Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3238

  • Anastasis

    2088

  • David Dennison

    1559

  • triplehorn

    1384

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho
Goredho

Just to make sure I have the alternative facts straight...  Our government -- but I'm guessing only the deep state part of it --- is now guilty of torturing a poor, naive Russian exchange student who

Incredulity
Incredulity

liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

Chooky
Chooky

I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a busi

Posted Images

Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9927

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

why can none of these guys pronounce veselnitskaya? it's not hard. i mean, i took russian in high school, but you'd think that members of the fucking house can manage some degree of precision when identifying individuals of note.

Most Members of Congress are idiots.  Schoolhouse rock out front shoulda told ya.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29905

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

 

I don't know. She may be the dumbest person ever elected to any office in this country

I been hearin' Reepooblicans say that for years. They always seems to like to talk about your nigra women if it proves they're right about nigra women bein' stupid.

They comin' back to this one because the brown girlie kicks their ass when they say she's a idiot.

They couldn't manage to claim Meeeshell Obamar was a idiot, so they called her a big ol' monkey with big ol' g'rilla arms. They stayin' clear of Kamala, too.

I voted GOPPER since the Gipper, so I know and I've been told about these nigra women.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
Just now, longhornmatt said:

So, I haven’t been able to watch or keep up with this today except to view headlines, but the media consensus seems to be ... well, they don’t really have an opinion on any of the substance, but they all, right and left, note that Mueller looks and sounds old instead of like Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men.  So, therefore it’s a big win for Trump and impeachment is off the table.

Is he really that bad, or are we (and our media) just being typically superficial and continuing the slide into a world where nothing matters?

It's all about the context and expectations. The Dem leadership killed impeachment as a matter of strategy.   That was the big win for Trump, and it happened largely from the malpractice of Nancy Pelosi.   The only way that strategy could have been thwarted is by really powerful testimony from Mueller that goes beyond the words of the report.   And he has not provided that.  He's essentially done no more than confirm quotes from the report, and in very dry, old-man fashion. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

Yeah that statement from Republicans For Law and Order or whatever they’re called would have been better off leaving off Reagan as an example of a law and order administration.

That whole bunch should have been indicted much less impeached for Iran-Contra.

Even though they’re right about Trump they’re still being partisan shitknobs. How about using the Obama administration as an example? Literally one single person connected to his administration got in legal trouble during his entire eight years in office.

But he’s a Democrat so obviously they can’t use him.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10403

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Holy shit, Republicans who get it.  Too bad they'll be ignored by the majority, but kudos for being on the right side of history.

No shit. I read the name "Republicans For The Rule of Law" and assumed it was going to be something regarded. I was pleasantly surprised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mojo Hand said:

It's all about the context and expectations. The Dem leadership killed impeachment as a matter of strategy.   That was the big win for Trump, and it happened largely from the malpractice of Nancy Pelosi.   The only way that strategy could have been thwarted is by really powerful testimony from Mueller that goes beyond the words of the report.   And he has not provided that.  He's essentially done no more than confirm quotes from the report, and in very dry, old-man fashion. 

It might end up being the correct political strategy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Spackler

Carl Spackler 3480

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

It's all about the context and expectations. The Dem leadership killed impeachment as a matter of strategy.   That was the big win for Trump, and it happened largely from the malpractice of Nancy Pelosi.   The only way that strategy could have been thwarted is by really powerful testimony from Mueller that goes beyond the words of the report.   And he has not provided that.  He's essentially done no more than confirm quotes from the report, and in very dry, old-man fashion. 

Impeachment is not a truly viable option given the absence of a realistic chance of conviction due to the Republican majority in the Senate and in the absence of clear indications that enough Republicans would flout party lines to make conviction anything other than a theoretical possibility.  There has been no "malpractice" as to that issue, IMO.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29905

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

not that long ago, i remember watching hearings and needing to refer to the "d" or the "r" by the rep asking questions.

now it takes about 6-7 words out of their mouth to determine.

A longer time ago, during the Watergate Hearings, I often had to check the party. New England really produced some great senators who didn't see it as their job to defend the administration.

These GOPs ought to be wearing cheerleader outfits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34230

Posted
Posted
A longer time ago, during the Watergate Hearings, I often had to check the party. New England really produced some great senators who didn't see it as their job to defend the administration.
These GOPs ought to be wearing cheerleader outfits.
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/myaggienation.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/3a/03aac0d8-012d-11e3-aab5-0019bb2963f4/520548d269634.image.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Impeachment is not a truly viable option given the absence of a realistic chance of conviction due to the Republican majority in the Senate and in the absence of clear indications that enough Republicans would flout party lines to make conviction anything other than a theoretical possibility.  There has been no "malpractice" as to that issue, IMO.   

I disagree.   Even without removal, impeachment would have significant consequences.   First, while the Dems impeaching Trump wouldn't convince everyone that he is guilty, the failure to impeach sends the message that even Dems didn't think his conduct was bad enough to impeach over.  That moves public opinion, and is a big reason why Trump is hitting all-time polling highs since the Dems didn't respond to the damming allegations in the Mueller report.   It was the impeachment hearings in Watergate that moved public opinion too, the other way. 

Second, "impeachment hearings in the matter of Donald J. Trump" would have brought massive ratings and attention to his crimes. 

Third, Trump loses his pardon power in cases of impeachment.  The failure to impeach allows him to continue to obstruct justice by dangling pardons, and maybe even pardon himself. 

