Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

CID1990 wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: Yep. A man who hates Trump, had an investigative team made up of democrat donor investigators, couldn’t say that Trump had committed a crime.

Well, BDK... I've got a theory on that one (and it is as good as any other theory)

Somebody wanted to make sure they couldn't be maligned for partisanship when they knew they weren't going to find a conspiracy in the first place.

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: Yep. A man who hates Trump, had an investigative team made up of democrat donor investigators, couldn’t say that Trump had committed a crime.

Where's the proof that he hates Trump? Mueller is a life-long Republican, which is more than Trump can say. Did you even listen to what the man said? It's obvious you didn't, otherwise you would know why he didn't say Trump committed a crime

if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

Only a partisan hack doesn't understand what Mueller is saying here.

Futhermore, you missed the part where he was actually being fair towards Trump.

Spoiler: show

It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

.

You may not like the investigation into Russia interfering with our election, and I don't understand why would you not. Mueller truly is the "last Boy Scout in Washington." The man worked hard and made his determination. You just don't like the outcome.


Face it - Trump is a shady as shit person who has more than likely committed the crimes of trying to obstruct justice. You're too partisan and divided to put country ahead of party. If this were a Democrat, you all would be foaming at the mouth for Impeachment. You vote and support someone who is a petulant child and has more than likely committed crimes at POTUS.

I hate to sound like Trip and JSO. But you guys need to think critically and honestly assess the situation. You aren't.

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: Yep. A man who hates Trump, had an investigative team made up of democrat donor investigators, couldn’t say that Trump had committed a crime.

Where's the proof that he hates Trump? Mueller is a life-long Republican, which is more than Trump can say. Did you even listen to what the man said? It's obvious you didn't, otherwise you would know why he didn't say Trump committed a crime

if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

Only a partisan hack doesn't understand what Mueller is saying here.

Futhermore, you missed the part where he was actually being fair towards Trump.

Spoiler: show

It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

.

You may not like the investigation into Russia interfering with our election, and I don't understand why would you not. Mueller truly is the "last Boy Scout in Washington." The man worked hard and made his determination. You just don't like the outcome.


Face it - Trump is a shady as shit person who has more than likely committed the crimes of trying to obstruct justice. You're too partisan and divided to put country ahead of party. If this were a Democrat, you all would be foaming at the mouth for Impeachment. You vote and support someone who is a petulant child and has more than likely committed crimes at POTUS.




I hate to sound like Trip and JSO. But you guys need to think critically and honestly assess the situation. You aren't.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Where's the proof that he hates Trump? Mueller is a life-long Republican, which is more than Trump can say. Did you even listen to what the man said? It's obvious you didn't, otherwise you would know why he didn't say Trump committed a crime Only a partisan hack doesn't understand what Mueller is saying here.

Futhermore, you missed the part where he was actually being fair towards Trump.

Spoiler: show

.

You may not like the investigation into Russia interfering with our election, and I don't understand why would you not. Mueller truly is the "last Boy Scout in Washington." The man worked hard and made his determination. You just don't like the outcome.


Face it - Trump is a shady as shit person who has more than likely committed the crimes of trying to obstruct justice. You're too partisan and divided to put country ahead of party. If this were a Democrat, you all would be foaming at the mouth for Impeachment. You vote and support someone who is a petulant child and has more than likely committed crimes at POTUS.

I hate to sound like Trip and JSO. But you guys need to think critically and honestly assess the situation. You aren't.

Sounds like somebody ELSE doesn't like the outcome either...

kalm wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Where's the proof that he hates Trump? Mueller is a life-long Republican, which is more than Trump can say. Did you even listen to what the man said? It's obvious you didn't, otherwise you would know why he didn't say Trump committed a crime Only a partisan hack doesn't understand what Mueller is saying here.

Futhermore, you missed the part where he was actually being fair towards Trump.

Spoiler: show

.

You may not like the investigation into Russia interfering with our election, and I don't understand why would you not. Mueller truly is the "last Boy Scout in Washington." The man worked hard and made his determination. You just don't like the outcome.


Face it - Trump is a shady as shit person who has more than likely committed the crimes of trying to obstruct justice. You're too partisan and divided to put country ahead of party. If this were a Democrat, you all would be foaming at the mouth for Impeachment. You vote and support someone who is a petulant child and has more than likely committed crimes at POTUS.




I hate to sound like Trip and JSO. But you guys need to think critically and honestly assess the situation. You aren't.

All of this....

