All my TDS friends, please take the following pledge and respond by entering your name where indicated:
“I, {enter you name}, will delete my ST account and never again post to ST if Trump is not indicted after he leaves office.”
The evidence is there. Put up or shut up time.
Why would someone think that has guaranteed? He can just pardon himself before he leaves office if he loses re-election.
All my TDS friends, please take the following pledge and respond by entering your name where indicated:
“I, {enter you name}, will delete my ST account and never again post to ST if Trump is not indicted after he leaves office.”
The evidence is there. Put up or shut up time.
since the evidence is there, why are you still defending this creep?
This is not what was said during the hearings. Mueller made it very clear in a clarification, stating that no decision to charge was made because of the OLC decision. If there was no OLC ruling, he could have made a decision to charge/discharge. “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
After trump leaves office, this decision could be made (to charge/not charge) by a prosecutor.
“You believe that he committed — you could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?” Buck continued.
“Yes,” Mueller answered.
All my TDS friends, please take the following pledge and respond by entering your name where indicated:
“I, {enter you name}, will delete my ST account and never again post to ST if Trump is not indicted after he leaves office.”
The evidence is there. Put up or shut up time.
since the evidence is there, why are you still defending this creep?
I’m not defending anyone.
I’m reacting to those who are sure he committed obstruction and Mueller was constrained.
However, I see that narrative is now failing bigly.
Mueller said he was constrained from making a decision on whether there was obstruction based on the rules. This is not that hard to follow. Because he couldnt make the end decision, there was no reason to make it. Just gather evidence to give to the body that can decide in his opinion. Much like after trump is president, another prosecutor can use the evidence to charge/not charge.
The more interesting exchange was about whether Mueller’s team had looked into Trump’s finances.
I think an indictment on obstruction could be the least of his worries. It could be an indictment on financial crimes through SDNY that awaits.
All my TDS friends, please take the following pledge and respond by entering your name where indicated:
“I, {enter you name}, will delete my ST account and never again post to ST if Trump is not indicted after he leaves office.”
The evidence is there. Put up or shut up time.
since the evidence is there, why are you still defending this creep?
I’m not defending anyone. I’m reacting to those who are sure he committed obstruction and Mueller was constrained. However, I see that narrative is now failing bigly.
the shame of this whole episode is that mueller was ready to engage on 2 issues: the impartiality and professionalism of his team; and on the very subject of the investigation he was asked to lead: the degree to which america’s election was attacked and the likelihood of a continuation of it. there were important themes today: keeping faith with america’s institutions and in its career professionals who serve us; and protecting us against the current attack against us, and the near-guarantee of future attack. you’re a grown-up, you can do what you want; but i’m aligning myself with whomever seems most interested in those themes mueller wisely (in my opinion) exhorted us to consider.
“@PaulaReidCBS asked Pres. Trump about the moment when Robert Mueller said he could still be charged when he leaves office. How did he respond?” “He became agitated. He insisted that Mueller never said that, he suggested that Mueller recanted, which he didn’t.”
All my TDS friends, please take the following pledge and respond by entering your name where indicated:
“I, {enter you name}, will delete my ST account and never again post to ST if Trump is not indicted after he leaves office.”
The evidence is there. Put up or shut up time.
That will all depend on who is in office, most likely. Could be another Republican, could be a Democrat who doesn’t want to look bad by going after the candidate he defeated, or any number of other reasons.
“I, {enter you name}, will delete my ST account and never again post to ST if Trump is not indicted after he leaves office.”
The evidence is there. Put up or shut up time.
Hey, Mopdahl, that you?
Mueller said he was constrained from making a decision on whether there was obstruction based on the rules. This is not that hard to follow. Because he couldnt make the end decision, there was no reason to make it. Just gather evidence to give to the body that can decide in his opinion. Much like after trump is president, another prosecutor can use the evidence to charge/not charge.
to me, this was pretty clear. of course i read the report, so i’m at an advantage. mueller said he could not indict a sitting president, regardless of the evidence. he also said (and many here are missing this point) he could not accuse a sitting president (and he gave his reasons).
right after the mueller report came out, the TV pundits said, “let’s just ask him, ‘if it wasn’t for the OLC memo would you have indicted the president?’” that was an asinine idea. that’s like asking someone privy to grand jury testimoney, “what would you leak if there was no law prohibiting it?” does asking the question that way set someone free to leak?
i believe ted lieu got the truth out of mueller. but then mueller realized a clever attorney had gotten him past what he felt was fair to the president; so he walked it back. as he should have. but it’s pretty obvious, if you just read the report, that 3 or 4 of the 10 or 12 possible instance of obstruction are slam dunky.
in the end, so what? if trump turns out to be knee deep in jeffrey epstein’s world, do you think that’s going to change the minds of any of his disciples?
