Star Member bigtree (74,314 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212310680
So... did we get him?
Lily Adams @adamslily 17m17 minutes ago
Guys. This is the whole deal.
Rep. Lieu: "The reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting President, correct?"
Mueller: "That is correct."
Did you find collusion? No.
Did you find obstruction? No.
Star Member jalan48 (9,383 posts)
1. Fantastic! So what do we do now?
Star Member ehrnst (22,790 posts)
35. Well, as we've seen, we can't indict him while he's in office.
And we know that after what Mueller said, he's not going to resign.
We know that impeachment won't change the minds of those in red states whatsoever, and that it won't shorten his time in office.
Any Dem Senator in a Red State would lose their seat if they voted to remove him. Same with Congressional Dems in swing districts. Impeachment, and the perceived "win" that Trump would get for not being removed by the senate will invigorate his followers.
And even if despite all that, impeachment seems like a sum gain, why would we do it now, instead of closer to the election?
There's no way Pence would invoke the 25th amendment, because he knows that would end his career after 2020.
I think that continuing investigations and getting as much public support for undoing the damage done and working on keeping the House and flipping the Senate in 2020 are immediate concerns.
In other words... you can't do shit.
OliverQ (1,979 posts)
3. It's meaningless if no one will prosecute him and Dems won't impeach.
HopeAgain (4,292 posts)
6. Exactly
So he committed obstruction of justice... as if that isn't obvious from the report. I am tired of a million "moral victories" which don't change the opinions of the President by a single percentage point. Time to stop bringing a knives to this gunfight.
No, he didn't. Mueller report says so.
Star Member ehrnst (22,790 posts)
38. If Dems impeach, it's still meaningless if it doesn't do anything but rouse his supporters.
And we run the risk of losing Dem Senators in Red states if they vote to remove him.
We need the Senate in 2020 more than we need impeachment that won't shorten his time in office a single minute, and give him a chance to show his supporters he's been "exonerated" because the Senate won't remove him. They won't even call his tweets racist, and they know that a vote for impeachment, or crossing Trump in any way will mean they lose their seat.
Trump will call it a "witch Hunt" that he beat, and his supporters will be partying in the street.
If we have a choice between taking the Senate and impeachment, which would you choose?
ScratchCat (704 posts)
7. Now he said it in public
And It will be on the front of every newspaper tomorrow.
Impeachment inquiry starts Monday if he wont resign.
Star Member Hoyt (38,589 posts)
8. Pelosi and the House Democrats will have to ask if the sound bites on Obstruction vs. the GOPer
sound bites where Mueller said in his opening ". . . . . . the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address “collusion,” which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not."
Then, he said Barr did not interfere in his investigation.
Personally, I think we should turn to a host of other matters for Impeachment including advancement of racism, financial irregularities, dereliction of duty, encouraging violence, abuse of power, attempting to undermine America's position globally, harming immigrants, and so much more.
which one of those 'crimes' is actually a crime on the US Legal Code?
Star Member Hoyt (38,589 posts)
12. Will be interesting to see if we are hostile this afternoon since Mueller said today there was no
conspiracy/cooperation.
When hearings are over today, unless something new happens, it will be Obstruction vs. exoneration (by Mueller, not my opinion) on collusion, conspiracy, cooperation, whatever one wants to call it, with Ruskies. I think trump's campaign is guilty as sin in dealing with Russians, but Mueller says otherwise.
And Hillary skates free...
Star Member Roland99 (44,237 posts)
23. Wasn't the Clinton impeachment based on obstruction?
Perjury, Lying to Congress, Witness tampering, and Obstruction. They only got him on Lying to Congress.
Star Member librechik (29,431 posts)
9. hold the balloon drop
Repubs and hearing problems have muddled this hearing. Let's see what talking points emerge. Of course The Report said everything necessary for the average IQ to understand, but the repubs have filled the air with whataboutism smoke and mirrors.
gratuitous (65,867 posts)
10. Gee, if the OLC decides it can't indict a sitting president . . .
Is there anything in the law or the Constitution that authorizes some other government agency to take action against a lawless administration? Gonna have to sit down and think on that one for a while.
Let's keep piling up the evidence, and make the clarion call for impeachment irresistible.
... that's called a coup...
FBaggins (18,680 posts)
14. Close... but no cigar
If the follow-up question had been "So if the OLC opinion did not exist, you would have indicted him?" and Mueller had answered "yes"... then it would be all over.
Then it would be "the whole deal".
standingtall (2,150 posts)
21. We got what we needed to impeach Trump
he was asked He was asked You believe the President obstructed justice? answer yes! You could indict the President after he leaves office? answer yes? Some might argue that even though the word if wasn't used it was a hypothetical and it was implied, but when you couple that with him being asked Trump officials impeding your investigation? He answered I generally agree! There are no more excuses for not impeaching Trump.
So, either Mueller lied in the report (no obstruction) or he's lying now.
Star Member Hortensis (31,580 posts)
28. Just heard Wolf Blitzer summarize that "the report did not totally exonerate him."
Totally. Blitzer obviously thinks some damage was done and went right to work on steps to bring the takeaway to "total exoneration."
try proving a negative.
True Dough (10,025 posts)
32. Mueller just retracted that response
BOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Star Member BigmanPigman (27,944 posts)
36. I saw that...SHIT!
Joe941 (1,458 posts)
49. That was unfortunate.
Iliyah (18,210 posts)
51. I know I'm in the
minority here but I think t-rump is going down.
