The Robert Mueller Investigation

[InkaUtexas 24,834]

1 minute ago, cactusflinthead said:

I'm not convinced that impeachment is the best way to go. Clinton got re-elected. Unless you can slam dunk it in the Senate it's theater. 

Hopefully the voters realize working with an enemy is a bit worse than a blow job. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

5 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

I'm not convinced that impeachment is the best way to go. Clinton got re-elected. Unless you can slam dunk it in the Senate it's theater. 

Clinton was re-elected like two years before he was impeached. 

[Pescado_Rojo 19,195]

4 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Hopefully the voters realize working with an enemy is a bit worse than a blow job. 

[cactusflinthead 26,805]

I don't have that confidence. They keep electing Gohmert. That hateful idiot hasn't had a decent fight his entire career. 

The Trump voter doesn't care. They didn't give a damn when he was on tape bragging about sexual assault. 

Seriously, who are the undecided?

[zork 629]

 

[cactusflinthead 26,805]

3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Clinton was re-elected like two years before he was impeached. 

Right. It felt like it was in 94 because Whitewater.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1998/nov/18/clinton.usa

[GRHorn 105]

What did we learn new today?

Besides the fact that Mueller needs to move to Del Boca Vista. 

[shnsajax 3,589]

Really, Gaetz is what you post? How aggy of you.

[Mdhorn 5,820]

39 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This should be the leader of the Democratic Party

 

Elizabeth needs to tell Nancy to get her head unstuck. 

[shnsajax 3,589]

We learned that there was clear obstruction of justice. We learned that Trump will probably be charged once out of office. We learned that Trump played a direct part of the above.

Actually we learned that a long time ago, but republicans are too stupid to understand so we keep spinning the wheels.

[Mdhorn 5,820]

33 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’ve already stated what I think will happen.  Pelosi will start the process just as the clock is running out to save face and likely prevent acquittal in the Senate.

The lack of moral clarity in the light of the facts and evidence starring everyone in the face is what hurts the democrats the most here. 

Ironically, this also makes the democrats vulnerable for manipulation by the Russians because their trolls/bots will push hard AF on the impeachment division within the party.

Thanks Aunt Nancy

Nancy doesn't understand how bots and the twitters work.  

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

What did we learn new today?

Besides the fact that Mueller needs to move to Del Boca Vista. 

If you're an informed citizen you learned nothing.

If your somebody that didn't read the report or follow the news too much and today was the first time you paid attention, you learned that there is overwhelming evidence that the President of the United States obstructed justice, but due to the Justice Dept. stance that you cannot indict a sitting president Mueller and his team did not/could not make a decision to charge, so the evidence of those crimes was preserved in case the Justice Dept. wants to indict the president upon leaving office and/or for Congress to review in order to inform their decision whether or not to impeach the President, which is the only way to hold him accountable for crimes under the current iteration of our laws. Ho-hum. 

[David Dennison 17,674]

10 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

What did we learn new today?

Besides the fact that Mueller needs to move to Del Boca Vista. 

Judging from the spin coming from the Trump camp, he took a hit today.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,246]

Another big tell the democrats aren’t serious about holding this administration accountable is how the let Rod Rosenstein just slither away.  

Rosenstein was smack in the middle of all the obstruction and the only firewall between Trump and Mueller throughout the investigation.  

He has already proven himself a credible witness when compelled to testify.  He’s also an enormous weasel that told Trump he would “land the plane” and reassured Trump he was needed because he made the investigation “credible”.  Yet, there’s been no Congressional inquiry or follow up on those reports.  

Rod Rosenstein’s account of events are also noticeably missing in the Mueller report.

So much fucking fail.  

[Mdhorn 5,820]

4 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

We learned that there was clear obstruction of justice. We learned that Trump will probably be charged once out of office. We learned that Trump played a direct part of the above.

Actually we learned that a long time ago, but republicans are too stupid to understand so we keep spinning the wheels.

additionally, we learned that election interference is still.a threat and may become the norm. We also learned that he lied and a hell of a lot of his campaign did as well and most are or have been prosecuted.  

[suddenly shaggy 929]

4 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

additionally, we learned that election interference is still.a threat and may become the norm. We also learned that he lied and a hell of a lot of his campaign did as well and most are or have been prosecuted.  

It's sure as hell going to be the norm if there isn't any punishment for it. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by suddenly shaggy

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

24 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

What did we learn new today?

Besides the fact that Mueller needs to move to Del Boca Vista. 

I take your question. 

[bolverk 28,892]

1 hour ago, sachick said:

 

 

1 hour ago, retread said:

Now let's take a 6-week recess to kill all momentum.

