The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Lisnaholic]

I wonder if the growing number of people calling into doubt the conduct of Trump and Barr will finally cause more GOP senators to reconsider their loyalty to Trump. Recently there have been some notable contributors to the chorus of disapproval about the GOP reception of the Mueller Report.

i) 600-odd former prosectutors who wrote an open letter confirming that Mueller presented sufficient evidence to proceed with an obstruction case against Trump
ii) Elizabeth Warren's long speech to congress, laying out the case for impeachment, based on Mueller's evidence so far and backed up by lengthly quotes from the report.
iii) GOP senator Justin Amash breaks ranks and in a well-worded tweet stream demolishes Barr's misrepresentation of the Mueller Report. In case you missed it:-

Spoiler for Justin Amash's tweet thread:

Justin Amash‏ :Cuenta verificada @justinamash :16 h Hace 16 horas

Here are my principal conclusions:
1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

I offer these conclusions only after having read Mueller’s redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.

In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings.

Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.

Under our Constitution, the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust.

Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.

In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.

Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.

While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct.

Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch’s jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution. When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles.

We’ve witnessed members of Congress from both parties shift their views 180 degrees—on the importance of character, on the principles of obstruction of justice—depending on whether they’re discussing Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.

Few members of Congress even read Mueller’s report; their minds were made up based on partisan affiliation—and it showed, with representatives and senators from both parties issuing definitive statements on the 448-page report’s conclusions within just hours of its release.

America’s institutions depend on officials to uphold both the rules and spirit of our constitutional system even when to do so is personally inconvenient or yields a politically unfavorable outcome. Our Constitution is brilliant and awesome; it deserves a government to match it.

[OccultHawk]

600-odd former prosectutors who wrote an open letter confirming that Mueller presented sufficient evidence to proceed with an obstruction case against Trump

Then Mueller was derelict of his duty as special prosecuter.

****ing bitch. I wish I could smash his ****ing face with a tire iron.

[Lisnaholic]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Then Mueller was derelict of his duty as special prosecuter.

^ Thank you for the spelling correction!

Back in the very early days of the investigation, I remember a media guy saying that the purpose of a report is to accumulate/present evidence on which prosecutorial decisions can then be made by other people, but yeah, Mueller took a bit too seriously that old-school restraint, and the notion that a President cannot be indicted. If he had gone that extra step beyond his double-negative of "I can't say Trump didn't obstruct justice." he could've saved everybody weeks of messing around.

****ing bitch. I wish I could smash his ****ing face with a tire iron.

^ HaHa! I'm still hoping that the Dems will ensure that the facts are presented to the American people. Not as dramatic as your approach, but more constitutional.

[rostasi]

Mueller was not a special prosecutor
(and he was even less a “prosecuter”).

[OccultHawk]

Retard spelling error aside

Yes he ****ing was

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

^ Thank you for the spelling correction!

Back in the very early days of the investigation, I remember a media guy saying that the purpose of a report is to accumulate/present evidence on which prosecutorial decisions can then be made by other people, but yeah, Mueller took a bit too seriously that old-school restraint, and the notion that a President cannot be indicted. If he had gone that extra step beyond his double-negative of "I can't say Trump didn't obstruct justice." he could've saved everybody weeks of messing around.



^ HaHa! I'm still hoping that the Dems will ensure that the facts are presented to the American people. Not as dramatic as your approach, but more constitutional.

Show me where the constitution says the president can’t be arrested for breaking the law. A crime is a crime is a crime.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Retard spelling error aside

Yes he ****ing was

*Special counsel

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by Frownland

*Special counsel

Are you being ironic?

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Are you being ironic?

No prosecution = no prosecutor

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by Frownland

No prosecution = no prosecutor

I guess if all you ever did was put on your uniform and sit on the bench it’s questionable whether you’re a football player.

a walk needs a walker
a swim needs a swimmer

https://www.uscp.gov/sites/uscapitol...0Verderosa.pdf

This is another person who’s too cowardly to do his job.

UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE
Matthew R. Verderosa, Chief of Police

Can a man who doesn’t police be a policeman?