Mueller to publicly testify before House committees after being subpoenaed

a reply to: CynConcepts

It is up to the AG on whether to release such reports publicly.

And?

He released it.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl

Clinton was not accused of any crimes. He was charged with lying to congress.
whoopie doooo

and a republican senate acquitted him of that.

Lying to congress is a crime.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl

Wrong. Any juror can vote their conscience, for any reason, at any time.

The conversation is about impeachment and the "jury" would be the Senate.

They are required to take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence.
So no politics. No loyatly. No my side your side. You listen and apply the laws of impeachment and if the evidence shows that the president behaved in a manner not befitting the office , or if he committed crimes then they have to impeach him.

Ahahahahaa
Sell that bs elsewhere
Impeachment is ALL POLITICS
Not just in the house granny
Lol
That was HILARIOUS
Keep wishin on that star pinocchio

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl

Clinton was not accused of any crimes. He was charged with lying to congress.
whoopie doooo

and a republican senate acquitted him of that.

So no more from you hypocrit
Just lying to congress
Just obstruction

Lol
You people have NO VALUES

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
To be fair, he was an asset because they knew he also a Russian spy.

No, he had ties to Russian Intel, but he was not spying for them, he was a US Intelligence Asset.

He frequently attended the annual, Kremlin sponsored, 'Valdai Discussion Club' in Moscow (which links him directly to Putin, who also attended). Mifsud also maintained contacts with suspected Russian intelligence operatives while living in London.

If he was 'spying on Russia', as a US asset, he was doing it long distance. Not to mention his multiple contacts to Russian intelligence operatives and close connection to the Russian 'Internet Research Agency' (troll farm) personnel. He also claimed that he was friends with the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, about the same time he denied having any contact with the Russian government. Usually when someone lies, all sorts of inconsistencies become apparent.

Mifsud is currently missing, believed to be living under a new identity (something spies have prepared as a contingency) and, as far as we know, has made no attempt to clear himself of the charges, which he could do anonymously via the press.

They used him to make it look like Papadopolous was 'colluding'.

"Or trying and convicting Papadopolous and Flynn, knowing they were both innocent/framed?"No, they were both found guilty of crimes, with actual evidence of the commission of those crimes.

No, and you know this because...

They confessed and the details of the evidence that was laid out in the Mueller report and the guilty pleas were ratified by judicial examination in open court.

If they were innocent and were framed, they shouldn't have pled guilty because it weakens their defense a lot.

You haven't been 'found guilty', as in, guilty by a jury of your peers, if you plead.

True, but that is because you are found guilty by your own admission, the jury doesn't have to deliberate. There is still an actual court case, and a judicial questioning, and judicial review. Believe it or not, but the judicial system is trying to determine the truth of the matters before it.

Judges are highly legally trained and legally experienced. I'm sure they'd resent the inference of being a 'rubber stamp mechanism'.

Pleading Guilty: What Happens in Court - Nolo

Plea bargains happen all the time, and every prosecutor knows that people plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit all the time.

Sometimes, when faced with the terrifying prospect of trying to fight the behemoth known as the US Government, with its unlimited resources that will bankrupt even wealthy people, and threats of life in prison for made up BS crimes - and, in Flynns case, threatening to go after and frame his son - you take the lesser of two evils.

Papadopolous got a whopping 14 days, and it looks like that will all be overturned soon, and he is going to have one mother of a massive lawsuit against the Feds for withholding exculpatory evidence, malicious prosecution and other niceties.

And Flynn has fired his legal team and hired a new one and looks like will be withdrawing his guilty plea soon too.

That is not really the way the law works. One can appeal a conviction, but one has to have strong grounds to say they were coerced into a guilty plea. Especially as the court case that convicts them explains that they are waiving their rights and that they are knowingly and intelligently waiving those rights.

"Silly, I hope you have some friends who will be able to get you some help when your last hope of hopes is dashed to smithereens, and Trump just keeps on winning, like the energizer bunny."

Even the Energizer bunny didn't win. It just took a little longer to be run flat. You are mixing your metaphors badly there.

No, just having some fun...

Yes very bunny funny.

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
In fact as the AG and Mueller are part of the DOJ, they are restrained by exactly the same rules and unable to indict a sitting President.

There is a difference between saying "In our opinion he committed the following crimes: X, Y, and Zzzsx.", and issuing an indictment for said crimes.

You know, like Ken Starr did for Clinton?

Sheesh... this is politics, not rocket science.

There are 10 recorded instances of Trump apparently attempting to obstruct the course of justice in the Mueller report.