 

49 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

(202) 224-3121

Call your fucking congressmen/women. I called both my reps Doggett and Roy - guess which one had a live person answering calls?

During the recess, our Congress critters are going to have to be scolded, cajoled, and emboldened by the grassroots to get this shit rolling when they go back to DC.

[Biff Tannen 44,929]

57 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

(202) 224-3121

Call your fucking congressmen/women. I called both my reps Doggett and Roy - guess which one had a live person answering calls?

How does one have two representatives?

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,728]

I’m not a Nancy fan, and I could very well be wrong but I’m guessing she waits until the bipartisan spending bill is in the books before doing anything else.  Otherwise the traitors would scuttle it and blame the democrats for a shutdown.  

[TwiceHorn 30,738]

4 hours 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

 

I don't find that to be very convincing.  For one thing, where's the part in the Constitution that states that the House may suspend the President during impeachment, which seems to be the lynchpin of Madison's argument there.  That is, it is the suspension in Madison's speech that operates to terminate the pardon power, not the impeachment itself.

Viz.

Quote

There is one security in this case to which gentlemen may not have adverted: if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty; they can suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the Vice-President. Should he be suspected, also, he may likewise be suspended fill he be impeached and removed, and the legislature may make a temporary appointment. This is a great security.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/resources/ratification/elliot/vol3/june18/

Moreover, that quote was made during the Virginia ratification convention, not the Constitutional convention itself.  The document was drafted.  I think Madison overstated what it said in response to Mason's disagreement with a pardon power entirely.

Edited July 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[UpperWestside 5,990]

30 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

First thing that came to mind for me when reading that was these two traitors.

Start calling all of these people what they are. If you are supporting Dotard right now you are implicitly saying his storefront window racism is okay and you are also okay with a hostile foreign power helping him be elected. This same hostile foreign power is going to ratchet their help up to 11 for 2020. We have over 60 million citizens of our own country willingly helping the government of a country that despises us by their actions. I say helping a foreign government because I have met plenty of Russians who really like America. I remember one from more than a year ago who said to me "We like your country. It is the politicians who are the problem."

Trumpkins you are not owning the libs. You are shitting on your fellow countrymen and women with your continued support of a guy who gives zero fucks about you and your family. You are Mongo and are just a pawn to this narcissistic assclown. Wake the fuck up and realize what you are doing. You get one shot at life and holy hell are you wasting it. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't find that to be very convincing.  For one thing, where's the part in the Constitution that states that the House may suspend the President during impeachment, which seems to be the lynchpin of Madison's argument there.  That is, it is the suspension in Madison's speech that operates to terminate the pardon power, not the impeachment itself.

I took the suspension to mean the exception to the impeachment power.  That is, impeachment suspends his power to impeach by virtue of that clause.  What else do you think he could have been referring to? 

[Upgrayedd 5,745]

6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

How does one have two representatives?

You get one per vote

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,246]

Hahahahaha. (Pours gasoline all over body, lights match)

[bolverk 28,892]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

How does one have two representatives?

He might see it as I do. Doggett is a Texan and native Austinite and is the de facto representative promoting Austin's interests. Chips Aroy is just another carpetbaggin' weasel who came in riding the GOPs dick, but he's still technically my de jure rep.

[MidTexHorn 774]

Rule of Law? What rule of law???

Fuck the ignorant shit that this country has become. A true banana republic.

[TwiceHorn 30,738]

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I took the suspension to mean the exception to the impeachment power.  That is, impeachment suspends his power to impeach by virtue of that clause.  What else do you think he could have been referring to? 

I think, frankly, he was talking out of his butt.  Or was mistaken.  Read the passage, which is not a transcript, but a reportage.  It's impossible to get that suspension out of the text of the relevant clauses.  And it's used in that argument as a power of the House, even if the President is "suspected," and prior to impeachment.

Edited July 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I think, frankly, he was talking out of his butt.

So "Madison was making up something in the Constitution that didn't exist, and nobody else apparently noticed he was lying," is a more persuasive explanation to you than "Madison interpreted the exception clause as suspending the president's power to pardon during the prosecution of an impeachment case against him"? 

I mean, I admit, I don't know more about this issue than from the handful of articles I've read pointing out what I've mentioned.   And you seem very confident the other way.   What is the support and rationale for the alternative reading that the president can pardon every federal crime except as to officials who were impeached? 

[David Dennison 17,674]

I'm gonna post this here as well as the DOTARD thread. The second clip is great. Somebody is irritable.

 

[Jack Straw 2,953]

1 hour ago, Brandywine said:

Dems are going to blow it if they haven’t already. 

