Mueller press conference

[ArcadiaGP]

You mean that you would be in favor of putting the country thru a grinding divisive political process just for the optics?

Wasn’t the past two years of constant collusion/conspiracy investigations that didn’t bear legal fruit against Trump personally enough division for you?

Here’s a novel idea. Howbout finally accepting the legitimate outcome of the 2016 election and we get away from all the political bull**** side show and let the natural election process take it’s course in 2020?

Or do you hate Trump so much that you fear taking a chance on him being re-elected for another term?

You’re starting to sound like the rabid Democrat Trump haters Kut that want to remove him from office and or impede his ability to run the country by any means necessary.

I think you've read too much into what he said. Bolded parts show this seems personal.

 

[jamil]

There's a ZERO percent chance Congress will remove him from office. There are simply too many sycophants in the Senate. Actually they aren't really sycophants. They're actually professional politicians that are more worried about keeping their seats than challenging the president when he goes off the rails. I personally am not completely confident that impeaching the president will be detrimental to the Democrats. Given how many people haven't read what's in the Mueller report, the optics of a trial held in the Senate might be advantageous to the Democrats.

I'm curious, why do you think the reason Trump wouldn't be removed from office is because of sycophants? I'm pretty sure that if Mueller had enough evidence for obstruction, he would have said so. Furthermore, I don't see how he can hide behind "I can't make a determination because the rules prohibit me". That's bull****. In his report, he can indeed present his evidence and say this that and the other law was broken. If he can't make a determination because of rules, why the **** did he spend $35M investigating? This smells wrong. And the political signaling he made was unprofessional.

I think this is more about Mueller saying, Trump did ****ty things, but didn't really break any laws, so I'm going to signal congress to impeach him so that his evil deeds are exposed. But the report is public to anyone. And we have an election coming up. Sure, an impeachment proceeding would expose the ****ty things Trump did to a public which probably doesn't want to read through all 400 pages. Most people would rather see the movie.

The best outcome is for congress to decide to let the people decide through elections in a year from November. Instead they'll probably impeach Trump anyway, and time things so that they can have a free campaign commercial in front of America every day during the heart of the campaign season. But what it will also do is further divide the nation. No matter how ****ty was the things Trump did, the nation will not unite around not-Trump.

 

[terrehautian]

If they go for impeachment, I feel like it will be 2021 only because

a. If trump wins, he is at term limits so he can’t run again.

B. If they fail to impeach and remove from office, the consequences of that might not be so bad.

C. They’re hoping if trump wins, they hope take back senate and can remove him from office.

 

[printcraft]

I think you've read too much into what he said. Bolded parts show this seems personal.

Well, he’s not wrong...

 

[KG1]

Well, he’s not wrong...

^This^ I was asking kut for clarification and giving him the opportunity to set me straight on exactly what he might be advocating for.

I’m pretty positive that kut is quite capable of doing exactly that on his own.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm curious, why do you think the reason Trump wouldn't be removed from office is because of sycophants? I'm pretty sure that if Mueller had enough evidence for obstruction, he would have said so. Furthermore, I don't see how he can hide behind "I can't make a determination because the rules prohibit me". That's bull****. In his report, he can indeed present his evidence and say this that and the other law was broken. If he can't make a determination because of rules, why the **** did he spend $35M investigating? This smells wrong. And the political signaling he made was unprofessional.

I think this is more about Mueller saying, Trump did ****ty things, but didn't really break any laws, so I'm going to signal congress to impeach him so that his evil deeds are exposed. But the report is public to anyone. And we have an election coming up. Sure, an impeachment proceeding would expose the ****ty things Trump did to a public which probably doesn't want to read through all 400 pages. Most people would rather see the movie.

The best outcome is for congress to decide to let the people decide through elections in a year from November. Instead they'll probably impeach Trump anyway, and time things so that they can have a free campaign commercial in front of America every day during the heart of the campaign season. But what it will also do is further divide the nation. No matter how ****ty was the things Trump did, the nation will not unite around not-Trump.

First noting that I amended "sycophants," to "professional politicians," I think that they would not be willing to remove Trump from office out of fear of the president targeting them, and hurting their chances for re-election.

 

[BugI02]

You mean that you would be in favor of putting the country thru a grinding divisive political process just for the optics?

Wasn’t the past two years of constant collusion/conspiracy investigations that didn’t bear legal fruit against Trump personally enough division for you?

Here’s a novel idea. Howbout finally accepting the legitimate outcome of the 2016 election and we get away from all the political bull**** side show and let the natural election process take it’s course in 2020?

Or do you hate Trump so much that you fear taking a chance on him being re-elected for another term?

You’re starting to sound like the rabid Democrat Trump haters Kut that want to remove him from office and or impede his ability to run the country by any means necessary.

Starting ?!

When people tell you it's not about winning at all costs, it's about winning at all costs. Progressives are like sharks, if they stop moving they die

 

[Kutnupe14]

You mean that you would be in favor of putting the country thru a grinding divisive political process just for the optics?

Wasn’t the past two years of constant collusion/conspiracy investigations that didn’t bear legal fruit against Trump personally enough division for you?

Here’s a novel idea. Howbout finally accepting the legitimate outcome of the 2016 election and we get away from all the political bull**** side show and let the natural election process take it’s course in 2020?

Or do you hate Trump so much that you fear taking a chance on him being re-elected for another term?

You’re starting to sound like the rabid Democrat Trump haters Kut that want to remove him from office and or impede his ability to run the country by any means necessary.

"You?" Where have I endorsed any of the above over simply making a reasoned opinion. Having a belief of what "may" happen isn't the same as hoping it will happen.

