Congress Needs some Balls

[sggatecl]

Mueller's a wreck. What he said, which is what you quoted above, is exactly equal to "If we had confidence the President committed a crime, we would have said so." It's just a fucked up way of saying it.

Except it's not equal to that at all. He specifically said why they came to that conclusion in the same paragraph, one which I've already shared.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.

He couldn't have been more clear that they were never going to outright say "the President committed a crime and should be charged". Anyone who expected such hadn't been paying attention. It's up to Congress and it was always going to be. Anyone trying to use Mueller's words to clearly vindicate Trump looks just as desperate as someone using his words to clearly implicate him.

 

[jwlcosu]

One way of envisioning the Democratic obsessions with Donald Trump is as an addiction. We have seen the initial impeachment efforts; the attempt to get him under the emoluments clause, the Logan Act and the 25th Amendment; the Russian collusion hoax; the Mueller investigation; the demand for his tax returns; and the psychodramas involving Michael Avenatti, Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels. Relentless progressives have needed a new Get Trump fix about every two months. More practically, their fixation also substitutes for a collective poverty of ideas.

 

[jwlcosu]

Except it's not equal to that at all. He specifically said why they came to that conclusion in the same paragraph, one which I've already shared.



He couldn't have been more clear that they were never going to outright say "the President committed a crime and should be charged". Anyone who expected such hadn't been paying attention. It's up to Congress and it was always going to be. Anyone trying to use Mueller's words to clearly vindicate Trump looks just as desperate as someone using his words to clearly implicate him.

Charging him is one thing. Saying he committed a crime, after two years, $35 mil and 500 witnesses is another. He did neither and his performance yesterday was pathetic. Mueller is kaput. He has nothing which is why he refused questions and why he is unwilling to testify to Congress. The only thing left is for him to slink off to his cushy, taxpayer funded pension.

The remaining remedy is the political one. That means impeachment/removal or to beat Trump at the ballot box. Good luck with either of those.

 

[Michchamp]

One way of envisioning the Democratic obsessions with Donald Trump is as an addiction. We have seen the initial impeachment efforts; the attempt to get him under the emoluments clause, the Logan Act and the 25th Amendment; the Russian collusion hoax; the Mueller investigation; the demand for his tax returns; and the psychodramas involving Michael Avenatti, Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels. Relentless progressives have needed a new Get Trump fix about every two months. More practically, their fixation also substitutes for a collective poverty of ideas.

I agree - to some extent - with some of this. But it doesn't apply to ALL Democrats, as throughout Trump's presidency Bernie has been actively legislating and governing, and from the get-go said if Trump worked to pass some of his populist promises on jobs, he was more than willing to work with Trump (Trump didn't). Elizabeth Warren is an active legislator as well, and there are of course other exceptions to the rule. You may not like what they propose - because you're a sap - but you can't claim they have a poverty of ideas.

I think Pelosi, Schumer, etc. have run on an "Anti-Trump" platform, where they simply look to criticise him, and this criticism provides a convenient excuse for them not to actually try to govern on their own.

You DO realize though it's absurd to pretend like this is the first "derangement syndrome" in American politics, or that it's exclusive to Democrats... "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" proceeded it... and it sure seemed like "Obama Derangement Syndrome was real from 2008-2016.

I suppose in another 24 hour news cycle, you'll be saying Justin Amash has "Trump Derangement Syndrome" as well.

 

[TheVictors]

Consensus seems to be Mueller is sending a message to congress that he's done, and they need to act now.

It's DOJ policy not to indict a sitting President, it has nothing to do with the Constitution. I don't think the quote or report is confusing at all. Trump and his idiot base thinks that because Bob Mueller himself didn't put hand cuffs on the man himself, that "case closed" but that's hardly the case, never how this was going to play out and isn't how an investigation into obstruction of justice works.

All the evidence is right there but 1/2 of Congress hasn't actually read the Mueller Report and any idiot watching FoxNews all day wouldn't be able to understand it or think critically about the content.

so here we are ...

 

[jwlcosu]

I agree - to some extent - with some of this. But it doesn't apply to ALL Democrats, as throughout Trump's presidency Bernie has been actively legislating and governing, and from the get-go said if Trump worked to pass some of his populist promises on jobs, he was more than willing to work with Trump (Trump didn't). Elizabeth Warren is an active legislator as well, and there are of course other exceptions to the rule. You may not like what they propose - because you're a sap - but you can't claim they have a poverty of ideas.