Mueller, and Barr, cannot indict a sitting President. That's in the report, too.

(I'd be quite comfortable discussing rocket science, too, but that would be off topic. Not sure why you mentioned it?)

Are you referring to the recorded list of accusations that the special counsel investigated and by law have to show in their report? Basically to show what they were investigating. Amazing that with so many accusations, not a single one provided evidence so guilt.

The Mueller report was quite clear about not exonerating Trump. 'Not exonerated' means 'not cleared of guilt', but Trump was 'not convicted of guilt', either.

So Trump is not off the hook. The Mueller investigation is over but the details can be handed to other authorities to pursue.

a reply to: chr0naut

Lol
Congress needs crimes to impeach
Mueller found NONE per his report

Lol
Your ignorance of our laws is amusing
Cops dont exonerate perps here

a reply to: chr0naut

www.lawfareblog.com...

The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms: it is the House’s “sole power.” The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote.

they absolutely can refuse to do anything about it

This is a replay of the argument and related procedure followed for the “nuclear option” that changed the threshold for “cloture” of judicial nomination debates from a two-thirds to a majority vote. When the Republican leadership floated the option in 2005, some made the case that because the Constitution conferring the Senate’s advice and consent authority does not subject that authority to any supermajority confirmation requirement, the Senate rules could not provide otherwise. Some might argue that the rules also cannot constitutionally bind the Senate to a trial of a House impeachment if, in the exercise of its “sole power” to try, it decides against one. In this way, the Senate rule may be “reinterpreted.” The Senate has options for scuttling the impeachment process beyond a simple refusal to heed the House vote. The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a “trial,” and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senate’s “sole power” to “try” means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. Senate leadership could engineer an early motion to dismiss and effectively moot the current rule’s call for the president or counsel to appear before the Senate. The rules in place provide at any rate only that “the Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses”: they do not require that any other than the president be called. Moreover, the Senate could adjourn at any time, terminating the proceedings and declining to take up the House articles. This is what happened in the trial of Andrew Johnson, in which the Senate voted on three articles and then adjourned without holding votes on the remaining eight.

from same link
www.senate.gov...

Since 1789, one principal question has persisted—how to define “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This question has been hotly debated by members of Congress, defense attorneys, and legal scholars from the first impeachment trial to the most recent. Were misdemeanors lesser crimes, or merely misconducts? Did a high crime or misdemeanor have to be a violation of written law? Over the years, "high crimes and misdemeanors" have been anything the prosecutors have wanted them to be. In an unsuccessful attempt to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in 1970, Representative Gerald Ford declared: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." The phrase is the subject of continuing debate, pitting broad constructionists, who view impeachment as a political weapon, against narrow constructionists, who regard impeachment as being limited to indictable offenses. Narrow constructionists won a major victory when Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was acquitted in 1805, using as his defense the argument that the charges against him were not based on any indictable offense. President Andrew Johnson won acquittal with a similar defense in 1868. The first two convictions in the 20th century, however, those of Judge Robert Archbald in 1913 and Judge Halsted Ritter in 1936, neither of whom had committed indictable offenses, made it clear that the broad constructionists still carried considerable weight. The debate continued during the 1974 investigation into the conduct of President Richard Nixon, with the staff of the House Judiciary Committee arguing for a broad view of "high crimes and misdemeanors" while Nixon's defense attorneys understandably argued for a narrower view.

so yeah nothing has been even close to that level yet and no way baring some insane new evidence do i see the senate impeaching president trump

No authority is going to pursue this any further

Trump wins. Again.

Don’t be so gutted about it.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Congress needs crimes to impeach

Tell that you Lindsey Graham!

Mueller found NONE per his report

Falise, wrong, nope.

Your ignorance of our laws is amusing

Any leftist shill watching the democrat debates?????

Looks like Trump just won 2020.

L A N D S L I D E W A R N I N G

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Read the constitution dunce
Crimes are required
Even if Congress defines those crimes

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

Congress needs crimes to impeach

Tell that you Lindsey Graham!

Mueller found NONE per his report

Falise, wrong, nope.

Your ignorance of our laws is amusing

So you are saying that after Mueller testifies Trump will be impeached right?

I will screen shot your response

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
In fact as the AG and Mueller are part of the DOJ, they are restrained by exactly the same rules and unable to indict a sitting President.

There is a difference between saying "In our opinion he committed the following crimes: X, Y, and Zzzsx.", and issuing an indictment for said crimes.

You know, like Ken Starr did for Clinton?

Sheesh... this is politics, not rocket science.

