Greyparrot

Oh but I think Trump has figured out that he can push for impeachment using tweets to egg on the most radical wing of the regressive left to help implode the left wing party. After all, the radical socialist left isn't exactly known for having a thick skin when it comes to Trump.

I did a complete word search for both the word impeachment and the phrase grounds for impeachment. You have access to the same public Mueller report. Enlighten me as to why that phrase is not there.

At the time I was thinking indictments meant you have cleared the bar for high crimes and misdemeanors.

I was mistaken in my thinking of that. A special counsel can indict anyone for low crimes and almost misdemeanors apparently.

Actually I don't even care about that anymore, and I will concede to your pointless argument.

I still stand by the fact that Mueller found no Impeachable high crimes or misdemeanors, simply due to the fact that he never said the phrase "grounds for impeachment"

It's like asking a detective if you are under arrest for a possible crime... and Mueller essentially let the suspect walk away by not stating the phrase impeachable offense.

Stating "low crimes" and "almost misdemeanors" isn't enough for impeachment in the USA.

That is correct..it is not the job of a detective in the USA to clear someone of a crime. Either the detective arrests you, or you go home, because you are innocent by default in the USA.

If they cannot arrest you because of your privilege, then they send a report to someone who can arrest you and explicitly states the reasons why you would have been arrested. Because you cant arrest someone without a crime. Nor can you impeach someone without a crime. You impeach presidents in the USA for high crimes and misdemeanors.

You impeach a president in RUSSIA because orange man bad is Your political opponent.  

This probably isn't a concept a non-American can swallow easily.

Ok even if you believe Mueller laid out a case for impeachment for obstruction of justice...without using the words "grounds for impeachment"...why was Mueller so insanely incompetent as to not explicitly state so in the report? Why all the semantic kabuki theatre verbal dancing?

Do you have any idea why he did not simply state, as Starr so easily did in his Starr report... "grounds for impeachment..."

After all, I would think Starr's report would be the standard roadmap for any similar special counsel seeking grounds for impeachment of a sitting president. Seeing as Starr's report led directly to an impeachment vote, Mueller had the crib notes right in front of him.

Why didn't Mueller follow the obvious roadmap? Why not state the grounds for impeachment explicitly instead of the numerous innuendos? I think you know, but do not want to state the obvious answer. 

One of the possible 2 answers makes no sense, and the other is plainly obvious to anyone but a deluded hack.

If it's the truth that Mueller found something worthy of indictment for collusion...where is it?

Where is the indictment for collusion?

Why does the phrase "grounds for impeachment" appear nowhere in the Mueller report?

Just for funsies, I downloaded the PDF version of the Mueller report from the DOJ website, and did a search for the word "impeachment"

I would tell you what I found, but it would spoil all the fun. :)

I also looked for the phrase "grounds for impeachment"

So much fun an average joe can do at home with the internet.

Really, so where are the indictments for collusion, since it takes more than the president for that crime. Where is the Russian(s), or anyone else associated with Trump indicted for collusion? Mueller has no barriers to indicting non-presidents...does he?

Tell me what would have happened to Ken Starr if his report said 

"this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

instead of:

There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.
4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.
5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.
6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.
8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.
9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.
10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury – and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.
11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 – all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.

Ken Starr had zero problems concluding that the threshold for a crime(s) was reached in the Starr report. He had no trouble concluding that "his report concludes...."

"while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Had Starr written that in his report, Republicans would have had his head on a pike.

I am surprised the Democrats can even contain themselves after getting the shaft from Mueller. It looks nothing like the Starr report.

Collusion is NOT a one man show. Yet Mueller did not indict any other parties. No indictments for collusion, not even any Russians...

"while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

I am actually surprised the rabid fringe left allowed Mueller to continue breathing air for printing that ridiculous statement in his report. How dare he say something that could possibly help that monster Trump.

Mueller had plenty of avenues and options to indicate Trump had cleared the bar for a crime, yet took none of them, and instead punted it over to Barr. How disappointing for the people waiting years for Mueller to conclude...that his report does not conclude...

No indictments for Russian collusion or obstruction.

34 Indictments for process crimes. 

If you are angry with that, talk to Mueller.

Like I said, I can wait another 2 years.

We already waited 2 years for Mueller to conclude nothing worthy of indictment for Russian collusion or obstruction happened.

That's fine. I can wait 2 years.

The instructor reminds me of every CNN panelist on that fake news venue...opinions masquerading as actual news. Most economists as tenured academia have never created a single job for the economy, and have zero clue of all the hidden costs and risks associated with creating jobs.

This is why we need to elect entrepreneurs and other real world risk takers. Not soft handed academia like lawyers and economists.

Oh god I love that movie. 

Trump came in as a Thornton Melon, the rich guy that isn’t accepted by the club. But since he has been in the office he’s slowly more and more been following establishment lines. It’s like that old stand up comedy segment about how the newly elected president is shown a film of JFK in Dallas from an entirely differently angle and quickly drop all their ideas of reforming the place and then go along to get along.
Also his real estate developer experience with government shows itself from time to time. Like the scene from “Back to School” where Thornton Melon talks about needing to pay off building inspectors and such, Trump’s idea of how to behave in government office seems shaped by his experiences with it.

Trump lost most of his wealth in the last 2 years because he stopped focusing on his business and traded in his equity on his name recognition to run the country.

I'd like to see the same commitment from the current elected lawyers in the swampy D.C. to lose a proportionate amount of wealth by focusing more on the country and less on themselves.

