Mueller makes statement about investigation, resigns from DOJ

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

I agree! But I’m only saying what Dems are CLAIMING is the issue. 

Honestly, we don’t know what will happen unless they do it. 

The people gave Dems the House because we wanted actual accountability. They will fail if they don’t go further into this issue. 

They’ve done a good job at highlighting certain things but it’s not enough. 

You've raised another good point. This Democratic House of Representatives was elected, I think for the most part, for their promise of accountability. Not only are these Dem members of the House abdicating their duties to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution, they are also abdicating the duties that the American people hired them to carry out. If nothing comes of this and Donald Trump skates by, I hope that every single person in the House and Senate who didn't come out in support of impeachment is voted out of office and never given a job this important for the rest of their lives. This is too important. Another reason I support impeachment is to get every sitting member of both chambers of Congress on the record stating that Donald Trump's conduct is impeachable or not... They should have to live with this decision for the rest of their lives. Political careers would be rightfully destroyed. 

[Morphine Prince 109,896]

Just now, Faysalaaa said:

 

 

So you will come after him for obstruction when the report also definitively found that no evidence of collusion. So you are saying Trump obstructed justice but there was no original crime so how can you obstruct if there is no original crime? If you really wanted to impeach Donald trump, why are you using the flimsiest argument of all argument and the flimsuest issue of all issues? what you should impeach him over is:

1. Yemen: There is no declaration of war for what Trump is doing in Yemen, yet America is in Yemen. They are using the old authorization for use of military force from the Bush era to be involved in Yemen. Donald Trump is illegally and offensively starving and bombing a poor country with no approval from congress. The constitution is crystal clear that congress has to declare a war. That is 100% impeachable.

2. Emoluments clause of the constitution: Which means the president cant accept money. and cannot have businesses where foreign government are giving him money and business.

But clearly nobody cared about these issues because Democrats agree with Trump on these issues and they would expose themselves too.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A CRIME. PERIOD. 

Not only if the original crime you were suspected of is true. 

Please READ.

Also, what are you talking about? Trump’s admin. is actually going AGAINST Congress and wanting to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. Congress is actually acting on that issue. 

And about emolument: His business dealings are still under investigation. 

[Petrichor 4,640]

2 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

 

 

So you will come after him for obstruction when the report also definitively found that no evidence of collusion. So you are saying Trump obstructed justice but there was no original crime so how can you obstruct if there is no original crime? If you really wanted to impeach Donald trump, why are you using the flimsiest argument of all argument and the flimsuest issue of all issues? what you should impeach him over is:

1. Yemen: There is no declaration of war for what Trump is doing in Yemen, yet America is in Yemen. They are using the old authorization for use of military force from the Bush era to be involved in Yemen. Donald Trump is illegally and offensively starving and bombing a poor country with no approval from congress. The constitution is crystal clear that congress has to declare a war. That is 100% impeachable.

2. Emoluments clause of the constitution: Which means the president cant accept money. and cannot have businesses where foreign government are giving him money and business.

But clearly nobody cared about these issues because Democrats agree with Trump on these issues and they would expose themselves too.

The Emoluments issue is in court, so why impeach? The courts will force him to divest. Yemen will also soon be taken up in court. Maybe you should educate yourself on the issues you hold so near and dear to your heart. Stop virtue signaling and just go - you're obviously on the wrong side of this issue (and history), and you've run out of defenses.

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

Let's refrain from whataboutism in this thread please and keep it about the Mueller investigation/impeachment proceedings. 

 

[ltlmnstr 2,771]

Call your representatives and senators guys.

They have to hear from us.

[Whispering 18,865]

Mueller Basically:

1. We’re not allowed to say the President is guilty.

2. The evidence does not say he’s innocent.

 

 

There's a political process designed for this exact situation. It's clearly outlined in the constitution.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Petrichor said:

The Emoluments issue is in court, so why impeach? The courts will force him to divest. Yemen will also soon be taken up in court. Maybe you should educate yourself on the issues you hold so near and dear to your heart. Stop virtue signaling and just go - you're obviously on the wrong side of this issue (and history), and you've run out of defenses.

What are these issues I hold so near to my heart? and what virtue signaling did I do? and what side of history em I on? 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A CRIME. PERIOD. 

Not only if the original crime you were suspected of is true. 

Please READ.

Also, what are you talking about? Trump’s admin. is actually going AGAINST Congress and wanting to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. Congress is actually acting on that issue. 

And about emolument: His business dealings are still under investigation. 

