Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fortunately you are so completely wrong in your understanding of double jeopardy, and a even a .00000000000000000001% possibility of it’s application here, you might be curable of Trumpism.
The principle is what I said.
 
Last edited:
How could they have 2 years when the phone call was July 25th. Yell at those people at Fox for arming you with nonsense
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
You may seek to dismiss the content of the article altogether but I think that most informed people understand that we are in terra incognito with Barr, who is unabashed in serving the interests of the President as though that were actually the job of the AG.
Click to expand...
And we know this how? Because someone alleged it. That’s all that’s required for some people; just make a charge, doesn’t matter what it is. This is a perennial complaint leveled against Republican AG’s, just like sexual impropriety charges against Republican Supreme Court nominees.
 
Ender said:
And we know this how?
Click to expand...
I know this by seeing the difference between the brazen nature of Barr’s action with the comparatively high circumspection of Nixon’s John Mitchell, who, at the time, was very controversial for failing to draw the line with the White House.
 
Sorry. Double Jeopardy under the Constitution involves TWO consecutive CRIMINAL TRIALS.
THERE has been NO criminal trials and won’t be.
If there is new evidence it gets included if relevant unless it constitutes suprise or prejudice in terms of ability to prepare and meet it at trial. Since a trial has not been set in the Senate, there is no danger of legal surprise ( legal prejudice). Unless you want to speak of the president himself wrongly stonewalling without a legal basis.
These are his witnesses and his documents. THE ONLY PREJUDICE is to the prosecution that has no access.
Good! Another Trump lie dispelled.
 
The short answer is the INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. Which is served by a full trial with all pertinent evidence.
The people’s case is the interest being served.
The evil she attempts to prevent is a reward to Trump for withholding pertinent evidence wrongfully in an effort to subvert justice. He is not withholding exculpatory evidence.
Your arguments purpose is transparently bad faith. You are attempting to assist him in getting away with hiding the evidence to create a false record.
 
“What that usually means?”
Your conclusion, based on nothing actually involving Barr specifically, is a conspiracy theory( without any actual facts pertaining to Barr) intended to draw a conclusion based upon your FEELINGS that maybe something exists somewhere that creates the opposite of what pertinent actual evidence shows.
Might as well say," because Santa says."
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
I know this by seeing the difference between the brazen nature of Barr’s action…
Click to expand...
To what action do you refer?
Maximus1 said:
Your conclusion, based on nothing actually involving Barr specifically…
Click to expand...
Correct, because I’m not aware of anything Barr has done to merit the condemnation he has received. Like most of the left’s charges, this was created out of nothing.
 
Last edited:
Let me give you an example.
Barr’s manner of handling the Mueller report and the content of his own.
It drew a letter from Mueller. The very act of Mueller sending that letter was extrordinary by definition.
The need he felt he had to send it is really such striking evidence of what I described about Barr.
Mueller had to set the record strait.
Barr was his boss. Free to ignore what Mueller wrote.
Barr was free to write his own conclusions.
What Barr wasn’t free to to was misrepresent what Mueller wrote. Which Barr did. And which Mueller called attention to.
Barr created a national deception to run interference for Trump. The letter is the evidence.
 
Maximus1 said:
Barr’s manner of handling the Mueller report and the content of his own.
Click to expand...
After a two year investigation Mueller found zero evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. His report said as much as did Barr’s summary. The issue of obstruction of justice was unanswered, leaving it to Barr and Deputy AG Rosenstein to address. Since Mueller found no compelling evidence of a crime he brought no charges, again, this was in Barr’s summary. What Mueller complained about was the question of exoneration, saying that his report did not exonerate the president from obstruction charges.

The thing is, exoneration is not any part of his job. He either brings charges or he doesn’t, and he didn’t. Objecting that he didn’t exonerate the president for obstruction was less than appropriate on his part, but given that no charges were brought it was the only card he had left.

Of course the partisans complained. After pinning their hopes on Mueller for two years, and having it come to nothing at all, they were left whining about Trump not being proved innocent, which is a foreign concept in our system of justice. Justice, however, was never the objective in the first place.