Sadly, most lawyers accumulate wealth after being elected off of the backs of the poor taxpayers.

So spot on. This is why people who care about the economy need to stop electing lawyers like Schumer and Obama to run the economy and start electing entrepreneurs like Trump.

Just hope for public safety that you remain at stage 3 infestation.

The 5 official stages of TDS.

"your words don't actually no real meaning to me. "

Oh the Irony...

I heard on NPR that Trump is trying to accomplish pro American policies using Tariffs where past presidents did previously using sanctions and the force of the military.

That alone should get him the Nobel peace prize. I'd rather buy a pricey avocado than bury a friend in some pointless proxy war.

Ok checkmate, you got me. Acosta mused in this CNN coverage that while people were desperately hoping for Trump to fail, Acosta gives praise to Trump for this speech.

Congratulations CNN for providing a rare 3rd opinion about Trump besides the 99.9% 2 CNN positions of 

1) orange man bad...or

2) Orange man REALLY bad.

Trump also is not a journalist, so you can never expect news to come from Trump, fake or otherwise. You can only gather his opinions.

All opinions are a source of fake news, and CNN has no journalists on staff, only biased editorialists.

You can fall on only one of 2 sides, 1) orange man bad...or 2) Orange man REALLY bad.

From a little research on why grand jury testimony is secret...it is about these 3 things.

(1) preserving the willingness and candor of witnesses called before the grand jury...

(2) not alerting the target of an investigation who might otherwise flee or interfere with the grand jury.. and

(3) preserving the rights of a suspect who might later be exonerated.

So there can be a heck of a lot going on with #2 and #3 on that list especially as Barr has opened up new investigations into FISA malfeasance.

I wouldn't expect that testimony to be released from any judge while investigations are proceeding.

From what I understand, he made a version that revealed the sources and methods in a controlled room where only congress could go in to view, but not take notes due to the sensitivity of sources and methods. As far as grand jury testimony, Barr really has no choice about that. He will go straight to jail, do not pass go if he reveals any of the grand jury testimony without due process.

Disclosing the grand jury testimony involves a long and lengthy legal process. It took 50 years for the Nixon case to be revealed to the public, so you might have to set a few calendar reminders if that is the precedent.

I think it's a real sign of character that Trump has not gone down the path of jailing his political opponents like Putin does. While he has plenty of evidence to indict Hillary for an amazing amount of malfeasance, and has used rhetoric to indicate that Hillary is a criminal, he has not used the FBI or the Congress as a weapon against his political rivals in any way shape or form that resembles how Obama used the FBI to imprison his opponents and how Congress has abused their power to jail their opponents.

Releasing grand jury testimony is a crime.

And there is very good reason for that. If the grand jury finds insufficient evidence, then the state should not impose burdens on the people compelled to give testimony to the grand jury. It's almost like double jeopardy where a person testifies in front of a grand jury, the evidence is lacking so the case is thrown out by the grand jury, and now the Congress wants a redo bringing back the person to testify after insufficient evidence was already established by the grand jury for the sole reason for the Congress to intimidate and smear their political rivals. That is something Putin does. I don't want to live in a country that operates like Russia.

Republicans fixing the 70% fatherless issue would also destroy Democrat strangleholds on urban centers.

I'll take my idiot anyday over any current Eurotrash politician.

How is that 3% GDP going Europe? Oh yeah...that's right... My bad...

Sure pays to elect an idiot.

Turns out you actually don't need brains to be an effective leader. It just takes balls to stand up to the enemies of your constituents.

(Something every current EU leader lacks.) 

A golden tongue, and zero balls. That's a (current) EU politician.

Run out of money.

Besides, there is no way in hell Trump is going to do anything at this point but escalate impeachment proceedings as the public perception has shifted dramatically with the critical findings of the Mueller report. He WANTS to be impeached. Even Pelosi knows this, as stupid as she is about some things.

And that was enough for Democrats to lock in to a “coverup” narrative. Never mind that Barr soon waived all executive privilege claims and released the whole report, redacting only a sliver of material that relied on confidential grand jury testimony and a few sentences that might reveal sources and methods of intelligence gathering. The latter is stuff the Russians would presumably love to see, the former is stuff Barr is barred by law from releasing. If you read the report – a bestseller on Amazon — it’s clear there was no coverup.

This is news from May 14.

We've known for a month now that Nadler was going to hold Barr in contempt for not releasing grand jury testimony, even though it is clearly illegal for Barr to release grand jury testimony under current law.

Isn't this old news? Like from a month ago?

How about 4th of July?

Not if it is a government mandated party. People need to have the free right to associate, not forced by government.

I am a veteran and honestly, I hate veterans day, because the few people that know me offer thanks about something they have no clue about unless they were a veteran too. It's really annoying. Feels like the reverse of the 2 minute of Orwellian hate.

Where the government demands that you praise veterans.

If the net effect of creating a protected class by the government is to spawn people like Don Lemon, Carlos Maza, and Jussie Smollett who use their protected status to attack the lesser classes with impunity, then maybe having special protected classes might not be such a great idea.

Honestly, everyone gets a day, or nobody gets a day. I am sick of these politically pandered protected classes.

What is even further laughable is the amount of street cred given to Fox reporters ONLY when it is negative coverage of the president. Otherwise the default position is that Fox is a source of fake news.

Credibility should not be based on how much reverb your echo chamber emits.