Yes it is a dream of rational, logical common sense dreamers ---imagine-- he is going to prison along with cohorts.Nah.
This has nothing to do with the legality of impeding the Mueller investigation, because Trump was not impeached for anything related to the Mueller investigation. Impeachment was declared to be nonjusticiable in US v Nixon, matters outside of impeachment are not.
Yes and Mueller found nothing impeachable...
What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate?Yes and Mueller found nothing impeachable...
.....he said "No Collusion"
Nor do I do know ---or so its been reported on MSNBC-- Paul Manifort ergo his aid Rick Gates, colluded with Russaians over 2016 via Ukraine.......Now I don't know why......
What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate?
A living wage is a minimum amount of income needed to provide a worker with basic necessities, such that they can live a basic life without government subsidies. It does not literally mean "I need x income or I cannot survive" which would be a subsistence wage. The idea is to lift people out of the feedback loop of poverty.
Apart from this, there have you considered that a living wage is typically calculated based upon a 40? hour work week. However it is likely that a person who is earning a poverty wage must work more than that (which of course negatively impacts their life and is a part of the feedback loop).
You don't have quite the right idea for part 2 of the Mueller report. Mueller's wording was specific in that Trump was not exonerated, and left the matter to the house as to whether the described incidences can be concluded as acts of obstruction, and whether they should lead to impeachmentMueller’s goal was to find Russian Collusion with the Trump campaign so that Trump could be impeached and removed from office. Mueller however stated that there was no collusion and he couldn’t find sufficient evidence of wrongdoing and hence, there was no case at all for any criminal proceedings against the President nor impeachable offenses.
We've been increasing the minimum wage for decades, and millions of Americans are still living in poverty. We've got to find out what people are doing with all that extra money they get, and why.
I think people need to take a look at the kind of work they're doing. If you're working 40 hours a week behind a cash register, you can't expect to make that much money to begin with, but if you're working 40 hours a week as a doctor, nurse, electrician, plumber, scientist, police, janitor, military, or whatever, you can easily get out of poverty and move up the corporate ladder. Right now, I'm trying to get into a job working for a bank, office, tech company, news company, or an insurance company, all of which pay far more than the minimum wage.It's getting ridiculous that people are wanting more and more money doing their cheap cash register jobs, and not looking for ways to get into jobs that already pay better.
Raising the minimum wage just means more and more businesses are going to be finding ways to get around it, such as looking for more immigrants to hire under the table or whatever, thus negatively impacting even more lives, and contributing even more to that feedback loop you talked out.
You don't have quite the right idea for part 2 of the Mueller report. Mueller's wording was specific in that Trump was not exonerated, and left the matter to the house as to whether the described incidences can be concluded as acts of obstruction, and whether they should lead to impeachment
It wasn't about sufficiency of evidence.
It is known that he did those things and ordered those things and there is sufficient evidence to show so. It's about to what extent do those acts constitute crimes and whether he can be impeached for those acts, which is purely decided by the house and subsequently the senate
That’s opinion. In my opinion there’s a massive double standard especially towards what the Clintons and Obamas did. Without equality under the law why would I criticize someone for something when another did the same thing and got away with it. It’s a precedent I guess is what I’m trying to say.Of course legalities aside, such behaviour is obviously corrupt, so why do you defend him for such behaviour?
This is extremely wrong. I'm unsure if you're just rewording it inaccurately or you're just unaware of the accurate facts. Perhaps you could present a line from the report or his testimony to support your case?It is though. Mueller specifically said that he did not have sufficient evidence to convict the President nor present an impeachable offense.
That’s opinion. In my opinion there’s a massive double standard especially towards what the Clintons and Obamas did. Without equality under the law why would I criticize someone for something when another did the same thing and got away with it. It’s a precedent I guess is what I’m trying to say.
In terms of impeachment, it is also clear that he left that determination purely to congress, and that there were several incidences that had sufficient evidence that could be understood to be obstruction.
With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice. [...] The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law. Mueller Report, vol. II, p.8
What one special counsels does is not what all special counsels must do. In anycase it is useless pointing out what you think Mueller should've of done or what he could've done, because he has not done these things and has left these things up to congress.
This is extremely wrong. I'm unsure if you're just rewording it inaccurately or you're just unaware of the accurate facts. Perhaps you could present a line from the report or his testimony to support your case?In terms of conviction, Mueller made it extremely clear that because of the previous OLC opinion, he could not convict the President for anything. Conviction was never on the table for either collusion or obstruction.In terms of impeachment, it is also clear that he left that determination purely to congress, and that there were several incidences that had sufficient evidence that could be understood to be obstruction.
What did the Clintons and Obama’s do?
What one special counsels does is not what all special counsels must do. In anycase it is useless pointing out what you think Mueller should've of done or what he could've done, because he has not done these things and has left these things up to congress.
The report was handed to Barr as he is the head of the justice department which oversaw the investigation. However the determination of the actions in the report were left to congress, as was made clear in the report itself because congress has the sole responsibilities of impeachment and removal. As for the OLC opinion, we don't know why Mueller did or did not do anything, but it was made clear from the report that impeachment is a measure against presidential corruptive behaviour.Now let’s go to obstruction. It is Trump’s constitutional right to fire any member of the executive branch. Regardless Mueller did not come to a conclusion whether there was obstruction or not. He left it to his supervisors Rod Rosenstein and William Barr who both stated there was not enough evidence to warrant an obstruction claim. As for the OLC claim, the Special Counsel has the power to reccomend impeachable offenses to Congress, which Bob Mueller chose not to do. The OLC furthermore does not reign supreme over the Supreme Court where a battle could have been taken, yet Bob Mueller chose not to do so. He didn’t reccomend charges to Congress nor fight the OLC opinion, why? There’s only one reasonable explanation: he didn’t have sufficient evidence to warrant an obstruction of justice which was corroborated by Rosenstein and Barr, the top lawyers in the nation.
Well let’s see. Bill Clinton committed perjury but was set free. One could argue he abused his power to get the famous sexual relation. Hillary Clinton rigged the DNC so she would win against Bernie. Hillary And the DNC also funded the infamous Steele Dossier which was proven to be false to obtain a warrant from the FISA court to wiretap the Trump campaign..essentially modern day Watergate.Eric Holder during Fast and Furious refused to give documents to Republicans after Obama asserted executive privilege. The same “obstruction” that Democrats are impeaching Trump for. It’s a sham and double standard. Oh I almost forgot, Lois Lerner purposefully targeting Conservative organizations. Keep in mind also that the whole wiretapping thing happened under the Obama administration.
Regardless, even if the question was open ended towards Congress, it’s been almost a year since the report was released. Why did they not impeach him then? Simple: there was no case to be made,
Well we know there is a case to be made, because there were listed instances of obstructive behaviour. It's probably just because the case isn't strong enough without the underlying crime to appease much of the public and garner that critical public support.
Steele Dossier which was proven to be false to obtain a warrant from the FISA court to wiretap the Trump campaign..essentially modern day Watergate.
64 days later
Once again, your political instincts seems to have been right.Trump Impeachment could end up dooming Warrens future in politics the most.
