Release of the Mueller report is imminent, AG Barr has in-hand, judiciary committees being briefed

[Lacius]

Why use the word "fired" then? And then use the hypothetical I posed as a bounce pad? Seems disingenuous, although that's your favourite word. You also seem to be forgetting that we read the same report? Mueller has never established intent, nor did he conclude that the acts were illegal, that's a complete fabrication.

I should have said attempted firing.

As for the report, Mueller didn't rule one way or the other because sitting presidents cannot be indicted. However, he described in the report what I outlined above, using phrases like "would constitute," "substantial evidence," and "credible witness." That includes the topic of intent. Trump criminally obstructed justice.

 

[Fugelmir]

I never even thought about getting an American citizenship until Trump took office. Finally put in my application today. Godspeed.

 

[Foxi4]

I should have said attempted firing.

As for the report, Mueller didn't rule one way or the other because sitting presidents cannot be indicted. However, he described in the report what I outlined above, using phrases like "would constitute," "substantial evidence," and "credible witness." That includes the topic of intent. Trump criminally obstructed justice.

That's not at all why he ruled this way. He says it in the report, which I have open right in front of me:

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. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Mueller was not sure, on the basis of the evidence he's collected, whether the President criminally obstructed the investigation, meaning if he intentionally tried to alter its result, delay it or outright shut it down through corrupt means. He even wrote an entire section regarding whether or not investigating the matter further would impede the President's job. He left the decision on whether or not a criminal investigation should be opened to the AG, who promptly shut the idea down. We've known this since the report was published. Besides, we both know why this took so long - the longer the investigation the higher the chance that Trump does "something", it was always meant as a form of political entrapment, at least that's the way I see it. Some would love to see it continue indefinitely, but unfortunately the ride us over now. No crime was established, so any accusations should be prefaced with "allegedly" since they're pure conjecture.

I never even thought about getting an American citizenship until Trump took office. Finally put in my application today. Godspeed.

Good luck in your efforts to enter the country legally, Freedomlandia sounds like a wonderful place to live.

 

[SG854]

That's not at all why he ruled this way. He says it in the report, which I have open right in front of me:

Mueller was not sure, on the basis of the evidence he's collected, whether the President criminally obstructed the investigation, meaning if he intentionally tried to alter its result, delay it or outright shut it down through corrupt means. He even wrote an entire section regarding whether or not investigating the matter further would impede the President's job. He left the decision on whether or not a criminal investigation should be opened to the AG, who promptly shut the idea down. We've known this since the report was published.

Good luck in your efforts to enter the country legally, Freedomlandia sounds like a wonderful place to live.

We’ll see what happens to Assange to see how much freedom there is.

 

[Foxi4]

We’ll see what happens to Assange to see how much freedom there is.

I'm not too worried about Mr.Wikileaks, but good point.

 

[Lacius]

That's not at all why he ruled this way. He says it in the report, which I have open right in front of me:

Mueller was not sure, on the basis of the evidence he's collected, whether the President criminally obstructed the investigation, meaning if he intentionally tried to alter its result, delay it or outright shut it down through corrupt means. He even wrote an entire section regarding whether or not investigating the matter further would impede the President's job. He left the decision on whether or not a criminal investigation should be opened to the AG, who promptly shut the idea down. We've known this since the report was published.

Good luck in your efforts to enter the country legally, Freedomlandia sounds like a wonderful place to live.

It has been reported that "because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment" is because of the Justice Department policy of not indicting sitting presidents. Nothing more. In other words, definitive proof of obstruction of justice would have resulted in the same judgment we got.

In addition, "if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state" means innocence would have been clearly stated.

To summarize:

1. Evidence of guilt = no judgement
2. Evidence of innocence = a judgement of innocence

This part at least is not controversial.

Edit: Mueller did leave the decision to the AG and/or Congress, but for the reason above.

 

[Foxi4]

It has been reported that "because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment" is because of the Justice Department policy of not indicting sitting presidents. Nothing more. In other words, definitive proof of obstruction of justice would have resulted in the same judgment we got.

In addition, "if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state" means innocence would have been clearly stated.

To summarize:

1. Evidence of guilt = no judgement
2. Evidence of innocence = a judgement of innocence

This part at least is not controversial.

Edit: Mueller did leave the decision to the AG and/or Congress, but for the reason above.

That's not at all how the judgements are handled.