It’s up to congress to prosecute the President and given Pelosi’s stance so far it likely won’t happen.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

kalm wrote:
All of this....

It’s up to congress to prosecute the President and given Pelosi’s stance so far it likely won’t happen.

We'll see, but I think they're going to slow-roll it to maximize 2020 reverberations. And, I think that's the right strategy.

If they rush to impeach in the House, the Senate will move even faster to vote not to convict. It's a non factor or minor footnote in 2020 at that point.

Yes, it's entirely political. And will be a shitshow. It sucks, but that's the only mechanism the founders provided.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Indictment

css75 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
We'll see, but I think they're going to slow-roll it to maximize 2020 reverberations. And, I think that's the right strategy.

If they rush to impeach in the House, the Senate will move even faster to vote not to convict. It's a non factor or minor footnote in 2020 at that point.

Yes, it's entirely political. And will be a shitshow. It sucks, but that's the only mechanism the founders provided.

Just curious, what other mechanism would you provide?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Indictment

No one should be above the law and the law should apply to all people equally but I’m guessing being able to indict the president would turn things even more political and become potentially destabilizing.

Ibanez wrote:

css75 wrote:
Just curious, what other mechanism would you provide?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just curious, Why do you think Trump is beyond reproach?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Skjellyfetti wrote:

kalm wrote:
No one should be above the law and the law should apply to all people equally but I’m guessing being able to indict the president would turn things even more political and become potentially destabilizing.

I agree that it could be destabilizing, but do not think it would be more political.

The DOJ and the Judicial branch are among the least political parts of our government. It may be less so now, but it's still nowhere near Congress. Without both agreeing to the merits of an indictment... It ain't happening. It also must be initiated by the DOJ from his own branch of government... and the AG... appointed by the President himself and confirmed by the Senate.

Currently, it falls solely to the Legislative Branch... the absolute worst branch to handle something like this. Limp dick subpoena power to actually compel testimony or procure evidence. And because it consists solely of 535 elected officials... any decision will be measured primarily by its political value.

And, it could be destabilizing, but no more than impeachments could be, imo. Perhaps less so because there would be checks on indictments brought against a President. There are no checks on the propriety of the House impeaching.

Ibanez wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Well, BDK... I've got a theory on that one (and it is as good as any other theory)

Somebody wanted to make sure they couldn't be maligned for partisanship when they knew they weren't going to find a conspiracy in the first place.

I think that's pretty true. I think Trump is too **** stupid to realize what's going on and he feels that acknowledging Russian involvement de-legitimizes his election. That's understandable. He's not the stable genius he thinks he, at least his words and actions don't prove that.

But then he stepped on his own dick and it appears that he tried to obstruct justice.

mainejeff wrote:It's amazing to see what depths people are willing sink to in order to defend their political ideology. Of course when Trump is done in 2024.....no one will have claimed to vote for him.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Where's the proof that he hates Trump? Mueller is a life-long Republican, which is more than Trump can say. Did you even listen to what the man said? It's obvious you didn't, otherwise you would know why he didn't say Trump committed a crime Only a partisan hack doesn't understand what Mueller is saying here.

Futhermore, you missed the part where he was actually being fair towards Trump.

Spoiler: show

.

You may not like the investigation into Russia interfering with our election, and I don't understand why would you not. Mueller truly is the "last Boy Scout in Washington." The man worked hard and made his determination. You just don't like the outcome.


Face it - Trump is a shady as shit person who has more than likely committed the crimes of trying to obstruct justice. You're too partisan and divided to put country ahead of party. If this were a Democrat, you all would be foaming at the mouth for Impeachment. You vote and support someone who is a petulant child and has more than likely committed crimes at POTUS.

I hate to sound like Trip and JSO. But you guys need to think critically and honestly assess the situation. You aren't.

Sounds like somebody ELSE doesn't like the outcome either...

Skjellyfetti wrote:

kalm wrote:
No one should be above the law and the law should apply to all people equally but I’m guessing being able to indict the president would turn things even more political and become potentially destabilizing.

I agree that it could be destabilizing, but do not think it would be more political.

The DOJ and the Judicial branch are among the least political parts of our government. It may be less so now, but it's still nowhere near Congress. Without both agreeing to the merits of an indictment... It ain't happening. It also must be initiated by the DOJ from his own branch of government... and the AG... appointed by the President himself and confirmed by the Senate.