Mueller said he was constrained from making a decision on whether there was obstruction based on the rules. This is not that hard to follow. Because he couldnt make the end decision, there was no reason to make it. Just gather evidence to give to the body that can decide in his opinion. Much like after trump is president, another prosecutor can use the evidence to charge/not charge.
And yet you haven’t taken my pledge.
Mueller said he was constrained from making a decision on whether there was obstruction based on the rules. This is not that hard to follow. Because he couldnt make the end decision, there was no reason to make it. Just gather evidence to give to the body that can decide in his opinion. Much like after trump is president, another prosecutor can use the evidence to charge/not charge.
to me, this was pretty clear. of course i read the report, so i’m at an advantage. mueller said he could not indict a sitting president, regardless of the evidence. he also said (and many here are missing this point) he could not accuse a sitting president (and he gave his reasons).
right after the mueller report came out, the TV pundits said, “let’s just ask him, ‘if it wasn’t for the OLC memo would you have indicted the president?’” that was an asinine idea. that’s like asking someone privy to grand jury testimoney, “what would you leak if there was no law prohibiting it?” does asking the question that way set someone free to leak?
i believe ted lieu got the truth out of mueller. but then mueller realized a clever attorney had gotten him past what he felt was fair to the president; so he walked it back. as he should have. but it’s pretty obvious, if you just read the report, that 3 or 4 of the 10 or 12 possible instance of obstruction are slam dunky.
in the end, so what? if trump turns out to be knee deep in jeffrey epstein’s world, do you think that’s going to change the minds of any of his disciples?
“Slam dunky”?
I’d push you on the pledge, but I’d hate to see you barred from your own website and I don’t have time to take it over.
But your pledge doesnt make any sense. There are many reasons why trump wont be charged that have nothing to do with his criminality.
LBj, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton all probably committed indictable or were aware of indictable offenses whilst in office. The remainder had some gray areas. How many were indicted again? The bar for indicting a past President is almost as high as impeachment and is a precedent set by banana republics. #NotDefendingHim #NotDeflecting #StatingFacts
LBj, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton all probably committed indictable or were aware of indictable offenses whilst in office. The remainder had some gray areas. How many were indicted again? The bar for indicting a past President is almost as high as impeachment and is a precedent set by banana republics. #NotDefendingHim #NotDeflecting #StatingFacts
The difference being you said “probably”. The Trump obstruction is not “probably”. It’s “slam dunky”.
LBj, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton all probably committed indictable or were aware of indictable offenses whilst in office. The remainder had some gray areas. How many were indicted again? The bar for indicting a past President is almost as high as impeachment and is a precedent set by banana republics. #NotDefendingHim #NotDeflecting #StatingFacts
The difference being you said “probably”. The Trump obstruction is not “probably”. It’s “slam dunky”.
Your bet is stupid.
Nixon and Clinton should have been indicted. Reagan and LBJ in a dark gray area. Better?
LBj, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton all probably committed indictable or were aware of indictable offenses whilst in office. The remainder had some gray areas. How many were indicted again? The bar for indicting a past President is almost as high as impeachment and is a precedent set by banana republics. #NotDefendingHim #NotDeflecting #StatingFacts
I agree there are going to be huge political factors that will prevent it from happening. Just like Ford pardoned Nixon for political reasons, because he believed it was better for the country. He was probably right in the short term, but I think in the long term Nixon getting off was very damaging to the country. Showing that the president is in many ways above the law and that as long as you are in power, you can get away with so much.
DJRed’s bet is stupid in the exact same way that Mopdalh’s bet against BK was stupid. “Bet To Ban” is monumental asshattery, every time.