Narrator: they have. 

[TwiceHorn 30,738]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

So "Madison was making up something in the Constitution that didn't exist, and nobody else apparently noticed he was lying," is a more persuasive explanation to you than "Madison interpreted the exception clause as suspending the president's power to pardon during the prosecution of an impeachment case against him"? 

I mean, I admit, I don't know more about this issue than from the handful of articles I've read pointing out what I've mentioned.   And you seem very confident the other way.   What is the support and rationale for the alternative reading that the president can pardon every federal crime except as to officials who were impeached? 

It was a debate.  We don't have a transcript.  Maybe someone did call it out, I don't know.  There's no response by Mason or anyone else to that soliloquy.

But I do know that there's nothing in the Constitution (until the 25th Amendment)  that, in the slightest, intimates that the President may be suspended by the House of Representatives or anyone else, pending impeachment or any other time.

The way this reads it, he can pardon other impeached officials unless he himself is being impeached, or "suspected."

[Zavala 1,384]

13 minutes ago, MidTexHorn said:

Rule of Law? What rule of law???

Fuck the ignorant shit that this country has become. A true banana republic.

Agreed, dissolve the CIA, it's corrupt and every corrupt FBI agent was a shared asset to the CIA.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3,536]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

this should've been the scene today when they came out for their press conference:

all four walk out.  pelosi introduces everyone, then introduces schiff.

schiff : "it's been a long time coming, but today was everything we could've hoped for and more.  all the terrible crimes, all the obstruction, all the impeachable offenses, a virtual orgy of evidence.  i knew it would be bad for the president, but this was effing devastating.  it took everything i had not to burst out laughing and clapping during mr mueller's testimony, and i'm sure my fellow democrats feel the same way, as i'm sure many of you at home who love this country and are tired of the lies...therefore, nancy?"

pelosi: "we will be starting impeachment inquiries next week.  it will long and exhaustive, but it's what this country deserves.  i'd love to stick around and answer questions, but obviously, i have shit to do.  have a good afternoon, make sure to hydrate, it's hotter than hell out there."

mic drop.  walk out.  set the narrative, just like trump does every single fucking day.  put him and his idiots on the defensive.

most people really have no read on what actually happened today, who benefits from it, and who's affected by it.  so you know what you do?  you fucking tell them what happened.

then everyone who wasn't really paying attention would be forced to say, "well damn, i guess things really did go badly today for the president, i guess he's as dirty as they say."

the second they didn't do this ^^^^^^ was the second they lost this battle.  he's still incredibly unlikable, and he's still gonna have to pull off a magic act to work the electoral math (even though he'll probably lose by 6-8mm votes in the popular).  and btw, i would've had this speech written yesterday, and staged this scene regardless of what was said, short of mueller passing out in the first half-hour.

ridiculous, predictable, weak, and boring.

Could not have typed it better. Once again Nancy/Democratic Party failed to control the message. 

[jimmyjazz 45,063]

What 2 "nauseous and nauseating" networks said "this was a really bad day for the Democrats"?  Should be easy to prove.

[wildcat09 28,392]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

It was a debate.  We don't have a transcript.  Maybe someone did call it out, I don't know.  There's no response by Mason or anyone else to that soliloquy.

But I do know that there's nothing in the Constitution (until the 25th Amendment)  that, in the slightest, intimates that the President may be suspended by the House of Representatives or anyone else, pending impeachment or any other time.

The way this reads it, he can pardon other impeached officials unless he himself is being impeached, or "suspected."

I've always understood it to mean that the President can't use the pardon power to prevent an official from being impeached.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

It was a debate.  We don't have a transcript.  Maybe someone did call it out, I don't know.  There's no response by Mason or anyone else to that soliloquy.

But I do know that there's nothing in the Constitution (until the 25th Amendment)  that, in the slightest, intimates that the President may be suspended by the House of Representatives or anyone else, pending impeachment or any other time.

The way this reads it, he can pardon other impeached officials unless he himself is being impeached, or "suspected."

So what do you think the exception clause means?  Who can the president not pardon? 

[David Dennison 17,674]

1 minute ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

Could not have typed it better. Once again Nancy/Democratic Party failed to control the message. 

Hmmmm.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I've always understood it to mean that the President can't use the pardon power to prevent an official from being impeached.

Why would a pardon prevent an impeachment?   Isn't impeachment independent of whether one is guilty of a crime under a criminal statute?

[Irwin F Fletcher 3,536]

27 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I’m not a Nancy fan, and I could very well be wrong but I’m guessing she waits until the bipartisan spending bill is in the books before doing anything else.  Otherwise the traitors would scuttle it and blame the democrats for a shutdown.  

