American Indians

[Flash]

There is no indication of “insufficient evidence” for obstruction.

Mueller Conclusion

“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

It was "insufficient" to prosecute or for Congress to investigate. It does not even seem like the Democrats are including those obstruction issues in their impeachment proceedings.

I thought Mueller's report was not what anti-Trump people had hoped for, but I think it largely disproves the whole conspiracy theory for the "deep state" to remove Trump from office. If it had been a plot using phony evidence we would have seen some of it. They would not have conducted that investigation and come up with nothing. Mueller would have at least made some recommendations to prosecute. Such an elaborate conspiracy would have found some evidence even if they had to manufacture it.

 

[domer76]

It was "insufficient" to prosecute or for Congress to investigate. It does not even seem like the Democrats are including those obstruction issues in their impeachment proceedings.

I thought Mueller's report was not what anti-Trump people had hoped for, but I think it largely disproves the whole conspiracy theory for the "deep state" to remove Trump from office. If it had been a plot using phony evidence we would have seen some of it. They would not have conducted that investigation and come up with nothing. Mueller would have at least made some recommendations to prosecute. Such an elaborate conspiracy would have found some evidence even if they had to manufacture it.

“Insufficient” does not mean “none”.

Congress has chosen to pursue abuse of power and other charges related to the Ukraine extortion.

It still doesn’t change the fact that multiple hundreds of prosecutors consider the obstruction claims to be easily criminally prosecutable.

 

[Flash]

“Insufficient” does not mean “none”.

Congress has chosen to pursue abuse of power and other charges related to the Ukraine extortion.

It still doesn’t change the fact that multiple hundreds of prosecutors consider the obstruction claims to be easily criminally prosecutable.

I don't have any opinion about the obstruction charges because I don't know enough about the law in that area. If they are prosecutable the DOJ and impeachment committee should take action. I only sought to refute the poster's claim that collusion occurred.

Based on the JPP posters, call-in shows, and opinion whether Trump did anything wrong is not determined by any facts but purely by partisan leanings. Democrats have come up with new stuff every week for three years that will "get him this time" only to be forgotten until the next event. The Republicans defend the president against all charges.

Debate about the facts is meaningless. If we know whether a poster's political leanings we already know what they will think about every issue. Republicans will not believe Anita Hill, Ford, or intelligence committee witnesses and Democrats will believe them all. Our opinions are already decided before we know anything about the issue.

 

[domer76]

I don't have any opinion about the obstruction charges because I don't know enough about the law in that area. If they are prosecutable the DOJ and impeachment committee should take action. I only sought to refute the poster's claim that collusion occurred.

Based on the JPP posters, call-in shows, and opinion whether Trump did anything wrong is not determined by any facts but purely by partisan leanings. Democrats have come up with new stuff every week for three years that will "get him this time" only to be forgotten until the next event. The Republicans defend the president against all charges.

Debate about the facts is meaningless. If we know whether a poster's political leanings we already know what they will think about every issue. Republicans will not believe Anita Hill, Ford, or intelligence committee witnesses and Democrats will believe them all. Our opinions are already decided before we know anything about the issue.

According to DOJ and precedent, a sitting President cannot be indicted for criminal matters.

No need for those complex obstruction charges from Mueller. It’s obvious that they escape most RW morons who only THINK they understand them, much less an uninformed general public.

What is much easier is extortion, bribery and abuse of power from the Ukraine matter.

 

[Flash]

According to DOJ and precedent, a sitting President cannot be indicted for criminal matters.

No need for those complex obstruction charges from Mueller. It’s obvious that they escape most RW morons who only THINK they understand them, much less an uninformed general public.

What is much easier is extortion, bribery and abuse of power from the Ukraine matter.

Agreed, but I don't think the left understands them any better. They would latch onto anything critical of Trump. We have seen too many charges by the left attempting to make huge stretches to find something wrong about Republicans and Trump--Logan Act, emoluments, etc. The worse charge used by both sides is "traitor" when nothing either side or person has done comes close to being a traitor (legally)--the whistleblower, Trump.....

 

[Mason Michaels]

Mason is having a triggered liberal snowflake meltdown and trying to project it away from himself.

USF deflecting away from his meltdown

 

[USFREEDOM911]

USF deflecting away from his meltdown

Mason trying to defect from his triggered liberal snowflake meltdown, which is so evident.

 

[Controlled Opposition]

Billy groaned my post. This is for him:

 

[Mason Michaels]

Mason trying to defect from his triggered liberal snowflake meltdown, which is so evident.

Copying my post is so lame!

 

[rjhenn]

Yes, he documented contacts which is what spurred the investigation in the first place. A meeting does not equal collusion. Even the meeting that was supposed to include dirt on Clinton resulted in nothing. The individuals were stupid to lie about those contacts.

collusion: "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others"

And the campaign's actions clearly met that definition. Nothing indictable, except possibly under campaign finance law.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Agreed, but I don't think the left understands them any better. They would latch onto anything critical of Trump. We have seen too many charges by the left attempting to make huge stretches to find something wrong about Republicans and Trump--Logan Act, emoluments, etc. The worse charge used by both sides is "traitor" when nothing either side or person has done comes close to being a traitor (legally)--the whistleblower, Trump.....

A sitting President can only be 'indicted' by the House by impeachment.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[moon]

A sitting President can only be 'indicted' by the House by impeachment.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Then when he's NOT president anymore the cops move in.

HaW, HAW.........................................................................HAW.

 

[moon]

The civil rights leader ‘almost nobody knows about’ gets a statue in the U.S. Capitol

https://www.washingtonpost.com/hist...FSLaxLEIgE09BkBZdAhxSvoEFW7gEnvCHs-NeyNAUhLz0

 

[Flash]

A sitting President can only be 'indicted' by the House by impeachment.

Yes, I understand that (he cannot be prosecuted at the federal level).

At one time a sitting president could not be sued in a civil case--until Paula Jones changed that.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Copying my post is so lame!

You trying to deflect from your triggered liberal snowflake meltdown, is not only lame; but weak.

 

[Into the Night]

North Americans is a far better name. It differentiates them from the later European immigrants.

North Americans are anyone born in North America, including Canada, the United States, and Mexico.

 

[Into the Night]

You're not an indigenous American. Yes, you're native by birth- but not of origin. The First Nations are indigenous.

I am indigenous. I was born here. I am Native American.

 

[Into the Night]

Untrue; because it's been proven that they also immigrated from elsewhere.

Nah. They were born here, just like you and me. They are also Native Americans.

 

[Into the Night]

Asia, by most accounts- but the First Nations are exactly that- ' here first '- ergo ' indigenous '.

What 'First Nations'?

 

[Into the Night]

To the contrary- I'm pointing out that there are indigenous North Americans - the truly native Americans- and there are Europeans claiming native status by birth. That's OK- as long as the palefaces don't think that they're the real North Americans.

They are real North Americans as long as they were born in North America.