![]() |
The Mueller Report thread - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: The Mueller Report thread (/Thread-The-Mueller-Report-thread) |
RE: The Mueller Report thread - bfine32 - 05-02-2019 (05-02-2019, 03:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I saw that but you included Congress when the House has yet to decide if formal charges are necessary. They have not made a decision one way or the other. Understood. As I said it's my simplistic look at it. Not considering which is "better or worse". Also as a business Major I never went much past Government 101. So can someone answer the following simple questions for me, so I am clear. Thought I was, be now I'm not so sure: Can Congress impeach POTUS (aka charge with a crime) if they feel such a crime has occurred? If impeached and voted to be removed from office can POTUS be subject to greater punishment? Can the VP and Cabinet remove POTUS if they agree to do so? RE: The Mueller Report thread - Benton - 05-02-2019 (05-02-2019, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Understood. As I said it's my simplistic look at it. Not considering which is "better or worse". Congress can impeach if they feel a crime has been committed, but that's not the same as being charged with a crime. It serves as a mechanism to remove someone from office The POTUS can .still be subject to any criminal charges, but as zona said, it hasn't happened. RE: The Mueller Report thread - bfine32 - 05-02-2019 (05-02-2019, 04:44 PM)Benton Wrote: Congress can impeach if they feel a crime has been committed, but that's not the same as being charged with a crime. It serves as a mechanism to remove someone from office Thanks, It's pretty much as I was tracking. All the "can't charge" talk had me thinking twice. So if Congress feels there's enough to recommend impeachment I'm sure they'll do it; regardless the AG's stance on charging. At this point I would not be upset if they did; as I'd love to see President Sasse, Cotton, or Kennedy. RE: The Mueller Report thread - BmorePat87 - 05-02-2019 (05-02-2019, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Understood. As I said it's my simplistic look at it. Not considering which is "better or worse". Doesn't really have anything to do with "better or worse", I was just clarifying. To answer your questions: Yes, probably, and yes. RE: The Mueller Report thread - Benton - 05-02-2019 (05-02-2019, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks, It's pretty much as I was tracking. All the "can't charge" talk had me thinking twice. So if Congress feels there's enough to recommend impeachment I'm sure they'll do it; regardless the AG's stance on charging. I don't think Congress will do much at this point outside of threaten. It'll be used heading into the 2020 elections, probably something along the lines of 'do you want to waste your vote on a guy about to get impeached?' or 'look how dirty they are, he's about to be impeaxhed but they stand behind him.' They'll use it to get elected/reelected but they won't do anything unless it looks like they'll lose. The embarrassing part for Dems is this is the about the office or the good of the country, it's job security. RE: The Mueller Report thread - Dill - 05-03-2019 (05-02-2019, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Can the VP and Cabinet remove POTUS if they agree to do so? Yes. 25th Amendment, passed once Congress learned that Wilson had been incapacitated by a stroke and his staff strove to keep it secret. If the "Fake News" is to be believed, Rosenstein discussed this option at one point. RE: The Mueller Report thread - Belsnickel - 05-06-2019 Surprised this wasn't posted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.e5c421be55f1 Quote:More than 450 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he holds. RE: The Mueller Report thread - Bengalzona - 05-06-2019 (05-06-2019, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Surprised this wasn't posted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.e5c421be55f1 But Hillary!!! But Obama!!!! RE: The Mueller Report thread - NATI BENGALS - 05-07-2019 (05-06-2019, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Surprised this wasn't posted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.e5c421be55f1 Its disgusting and epically frustrating at the same time. I have been whining about a broke ass two party system for a long time. Basically 98% of the Republican party being on board with what is happening proves it. Its all about power. Party over country. We are being led by incorrectly spelled tweets from a moron at the head of a party of spineless cowards. The same kind of people that enable dictators. RE: The Mueller Report thread - michaelsean - 05-07-2019 The question is can he do what he did in cases that don't concern him, and does that make a difference? Somehow this stuff should be under the judiciary, and then we won't have this problem. RE: The Mueller Report thread - jj22 - 05-07-2019 Reading thought the Mueller report, it's clear Trump would be in prison if not for being President. He'll still fall under the statue if voted out in 2 years, and likely will face charges for all sorts of stuff (involving fraud in the Trump Org, taxes, collusion, and obstruction etc) then. This is far from over