There was no talk of guilt or innocence as there were no charges pressed against Trump. The point of the investigation was to determine whether charges should be pressed. You weren't going to get a "guilty" or "innocent" verdict from Mueller, that wasn't his job. I understand that the left expected Mueller to play the role of Santa and bring them an indictment in his big bag of gifts, but that's not how it works. *If* Mueller did find substantial evidence to suggest prosecution, he would've done so as, in his own words, he was entitled to do so and it would not prohibit the President from fulfilling his function - an investigation could've proceeded while Trump was serving his term and the indictment would've waited until the President's term was over, or until it was terminated via impeachment. That is, unless Mueller would like to now admit that he lied in the report, in which case he's more than welcome to participate in more "reporting" as he faces charges for misleading the AG and Congress. My goodness, did Mueller obstruct himself? I think I'm having an obstruction now!

 

[SG854]

That's not at all how the judgements are handled.

There was no talk of guilt or innocence as there were no charges pressed against Trump. The point of the investigation was to determine whether charges should be pressed. You weren't going to get a "guilty" or "innocent" verdict from Mueller, that wasn't his job. I understand that the left expected Mueller to play the role of Santa and bring them an indictment in his big bag of gifts, but that's not how it works. *If* Mueller did find substantial evidence to suggest prosecution, he would've done so as, in his own words, he was entitled to do so and it would not prohibit the President from fulfilling his function - an investigation could've proceeded while Trump was serving his term and the indictment would've waited until the President's term was over, or until it was terminated via impeachment. That is, unless Mueller would like to now admit that he lied in the report, in which case he's more than welcome to participate in more "reporting" as he faces charges for misleading the AG and Congress. My goodness, did Mueller obstruct himself? I think I'm having an obstruction now!

That reminds me.... This exists

 

[Lacius]

That's not at all how the judgements are handled.

There was no talk of guilt or innocence as there were no charges pressed against Trump. The point of the investigation was to determine whether charges should be pressed. You weren't going to get a "guilty" or "innocent" verdict from Mueller, that wasn't his job. I understand that the left expected Mueller to play the role of Santa and bring them an indictment in his big bag of gifts, but that's not how it works. *If* Mueller did find substantial evidence to suggest prosecution, he would've done so as, in his own words, he was entitled to do so and it would not prohibit the President from fulfilling his function - an investigation could've proceeded while Trump was serving his term and the indictment would've waited until the President's term was over, or until it was terminated via impeachment. That is, unless Mueller would like to now admit that he lied in the report, in which case he's more than welcome to participate in more "reporting" as he faces charges for misleading the AG and Congress. My goodness, did Mueller obstruct himself? I think I'm having an obstruction now!

If you're going mischaracterize my positions again, I'm not interested. I can do the same thing: You clearly didn't read the report, because what you said here is untrue. I could have been civil and not potentially mischaracterized whether or not you read the report (the difference is I have evidence you didn't, while your projections of my position have little to do with fact), but why not?

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
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (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."1 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 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.

In summary, there was never going to be a judgment of wrongdoing because of the aforementioned policy.

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.
3 The OLC
opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if
individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at
this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in
safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual
investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary
materials were available.

This is referring to the Mueller investigation itself, not an indictment and trial. Come on.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report,
could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term,
OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an
indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to
govern."6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the
person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

This explains what I've already outlined numerous times about why it wouldn't be fair to Trump to conclude he committed a crime while also not indicting him.

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

If Trump were exonerated, they would say so.

Excuse formatting errors. I'm on my phone, and I've wasted enough time with this.

 

[Foxi4]

If you're going mischaracterize my positions again, I'm not interested. I can do the same thing: You clearly didn't read the report, because what you said here is untrue. I could have been civil and not potentially mischaracterized whether or not you read the report (the difference is I have evidence you didn't, while your projections of my position have little to do with fact), but why not?

In summary, there was never going to be a judgment of wrongdoing because of the aforementioned policy.

This is referring to the Mueller investigation itself, not an indictment and trial. Come on.

This explains what I've already outlined numerous times about why it wouldn't be fair to Trump to conclude he committed a crime while also not indicting him.

If Trump were exonerated, they would say so.

Excuse formatting errors. I'm on my phone, and I've wasted enough time with this.

