end in the result that we wanted, but it is absolutely imperative that this was handled by the book.

steveschneider wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of that, but it seemed that you had forgotten that many law experts are saying that he can't be indicted, since in the post I was responding to, you only said that many experts say that he CAN be indicted. That's my whole point, that it's very ambiguous, and the best constitutional law experts in the country have varying opinion on that.

If you really want to see Trump's ludicrous "witch hunt" claims to gain some traction among neutrals, a good way to accomplish that would be to have Mueller cast aside historical precedent and policy that was twice confirmed in the last half century when other Presidents had committed crimes, just to go after Trump. I know that Mueller's actions don't end in the result that we wanted, but it is absolutely imperative that this was handled by the book.

In normal times I'd be right with you, but I don't things have been completely off the book since 2016. You see William Barr? That guy is an attorney general? He's just a Trump stooge and lied and misdirected the entire US public. I had a talk with a friend last night about all this and just like you he said almost verbatim that Mueller handled it well. You are both smart dudes, and know your stuff I just disagree. To circle back to my point about William Barr, there's nothing normal about these times and I know for a fact that a different prosecutor could come to a much different conclusion than Mueller. That tells me everything I need to know about Mueller. Yes, I wanted some one to use the laws to prosecute. Question for you, my sense for you is that you are trying to be consistent with the Nixon and Clinton handlings. Is it safe to assume you are for impeachment then?

Cameron wrote:

Rocinante wrote:This is an irrelevant conversation. Muellers statement was just reiterating what was in the report, BUT he took great pains to say that 1). DOJ policy says cannot indict the president. 2) of you can’t indict him it is unconstitutional to accuse him of a crime because he is then prevented from his constitutional right to a trial, 3). Therefore you can’t even say whether you think a crime was committed, HOWEVER, if we felt it was clear the president didn’t commit a crime, we would say so.

Therefore. According to Bob Mueller the president committed the crime of obstruction of justice. And he’s telling congress to stop wasting their time chasing Mueller around and do their fucking job.

I was not for impeachment. I am much more for it now since the JD and Executive branch stonewalling of the House.

Mueller has taken great pains at every turn to assiduously avoid saying anything of real substance. Either he's relying on the American public to all parse his vagueries in the same way, or he is purposely leaving wiggle room. Regardless, it's a gigantic waste of everyone's time.

We both know that he knows the word "impeach." That he refuses to say it speaks volumes to me.

Rocinante wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Mueller has taken great pains at every turn to assiduously avoid saying anything of real substance. Either he's relying on the American public to all parse his vagueries in the same way, or he is purposely leaving wiggle room. Regardless, it's a gigantic waste of everyone's time.

We both know that he knows the word "impeach." That he refuses to say it speaks volumes to me.

He’s not an elected official. If he starts calling for impeachment his credibility is immediately nil. Believe it or not, some people actually respect the way things are supposed to proceed.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

In normal times I'd be right with you, but I don't things have been completely off the book since 2016. You see William Barr? That guy is an attorney general? He's just a Trump stooge and lied and misdirected the entire US public. I had a talk with a friend last night about all this and just like you he said almost verbatim that Mueller handled it well. You are both smart dudes, and know your stuff I just disagree. To circle back to my point about William Barr, there's nothing normal about these times and I know for a fact that a different prosecutor could come to a much different conclusion than Mueller. That tells me everything I need to know about Mueller. Yes, I wanted some one to use the laws to prosecute. Question for you, my sense for you is that you are trying to be consistent with the Nixon and Clinton handlings. Is it safe to assume you are for impeachment then?

I'm for impeachment, yes, even though I know it wouldn't remove him from office (no way the Senate gets a 2/3 majority for that). But I think it would really harm his reelection bid. I would welcome criminal proceedings against him after he leaves office in January 2021, assuming a grand jury or prosecutor or whatever feels there is enough evidence.

I know what you're saying about things not being normal times. But I still think it needs to be by the book, or it really opens up a can of worms, while also giving his idiot followers more ammo to claim that he's unfairly targeted.

I'm sure that a different prosecutor could come to a different conclusion. Would a fair prosecutor come to a different conclusion? I doubt it, but I'm sure we disagree on that. Despite Bob's conspiracy theory about Mueller just being a Republican doing the Republicans' bidding, I'm not buying that. I think he has been fair and even. His history and reputation prior to this support that, and Trump's bashing of him yesterday just reaffirms that, IMO. I could be wrong, but I don't remember there being much outrage from the Dems when he was appointed.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'm still confused as to why a sitting president can't be indicted?

I mean, I know America is a racist country.. and that white people live a life of privilege..  so what makes you think the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator will ever leave the massage parlor at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if he has reason to believe he'll end up in prison?

steveschneider wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'm still confused as to why a sitting president can't be indicted?

I mean, I know America is a racist country.. and that white people live a life of privilege..  so what makes you think the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator will ever leave the massage parlor at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if he has reason to believe he'll end up in prison?

You should read that Vox article I posted above. Also, listen to Preet Bhara. There's so many legal experts that are discussing this on the web right now. It's pretty fascinating actually. It doesn't matter though the Mueller thing is a closed chapter, imo it's time for the Dems to figure out their shit fast and make a move. My opinion is they should impeach him.

Cameron wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

He’s not an elected official. If he starts calling for impeachment his credibility is immediately nil. Believe it or not, some people actually respect the way things are supposed to proceed.

When he said "And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing," can you think of anything other than impeachment that he could mean? Because I can't.

Mueller transcript

Rocinante wrote:

Cameron wrote:

When he said "And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing," can you think of anything other than impeachment that he could mean? Because I can't.

Mueller transcript

Of course he’s talking about congressional oversight but he’s not avoiding saying the I word because he wants to confuse people, he’s avoiding it because he’s telling congress that he’s not their dancing monkey and he also knows that during impeachment proceedings he could very likely be called to testify and being anything other than reticent to talk now would poison his testimony before he ever gave it.  

Cameron wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Of course he’s talking about congressional oversight but he’s not avoiding saying the I word because he wants to confuse people, he’s avoiding it because he’s telling congress that he’s not their dancing monkey and he also knows that during impeachment proceedings he could very likely be called to testify and being anything other than reticent to talk now would poison his testimony before he ever gave it.  

He's not going to testify. He basically said so himself. The toothless report is his testimony.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Cameron wrote:

He's not going to testify. He basically said so himself. The toothless report is his testimony.

I don't think he has a choice if they subpoena him. But he was trying to discourage them from calling him by basically saying was that it would be a pointless waste of time as anything he would say in front of Congress is already in the report. Of course, politicians love a good pointless waste of time if it means more facetime on TV (which a Mueller testimony would certainly provide).

Rocinante wrote:He wouldn’t refuse a subpoena. I think if he has a failing it’s hoping the system will work and congress has enough guts to do their jobs.

Rocinante wrote:He wouldn’t refuse a subpoena. I think if he has a failing it’s hoping the system will work and congress has enough guts to do their jobs.