Mueller makes statement about investigation, resigns from DOJ

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

@Faysalaaa I'm definitely not going to partake in discussing your conspiracies about the Clintons -- they were factually debunked by many others before me.

Read the report.

Cheers and have a nice one. 

[Morphine Prince 109,691]

1 minute ago, Faysalaaa said:

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.

 

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.

1. It’s clear what you will say so I won’t be providing you with that information. No political party or politician is perfect. No matter who you support, one can dig up dirt. 

But when it comes to individual issues, one can come to a conclusion about who is on what side.

2. It’s classic whataboutism.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Petrichor said:

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.

1. Who are them?

2. No I said there is clear evidence that is 100% impeachable unlike the Mueller Report that wasted many years and at the end people are still debating it.

3. Sure but how come? based on what?

[Petrichor 4,640]

2 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

1. Who are them?

2. No I said there is clear evidence that is 100% impeachable unlike the Mueller Report that wasted many years and at the end people are still debating it.

3. Sure but how come? based on what?

1. The issues, you obviously care about them (the issues)...

2. NOBODY is debating the Mueller report. He presented instances of obstruction. He implied today Trump committed a crime. It was not a waste.

3. Based on the evidence suggested.

I'm not even going to engage you anymore. You keep asking questions that have obvious answers just to rhetorically set off defending yourself. I'm not going to debate with an idealist with no real debate skills or facts. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Morphine Prince said:

1. It’s clear what you will say so I won’t be providing you with that information. No political party or politician is perfect. No matter who you support, one can dig up dirt. 

But when it comes to individual issues, one can come to a conclusion about who is on what side.

2. It’s classic whataboutism.

And who side em I on?

Whataboutism means if someone does something wrong, I say what about that other person that did the same thing. What im saying is its more logical to go after him on these other issues that we have proof of. This is not whataboutism specially when im also using the same person.

[Morphine Prince 109,691]

3 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

And who side em I on?

Whataboutism means if someone does something wrong, I say what about that other person that did the same thing. What im saying is its more logical to go after him on these other issues that we have proof of. This is not whataboutism specially when im also using the same person.

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument

Google is free

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Petrichor said:

1. The issues, you obviously care about them (the issues)...

2. NOBODY is debating the Mueller report. He presented instances of obstruction. He implied today Trump committed a crime. It was not a waste.

3. Based on the evidence suggested.

I'm not even going to engage you anymore. You keep asking questions that have obvious answers just to rhetorically set off defending yourself. I'm not going to debate with an idealist with no real debate skills or facts. 

1. I havent expressed caring about any issues so.. what the hell are you talking about?

2. In my opinion it is a waste of time and I see its ore logical to go after the other issues I mentioned, this is not virtue signaling!

3. What evidence suggested that say im in the wrong side of history? 

You keep making crazy accusations and imagining things, so obviously I will start asking questions why you come up with these conclusions and try to defend myself. All your comments make no sense which is why I respond with questions.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument

Google is free

Yeah thats not what I did.

It would be whataboutism if I said Obama did the same thing but thats not what I did. I simply disagree that we have no enough evidence so we should go after the easiest thing to impeach Trump. GETIT?

[Morphine Prince 109,691]

Just now, Faysalaaa said:

Yeah thats not what I did.

It would be whataboutism if I said Obama did the same thing but thats not what I did. I simply disagree that we have no enough evidence so we should go after the easiest thing to impeach Trump. GETIT?

It’s exactly what you did. 

You even attempted to know what politicians/parties I support to try to say I’m a hypocrite on x,y issue. 

Furthermore, you brought up irrelevant issues to a particular discussion to try to discredit everyone arguing for a certain position in this discussion. 

I won’t entertain this any further. 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

This alone should break any trust with Trump and his admin.

If you don't want to believe the evidence, believe that there's an ongoing coverup. I'll give you the choice.

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

1 minute ago, Morphine Prince said:

It’s exactly what you did. 

You even attempted to know what politicians/parties I support to try to say I’m a hypocrite on x,y issue. 

Furthermore, you brought up irrelevant issues to a particular discussion to try to discredit everyone arguing for a certain position in this discussion. 

I won’t entertain this any further. 

Just hit the ignore option. I did. We need to keep this threads clean from arguments that don't go anywhere.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

It’s exactly what you did. 

You even attempted to know what politicians/parties I support to try to say I’m a hypocrite on x,y issue. 

Furthermore, you brought up irrelevant issues to a particular discussion to try to discredit everyone arguing for a certain position in this discussion. 

I won’t entertain this any further. 

I tried to do this because you said im on the wrong side of history trying to take away Americans rights. I was assuming you think im a Trump supporter which im not. So I asked you what  side of history are you on.

Yes I did try to discredit peoples opinion that I disagree with that is not whataboutism, that is disagreement. Im telling them that this is not the way to impeach Trump.

 

[ltlmnstr 2,771]

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

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.

Nixon resigned and his VP became president and pardoned him. It was an insidious time for America.

If history repeats...well...who here really knows Watergate in full...

[Eighteen 5,430]

i've only read about 1/4 of the mueller report, but from what i read in the news about part II of the report (which tackles obstruction of justice), donald trump might have attempted to obstruct justice several times, most notably by telling don mcgahn, the president's former lawyer, to fire robert mueller, which he refused carry out. i say might have because this is where the question of intent (i think) comes in, but in my view he obviously was trying to impede the investigation and make it go away (which is obstruction of justice), and maybe the evidence would heavily support that, i don't know, i haven't read the whole report yet (and then there is the underlying evidence behind the report). 

regarding the situation in the democratic house now, the speaker is dealing with a dilemma: that is, polls show that most americans do not support impeachment at the moment, and democrats are worried that impeaching the president in lieu of wide public support could hurt 2020 election prospects for liberals, which from my view is an argument that does hold water. what dems are in the process of doing now, i think, is to change the public opinion by holding hearings on the mueller report, but of course donald trump is blocking proceedings by defying subpoenas, which could work in the democrats' favor in the long run by having some ripple effect on public opinion, but that remains to be seen. then of course there is the counter argument where people are saying he should be impeached regardless, because he has committed impeachable offenses, which holds water too, but from a practical standpoint, i think it is better to try and win the public over, as it seems to be the safest and the most prudent thing to do if liberals want to maximize their chances at the white house. 

the fact of the matter is, the nature of the report--that is, a document that lays out the evidence and says nothing more--makes it seem plausible to some that donald trump was exonerated, or that he at least didn't do anything that is worth impeachment. this is definitely the media's fault as they have crafted this perception of the report for 2 years--that justice would unequivocally come down on donald with some kind of punishment in the report--and then when it came out, it fell with an anticlimactic thud.  this effect is bolstered by the fact that the attorney general, in his summary of the report, wrote that the obstruction evidence laid out in the report does not rise to a level beyond a reasonable doubt, which mueller then said was essentially correct and in no way misleading, though taken out of context (something that i do not understand, since, in my view, something taken out of context is misleading). 

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, ltlmnstr said:

Nixon resigned and his VP became president and pardoned him. It was an insidious time for America.

If history repeats...well...who here really knows Watergate in full...

Yes, but first Spiro Agnew, the Vice President elected on the 1972 Republican ticket along with Nixon resigned.

Section 2 of the 25th Amendment gave Nixon the power to name a new Vice President, if that office became vacant, with the permission of Congress.

Nixon nominated Ford, who was the House minority leader, to take Agnew's position on October 12, 1973.