As have I. I have the report right here, we're simply drawing different conclusions from what was written. Being prissy is not a good exit, but you're more than welcome to discontinue this exchange if you're so bothered by my approach. I'm merely relying on what was written in the official report, I'm not particularly bothered by hearsay from third-hand sources. I'm not interested in any post factum "reporting" that may be taking place while the stars of the show are enjoying their brief moment in the limelight.

Now, if your reading comprehension is sound, you will notice that "he would not make a determination on whether or not the President has committed a crime", which of course he wouldn't because he's not a judge. He does however reserve the right to declare the President's actions to be a "federal offense" where appropriate, which he hasn't done due to his concerns regarding fairness and the adversarial process of the justice system, which is indeed fair. I'm not particularly bothered by whether the report exonerates Trump or not because, as you're probably aware, the presumption of innocence principle allows me to simply state that he is innocent until proven guilty. Not that I need to pull that card out since, again, no charges were pressed. You're still a couple steps removed from your actual assertion, that being that the president has "committed crimes". I reiterate, that was not established, and there is no further investigation in progress to ascertain whether that's the case. In other words, he at best "allegedly committed crimes", you're welcome to use that term going forwards, but I'm not bothered either way.

I'm also not "mischaracterising your position", your position is very obvious to anyone, even the most casual observer.

Just to tie a nice bow on the conversation, I'll simply drop what Barr had to say about your supposed intent:

"There is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.

Perfectly reasonable explanation. To reiterate:

1. There was no agreement between Barr, Rosenstein and Mueller regarding the alleged obstruction
2. President Trump had a multitude of motivations besides corrupt intent to end the investigation as quickly as possible
3. He cooperated with the investigators every step of the way besides the few incidents named in the report, including transferring requested documents, allowing investigators to interview whomever they pleased
4. President Trump did not use his executive privilege to terminate the investigation or fire Mueller, and even if he did, he would still be exercising his constitutional right to do so

But yes, I suppose all this is inconclusive as, in contrast to Iran-Contra, we don't have a call for impeachment or any meaningful conclusion to the report, making it a complete dud, at least in my estimation.

That reminds me.... This exists.

The pun was not accidental, well done!

 

[Lacius]

As have I. I have the report right here, we're simply drawing different conclusions from what was written. Being prissy is not a good exit, but you're more than welcome to discontinue this exchange if you're so bothered by my approach. I'm merely relying on what was written in the official report, I'm not particularly bothered by hearsay from third-hand sources. I'm not interested in any post factum "reporting" that may be taking place while the stars of the show are enjoying their brief moment in the limelight.

Now, if your reading comprehension is sound, you will notice that "he would not make a determination on whether or not the President has committed a crime", which of course he wouldn't because he's not a judge. He does however reserve the right to declare the President's actions to be a "federal offense" where appropriate, which he hasn't done due to his concerns regarding fairness and the adversarial process of the justice system, which is indeed fair. I'm not particularly bothered by whether the report exonerates Trump or not because, as you're probably aware, the presumption of innocence principle allows me to simply state that he is innocent until proven guilty. Not that I need to pull that card out since, again, no charges were pressed. You're still a couple steps removed from your actual assertion, that being that the president has "committed crimes". I reiterate, that was not established, and there is no further investigation in progress to ascertain whether that's the case. In other words, he at best "allegedly committed crimes", you're welcome to use that term going forwards, but I'm not bothered either way.

I'm also not "mischaracterising your position", your position is very obvious to anyone, even the most casual observer.

Just to tie a nice bow on the conversation, I'll simply drop what Barr had to say about your supposed intent:

Perfectly reasonable explanation. To reiterate:

1. There was no agreement between Barr, Rosenstein and Mueller regarding the alleged obstruction
2. President Trump had a multitude of motivations besides corrupt intent to end the investigation as quickly as possible
3. He cooperated with the investigators every step of the way besides the few incidents named in the report, including transferring requested documents, allowing investigators to interview whomever they pleased
4. President Trump did not use his executive privilege to terminate the investigation or fire Mueller, and even if he did, he would still be exercising his constitutional right to do so

But yes, I suppose all this is inconclusive as, in contrast to Iran-Contra, we don't have a call for impeachment or any meaningful conclusion to the report, making it a complete dud, at least in my estimation.

The pun was not accidental, well done!

If you're going to skip over the parts of the Mueller report regarding the substantial evidence for corrupted intent, I'm not sure what to do about it.