Currently, it falls solely to the Legislative Branch... the absolute worst branch to handle something like this. Limp dick subpoena power to actually compel testimony or procure evidence. And because it consists solely of 535 elected officials... any decision will be measured primarily by its political value.

And, it could be destabilizing, but no more than impeachments could be, imo. Perhaps less so because there would be checks on indictments brought against a President. There are no checks on the propriety of the House impeaching.

CID1990 wrote:Anyone who agrees that a sitting President should be indicted should take a very close look at places like Nigeria - and then ask themselves if that’s truly a path they want to take

Try winning elections instead


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: Yep. A man who hates Trump, had an investigative team made up of democrat donor investigators, couldn’t say that Trump had committed a crime.

Where's the proof that he hates Trump? Mueller is a life-long Republican, which is more than Trump can say. Did you even listen to what the man said? It's obvious you didn't, otherwise you would know why he didn't say Trump committed a crime

if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

Only a partisan hack doesn't understand what Mueller is saying here.

Futhermore, you missed the part where he was actually being fair towards Trump.

Spoiler: show

It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

.

You may not like the investigation into Russia interfering with our election, and I don't understand why would you not. Mueller truly is the "last Boy Scout in Washington." The man worked hard and made his determination. You just don't like the outcome.


Face it - Trump is a shady as **** person who has more than likely committed the crimes of trying to obstruct justice. You're too partisan and divided to put country ahead of party. If this were a Democrat, you all would be foaming at the mouth for Impeachment. You vote and support someone who is a petulant child and has more than likely committed crimes at POTUS.




I hate to sound like Trip and JSO. But you guys need to think critically and honestly assess the situation. You aren't.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Where's the proof that he hates Trump? Mueller is a life-long Republican, which is more than Trump can say. Did you even listen to what the man said? It's obvious you didn't, otherwise you would know why he didn't say Trump committed a crime Only a partisan hack doesn't understand what Mueller is saying here.

Futhermore, you missed the part where he was actually being fair towards Trump.

Spoiler: show

.

You may not like the investigation into Russia interfering with our election, and I don't understand why would you not. Mueller truly is the "last Boy Scout in Washington." The man worked hard and made his determination. You just don't like the outcome.


Face it - Trump is a shady as **** person who has more than likely committed the crimes of trying to obstruct justice. You're too partisan and divided to put country ahead of party. If this were a Democrat, you all would be foaming at the mouth for Impeachment. You vote and support someone who is a petulant child and has more than likely committed crimes at POTUS.

I hate to sound like Trip and JSO. But you guys need to think critically and honestly assess the situation. You aren't.

Sounds like somebody ELSE doesn't like the outcome either...

SDHornet wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Anyone who agrees that a sitting President should be indicted should take a very close look at places like Nigeria - and then ask themselves if that’s truly a path they want to take

Try winning elections instead


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They can impeach then indict...

...of course if there was actually something worthwhile to impeach Trump on we would be well into the impeachment process by now...

...I wonder what is taking Pelosi so long to get this going.

JohnStOnge wrote:

SDHornet wrote: They can impeach then indict...

...of course if there was actually something worthwhile to impeach Trump on we would be well into the impeachment process by now...

...I wonder what is taking Pelosi so long to get this going.

You know very well why things are like they are. The Republicans in Congress have no integrity. They can see, as any rational person can see, that Trump should be removed form office. But they are not going to do it.

Pelosi knows that. Impeaching Trump and removing him from office would be the right thing to do. But Pelosi knows the Republicans in the Senate are not interested in doing the right thing.

BDKJMU wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

Sounds like somebody ELSE doesn't like the outcome either...

No kidding. Beat me too it.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

kalm wrote:
No one should be above the law and the law should apply to all people equally but I’m guessing being able to indict the president would turn things even more political and become potentially destabilizing.

I agree that it could be destabilizing, but do not think it would be more political.

The DOJ and the Judicial branch are among the least political parts of our government. It may be less so now, but it's still nowhere near Congress. Without both agreeing to the merits of an indictment... It ain't happening. It also must be initiated by the DOJ from his own branch of government... and the AG... appointed by the President himself and confirmed by the Senate.

Currently, it falls solely to the Legislative Branch... the absolute worst branch to handle something like this. Limp dick subpoena power to actually compel testimony or procure evidence. And because it consists solely of 535 elected officials... any decision will be measured primarily by its political value.

And, it could be destabilizing, but no more than impeachments could be, imo. Perhaps less so because there would be checks on indictments brought against a President. There are no checks on the propriety of the House impeaching.