President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Cornyn is going on and on about the Democrats funding the Steele dossier and suggesting it was collusion with Russia, while conveniently forgetting it was originally funded by Republicans seeking to prevent the President from getting the GOP nomination in the first place.

 

Beyond that: "The Steele Dossier is collusion with Russia" really short sells the fact that Democrats didn't use the Steele Dossier during the campaign.

 

You're living in a fantasy world. It was well within Robert Mueller's power to recommend impeachment and outline a case for doing so. That is what Starr did. Mueller did not do that. At the very least, he could have definitively said that the president's conduct met the definition of high crimes or abuse of office. He did not do that. That is what the Dems would have needed to impeach Trump without risking the GOP effectively weaponizing it. If the goal is to get Donald Trump out of office, the best way to accomplish that is to move on from impeachment and spend the next year focusing the public's attention on the disaster that he has been without having to simultaneously defend themselves, and distract the public, with a debate about impeachment. This is really obvious to me, and I would guess that it is really obvious to Trump, and to Pelosi, and to everyone except the butthurtest of Clinton supporters. Which is why nobody is talking seriously about impeachment, even if, in an objective, non-partisan world, the Dems could make a case.

 

I mean, it seems like a workable plan - until you realize Wohl is involved.

‘Make Sh*t Up’: Inside Jacob Wohl’s Bonkers Investment Plan

 

I didn't say there was no case. I said there wasn't an unequivocal case. It's the whole reason why Mueller was appointed. For the Dems to substantiate their case and avoid a critical mass of the public questioning its legitimacy, they needed Mueller to make it clear that, in his view, Trump warranted impeachment on objective, non-partisan, legal grounds. He did not make that argument. Whatever the facts say, they needed Mueller to say explicitly that a crime had been committed.

 

So I had the TV on long enough to hear Lindsey Graham pontificate and William Barr evade Dianne Feinstein’s question and I decided to walk to the Clearwater Beach Hooters and cash in my free drink ticket. The moral of the story is retirement doesn’t suck, even though the only beer I could get with the promo is Bud Light

 

Why does it matter who paid for it? Either what's in it is true or it isn't.

 

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.

 

Bob Mueller's own words from the first page of Volume II of the report (bold emphasis is mine, italics are Mueller's):

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement. The Office Of Legal Council (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that 'the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions' in violation of 'the constitutional separation of powers.' Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. 515; 28 C.F.R. 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from the OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct."

DOJ was never going to indict the President, so it made no sense for Mueller to make a recommendation on it. Impeachment is outside of his purview, so he didn't make a recommendation there, either. Instead, he laid out all the evidence Congress would need to impeach. Now it's up to them to impeach the motherfucker.

 

Cornyn is suggesting Democrats colluded with Russia because they paid for it, while neglecting to mention that Republicans began the investigation by hiring Steele. His argument makes no sense.

 

Here's another good English word: wanker. Bill Barr is a wanker. So's his boss.

 

Perjury is another good English word.