 

[Foxi4]

If you're going to skip over the parts of the Mueller report regarding the substantial evidence for corrupted intent, I'm not sure what to do about it

Who should I believe regarding this corrupt intent? Mueller? Barr? Rosenstein? Santa Claus? The report outlines a number of possibilities - it even features handy "alternative scenarios" which, in my estimation, make more sense. Take the Manafort case, for instance. Did the president truly intend to obstruct the due administration of justice or did he genuinely feel bad for him in the light of his indictment? The former is criminal, the latter is not, and it's hard to make a determination between the two. Going by what he said publicly, it seems to be the latter, and your President is exceedingly public in terms of his musings. Such questions can be raised about each and every supposed "corrupt intention" the President might've had, which is why I explicitly stated that corrupt intent was not established a couple pages ago. You insist that it has been established, and I feel like we're reading two different documents here. Just to be more specific, I'm skeptical of any "corrupt intent" allegations because I don't see what the President would have to gain from all this. It seems to me that doing absolutely nothing would've afforded him victory either way, which he probably knew from the start, so where's the corruption?

 

[Lacius]

Who should I believe regarding this corrupt intent? Mueller? Barr? Rosenstein? Santa Claus? The report outlines a number of possibilities - it even features handy "alternative scenarios" which, in my estimation, make more sense. Take the Manafort case, for instance. Did the president truly intend to obstruct the due administration of justice or did he genuinely feel bad for him in the light of his indictment? The former is criminal, the latter is not, and it's hard to make a determination between the two. Going by what he said publicly, it seems to be the latter, and your President is exceedingly public in terms of his musings. Such questions can be raised about each and every supposed "corrupt intention" the President might've had, which is why I explicitly stated that corrupt intent was not established a couple pages ago. You insist that it has been estaished, and I feel like we're reading two different documents here.

Barr mischaracterized the report, so already his trust level is pretty low. He also changed his story to instead be about the fact that the obstruction failed, not because of lack of intent.

As for the obstruction of justice related to Manafort, you are right that there are alternative explanations. That's also only true of the influencing of the jury, not any of the big four I've previously mentioned. Manafort's cooperation is another story, and there are also three more examples of obstruction of justice in addition that don't include alternative explanations. I'm not interested in debating the examples of obstruction that are ambiguous. See my previous post on the big four where Mueller provides obstructive acts, a nexus to a criminal investigation, and evidence of intent.

 

[Foxi4]

Barr mischaracterized the report, so already his trust level is pretty low. He also changed his story to instead be about the fact that the obstruction failed, not because of lack of intent.

As for the obstruction of justice related to Manafort, you are right that there are alternative explanations. That's also only true of the influencing of the jury, not any of the big four I've previously mentioned. Manafort's cooperation is another story, and there are also three more examples of obstruction of justice in addition that don't include alternative explanations. I'm not interested in debating the examples of obstruction that are ambiguous. See my previous post on the big four where Mueller provides obstructive acts, a nexus to a criminal investigation, and evidence of intent.

My issue with this exchange is that I'd rather talk with you than with Mueller. I have the report, I know what he had to say. I'd rather hear what you have to say - what's your version of how the events unfolded? Walls of text are nice and dandy, but a little bit barren and uninteresting. You seem to be very... Uptight about all this, for lack of a better term. I keep pinching and prodding, but I'm not getting your perspective, I'm getting quotes from the report that I can just read again at my leisure - it's a tad frustrating. Explain to me what you think the President had to gain from obstructing a counterintelligence investigation (which I maintain that he didn't obstruct) which ultimately came up with nothing (as he suspected it would) and then obstructing the supposed obstruction investigation which wouldn't have even taken place if he didn't fire Comey (whom he had full constitutional right to fire)? We live in one of two worlds - either Trump is a master of manipulation or, more likely, he doesn't really know how those investigations work and he was bumbling about saying anything he had on his mind at the time while simultaneously complying with the SC's requests. It's one or the other, it can't be both, and from a bird's eye view it seems to me that it's the latter. I can happily accuse him of being ignorant regarding the possible consequences of what he says or does, but ultimately all I see is a poor attempt at PR. The other question I have for you is why change focus now? Until 5 minutes ago everyone was focused on the collusion narrative, but now we're switching to collusion. I wouldn't be so bold as to imply motivation, but does the goal justify the means, if you catch my drift?

