Redacted Mueller Report Poll

[vcczar 0]

New poll

[Edouard 0]

Mueller's key findings

● Trump, when told of appointment of special counsel Mueller, said: “This is the end of my presidency.”

● “Substantial evidence” supports Comey over Trump in account of Flynn meeting.

●Trump campaign attempted to obtain Hillary Clinton’s private emails.

● Campaign expected to benefit from stolen information released by the Russians.

So I'm going to say : A small down

[Guest]

You forgot one option....

incredible waste of time and money

[SilentLiberty 0]

I do not want the 10 cases of obstruction to be argued in Trump's favor, I could just see it happening. Hence my vote there.

 

3 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

You forgot one option....

incredible waste of time and money

^This too.

[Patine 35]

7 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

You forgot one option....

incredible waste of time and money

Because someone who has been elected U.S. President should automatically be considered clear and above reproach of any possible crime or wrongdoing?

[vcczar 0]

2 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

You forgot one option....

incredible waste of time and money

I don't think it was a waste of time, because we need to know if he colluded or obstructed since it seemed very possible that he did. To me the Report doesn't even exonerate him nor does it incriminate. It makes it sound more like, "Ok, this is as much as I could to within this time limit. If someone finds any more information, then we can do this all over again." 

His reason for not subpoenaing Trump was that it would slow down the investigation, not that it was unnecessary. It seems Mueller was pressed to wrap this up quicker than he would like. He also states that there are people who refused to speak and information that was erased, destroyed, possibly hidden, that could pretty much could decide whether to exonerate or incriminate Trump. The report does neither. The report seems to be begging for interpretation by voters and lawmakers to make of it what they will. 

The 10 obstruction possibilities really need to be debated. 

I also think it's worrying that Trump thought his presidency would be over when he first learned about the Mueller investigation. That sounds like guilt. What innocent person says that? 

At this point, I don't think it's impeachable without legislators and the court analyzing the 10 obstruction possibilities. 

I think Trump avoids being Nixon-level scandal, but this is much worse than Bill Clinton's scandal for sure. 

[Patine 35]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

At this point, I don't think it's impeachable without legislators and the court analyzing the 10 obstruction possibilities.

Ah, yes. The impeachment fiasco that turns any charges against a U.S. President or other high Federal official and strips them entirely of being any sort of due process or concept of "justice" in any remote sense and turns it to political theatre, nepotistic favour-trading, and partisan closing of ranks. The Constitutional clause's very existence makes the motto of the District of Columbia, "And Justice for All," nothing more than an insulting taunt while it exists and is in force, or any mechanisms, even de facto, where high government officials (or wealthy elites) have different (and preferential) rules about the way their criminal procedures are compared to all other citizens.

[Reagan04 0]

56 minutes ago, Patine said:

Ah, yes. The impeachment fiasco that turns any charges against a U.S. President or other high Federal official and strips them entirely of being any sort of due process or concept of "justice" in any remote sense and turns it to political theatre, nepotistic favour-trading, and partisan closing of ranks. The Constitutional clause's very existence makes the motto of the District of Columbia, "And Justice for All," nothing more than an insulting taunt while it exists and is in force, or any mechanisms, even de facto, where high government officials (or wealthy elites) have different (and preferential) rules about the way their criminal procedures are compared to all other citizens.

 

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Because someone who has been elected U.S. President should automatically be considered clear and above reproach of any possible crime or wrongdoing?

🤔

[Patine 35]

1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

 

🤔

Do you have a defense of "politicized justice" there, or are you just unproductively shitting on the fact I'm criticizing the institution?

[Reagan04 0]

6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Do you have a defense of "politicized justice" there, or are you just unproductively shitting on the fact I'm criticizing the institution?

Ooh someone's getting feisty today! No, I'm just pointing out the two comments made on extreme ends of each other, one defending the rights of the President while the other admonishing them within a mere 9 minutes of each other. It was all very tongue-in-cheek I assure you.

[Patine 35]

7 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Ooh someone's getting feisty today! No, I'm just pointing out the two comments made on extreme ends of each other, one defending the rights of the President while the other admonishing them within a mere 9 minutes of each other. It was all very tongue-in-cheek I assure you.

Actually, you obviously misunderstood the tenor of the first comment, or you'd see there was no contribution or "extreme ends" effect. The first one was a sarcastic jab at DisingenuousAbe's declaration that an inquiry into a President's suspected wrongdoing was a waste of time and money.

[Reagan04 0]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Actually, you obviously misunderstood the tenor of the first comment, or you'd see there was no contribution or "extreme ends" effect. The first one was a sarcastic jab at DisingenuousAbe's declaration that an inquiry into a President's suspected wrongdoing was a waste of time and money.

Actually, you obviously misunderstood the tenor of my comment, or you'd see that I understood the sarcasm. In fact, I had written that in your impeachment quote, you were defending the rights of those accused from a political circus, while in the first quote, you were instead admonishing them with sarcasm and making sure to not put them above any other citizen.

[Patine 35]

Just now, Reagan04 said:

Actually, you obviously misunderstood the tenor of my comment, or you'd see that I understood the sarcasm. In fact, I had written that in your impeachment quote, you were defending the rights of those accused from a political circus, while in the first quote, you were instead admonishing them with sarcasm and making sure to not put them above any other citizen.

Oh, that wasn't entirely clear. In that case, your brevity betrayed you.

So, are you of the belief, like John Randolph said of John Adams way back when, that "if the Sheriff of Washington County cannot walk into the President's office and clap him in irons and cast him into the Gaol like a common citizen on sound suspicion, then the Republic is lost and we might as well crown the President King?"