regardless of how much spin is coming from Barr (who is scared to testify under oath), Trump, and his supporters. Actions speak louder then words. Trump doesn't want Mueller to testify under oath, Barr wants no part of testifying under oath. These aren't the actions of a man who claims to be fully exonerated. But by now we all (even if his supporters won't admit it) that he was never fully exonerated. Not even close. RE: The Mueller Report thread - Dill - 05-07-2019 (05-06-2019, 09:40 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: But Hillary!!! Excellent point. Deep-state Republicans in the FBI let them go scot free. But they hate Trump so they have to investigate all the many (lied about) contacts between his administration and our Russian adversary, though we could be friends with Russia if we could just drop the sanctions on them and keep Trump as president. Now NO ONE is talking about the ATTEMPTED COUP against Trump except this guy (and Fox). https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/05/07/trump-tweet-stolen-presidency-steve-cortes-kirsten-powers-anderson-cooper-panel-ac360-vpx.cnn Trump should get two more years to make up for the two stolen from him. It's only fair. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/05/trump-term-mueller-1302643 http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/jerry-falwell-jr-extend-trumps-term-as-reparations.html If the president in question was anyone else, the suggestion from a prominent supporter, Jerry Falwell Jr., that he was owed an extension of his term as “reparations” for the Mueller investigation could be dismissed as mere rhetorical excess combined with an effort to taunt liberals for their interest in reparations for the descendants of slaves. But because Donald Trump has repeatedly fanned claims that he regards anything that gets in his way — say, an adverse 2020 election — as an extra-constitutional “coup,” it’s not so easy to laugh this off: Quote:After the best week ever for @realDonaldTrump - no obstruction, no collusion, NYT admits @BarackObama did spy on his campaign, & the economy is soaring. I now support reparations-Trump should have 2 yrs added to his 1st term as pay back for time stolen by this corrupt failed coup Time to start the investigation into the president's opponents now. Putin would not let his get off like that. RE: The Mueller Report thread - jj22 - 05-07-2019 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9b00111f2a0b Update. Matt Zapotosky Retweeted Matt Zapotosky The signatories on this have grown to 650. When we first broke the news of the statement's existence yesterday shortly after 1 p.m. - just as it was made public - the count was at 375. The @protctdemocracy effort to collect those initial signatures was all behind the scenes. RE: The Mueller Report thread - jj22 - 05-07-2019 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/fbi-chief-wray-says-spying-didn-t-occur-trump-campaign-n1002806?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma RE: The Mueller Report thread - Belsnickel - 05-07-2019 (05-07-2019, 09:07 AM)michaelsean Wrote: The question is can he do what he did in cases that don't concern him, and does that make a difference? Somehow this stuff should be under the judiciary, and then we won't have this problem. As the US is a common law country, we lean towards a primarily adversarial judicial system. What this means is that our judiciary, as described by Hamilton in Federalist 78, is only there to levy judgment. It sits as an independent referee in matters between two parties. This is the result of our English origins, as they are also rooted in this common law/adversarial system. In civil law systems, such as what is found in most of the EU, they also have an inquisitorial (which sounds bad, but isn't really) judiciary. What this means is that judges play a role in investigating the facts of a case. There is a judicial law enforcement which is primarily responsible for criminal investigations and the like and the prosecutors are a part of the judicial branch. What this means is that criminal cases are between the defendant and the judiciary, not the defendant and the executive with the judiciary as a mediator. The executive still maintains a police force which handles more of the public safety situations--the day-to-day patrol type of work. There are pros and cons, there, but the civil law system provides greater independence from the other two branches, bringing them closer to being on their level. It does, however, open the judiciary to more corruption as the more power gained, the more potential to twist it there is. Civil law systems do not allow for judicial precedence to create law, it is only creating by the people (or their duly elected representatives). It's hard to get into all of the differences because each country is a little different and so the nuances are plentiful. My main point here is that this type of system does exist, but our constitutional framework is that of a common law country. This is likely to keep the judiciary--the non-elected branch--the weakest of the three as it lacks purse or sword. There are pros and cons to both primary types of judicial systems and we have to think long and hard about the wisdom of changing that balance. RE: The Mueller Report thread - jj22 - 05-07-2019 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/07/don-mcgahn-wont-comply-with-house-democrats-subpoena-1308802 More obstruction from a POTUS who now knows (as well as anyone who is reading the Mueller report) he committed crimes and can continue to do so without fear of being prosecuted as long as he's in office. Not the best lesson to learn for a criminal. But Trump has learned it and has dug in. For people who refuse to read the Mueller report so that they can regurgitate Fox News and Hannity summaries without guilt, I ask, you really think this is the actions of a man who was "fully exonerated" by the Mueller report? He's lying to you, but then again, yall already know it. Love yourself, and love this country. Don't keep playing a fool for a man with Trumps "integrity". RE: The Mueller Report thread - Dill - 05-07-2019 (05-07-2019, 12:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As the US is a common law country, we lean towards a primarily adversarial judicial system. What this means is that our judiciary, as described by Hamilton in Federalist 78, is only there to levy judgment. It sits as an independent referee in matters between two parties. This is the result of our English origins, as they are also rooted in this common law/adversarial system. Excellent summary. Frankly, though, I think there are mostly cons to any system which sets up direct conflict between defendant and judiciary. RE: The Mueller Report thread - Belsnickel - 05-07-2019 (05-07-2019, 05:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Excellent summary. Frankly, though, I think there are mostly cons to any system which sets up direct conflict between defendant and judiciary. I tend to agree. I dislike the idea of the inquisitorial trial process. At the same time, however, I see a value in the criminal investigation being separate from the executive and a part of the judiciary. We can see throughout history the challenges with both common and civil law systems and the way the justice system has been corrupted either by the executive or the judicial branches, depending on the country. RE: The Mueller Report thread - Lucidus - 05-07-2019 (05-02-2019, 01:57 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Based upon what? Obstruction of justice? They will reach the same conclusion as Mueller; while we can't say he did, we can't say he didn't. The Republican controlled Senate would never impeach Trump with that level of certainty/uncertainty. Mueller's conclusion was constrained do to his adherence to the OLC opinion that a sitting President should not be indicted. For that reason, Mueller would not, and could not, charge Mr. Trump himself. Given that he could not charge the POTUS based on said adherence to the OLC's opinion, it also limited him as far as any statements concerning presumed guilt or innocence. Instead, he chose to present 10 examples of clear obstruction in his report for consideration to those that due have the power and obligation to evaluate the actions of the POTUS and determine how to proceed. Hundreds of current and former prosecutors recently submitted their conclusion on the matter, and in their collective judgement, Mr. Trump broke the law on several occasions. Congress has an obligation -- regardless of election posturing or consternation -- to due it's duty, which includes impeachment if they determine the evidence warrants it. I have a hard time believing that any rational person could look at the evidence at this point and make any determination other than the President obstructed or attempted to obstruct (also a crime) multiple times. If the Democrats follow your advice and forgo impeachment, I fear they will be seen as extremely weak and disinterested in justice, which will in turn cause the a greater portion of the electorate to throw their collective hands in the air and ask, "why even bother." If everyone is exempt from accountability and the Democratic party is unwilling to provide a sense of justness and fairness, then why should the masses care which party wins. You're correct that impeachment in the House will die with the current Senate. However, it would at least show that the Democrats are willing to take a stand, show a semblance of backbone and carry out the lawful duty. If they don't, I will offer that it makes Trump all the more powerful and greatly enhances his bid for a second term. He will look strong and vindicated, while Democrats will look weak and incompetent. RE: The Mueller Report thread - michaelsean - 05-07-2019 (05-07-2019, 09:18 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Mueller's conclusion was constrained do to his adherence to the OLC opinion that a sitting President should not be indicted. For that reason, Mueller would not, and could not, charge Mr. Trump himself. Given that he could not charge the POTUS based on said adherence to the OLC's opinion, it also limited him as far as any statements concerning presumed guilt or innocence. None of that matters. If they deem impeachment could hurt them with the middle they won’t do it. They may lose a few of their voters to third party, but most people will realize that voting third party helps Trump. If they think impeachment will help them then they will. They also have to make sure they have the votes. |