Fourth, Trump's defense in various lawsuits seeking documents is in part, "they can't get this unless it's pursuant to impeachment hearings."  Even if that defense fails, it's helping him run out the clock. 

Edited by Mojo Hand
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

I disagree.   Even without removal, impeachment would have significant consequences.   First, while the Dems impeaching Trump wouldn't convince everyone that he is guilty, the failure to impeach sends the message that even Dems didn't think his conduct was bad enough to impeach over.  That moves public opinion, and is a big reason why Trump is hitting all-time polling highs since the Dems didn't respond to the damming allegations in the Mueller report. 

Second, "impeachment hearings in the matter of Donald J. Trump" would have brought massive ratings and attention to his crimes. 

Third, Trump loses his pardon power in cases of impeachment.  The failure to impeach allows him to continue to obstruct justice by dangling pardons, and maybe even pardon himself. 

Fourth, Trump's defense in various lawsuits seeking documents is in part, "they can't get this unless it's pursuant to impeachment hearings."  Even if that defense fails, it's helping him run out the clock. 

Wat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

"The President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment." 

Yeah, but not his. If he gets impeached he can still pardon people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

when trump loses, pelosi will look like the master strategist, whether she's fumbling the ball or not.

when i say leon lett, do you think of 3 super bowl rings, 22.5 sacks, 11 nfl seasons?

or do you think of this:

nevermind that the cowboys won that super bowl 52-17.

you say leon lett, you think of that, and you think of a thanksgiving day game against miami, and a blocked field goal, and that dumbass bowling ball coming in and giving the ball to miami.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rNQ4puNN5Q

this was also a season that the cowboys won the super bowl.

two of the most memorable leon lett plays, in a successful career with three super bowl victories, and his biggest accomplishments were fails.

Edited by hayden_horn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, but not his. If he gets impeached he can still pardon people.

Well, that's up for debate.   And there's evidence showing that the framers designed the exception to "suspend" the president's pardon power while he is being tried during an impeachment case:

https://www-brookings-edu.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/07/25/the-pardon-power-and-original-intent/amp

Quote

 But if impeachment starts, there has to be a trial in the Senate. The president still holds office until and unless he is convicted. What can stop him pardoning anyone who was involved in the crimes for which the president is being impeached or whose testimony might put him in jeopardy? The president, according to Madison, still holds office, but he no longer has the power to pardon. The House can “suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the Vice-President. Should he be suspected, also, he may likewise be suspended till he be impeached and removed, and the legislature may make a temporary appointment. This is a great security.”

 

Edited by Mojo Hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29905

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Yeah that statement from Republicans For Law and Order or whatever they’re called would have been better off leaving off Reagan as an example of a law and order administration.

That whole bunch should have been indicted much less impeached for Iran-Contra.

I'm out of rep for the day. Sorry. But you're so right.

Iran-Contra was the second time the issue of "Can the president pardon himself" has come up in my lifetime. First was Nixon, then Reagan, and now.

Nixon arranged a pardon with his successor. Reagan's team were pardoned by HW Bush on Christmas Eve, 1992.

Quote

Six years after the arms-for-hostages scandal began to cast a shadow that would darken two Administrations, President Bush today granted full pardons to six former officials in Ronald Reagan's Administration, including former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger.

Mr. Weinberger was scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 5 on charges that he lied to Congress about his knowledge of the arms sales to Iran and efforts by other countries to help underwrite the Nicaraguan rebels, a case that was expected to focus on Mr. Weinberger's private notes that contain references to Mr. Bush's endorsement of the secret shipments to Iran.

In one remaining facet of the inquiry, the independent prosecutor, Lawrence E. Walsh, plans to review a 1986 campaign diary kept by Mr. Bush. Mr. Walsh has characterized the President's failure to turn over the diary until now as misconduct.

Decapitated Walsh Efforts

But in a single stroke, Mr. Bush swept away one conviction, three guilty pleas and two pending cases, virtually decapitating what was left of Mr. Walsh's effort, which began in 1986. Mr. Bush's decision was announced by the White House in a printed statement after the President left for Camp David, where he will spend the Christmas holiday.

Mr. Walsh bitterly condemned the President's action, charging that "the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed."

Always GOPs. Always abusing the pardon power.

You're right, attaching Reagan's name to Lincoln's is revolting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Pelosi will start the impeachment process at some point before the 2020 election, I just don’t see any way around it unless Trump croaks or resigns.  I don’t know when or how far an impeachment proceeding will go but it must be started.  

Not starting the process before the 2020 election is way way waaaay more politically problematic for the democrats.  

For one it gives Trump the easy appearance of innocence and it will depress enthusiasm among democrats because they will look weak.  Trump will mock them for being weak and he will be right. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Well, that's up for debate.   And there's evidence showing that the framers designed the exception to "suspend" the president's pardon power while he is being tried during an impeachment case:

https://www-brookings-edu.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/07/25/the-pardon-power-and-original-intent/amp

 

Cool. Thanks for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45673

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pelosi will start the impeachment process at some point before the 2020 election, I just don’t see any way around it unless Trump croaks or resigns.  I don’t know when or how far an impeachment proceeding will go but it must be started.  

Not starting the process before the 2020 election is way way waaaay more politically problematic for the democrats.  

For one it gives Trump the easy appearance of innocence and it will depress enthusiasm among democrats because they will look weak.  Trump will mock them for being weak and he will be right. 

What mean you "before the 2020 election"?  Before 2020?  Before the general starts?  Arguably the 2020 election is going on now and has been for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...