Yes, I had hard time following Mueller, with his double and triple negatives

[question everything]

Thus I was grateful, yesterday, to Chuck Todd for putting clips of Barr and of Mueller to compare the nuances in their declaration. No collusion! vs. if we thought he was not guilty of conspiracy we would have said so.

Still, I think that Maher was right: so what if the DOJ says a sitting president cannot be indicted, even hinting - I think - that it would be unconstitutional. Go head, f**k the "rules" indict him.

Also on Chuck Todd, clips of a very young Lindsey Graham explaining why Clinton should be impeached even though it was not clear that he actually broke the law.

"You don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job. Impeachment is about cleansing the office, about restoring honor and integrity to the office."

The 2:39 mark

[Blues Heron]

1. Mueller really can't bring himself to say Trump committed a crime

goes against his upper crusty sensibilities, so he hides it with the double negative. Put him under oath and have him answer the questions directly, no weaseling allowed.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. From what I heard of what he said

I feel like tearing my hair out.

[Chin music]

6. Dude was deliberately ambiguous. It was excruciating to watch him.

[question everything]

5. Right. Also wanted to add that of course, for him impeaching Trump does not pose the threat

of re elections. That both Nixon and Clinton were already in their second term so re-election was not a factor. Either way.

[Chin music]

3. Rules are for Democrats.

Ever see a policy guideline stop a repub?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. *Cough* Comey *Cough

[rampartc]

4. i can not imagine that the "original intent" of the founders was to make the president unindictable.

and I absolutely think we should test that in court.

at the very least it will prove that these azzwholes are "judicial activists" who really don't care what the founders are supposed to have intended.

[ElementaryPenguin]

7. If the founders had wanted the President to be unindictable they would have said so

In the Constitution. But that's the last thing they would have wanted - a tyrant above the law.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. Yet the courts found that Clinton was subject to Paula Jones' Civil Suit

*while in office*

I understand that both are different- and occurred under different circumstances- you'd sort of think that if a President would be subject to one, they'd be subject to the other, perhaps moreso if it's a criminal matter?