Basically Barr was slammed for accurately summarizing what Mueller found…and didn’t find.
 
Your argument is the unfortunate disinformation Barr helped to promote. And unfortunately many Americans go around with your narrative and it is inaccurate.
First! ZERO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION.
Other than examples from ORWELL’S 1984, that statement is one of the greatest acts of disinformation in American history. A monumental propaganda success for Trump. And a success that grows any time he can get deciples to publish it.
The report contains lots of damning evidence. Not enough to bring a criminal case of conspiracy.
For that, not only would Trump have needed to coordinate and cooperate with Putin to participate I Putin’s interference( of which there is tons of evidence Trump did) BUT…
Also… Mueller found Trump would have had to participate in ACTUALLY stealing the EMAIL. Which apparently Trump didn’t. No Criminal Conspiracy.
You said COLLUSION! A non legal term MUELLER DID NOT USE. ( THE FACT TRUMPISTS DO IS THE DISINFORMATION).
COLLUSION is not a crime, so Mueller didn’t address it at all. Zero analysis! Silent! ( Mueller only addressed crimes…he didn’t address apples or fish either as they are not crimes).
But
The Campaign set up AND ATTENDED a meeting to provide ( AND THE CAMPAIGN DID PROVIDE)Russian agents with:
Campaign internal polling data and campaign strategy in BATTLEGROUND STATES, (is in that report). Still no explanation for Trump about that. Still! ( Trump Said he had no interaction with Russia. Coordinating internal campaign information AND INTERNAL STRATEGY with Russian Intel agents IS in the report. REMEMBER?
The Trump Tower meeting was a solicitation of Campaign help. That’s why Trump Jr was there!( Intent).
The biggest deal of Trump’s life, TRUMP MOSCOW, actively negotiated throughout the campaign SECRETLY. IN FACT DECIETFULLY ,since Trump told America no business. This deal required Putin’s help. Personal gain was the only motive. And Trump on TV said he didn’t want to give it up I case he lost. We still don’t know if that deal is ongoing somehow. As we search for explanations for the bizzarr defenses Trump makes in defense of Putin.
Finally
The remainder of your analysis is misleading. Mueller said ( and this position he held before he even looked at anything):
He could not bring charges because of policy. Under any circumstances.
Also
He would not recommend charges in any circumstances( no matter if charges WERE or were not warranted.)
That is the full explanation of no charges or recomendations. Not the merits of charges.( On obstruction).
He said he amassed evidence that can be revisited when Trump is out of office.
The position about why the report had no charges or recomendations WERE OMITTED FROM BARR’S REPORT. THAT WAS BARR’S MISREPRESENTATION TO AMERICA. MY POINT!
 
Last edited:
Good point. You can tell those actually trying to help Trump( some say McGhann and others protected Trump from obstruction charges.) You can tell when Trump disparages them.
The unofficial policy is no good deed goes untweeted
 
Maximus1 said:
The report contains lots of damning evidence. Not enough to bring a criminal case of conspiracy.
Click to expand...
There was only “lots” of evidence if you consider it suspicious that Trump knows where Russia is, and if you don’t like the word collusion we can use conspiracy or coordination. They provide no more support for the fairy tale that Trump worked with Russians than that he conspired with Martians.

At the end of the investigation only one question was relevant: to make criminal charges or not. Mueller chose to make none. This is what Barr stated in his summary, and what you consider reprehensible conduct on his part. Given that there was no official finding of criminal actions, what offends you is the application of the concept of innocent until proven guilty. You don’t even accept innocent until officially charged. You just know he’s guilty of something, and apparently that’s the only criterion that matters.
Maximus1 said:
Good point. You can tell those actually trying to help Trump( some say McGhann and others protected Trump from obstruction charges.) You can tell when Trump disparages them.
The unofficial policy is no good deed goes untweeted
Click to expand...
Well, surely Nancy can add that to her list of impeachable offenses.
 