I think Pelosi, Schumer, etc. have run on an "Anti-Trump" platform, where they simply look to criticise him, and this criticism provides a convenient excuse for them not to actually try to govern on their own.

You DO realize though it's absurd to pretend like this is the first "derangement syndrome" in American politics, or that it's exclusive to Democrats... "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" proceeded it... and it sure seemed like "Obama Derangement Syndrome was real from 2008-2016.

I suppose in another 24 hour news cycle, you'll be saying Justin Amash has "Trump Derangement Syndrome" as well.

Fair enough, Champ. Though to me, Bernie and the Native American broad seem to be running on the "Trump is a racist" platform. In any case, the ability of either of them to win the nomination is entirely dubious. My money remains on the youngster from South Bend.

 

[Michchamp]

Fair enough, Champ. Though to me, Bernie and the Native American broad seem to be running on the "Trump is a racist" platform. In any case, the ability of either of them to win the nomination is entirely dubious. My money remains on the youngster from South Bend.

I don't think it's a stretch to call Trump racist at this point.

I know his views may not be uncommon, but that just shows how
widespread the problem is.

going back to the 70's, his father's rental properties were sued by the Feds fo discriminating against African American renters. Trump was involved in this, and it was the start of his relationship w/scumbag attorney Roger Cohen.

his comments regarding the Central Park 5 were racist... again, even if uncommon among "older white people."

His "good people on both sides"... yeah, that's just racist. All his comments around 3rd world countries, and asylum seekers too.

You can argue that he's pandering to his voters (and I'd agree, but what does that say about them?), but his history prior to running for president is not inconsistent here.

And the fact that he's the president... jeez... I mean you'd expect a higher standard of conduct from him, than you're typical Archie Bunker-enabled geriatric crank.

 

[Spartanmack]

It definitely doesnt say what you think it says about them. Also, there was no mention of race in his comments or his ad about the Central Park jogger case - none. Saying violent criminals deserve the death penalty is not racist and the fact that the Central Park 5 were falsely accused (not by Trump) doesn't change that fact. His "good people on both sides"...no that's not "just racist." You have to take the comment out of context, ignore the fact that he denounced white supremacy and made the comment about the people who objected to removing statues who were not also white supremacists. All his comments about 3rd world countries? You mean his alleged comment about shit hole countries being shit holes. It's been alleged by 1 person, Dick Durbin one of the shadiest scumbag partisan hacks in Congress (much later, after being escorted out of the White House for refusing to leave after being fired, Omarossa confirmed it, but everyone else denies ever hearing it). But even if it's true, calling countries like Haiti "shitholes" isn't racist, it's simply a crude way of stating an objective fact. by your standard, nothing can be said about illegal immigration, 3rd world shitholes, alleged rapists, etc, etc that isn't racist. this is what this post says about you:

Racism exists in America but America is not a racist country, it wasnt founded on racism, it wasnt built on racism and its neither fundamentally or institutuonally racist. It's not perfect but it's the most egalitarian country on the planet today. The racism accusation is just an intellectually disonest and lazy way to avoid merit based arguments.

 

[Michchamp]

It definitely doesnt say what you think it says about them. by your standard, nothing can be said about illegal immigration (about anything really) that isn't racist. this is what this post says about you:

Racism exists in America but America is not a racist country, it wasnt founded on racism, it wasnt built on racism and its neither fundamentally or institutuonally racist. It's not perfect but it's the most egalitarian country on the planet today. The racism accusation is just an intellectually disonest and lazy way to avoid merit based arguments.

Well... we're not a racist country, EXCEPT for slavery being enshrined in Our Constitution (3/5ths clause), it existing for the first 1/3 of our country's existence, and then being perpetuated through some nefarious practices, like Southern prison labor camps into the 20th century. and of course racism itself being actual laws, Jim Crow laws, throughout half the country until the 1960's. But sure, other than those minor inconveniences that never affected white people like you and I, we are not and were not a racist country.

And we're pretty egalitarian. I guess. Curious What is your basis for this claim?

Personally I don't know how you square "egalitarian" with "the top 10% hold 76% of all wealth," but you do you...

