Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Caliman73

(11,692 posts)
30. Come on now...
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 06:48 PM
Jul 2019

It is frustrating to see Trump seeming to get away with what he has done but you can't be jumping into the lack of logic and reasoning that the right frolics in.

Mueller does not have the authority to do anything. He was appointed to investigate conspiracy to interfere with the election. He found substantial evidence of interference but did not have sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof for conspiracy by Trump or his people. The evidence just wasn't there within the parameters of the investigation.

He did find evidence of obstruction but felt he could not indict Trump because of the OLC policy. You can question that policy but again, it wasn't Mueller's decision to make.

Did you believe that mash up of Trump running and Mueller catching him and throwing him on the hood of the car? That is not how this works. Mueller gave his report to his superior and unfortunately his superior is a political hack with no loyalty to the country. That isn't Mueller's fault either.

Finally, Treason is an actual thing that has a specific meaning. Did Trump betray the country? Likely, yes. That is petty treason, a strictly non-legal term. Did he make war on the US or offer aid and comfort to an enemy? Not within the scope of the election investigation.

He could not indict him. drray23 Jul 2019 #1
And congress won't do it Bettie Jul 2019 #15
He could have. Or he could have gone on a public relations bltz. EndGOPPropaganda Jul 2019 #77
Here we go again. nt Codeine Jul 2019 #2
😂 live love laugh Jul 2019 #7
head meet wall... stillcool Jul 2019 #26
How can we not? Codeine Jul 2019 #28
Oy... stillcool Jul 2019 #31
Ditto. sheshe2 Jul 2019 #106
Hasn't this been discussed ad nauseam? The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #3
That does not address why Mueller has let Trump get away with it. triron Jul 2019 #6
For the umpteenth time, Mueller didn't indict him because the OLC memos The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #8
Why wasn't Jr. indicted? ecstatic Jul 2019 #9
And some others. Mueller also didn't have to indict Trump to accomplish what I said. triron Jul 2019 #11
You said: sheshe2 Jul 2019 #108
Possibly because the evidene didn't support indictment?? AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #19
Bullshit. I wish people would stop acting like you must have proof of a crime to indict. Solomon Jul 2019 #34
Thank you! About time someone spoke up about this. triron Jul 2019 #35
" I wish people would stop acting like you must have proof of a crime to indict." AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #38
Yes, Really. All you need is probable cause. Solomon Jul 2019 #45
+1 Nevermypresident Jul 2019 #52
Probable cause is based on a standard of proof...not suposition.. AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #63
Yep, and the drip, drip, drip shows the probable cause... Baltimike Jul 2019 #67
No votes were changed..didn't happen AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #68
Yes they were...it did indeed. Baltimike Jul 2019 #69
Source that claim....this should be interesing AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #74
Yawn Baltimike Jul 2019 #82
Jeeezuz guy. Give it up. There's nothing Solomon Jul 2019 #84
nice to have some expertise. triron Jul 2019 #86
What do you think probable cause is? Stop and Frisk. Do you support that? AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #98
wow. you'd think you'd give it up while you're ahead Baltimike Jul 2019 #101
Whoopsie. Oh, ouch. 😁 sprinkleeninow Jul 2019 #126
Former prosecuter from SDNY says most indictments are the result of circumstantial evidence Cetacea Jul 2019 #130
So why would the OLC memo limit his scope?? triron Jul 2019 #131
I repeat, same question. Really curious about your statement. triron Jul 2019 #132
There are ongoing probes and pending indictments. Cetacea Jul 2019 #133
Thank you for the explanation/clarification. triron Jul 2019 #134
Sure. I'm guessing that the real "meat" lies in the Grand Jury testimonials. Cetacea Jul 2019 #135
Yes that is quite strange isn't it? triron Jul 2019 #136
+1000. nt ecstatic Jul 2019 #53
Thank you for highlighting this very important truth. nt COLGATE4 Jul 2019 #54
You need evidence for a grand jury. You cannot just indict someone. wasupaloopa Jul 2019 #57
(Rolls eyes) nobody is talking about indicting without evidence. Solomon Jul 2019 #58
Evidence isn't proof...Ok wow.. Evidence is the basis of "proof" AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #62
and no one is indicting without evidence. Baltimike Jul 2019 #70
Lol. You're hilarious. Solomon Jul 2019 #85
Source ONE prosecuter that would do a charging motion to a Judge AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #96
Source ONE example of them actually examining voting machines. Baltimike Jul 2019 #102
That's the key question. While Mueller might have been constrained from indicting trump, Hoyt Jul 2019 #29
it's possible that Jr was one of the 12 cases NewJeffCT Jul 2019 #41
Of course there is...I guess President's sons are above the law too now. Nevermypresident Jul 2019 #51
That is not what Mueller said in the report. former9thward Jul 2019 #32
Here's what the report said: The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #33
You are ignoring what he said at the beginning of the afternoon session. former9thward Jul 2019 #44
Not exactly. Here's what he said: The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #48
Thank you. nt sheshe2 Jul 2019 #109
yawn proud patriot Jul 2019 #4
Ooooh the obnoxiousdrunk Jul 2019 #5
Flynn is still waiting sentencing. watoos Jul 2019 #10
I know. But he won't be charged with treason. triron Jul 2019 #12
He also won't be charged with bestiality, Codeine Jul 2019 #13
;) sheshe2 Jul 2019 #110
Because he didn't comit treason..a good reason not to be charged AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #14
The OP knows this, Codeine Jul 2019 #16