Ok good so ask for an impeachment on these issues because there no need to have an investigation, we already have proof of this. This will impeach him.

[Morphine Prince 109,896]

Just now, Faysalaaa said:

 and what side of history em I on? 

The wrong one. The one that is denying Americans the right of holding their representatives accountable. 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

2 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

 

 

So you will come after him for obstruction when the report also definitively found that no evidence of collusion. So you are saying Trump obstructed justice but there was no original crime so how can you obstruct if there is no original crime? If you really wanted to impeach Donald trump, why are you using the flimsiest argument of all argument and the flimsuest issue of all issues? what you should impeach him over is:

1. Yemen: There is no declaration of war for what Trump is doing in Yemen, yet America is in Yemen. They are using the old authorization for use of military force from the Bush era to be involved in Yemen. Donald Trump is illegally and offensively starving and bombing a poor country with no approval from congress. The constitution is crystal clear that congress has to declare a war. That is 100% impeachable.

2. Emoluments clause of the constitution: Which means the president cant accept money. and cannot have businesses where foreign government are giving him money and business.

But clearly nobody cared about these issues because Democrats agree with Trump on these issues and they would expose themselves too.

Legal scholars, the people more qualified to answer this question than you and I, have made their opinion on this abundantly clear: no underlying crime is necessary for an Obstruction of Justice charge. You don't have to obstruct a crime, you can obstruct an investigation. From a prosecutor:

A President's oath including faithfully executing the laws of the land... Attempting to end a federal investigation into a foreign nation that attacked our democracy is not only a crime (Obstruction), but it's also a stunning violation of this oath that Donald Trump took when he became President. And the evidence to prove this crime is literally public on the internet -- that's why I and so many others are pushing on Congress hard to impeach Trump for Obstruction. Listen to Mueller's statement today in which he underscored just how serious an Obstruction of Justice crime is and how an Obstruction offense prevents the functioning of our system of justice. 

The report claimed that there was no conspiracy. The collusion that we know took place did not rise to the level of conspiracy, apparently. This is unconnected to the President's Obstruction crimes. 

The argument for Obstruction is far from flimsy as 1,000 former prosecutors agree the evidence for it rises to the level of criminality. 

I do agree with you, however, that Donald Trump is impeachable for many, many other things than just Obstruction of Justice. Obstruction of Justice is a very convenient campaigning vehicle for impeachment because: 1. it's a serious federal felony. 2. the evidence is public already. 3. Nixon, the only administration comparable to this one, was nearly impeached for Obstruction before he resigned, seemingly confirming that Obstruction of Justice is, indeed, a high crime/misdemeanor. 

[Morphine Prince 109,896]

Just now, Faysalaaa said:

Ok good so ask for an impeachment on these issues because there no need to have an investigation, we already have proof of this. This will impeach him.

The whataboutism won’t do you any good here. 

The issues you raised are important but they aren’t part of THIS discussion. 

[Whispering 18,865]

Information that’s important to know/remember:

Mueller was referring to a Nixon-era memo.  If you’ve heard the Bag Man podcast, that OLC memo was drafted such that Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s criminal VP could formally be indicted. 

The memo effectively says that a sitting Vice President CAN be indicted because a sitting President CANNOT be. 

Another simpler way to read that OLC memo is that the President can’t run the country from a Jail cell, therefore he can’t be indicted. 

He can be impeached, removed and THEN indicted, however.

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Mueller Basically:

1. We’re not allowed to say the President is guilty.

2. The evidence does not say he’s innocent.

 

 

There's a political process designed for this exact situation. It's clearly outlined in the constitution.

Why people say Mueller did not recommend impeachment baffles me. 

[Petrichor 4,640]

7 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

What are these issues I hold so near to my heart? and what virtue signaling did I do? and what side of history em I on? 

1. You though their merit supersedes impeaching the POTUS over obstruction. You obviously care about them, right?

2. You're preaching there's more pressing issues at hand than this. That is virtue signaling, i.e. "What about the war in Yemen?!"

3. The wrong one.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

The wrong one. The one that is denying Americans the right of holding their representatives accountable. 

How come? what have I done or supported that made you have this conclusion. But please tell me who you support and I will show you weather you are on the right side of history and who rights you are taking away.

3 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

The whataboutism won’t do you any good here. 

The issues you raised are important but they aren’t part of THIS discussion. 

 

Umm its not whataboutism and yes it is part of this discussion. Im simply saying its more logical to go after him on these issues we already have 100% proof on than do this investigation  that led to nowhere.