 

[tomdalton22]

Well... we're not a racist country, EXCEPT for slavery being enshrined in Our Constitution (3/5ths clause), it existing for the first 1/3 of our country's existence, and then being perpetuated through some nefarious practices, like Southern prison labor camps into the 20th century. and of course racism itself being actual laws, Jim Crow laws, throughout half the country until the 1960's. But sure, other than those minor inconveniences that never affected white people like you and I, we are not and were not a racist country.

And we're pretty egalitarian. I guess. Curious What is your basis for this claim?

Personally I don't know how you square "egalitarian" with "the top 10% hold 76% of all wealth," but you do you...

egalitarian: relating to or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities

I don't see anything about wealth in that definition.

 

[Michchamp]

egalitarian: relating to or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities

I don't see anything about wealth in that definition.

right, because money has nothing to do with your rights and opportunities in a capitalist market economy.

 

[Michchamp]

...just an intellectually disonest and lazy way to avoid merit based arguments.

You realize you just posted a litany of unsupported platitudes on America's greatness, while ignoring all facts to the contrary, then called me intellectually dishonest and lazy, right?

 

[tinselwolverine]

My money remains on the youngster from South Bend.

He does fill up an identity politics box that nobody else does.

 

[Michchamp]

He does fill up an identity politics box that nobody else does.

True. now If only Democratic voters cared about identity politics as much Republitards claim.

 

[Spartanmack]

Well... we're not a racist country, EXCEPT for slavery being enshrined in Our Constitution (3/5ths clause), it existing for the first 1/3 of our country's existence, and then being perpetuated through some nefarious practices, like Southern prison labor camps into the 20th century. and of course racism itself being actual laws, Jim Crow laws, throughout half the country until the 1960's. But sure, other than those minor inconveniences that never affected white people like you and I, we are not and were not a racist country.

And we're pretty egalitarian. I guess. Curious What is your basis for this claim?

Personally I don't know how you square "egalitarian" with "the top 10% hold 76% of all wealth," but you do you...

the 3/5ths clause was a political compromise as was legal slavery in certain states - a compromise to the racist democrats. You may not be aware of this, but we ended up fighting a Civil War to end slavery and this country wasn't built by southern prison labor camps. Jim Crow was repealed and we have passed laws like The Civil Rights Act despite tremendous opposition from your party, the party of racism then and now. No one has ever called these issues of our past "minor inconveniences." It is our great shame that they are part of our history but we have made tremendous progress over our history even if you're incapable of seeing it.

We're not "pretty" egalitarian, we are the most egalitarian country in the history of the world. The basis for that claim is our commitment to everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness despite the fact there are people like you who selectively try to limit those rights often through policies that disproportionately and negatively effect minority communities like welfare, abortion, affirmative action, etc, etc.

What you're talking about is equality of outcome which is not at all the same thing as equality of opportunity. If you want the former, you have to give up the latter and virtually all of the rights endowed to you by your creator. Personally, I think that's a horrible trade.

 

[tinselwolverine]

True. now If only Democratic voters cared about identity politics as much Republitards claim.

According to early polling, they still identify with old white guys a lot of the time.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's DOJ policy not to indict a sitting President, it has nothing to do with the Constitution. I don't think the quote or report is confusing at all. Trump and his idiot base thinks that because Bob Mueller himself didn't put hand cuffs on the man himself, that "case closed" but that's hardly the case, never how this was going to play out and isn't how an investigation into obstruction of justice works.

All the evidence is right there but 1/2 of Congress hasn't actually read the Mueller Report and any idiot watching FoxNews all day wouldn't be able to understand it or think critically about the content.

so here we are ...

According to Mueller, this is incorrect. He said "Under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

 

[Spartanmack]

You realize you just posted a litany of unsupported platitudes on America's greatness, while ignoring all facts to the contrary, then called me intellectually dishonest and lazy, right?

they're painfully obvious facts, not unsupported platitudes. of course you conveniently ignore the fact that all your "facts to the contrary" like slavery and Jim Crow ended 65 to 150+ years ago (that's 3 to 8 generations ago). We've gone over this several times - I disprove the conclusions you draw on some headline number like incarceration rates, then you throw a fit and call me racist. I'm not going to pound my head against a wall arguing with a racist who thinks everyone who disagrees with him is racist - it's a waste of time.

 

[Spartanmack]

According to early polling, they still identify with old white guys a lot of the time.

bunch of racists and sexists in that party, I tell ya...

 

[Spartanmack]

right, because money has nothing to do with your rights and opportunities in a capitalist market economy.

so if someone has more money than you, your rights are being infringed?