Gotcha... AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #17
Yes, but this time it's TREASON. The caps make the difference. N/T lapucelle Jul 2019 #114
aid and comfort to a hostile foreign government that attacked us Baltimike Jul 2019 #20
Actually it isn't....you need a declared "enemy" AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #23
actually...you don't need a "declared enemy" since RUSSIA'S attack declared themselves Baltimike Jul 2019 #24
What???? AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #37
Russia declared the war when they committed the act of war. Baltimike Jul 2019 #43
Can you give another example of countries that were at war with each other onenote Jul 2019 #50
Can YOU give another example of a foreign government hacking a super power Baltimike Jul 2019 #55
Good post. triron Jul 2019 #56
So you can't answer onenotes question ..right? AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #97
So you can't answer mine, right? Baltimike Jul 2019 #100
Attacking our elections systems is tantamount to an attack on democracy and our national security. triron Jul 2019 #105
Then I guess you don't know what is. onenote Jul 2019 #118
Actually not....We have to declare a war... AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #65
That is patently untrue...we do not have to declare a war Baltimike Jul 2019 #66
For Treason you need a "war".... AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #75
Sort of. You need an "enemy", which is strictly defined Codeine Jul 2019 #78
You are DEAD WRONG...like 100% wrong about that. Baltimike Jul 2019 #103
Thanks. And besides we will never declare war against a rival nuclear power. Won't happen. triron Jul 2019 #107
and beside that, acting like they can't declare on war on US is pretense...and deza. nt Baltimike Jul 2019 #111
I think these naysayers are referring to the treason as defined in the U.S. constitution triron Jul 2019 #115
You think the problem with the "naysayers" is that they're looking at the Constitution? lapucelle Jul 2019 #125
Deza? Dezinformatsiya? That's an interesting choice of words. lapucelle Jul 2019 #120
There is "such a thing as needing Congress to declare a [war]" to charge treason. lapucelle Jul 2019 #122
Obama did not terminate diplomatic relations with Russia onenote Jul 2019 #119
Robert Hansenn too Baltimike Jul 2019 #121
Treason is defined in the Article III. Section 3 of the Constitution. lapucelle Jul 2019 #113
The legal definition of "enemy" is here: triron Jul 2019 #128
Yes. I saw it. lapucelle Jul 2019 #129
We've been through this Codeine Jul 2019 #27
Putin programs Trump in secret. Kid Berwyn Jul 2019 #18
Wait WUT? ismnotwasm Jul 2019 #21
He can't. It's just warrgarbl Codeine Jul 2019 #25
not this again... sigh. Joe941 Jul 2019 #22
Come on now... Caliman73 Jul 2019 #30
Partly agree with you. I still call it treason, say what you will. triron Jul 2019 #36
You can call it a square dance......but it's NOT Treason AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #39
Accepting help from an enemy attacking USA sure is. Kid Berwyn Jul 2019 #40
The words of the Constitutional "treason" provision have specific meanings onenote Jul 2019 #47
Russia attacked the US. Trump is "OK" with that. Kid Berwyn Jul 2019 #61
Russia diddled the election under President Obama.... AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #64
Holy crap...that is why he sanctioned them...and yes, I want to Baltimike Jul 2019 #71
also...they didn't "diddle"...they ATTACKED THE USA Baltimike Jul 2019 #72
Facebook posts, twitter posts, isn't an attack....it's agitprop AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #73
Nice try there...NO DICE HACKING our voter files is an act of war Baltimike Jul 2019 #81
Why are there DUers still using diminutive terms to describe Russia's attack on our democracy with triron Jul 2019 #76
Its lame when people use words incorrectly, Codeine Jul 2019 #79
And your point is? Wait for it..... triron Jul 2019 #83
Do you like to waste readers' time? Kid Berwyn Jul 2019 #87
McConnell's wife Elaine Chao is Treasury secretary in the Trump administration triron Jul 2019 #88
Not wasting time...if you make a claim...back it. Should be easy..right? AncientGeezer Jul 2019 #99
Definitely wasting time. Baltimike Jul 2019 #104
Why do you argue Russia election interference isn't an attack? Kid Berwyn Jul 2019 #123
If congress had declared war on Russia for attacking our elections, at140 Jul 2019 #117
Treason is a crime with very specific and narrow elements that must be fulfilled. lapucelle Jul 2019 #124
I believe with all my heart that Mueller--a ReTHUG--is deliberately protecting Trump. She_Totally_Gets_It Jul 2019 #42
And what do you believe with all your heart about the many others who know onenote Jul 2019 #46
There's a difference between what *I* believe and what Mueller says the facts are... She_Totally_Gets_It Jul 2019 #60
Mueller doesn't have power of prosecution? Blue_Tires Jul 2019 #49
He followed a memo that is not law and not in the sacred constitution as far as I know Meowmee Jul 2019 #59
+1000 smirkymonkey Jul 2019 #89
I agree. Trump pulled a double whammy on our nation and is getting away scott free so far. triron Jul 2019 #90
Yep 😳😿 Meowmee Jul 2019 #91
Word. eom sprinkleeninow Jul 2019 #127
rump and company destroyed evidence, lied and obstructed justice.....and all of it worked up to a UniteFightBack Jul 2019 #80
Guess we will see up to what point. triron Jul 2019 #139
Hopefully sooner than much later (when it's too late). triron Jul 2019 #140
knr triron Jul 2019 #92
kick again triron Jul 2019 #93
kick again triron Jul 2019 #94
kick again triron Jul 2019 #95
Disagree .... wait until we see the redacted parts of the Mueller report. Botany Jul 2019 #112
Why? There is already abundant evidence Trump committed treason (more than once). triron Jul 2019 #116
kick for visibility triron Jul 2019 #137
Again. triron Jul 2019 #138
When will Flynn be sentenced? triron Aug 2019 #141
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Something is NOT RIGHT. ...»Reply #30