Last edited:
Your post is disturbing. You managed to block out, or dismiss without comment, or ignore what I wrote.
What is unclear is why.
I have taken into account that you have different life experiences than me. I experienced decades of parcing legal terms 12+ hours a day 6 days a week. So CONSPIRACY has a meaning legally. COLLUSION does not. In fact using such a word in a legal document invites imprecision and confusion. ( Mueller only typed the word collusion in his report to give this very explanation why it does not appear elsewhere)
Your point above is based upon “mishmoshing” the two. As if the mishmosh is a profound act of wisdom. I assume the syntax is somehow attractive to the Trump supporters ear so they invested in repeating NO COLLUSION hundreds of times.( Hypnotic)
Of course MUELLER writes as a lawyer. Something I am familiar with.
Mueller was not an independant counsel. He was essentially Barr’s subordinate. This is an incredible distinction. That report was written as an internal DOJ document for BARR’S eyes only. Barr exercised his discretion to publish it not Mueller. And the way he did was deceptive.
Mueller, as essentially an employee serving at Barr’s pleasure WAS BOUND BY DOJ POLICY. Why is that important?
Kenn Starr was an independant counsel not bound as a subordinate is. Starr in fact wrote a president could be charged because such a writing would not have made him
" insubordinate".
Barr had complete control over Mueller’s ability to bring charges.
Barr tells Mueller you can, then Mueller can. Barr says nothing, Mueller cannot bring a charge against Trump no matter the facts. The strongest case ever. Cannot!
In fact before Mueller sat at his special counsel Desk to examine the first slice of paper, the ultimate conclusion of," NO CHARGES CAN EVER BE BROUGHT NO MATTER WHAT," WAS WRITTEN IN STONE.
And that make sense. Even Dershowitz back then said a commission is appropriate. He was right because the Mueller outcome was fixed from day one.
Rosenstein was a Trump appointee and the GOP controlled everything. By appointing Mueller, Trump was told ," you put this off for two years and ultimately you have zero exposure no matter the facts of Mueller recommending charges." That’s the type of things we lawyers tell our clients as the central purpose of our counsel.
In addition Mueller ALSO wrote:
He would not recommend a charge.
He would only write about charges he would NOT RECOMMEND. HENCE…CONSPIRACY!
You can not infer anything furthur about charges that could be brought or not.
This is why:
Anything Barr said or wrote that stated or implied that Mueller’s report stated MUELLER DID NOT BELIEVE CHARGES WERE WARRANTED, WAS A LIE! AND A FRAUD. AND MUELLER WROTE A LETTER CALLING BARR OUT ON IT.
Barr was free to say he decided no charges exist.
Barr was not free to say Mueller decided either way when he didn’t for policy reasons. Not based on the merits.
The items I stated. Trump Tower Moscow. The Trump Tower meeting.
The giving of internal polling data to Russian agents. ARE IN THE Report.
You can say they are the equivilent of," knowing where Russia is," which is your argument.
 
Last edited:
Why are you so angry? Do you not understand that we are free to have our own opinions and reach our own conclusions even if those opinions and conclusions are not in agreement with yours? That our opinions and conclusions are valid even if you don’t agree with them?
 
That is a bit awkward on a Catholic website where Catholics fight relativism and claim objective truth exists.
Let me be clear, different opinions are fine. ( As long as we agree not all opinions are equal) But an objective fact, like someone wrote x,y or z on paper is not a matter of opinion. There have to be brute facts and basic assumptions And that is all I wrote if you look carefully.
What did Mueller write on paper and what does not appear at all.
I am not angry. It is frustrating that people can just say," it is my opinion the sun rises in the east, but your opinion is as good as mine if you say west.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Let me be clear, different opinions are fine. ( As long as we agree not all opinions are equal) But an objective fact, like someone wrote x,y or z on paper is not a matter of opinion. There have to be brute facts and basic assumptions And that is all I wrote if you look carefully.
Click to expand...
This.
People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
And opinions are subject to criticism when they are rely on faux facts or faulty reasoning.
It often seems that many folks offering strong opinions on the contents of he Muller report have not studied or even read it.
 
Last edited:
So your answer is no. We are only entitled to our opinions as long as they are the ones you give us. We are not entitled to our own conclusions of the facts because we are just wrong.

Good to know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top