There are 10 recorded instances of Trump apparently attempting to obstruct the course of justice in the Mueller report.

Mueller, and Barr, cannot indict a sitting President. That's in the report, too.

(I'd be quite comfortable discussing rocket science, too, but that would be off topic. Not sure why you mentioned it?)

Are you referring to the recorded list of accusations that the special counsel investigated and by law have to show in their report? Basically to show what they were investigating. Amazing that with so many accusations, not a single one provided evidence so guilt.

The Mueller report was quite clear about not exonerating Trump. 'Not exonerated' means 'not cleared of guilt', but Trump was 'not convicted of guilt', either.

So Trump is not off the hook. The Mueller investigation is over but the details can be handed to other authorities to pursue.

So you wont say that after Mueller testifies Trump will be impeached?!?!??!?

Lolz🤪

I didnt think you would say that

originally posted by: Scepticaldem

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
In fact as the AG and Mueller are part of the DOJ, they are restrained by exactly the same rules and unable to indict a sitting President.

There is a difference between saying "In our opinion he committed the following crimes: X, Y, and Zzzsx.", and issuing an indictment for said crimes.

You know, like Ken Starr did for Clinton?

Sheesh... this is politics, not rocket science.

There are 10 recorded instances of Trump apparently attempting to obstruct the course of justice in the Mueller report.

Mueller, and Barr, cannot indict a sitting President. That's in the report, too.

(I'd be quite comfortable discussing rocket science, too, but that would be off topic. Not sure why you mentioned it?)

Are you referring to the recorded list of accusations that the special counsel investigated and by law have to show in their report? Basically to show what they were investigating. Amazing that with so many accusations, not a single one provided evidence so guilt.

The Mueller report was quite clear about not exonerating Trump. 'Not exonerated' means 'not cleared of guilt', but Trump was 'not convicted of guilt', either.

So Trump is not off the hook. The Mueller investigation is over but the details can be handed to other authorities to pursue.

So you wont say that after Mueller testifies Trump will be impeached?!?!??!?

Lolz🤪

I didnt think you would say that

'Can be' does not mean 'will be'.

But I'd assume that is the motivation, why Congress might want to clarify things with Mueller.

Won’t be

Regardless

Bob Mueller said that the only reason he agreed to the subpoena, is to prevent him from having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys to fight the subpoena.

He really does NOT want to testify. That's why Mueller successfully negotiated to do both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee in the same day, and limited the number of hours with each.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Scepticaldem

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
In fact as the AG and Mueller are part of the DOJ, they are restrained by exactly the same rules and unable to indict a sitting President.

There is a difference between saying "In our opinion he committed the following crimes: X, Y, and Zzzsx.", and issuing an indictment for said crimes.

You know, like Ken Starr did for Clinton?

Sheesh... this is politics, not rocket science.

There are 10 recorded instances of Trump apparently attempting to obstruct the course of justice in the Mueller report.

Mueller, and Barr, cannot indict a sitting President. That's in the report, too.

(I'd be quite comfortable discussing rocket science, too, but that would be off topic. Not sure why you mentioned it?)

Are you referring to the recorded list of accusations that the special counsel investigated and by law have to show in their report? Basically to show what they were investigating. Amazing that with so many accusations, not a single one provided evidence so guilt.

The Mueller report was quite clear about not exonerating Trump. 'Not exonerated' means 'not cleared of guilt', but Trump was 'not convicted of guilt', either.

So Trump is not off the hook. The Mueller investigation is over but the details can be handed to other authorities to pursue.

So you wont say that after Mueller testifies Trump will be impeached?!?!??!?

Lolz🤪

I didnt think you would say that

'Can be' does not mean 'will be'.

But I'd assume that is the motivation, why Congress might want to clarify things with Mueller.

I said I didnt think you would say that already.....

Lol

So what are you doing here going on and on about?

Mueller isnt going to make Trump go away as you said he would for 3 years. At what point are you going to give up?

originally posted by: carewemust
Bob Mueller said that the only reason he agreed to the subpoena, is to prevent him from having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys to fight the subpoena.

He really does NOT want to testify. That's why Mueller successfully negotiated to do both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee in the same day, and limited the number of hours with each.

How do you negotiate a subpoena?

That must by why MSNBC keeps calling it a friendly subpoena.

Barr was subpoenaed and questioned within 3 days of him releasing his letter that summarized Muellers report.

Why did Bob get to negotiate?

Mueller is going to be pushed to decide one way or the other about obstruction. Hang on to your seats kids.