 

[Lacius]

My issue with this exchange is that I'd rather talk with you than with Mueller. I have the report, I know what he had to say. I'd rather hear what you have to say - what's your version of how the events unfolded? Walls of text are nice and dandy, but a little bit barren and uninteresting. You seem to be very... Uptight about all this, for lack of a better term. I keep pinching and prodding, but I'm not getting your perspective, I'm getting quotes from the report that I can just read again at my leisure - it's a tad frustrating. Explain to me what you think the President had to gain from obstructing a counterintelligence investigation (which I maintain that he didn't obstruct) which ultimately came up with nothing (as he suspected it would) and then obstructing the supposed obstruction investigation which wouldn't have even taken place if he didn't fire Comey (whom he had full constitutional right to fire)? We live in one of two worlds - either Trump is a master of manipulation or, more likely, he doesn't really know how those investigations work and he was bumbling about saying anything that he had on his mind at the time while simultaneously complying with the SC's requests. It's one or the other, it can't be both, and from a bird's eye view it seems to me that it's the latter. I can happily accuse him of being ignorant regarding the possible consequences of what he says or does, but ultimately all I see is a poor attempt at PR. The other question I have for you is why change focus now? Until 5 minutes ago everyone was focused on the collusion narrative, but now we're switching to collusion. I wouldn't be so bold as to imply motivation, but does the goal justify the means, if you catch my drift?

The Mueller report describes what he had to gain and provides evidence for why Trump did what he did.

 

[Foxi4]

The Mueller report describes what he had to gain and provides evidence for why Trump did what he did.

Weird deflect, but that's fair.

 

[SG854]

The Mueller report describes what he had to gain and provides evidence for why Trump did what he did.

I don’t think people that want impeachment are thinking this all the way through.

The biggest fact is there was no underlying collusion. The republican argument is that what was he trying to obstruct if there was no collusion. And their argument is more potent then the Democratic argument. They’ll point out that the original argument was Collusion. And now the goal post was shifted to obstruction. And what a weird way to have a presidency ended, obstructing a crime he didn’t commit with an investigation that shouldn’t have taken place to begin with with. People will empathize with Trump instead.

Look at Clinton. The Democratic Party called out the Republican Party as a bunch of whiners for calling for impeachment because Bill lied about a question (Monica Lewinsky) he should have never been asked to begin with. This boosted his popularity, and will likely do the same for Trump. Impeachment is a step, there still has to be a long process before you see him removed. And will likely not come into fruition with a Republican controlled senate and with many Democrats against impeachment. Numbers are not on your side.

It doesn’t matter what you think, or if you do or do not buy any argument republicans make. What matters is what Republicans think and what the American people think. Even if you think on principle it should be done, you have to ask yourself is it worth it. You have to think of the consequences of impeachment over obstruction. And nothing will rile up his supporters more and get them to vote for him in 2020 than this and increase his approval rating. You’re so close to the next election anyway, and Mike Pence? Do dems really want to gift wrap him another victory. They are not thinking this through.

 

[Xzi]

It doesn’t matter what you think, or if you do or do not buy any argument republicans make. What matters is what Republicans think and what the American people think. Even if you think on principle it should be done, you have to ask yourself is it worth it. You have to think of the consequences of impeachment over obstruction. And nothing will rile up his supporters more and get them to vote for him in 2020 than this and increase his approval rating. You’re so close to the next election anyway, and Mike Pence? Do dems really want to gift wrap him another victory. They are not thinking this through.

I think you're not thinking this through. Trump is going to have his base riled up to the maximum for 2020 regardless of what Democrats do. "Riling them up" does nothing to increase their numbers, though. What's more important for Democrats is getting their own voters to the polls, and impeachment would show that Dem leadership has the strength of their convictions.

Look at Clinton. The Democratic Party called out the Republican Party as a bunch of whiners for calling for impeachment because Bill lied about a question (Monica Lewinsky) he should have never been asked to begin with. This boosted his popularity, and will likely do the same for Trump.

You've got that completely wrong. Clinton's approval ratings went down after impeachment, regardless of the fact that he was cleared of all charges. And obviously the Democrats lost in 2000, or at least it came close enough for the courts to decide.

This shouldn't be a politically-motivated decision regardless. Trump has made it clear he doesn't intend to allow Congress to do their jobs. Impeachment is the only way to get it through his thick skull that he isn't a king and he doesn't have absolute power.