Well for as shitty as the "bipartisan" bill is, I'm all in favor of having it shit-canned.

[Zavala 1,384]

Damn

 

[triplehorn 2,664]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’ve already stated what I think will happen.  Pelosi will start the process just as the clock is running out to save face and likely prevent acquittal in the Senate.

The lack of moral clarity in the light of the facts and evidence starring everyone in the face is what hurts the democrats the most here. 

Ironically, this also makes the democrats vulnerable for manipulation by the Russians because their trolls/bots will push hard AF on the impeachment division within the party.

Thanks Aunt Nancy

The reasons to argue for immediate impeachment are justifiable and easy to make.

Reasons for delay are harder to accept.

- #1- the emotional attention span of our collective populous endures for days, maybe weeks.  You can't lose control of a message you haven't yet unleashed.  Combine emotional wave from formal impeachment with campaign next year.  Courts are working on shit already.  GOP capacity for lying and dereliction is bottomless.  Trump unrelenting blizzard of lies will erode meaningful impact of anything if given time .

- A lot more evidence and context incoming.  Upcoming Roger Stone and Jeffrey Epstein trials will provide important context for the public to understand Trump's ongoing circles outside the WH.  This is important for impeachment purposes more so than proving criminality.  House access to Trump tax returns/DB financials is already in the courts.

- Minimize ability for Trump to dictate nat'l conversation during campaign away from his crimes/impeachment and minimize time for Trump/bots to deepen a response after impeachment commences.  Also Mueller today: ongoing counterintelligence investigation of Trump (hello). 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3,536]

24 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hahahahaha. (Pours gasoline all over body, lights match)

[David Dennison 17,674]

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

The reasons to argue for immediate impeachment are justifiable and easy to make.

Reasons for delay are harder to accept.

- #1- the emotional attention span of our collective populous endures for days, maybe weeks.  You can't lose control of a message you haven't yet unleashed.  Combine emotional wave from formal impeachment with campaign next year.  Courts are working on shit already.  GOP capacity for lying and dereliction is bottomless.  Trump unrelenting blizzard of lies will erode meaningful impact of anything if given time .

- A lot more evidence and context incoming.  Upcoming Roger Stone and Jeffrey Epstein trials will provide important context for the public to understand Trump's ongoing circles outside the WH.  This is important for impeachment purposes more so than proving criminality.  House access to Trump tax returns/DB financials is already in the courts.

- Minimize ability for Trump to dictate nat'l conversation during campaign away from his crimes/impeachment and minimize time for Trump/bots to deepen a response after impeachment commences.  Also Mueller today: ongoing counterintelligence investigation of Trump (hello). 

Impeachment during election season might get the electorate's attention.

Just a thought.

[TwiceHorn 30,738]

4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

So what do you think the exception clause means?  Who can the president not pardon? 

Anyone who is impeached.  Which potentially includes the "Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States," in addition to the President.  Senators, Representatives, and federal judges, most notably.

I read impeachment as a political remedy rather than a criminal one, even though it may be based entirely on criminal offenses.  A pardon applies to a criminal offense, "an offense against the United States," but not an offense against one of the several states.

[Incredulity 11,141]

Robert Mueller sounds exactly like John Kerry.  I actually glitched in my brain this morning and thought I was watching SOS Kerry testify on the Iran Deal a couple times.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Anyone who is impeached.  Which potentially includes the "Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States," in addition to the President.  Senators, Representatives, and federal judges, most notably.

I read impeachment as a political remedy rather than a criminal one, even though it may be based entirely on criminal offenses.  A pardon applies to a criminal offense, "an offense against the United States," but not an offense against one of the several states.

Are you saying that (1) an official who is impeached cannot be pardoned for their federal criminal offenses, or (2) the clause means that the president cannot grant a "pardon from impeachment," only a pardon from criminal offenses?  

[Chooky 13,278]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Robert Mueller sounds exactly like John Kerry.  I actually glitched in my brain this morning and thought I was watching SOS Kerry testify on the Iran Deal a couple times.

Solid insight, but there's some compelling evidence out there that they are in fact different people. 

[TwiceHorn 30,738]

13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I've always understood it to mean that the President can't use the pardon power to prevent an official from being impeached.

Same.  I'm open to more knowledge on it, I just didn't find that Brookings piece particularly convincing, on its face or digging a little deeper into it.

[TwiceHorn 30,738]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

Are you saying that (1) an official who is impeached cannot be pardoned for their federal criminal offenses, or (2) the clause means that the president cannot grant a "pardon from impeachment," only a pardon from criminal offenses?  

The latter.