 

[BugI02]

First noting that I amended "sycophants," to "professional politicians," I think that they would not be willing to remove Trump from office out of fear of the president targeting them, and hurting their chances for re-election.

Curious why you didn't just edit the post before you submitted it. To use sycophant, and then 'correct' that in the next sentence leaving the initial version on display, is just passive-aggressive. Kind of like me saying you could just say precisely what you will later specify that you meant

You might think you're a master of 'rope-a-dope' but IMHO that's only half right

Edit: Has it never occurred to you that what people are willing to put up with from Trump is actually a relative measure of what a horror show the Democratic alternatives are?

 

[KG1]

"You?" Where have I endorsed any of the above over simply making a reasoned opinion. Having a belief of what "may" happen isn't the same as hoping it will happen.

It’s no big secret how much you hate Trump kut. I was just asking if that would be something you might possibly endorse. That’s all.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It’s no big secret how much you hate Trump kut. I was just asking if that would be something you might possibly endorse. That’s all.

I don't hate the president. I think he is unfit for the office, and plays to the baser instinct of people in order to garner support. To answer your question, no, I don't endorse any of the things you questioned me about.

 

[jamil]

First noting that I amended "sycophants," to "professional politicians," I think that they would not be willing to remove Trump from office out of fear of the president targeting them, and hurting their chances for re-election.

Sycophants/professional politicians. Doesn't really matter enough to note the difference.

So you don't think they think Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, but would not vote their conscience because sycophants/professional politicians? It couldn't be because they don't believe what he did rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? Or because the "crimes" (seriously if they were crimes Mueller wouldn't have signaled impeachment because he could have clearly said it in his report) Trump may have committed pale in impact to the nation if any of the bat **** crazy Democrats running now get into office?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sycophants/professional politicians. Doesn't really matter enough to note the difference.

So you don't think they think Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, but would not vote their conscience because sycophants/professional politicians? It couldn't be because they don't believe what he did rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? Or because the "crimes" (seriously if they were crimes Mueller wouldn't have signaled impeachment because he could have clearly said it in his report) Trump may have committed pale in impact to the nation if any of the bat **** crazy Democrats running now get into office?

I'm staying silent on the issue of whether or not I think he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. The point I'm making, is that even if he was they would not be willing to remove him from office.

 

[printcraft]

I don't hate the president. I think he is unfit for the office, and plays to the baser instinct of people in order to garner support. To answer your question, no, I don't endorse any of the things you questioned me about.

I have it on good authority the moon is made of cheese.

 

[mmpsteve]

Edit: Has it never occurred to you that what people are willing to put up with from Trump is actually a relative measure of what a horror show the Democratic alternatives are?

Truer words have not been spoken in regards to this subject. I don't believe I'm alone when I admit that this thought basically rules my voting pattern at this point in history, and I don't foresee it changing any time soon.

.

 

[jamil]

I'm staying silent on the issue of whether or not I think he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. The point I'm making, is that even if he was they would not be willing to remove him from office.

One could say the same about the other. Even if he wasn’t the Dems would pursue it anyway. But I’d submit that it’s a different cause. The cause isn’t sycophancy or “professional politicians”, but partisanship. It’s straight up partisanship. You might break that down as an artifact of “professional politician”, and, fair enough. But not for exactly the same reasons you give.

 

[Kutnupe14]

One could say the same about the other. Even if he wasn’t the Dems would pursue it anyway. But I’d submit that it’s a different cause. The cause isn’t sycophancy or “professional politicians”, but partisanship. It’s straight up partisanship. You might break that down as an artifact of “professional politician”, and, fair enough. But not for exactly the same reasons you give.

I have no issue with pointing out that the Democrats have been, and continue to be, equally as guilty.

 

[chipbennett]

Since when does a prosecutor have the ability to charge someone taken away? In the case of the president, the role of prosecution was explicitly verboten. It is more correct, at so far in relation to the president, to say that he was an investigator tasked with gathering information.

Nothing procedural, constitutional, or anything else whatsoever prevented Mueller from describing findings of evidence of criminal behavior, and recommending the introduction of charges as the report conclusion - except for the lack of evidence of criminal behavior.

 

[chipbennett]

I think this is more about Mueller saying, Trump did ****ty things, but didn't really break any laws, so I'm going to signal congress to impeach him so that his evil deeds are exposed. But the report is public to anyone. And we have an election coming up. Sure, an impeachment proceeding would expose the ****ty things Trump did to a public which probably doesn't want to read through all 400 pages. Most people would rather see the movie.

I challenge the premise that Trump did "****ty things". Regarding the collusion nonsense, there is simply no evidence that anyone, including Trump, did anything that in any way constitutes collusion. Regarding the obstruction nonsense, there is no evidence that Trump did anything outside of his constitutionally enumerated authority as President. There's nothing that an impeachment investigation or trial would "expose", because there's nothing to expose - and no evidence to the contrary.

 

[jamil]

I challenge the premise that Trump did "****ty things". Regarding the collusion nonsense, there is simply no evidence that anyone, including Trump, did anything that in any way constitutes collusion. Regarding the obstruction nonsense, there is no evidence that Trump did anything outside of his constitutionally enumerated authority as President. There's nothing that an impeachment investigation or trial would "expose", because there's nothing to expose - and no evidence to the contrary.

I'm not making a judgement whether or not Trump did ****ty things in that quote. That's pretty subjective anyway. Some people think everything he does is wrong. Some think he's done nothing wrong ever. But, if I were to make a judgement, there are some things in the report that make Trump look bad. Ethically edgy things, but not what I would consider illegal things. If there were drawn out impeachment proceedings, that would give the Democrats the opportunity to make the bad sound impeachable. So like I said, the hearings would view like a months long campaign add for Democrats.