 

[SG854]

I think you're not thinking this through. Trump is going to have his base riled up to the maximum for 2020 regardless of what Democrats do. "Riling them up" does nothing to increase their numbers, though. What's more important for Democrats is getting their own voters to the polls, and impeachment would show that Dem leadership has the strength of their convictions.

They are not just riling up his base but others also and pushing people to vote Republican instead. They are increasing numbers. Fox News is more popular than many other news outlets right now. They got a huge boost over the Mueller Report. Many left wing outlets dropped in ratings because of it. Right wing like Ben Shapiro is gaining popularity. The constant de-platforming of republicans which the ceo of Twitter admits is happening is making them look victimized and helping them gather supporters.

If you can’t see this then I don’t know what else to tell you. And people not seeing this are going to push for the wrong things. Impeachment over obstruction doesn’t show strength in convictions. They instead come off as a bunch of desperate people that won’t shut up about it. You have to step outside and look at this from an outside view. Pay attention to what others are saying. And plan accordingly, but they are not doing that.

Dems are in a pickle right now, to I peach or not impeach. What consequences will come from either action. And what’s the better route to take.

Me not thinking this through? I did call out months ago that they weren’t going to find any collusion, I even made a thread about it, and I was right. The evidence didn’t stack up which is why I made that thread with confidence. It’s not hard using deductive reasoning and common sense. And looking at evidences from multiple spots and not just one place. What’s clear night and day to me is a surprise to many people. I am doing my best to think this through and all the possible scenarios and I think impeachment over obstruction is a death sentence.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I think you're not thinking this through. Trump is going to have his base riled up to the maximum for 2020 regardless of what Democrats do. "Riling them up" does nothing to increase their numbers, though. What's more important for Democrats is getting their own voters to the polls, and impeachment would show that Dem leadership has the strength of their convictions.


You've got that completely wrong. Clinton's approval ratings went down after impeachment, regardless of the fact that he was cleared of all charges. And obviously the Democrats lost in 2000, or at least it came close enough for the courts to decide.

This shouldn't be a politically-motivated decision regardless. Trump has made it clear he doesn't intend to allow Congress to do their jobs. Impeachment is the only way to get it through his thick skull that he isn't a king and he doesn't have absolute power.

Not true his approval rating went up after impeachment the highest it’s ever been. From CNN in the 90s. Not only that Republicans favorability went down. History should be a lesson.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/

 

[Foxi4]

They are not just riling up his base but others also and pushing people to vote Republican instead. They are increasing numbers. Fox News is more popular than many other news outlets right now. They got a huge boost over the Mueller Report. Many left wing outlets dropped in ratings because of it. Right wing like Ben Shapiro is gaining popularity. The constant de-platforming of republicans which the ceo of Twitter admits is happening is making them look victimized and helping them gather supporters.

If you can’t see this then I don’t know what else to tell you. And people not seeing this are going to push for the wrong things. Impeachment over obstruction doesn’t show strength in convictions. They instead come off as a bunch of desperate people that won’t shut up about it. You have to step outside and look at this from an outside view. Pay attention to what others are saying. And plan accordingly, but they are not doing that.

Dems are in a pickle right now, to I peach or not impeach. What consequences will come from either action. And what’s the better route to take.

Me not thinking this through? I did call out months ago that they weren’t going to find any collusion, I even made a thread about it, and I was right. The evidence didn’t stack up which is why I made that thread with confidence. It’s not hard using deductive reasoning and common sense. And looking at evidence from multiple spots and not just one place. What’s clear night and day to me is a surprise to many people. I am doing my best to think this through and all the possible scenarios and I think impeachment over obstruction is a death sentence.

I've been standing in line for the latest iPeach for days myself!

On a serious note, I fully expect this to bolster the turnout for Trump, both from Republicans and from the undecided. Most people were interested in one thing and one thing only - whether Trump colluded with Russia. The report says he didn't, so that's case open and shut. The sudden shift of focus from Trump-Russia cronyism to obstruction seems like a desperate move to the average voter - "we couldn't get you on A, so we'll get you on B" kind of deal. Desperation is a hard sell to a voter, I sure hope the Dems have something better to sell besides "We Hate Trump" this time around or they're in serious trouble. I listened to Joe's ad yesterday and it was just embarrassing.