Is impeachment the new political weapon? (1 Viewer)

V Chip said:

That is definitely not "there was no evidence at all of an underlying crime."

Click to expand...

In the context I would argue it most certainly is.

If the idea is that there is a possibility of obstruction - and you bring up that one of the reasons for obstruction is to cover up an underlying crime then you state something along the lines of "there is some evidence that can be seen as indicating an underlying crime" - NOT writing what the Mueller REport said. Otherwise, I do not understand how to make sense of the point being made.

samiam5211 said:

Its not about what I think the result will be. It’s not about winning because it isn’t a game. It is about what the facts show. To me the facts show that this is the perfect example of why the founders put impeachment in the Constitution as a remedy. That is my opinion based on the facts. We can’t discuss our opinions though, because we don’t even agree to what the facts are.

Im not exactly sure what you mean by “people like me”. You seem to be generalizing something, but I’m not sure what.

I hope after the elections in 2020 that I am right, but I don’t care about saying itoldyluso.

We agree on one thing for sure... If I am wrong I won’t move on and accept it because it would be unacceptable.

Click to expand...

Your last paragraph highlights more than you can imagine.

JimEverett said:

Otherwise, I do not understand how to make sense of the point being made.

Click to expand...

I don’t know how much clearer the point can be than what Mueller himself said as I quoted above:

Mueller said “If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.”

Lazybones said:

Front and center? Why the 2 year investigation with no charges? And you say no digging, well why not vote? Why are they still investigating.

I don’t think it is as clear cut as you may see it.

Click to expand...

Because that's what adults do when faced with these circumstances?

V Chip said:

I don’t know how much clearer the point can be than what Mueller himself said as I quoted above:

Mueller said “If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.”

Click to expand...

That is not in the report, which is the precise thing we are discussing, right?

Regardless, what is Mueller talking about in the quote you provided? He references the Introduction to Volume 2 - which is precisely about obstruction.
I am talking about the underlying crime - what the media has consistently called "collusion" - which many have pointed out from the start of this, that collusion is not a crime. But let it be a stand-in for conspiracy or whatever to coordinate with Russians to violate the laws of the US.
There is no evidence of Trump committing an underlying crime for which he may have been trying to obstruct according to the Mueller Report.

Is there something in the Mueller Report that indicates the investigation produced evidence of a crime other than obstruction?

JimEverett said:

That is not in the report, which is the precise thing we are discussing, right?

Click to expand...

It's not in the report but it is Mueller clarifying what the report is about.

JimEverett said:

You are changing the subject an I think you know it.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not.

Oh well.

V Chip said:

It's not in the report but it is Mueller clarifying what the report is about.

No, I'm not.

Oh well.

Click to expand...

So you think Mueller was referencing something other than obstruction when he made the quote you posted? If so, why did he specifically say the reason from not making a determination is found in the introduction of volume 2 of the Report? That is about obstruction. If you did not know that, I apologize for saying I think you know better. If you did not know that, you should read it.

MLU said:

Because that's what adults do when faced with these circumstances?

Click to expand...

I’m not sure what you are asking.

JimEverett said:

So you think Mueller was referencing something other than obstruction when he made the quote you posted? If so, why did he specifically say the reason from not making a determination is found in the introduction of volume 2 of the Report? That is about obstruction. If you did not know that, I apologize for saying I think you know better. If you did not know that, you should read it.

Click to expand...

Well, alright then.

Ayo said:

I know the graph you got that from, but the top is cut off and it might help to demarcate where the Ukraine investigation happens on that timeline. Of course, perhaps we can guess - the difference is pretty stark

Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry, the mobile version doesn't have the "events" listed. Kinda silly. there was a point where 15% of Republicans supported Impeachment.

Lazybones said:

Anytime the media starts screaming impeachment, of course the American people are concerned. As many of you have said the majority of the country only knows what they hear on CNN.

I’m curious as to what the next move will be when this doesn’t work. I really hope many in the left sir back and breath and not let their whole life revolve around the president and his twitter feed. He is playing them like a fine tuned Stradivarius.

Click to expand...

I think you commented before I added the chart. Look at the updated chart I just posted with the news events listed. Tell me what you see the lines doing after the Ukraine story broke.

I don't watch CNN, I don't have cable.

I actually read the entire Whistleblower complaint and "transcript" from the white house after they were released, and made up my own mind.

wardorican said:

Yeah, sorry, the mobile version doesn't have the "events" listed. Kinda silly. there was a point where 15% of Republicans supported Impeachment.

Click to expand...

I still can’t see it. My initial thoughts were when Pelosi announced an impeachment vote that wasn’t really an impeachment vote is when it spiked.

Lazybones said:

I still can’t see it. My initial thoughts were when Pelosi announced an impeachment vote that wasn’t really an impeachment vote is when it spiked.

Click to expand...

You can't see it?

wardorican said:

You can't see it?

Click to expand...

Ha. Maybe I do. It’s the highlighted yellow. Sorry. My eyelids have been impacted by a combination of true og and wedding cake.

Lazybones said:

Ha. Maybe I do. It’s the highlighted yellow. Sorry. My eyelids have been impacted by a combination of true og and wedding cake.

Click to expand...

Ok, well, when you're less impacted by true og and wedding cake, look at the chart and let me know what you see. I can wait.

wardorican said:

Ok, well, when you're less impacted by true og and wedding cake, look at the chart and let me know what you see. I can wait.

Click to expand...

I see it and still don’t get it. When the Ukraine scandal broke the headlines were impeachment impeachment blah blah blah. Of course the public and congress (they are a bunch of dolts) jumped on the band wagon. But as more details have surfaced just like most bandwagons, they start jumping off.

Maybe you have just produced the holy grail and I just don’t get it. I will relook are in the am.

Lazybones said:

I see it and still don’t get it. When the Ukraine scandal broke the headlines were impeachment impeachment blah blah blah. Of course the public and congress (they are a bunch of dolts) jumped on the band wagon. But as more details have surfaced just like most bandwagons, they start jumping off.

Maybe you have just produced the holy grail and I just don’t get it. I will relook are in the am.

Click to expand...

Ok. I'm not asking for the why. I'm just asking what changed on the chart. And after what event. We'll talk in the am.

JimEverett said:

So you think Mueller was referencing something other than obstruction when he made the quote you posted? If so, why did he specifically say the reason from not making a determination is found in the introduction of volume 2 of the Report? That is about obstruction. If you did not know that, I apologize for saying I think you know better. If you did not know that, you should read it.

Click to expand...

No, I did not realize that specific quote was only referencing the obstruction.

However, the report also states explicitly these two things specifically about conspiracy/collusion/coordination:

"In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

"We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

He states quite clearly that the report will point out the absence of evidence (or conflicts of evidence) about a fact, or that events occurred if the evidence supports it. Then he states when they use the phrase "did not establish particular facts" it does not mean there was no evidence of that fact; then he uses that exact phrase when referring to coordinating with the Russian government.

Again, you claimed the report stated there was "no evidence at all" of collusion/conspiracy/coordination. The report quoted directly above refutes your claim, and states clearly that if there was absence of evidence it would explicitly state that.