Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

They don’t have incontrovertible proof though. They have what Mueller found but could not do anything with, and a White House that’s unwilling to share information with any investigations congressional committees undertake. That can be brushed off as Trump being Trump (see: “Sadiq Khan is a stone cold loser”, “I didn’t say Meghan Markle was nasty, oh that recording of the interview I said that in is fake news”)

[sluissa]

This is fact might be the point where Trump is playing something resembling 4D chess. If he pushes Democrats buttons to go forward with impeachment proceedings with the relative knowledge that they'll ultimately fail, it could end up working toward his advantage.

I say this only because it is a very Trump thing to do. A "I dare you to go after me. You don't know what you're getting yourself into" attitude. And while oftentimes that's a bluff, and might well be now, it's also possible that's he's relatively confident (Possibly thanks to republican support) that he'd come out of the other end more or less clean.

[PTTG??]

They don’t have incontrovertible proof though. They have what Mueller found but could not do anything with, and a White House that’s unwilling to share information with any investigations congressional committees undertake. That can be brushed off as Trump being Trump (see: “Sadiq Khan is a stone cold loser”, “I didn’t say Meghan Markle was nasty, oh that recording of the interview I said that in is fake news”)

Did nobody besides me read the actual report? He said that the justice department forbids indicting the president -- any sitting president is automatically immune to indictment. Therefore, the special prosecutor has only two choices: recommend the Congress investigate, or else declare the president innocent. Mueller could have video of Trump gunning down a crowd while shouting his own name, and all he could do is say "I did not find sufficient evidence to exonerate the President."

To be fair, he could probably go a little farther and speak publicly and as a private citizen, but that would not stand a good chance of driving the Democrats to empower the DoJ.

[MrRoboto75]

"I did not find sufficient evidence to exonerate the President."

MFW William Barr

[Bumber]

Therefore, the special prosecutor has only two choices: recommend the Congress investigate, or else declare the president innocent.

Yet it somehow feels like Mueller avoided doing either.

"I dunno if I can conclude Trump obstructed justice or not. Why don't I just let the Trump-appointed AG handle the decision? Surely America will respect his final authority in this matter."

[LordBaal]

What does this impeachment means? I keep imagining an orange somehow tucked inside a peach.

[Enemy post]

Impeachment is the process by which a President could theoretically be removed from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors".

[nenjin]

SUVs are the epitome of "me first." Can't see in traffic? Well now you can, and no one behind you can.

[The Ensorceler]

Therefore, the special prosecutor has only two choices: recommend the Congress investigate, or else declare the president innocent.

Yet it somehow feels like Mueller avoided doing either.

"I dunno if I can conclude Trump obstructed justice or not. Why don't I just let the Trump-appointed AG handle the decision? Surely America will respect his final authority in this matter."

As far as I can tell, Mueller never asked Barr for shit. Barr is trying to fabricate some quite sketchy conclusions in order to preempt congress coming to any conclusions with legal weight.

[Dunamisdeos]

What does this impeachment means? I keep imagining an orange somehow tucked inside a peach.

No no that's the guy we want to get rid of.

[sluissa]

It's technically the formal procedure for a legislative body to remove a government official from office. Can be any official, not just the president, but they're the ones that typically get all the attention and lower level officials can usually be pressured to resign before that's necessary. (Even Nixon resigned before being formally impeached).

We've also had a number of federal judges over the years that have been impeached for various reasons and given that judicial appointments are typically lifetime at the federal level, impeachment is often the only way to remove a stubborn one.

[LordBaal]

You people don't retire your judges at certain age? That's crazy.

[Dunamisdeos]

No we let people be in major positions of power for life so long as they have enough money to buy their way into their own position enough times.

[Lord Shonus]

You people don't retire your judges at certain age? That's crazy.

The intention is to insulate the judges as much as possible from the political  process. Jusges that face reelection or mandatory retirement have a tendency focus on that rather than on the law.

It works better than it seems.

[Dunamisdeos]

Mandatory retirement with no influence on the next appointee would work better, imo.