Wrong. I watched Mueller's announcement. No doublethink plz.



Both of which was out of the scope of investigation apparently.




The opportunity to let it die came and both sides passed lol.

Let's keep the Mueller probe relevant then

This post was edited by Skinned on May 29 2019 11:10am

there was nothing wrong about what he stated.
there was no evidence of "collusion"
he was unable to give a definitive response on "obstruction" (which means he didn't reach a definitive conclusion either way)

I don't know why Pelosi doesn't just censure the president and then make the next election a mandate on his behavior in office.

of course. we're FAR too down the line to stop now. we'll hear about this after Trump leaves office, be it 2020 or 2024. same way the public was enamored with the Starr report even a decade after it was done, but this time it will have nasty echos. It was hard to imagine another POTUS shoving cigars in interns, but it wont be hard to imagine someone is using social media to influence elections.

both sides should have dropped it, both sides should have dropped the HRC investigation. both sides should be smart enough to calculate the % chance that the investigation leads to a conviction, and make their decisions on that, instead of the political attention they get out of the investigation with no forethought on how likely a conviction (or even a trial) is. but this is America 2019, mud slinging over actual facts.

Fact, HRC was never going down and never will.

Fact, Trump was never going down and never will.

Fact, even if his/her fingerprints were all over it they'd sacrifice a scapegoat staffer that that's the end of it.

These investigations are absurd. They're anti-due process, as they don't even start with the goal/presumption of seeking truth of potential crimes. and a massive waste of money. o well. i guess taxes have to go somewhere.



because the % of people amused by a president who calls people an idiot on twitter might be larger than his base. because the anti-pc crowd is larger than his base. i know plenty of anti-pc people that either never supported Trump of bailed after voting for him in 2017 sometime.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 29 2019 11:27am

he specifically made it a point to address that in his short statement: the only reason, despite the overwhelming evidence he provided, detailing multiple obstruction incidents by trump, is the office of legal counsel guideline against indicting sitting presidents.
the path he suggests couldn't be any more obvious: the ball is now in congress' court to exercise their oversight role over the executive branch.

how much clearer could he be without violating his 'strictly by the book' principles?

Nadler about to make a live statement... now.

https://www.reuters.tv/l/P9o9/2019/05/29/house-judiciary-chair-nadler-reacts-to-mueller-s-statement





/e Well Nadler is going straight to hell, that's for sure.

This post was edited by Ghot on May 29 2019 12:11pm

mueller was acting as head prosecutor. he stated that his testimony lays within the report.
"everything" congress has to use is based on instances of "obstruction" within the report. (most of those having nothing to do with trump)

honestly, i don't care. it's going to be very difficult to impeach the president of obstruction, when the underlying charge of collusion was not found.
it's going to be impossible now that nadler is trying to link impeachment to "collusion" again.

if congress was unable to pick up impeachment charges before mueller came out today, they aren't any better off now.