What is the question exactly? Seems like a gotcha where you are trying to say that because Trump was cleared of criminal conspiracy, obstructionism is therefore cleared. I was interjecting my opinion, more so than Mueller's. So you think Trump and his campaign acted ethically with their communication and information sharing with Russian state linked associates? No, he was operating within the guidelines. Mueller didn't hold the press conference, the Democrats did. Perhaps Barr and Trump shouldn't have tried to bury what Mueller found. It's very relevant, the president isn't treated how a normal citizen would be. Clearly there's different rules.
The report did not conclude that Trump obstructed, yet FranchiseBlade did! He's an expert, folks! Keep in mind the whole objective was to investigate collusion with Russia, which was proven not to have happened....but now the liberals are trying to hang their hats on "obstruction" of the process. LOL. Total fail.
You’re lost, son. Trump did not collude with the Russians. Read the report. The basic ignorance of the liberals is astounding. They believe whatever they want!
At what point did having a nuanced view become a bad thing? You have repeated this sentiment several times lately and it certainly seems popular these days. I'm perfectly ok having people who always tow the line on the left or the right. But if everyone picks a team with no flexibility or recognition of other valid points of view, you end up with an impasse or worse. It is a dangerous thing when critical thinking and being able to see other points of view becomes something held up for scorn or derision. Picking a team and riding with it no matter the situation is not always the hallmark of clear thinking. Yes, there are certain things where there is no gray area. However, when half the country disagrees with you, it might serve you -- whether Democrat or Republican -- to look at whether there is some common ground. You might decide you were correct to begin with but maybe some of the arrogance and intolerance of other views would fade away.
Setting aside the obvious punchline of you looking for nuance on....Twitter....id say: At the point where the crimes committed (and by his own admission, the obes he would gladly commit again) by an obviously incompetent and staggeringly corrupt President, installed by corrupt fireign actors, became subject to an optics test by some tv dipshit to be removable offenses.
Mueller provided the evidence. You can't point to the criteria that wasn't met. That was all I asked.
FACT: Trump obstructed and colluded. Mueller was not allowed to charge the President if the Republicans had an OUNCE of integrity left they would impeach him, but they don't. DD
Are you liberals still believing in Russia Collusion? At what point will you be willing to concede it was a farce? Sad to say, I believe that timeline is infinite for you, regardless of facts...
The Russia/Trump conspiracy is the liberal version of weapons of mass destruction. They just can't let it go.
Absolutely not a fact. Saying you COULD charge someone is weak evidence. I could charge you with obstruction. Doesn't mean it's true. Charging is the very first step to bringing about the legal process. That isn't a ruling and it certainly isn't a conviction. Amazing they didn't ask if he thought he had enough to CONVICT the president.
If you read the report or watched the testimony and are a patriotic American, there’s only one objective conclusion: What Trump and co. did was wrong and he shouldn’t be allowed to serve as commander in Chief. Argue all you want about the legalities but the facts in the end still produce the same conclusion. Trump fans like to argue the legalities or pivot to liberal conspiracy theories or right wing conspiracy theories as an attempt to divert attention away from the facts. But to answer your question: I believe Bob Mueller that there isn’t a chargeable CONSPIRACY you can prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt. There was collusion or partnerships made at the very least a surface level as the report states very clearly, but just because those are legal at times doesn’t mean that it is not deeply unpatriotic and deserves to be called out. Fair enough?
So after almost two years of Democrats pinning their hopes on Mueller, yesterday was the final conclusion and ending. A sorry loss for the liberals. Take the loss, liberals - this one stings.
In a normal world with a normal citizen, you are correct. But you are conveniently leaving out the OLC opinion that applies to a sitting president. Not that Hillary’s email investigation is in any way comparable in terms of wrongdoing, but I keep coming back to Comeys press conference where he’s pretty candid about “any reasonable prosecutor” bringing charges in a case like that. Same applies here but to a greater extent. Can you imagine under our judicial system, putting someone like Donald Trump on trial while in office? At the very best you’ll get a hung jury. There’s just no way for a prosecutor to have the guts to want to put themselves through that nightmare scenario. That’s why the framers were smart enough to include impeachment in the constitution and to give Congress co-equal power that they fail to use typically. They foresaw this type of scenario where it would be impossible to have a fair trial on both sides if in theory a George Washington or Thomas Jefferson level of figure had to be held accountable for wrongdoing. They had no idea that in the future that someone with the power of a Thomas Jefferson, with the personality and ethics of Grozny would be a sitting president who committed offenses. If so they probably would have been much more explicit in the details of impeachment, but the fact that it’s there even at its level in the text tells us they knew the major flaw in our judicial system when it comes to high political figure wrongdoing. But you are right to an extent. Saying you could charge is one thing. What happens in the court room regardless of the evidence is another. It’s always opinion in the end with how the jury will react to the evidence and the person on trial. Prosecutors make that calculation based on their opinion every day when they decide to bring charges or not. However ... the OPINION of now 1000 federal prosecutors is in writing that with the level of evidence presented, if Trump was a normal person, it would be enough to convict. That has to mean something here. That’s much more valid than any case you or I could make on an Internet forum.
