Exclusive Prediction. The final result of the Mueller Ivestigation

[MarAzul]

We will come to realize the Special Counsel, finding little but interfering greatly is unconstitutional.

The original intent in the constitution is to shield the President from prosecution while in office except for impeachment by proceedings in the House of Representatives. But the real scrutiny is reserved to the American voters every four years. Continuous turmoil in between is not consistent with the intent of impeachment as the only legal course of action against the Chief Executive.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

How has Mueller interfered?

 

[MarAzul]

How has Mueller interfered?

 

[barfo]

How has Mueller interfered?

I imagine what MarAzul is thinking about is the final report that Mueller will issue to Rosenstein, which will cause the congress to impeach Trump and remove him from office.

barfo

 

[Stevenson]

I predict this will look much like the Starr Report - multiple alleged counts of illegal behavior, albeit this indictment will likely allege crimes far greater than perjury in a civil trial, which is all they really had on Clinton.

"Collusion"? Yes, although that's not illegal. The real fruit would be "conspiracy" between the Trump campaign (Manafort?), Russians, and Wikileaks. I think that is the meat of the matter personally. That would be a "high crime and misdemeanor" and would likely be an act that is both impeachable, and removable from office.

As some of you know, I have written extensively professionally about impeachment. I would be happy to discuss what the old English term "high crime and misdemeanor" likely refers to.

 

[Stevenson]

@MarAzul did you oppose Ken Starr and that charade? Were you on the site of executive immunity then?

 

[theprunetang]

I'm just disappointed there wasn't a poll in this thread.

 

[CupWizier]

We will come to realize the Special Counsel, finding little but interfering greatly is unconstitutional.

The original intent in the constitution is to shield the President from prosecution while in office except for impeachment by proceedings in the House of Representatives. But the real scrutiny is reserved to the American voters every four years. Continuous turmoil in between is not consistent with the intent of impeachment as the only legal course of action against the Chief Executive.

You do the crime, you do the Time.

 

[yankeesince59]

We will come to realize the Special Counsel, finding little but interfering greatly is unconstitutional.

The original intent in the constitution is to shield the President from prosecution while in office except for impeachment by proceedings in the House of Representatives. But the real scrutiny is reserved to the American voters every four years. Continuous turmoil in between is not consistent with the intent of impeachment as the only legal course of action against the Chief Executive.

...el oh effing el.

 

[yankeesince59]

...I think Manafort and Trump's Son and his Son in Law will be among the first indicted.

 

[julius]

I predict this will look much like the Starr Report - multiple alleged counts of illegal behavior, albeit this indictment will likely allege crimes far greater than perjury in a civil trial, which is all they really had on Clinton.

"Collusion"? Yes, although that's not illegal. The real fruit would be "conspiracy" between the Trump campaign (Manafort?), Russians, and Wikileaks. I think that is the meat of the matter personally. That would be a "high crime and misdemeanor" and would likely be an act that is both impeachable, and removable from office.

As some of you know, I have written extensively professionally about impeachment. I would be happy to discuss what the old English term "high crime and misdemeanor" likely refers to.

How many indictments be did Ken get? How many guilty pleas?

That said, I ain't holding my breath.

 

[MarAzul]

@MarAzul did you oppose Ken Starr and that charade? Were you on the site of executive immunity then?

Yes I opposed the Starr charade and the impeachment of Clinton. I thought it interfered with his presidency terribly. Although he brought much of it on himself
with his embarrassing behavior, the spectacle was still unwise. We protect the President from this sort of crap so he can concentrate his energies on the business at hand. I do not know if he would have done more about the attacks we were under, like the bombing of the USS Cole, the WT Center, Embassy in Nairobi, etc.
but I can sure see the daily gossip in the media distracting the man from threats foreign to concentrating on threats domestic.

No, I was not on the site you mention.

 

[barfo]

Yes I opposed the Starr charade and the impeachment of Clinton. I thought it interfered with his presidency terribly. Although he brought much of it on himself
with his embarrassing behavior, the spectacle was still unwise. We protect the President from this sort of crap so he can concentrate his energies on the business at hand. I do not know if he would have done more about the attacks we were under, like the bombing of the USS Cole, the WT Center, Embassy in Nairobi, etc.
but I can sure see the daily gossip in the media distracting the man from threats foreign to concentrating on threats domestic.

Luckily, Trump has lots and lots of free time on his hands, so lawsuits and criminal matters won't be a distraction. He can just miss a round of golf now and then, or maybe a few minutes of Fox and Friends.

A real president, who actually attended to the job... well, then you might have a point.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Prediction. The final result of the Mueller Ivestigation

 

[SlyPokerDog]

BTW, that the hell is an ivestigation? Is that a new product from Apple? The iVest!

 

[MarAzul]

The appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate the President without evidence of a crime is tantamount to a shortcut to impeachment. The only practical
result is to impede or impair the President. Which is what impeachment is. Collusion while not being a crime, may indeed be an impeachable offense, if Congress deems it so.

However, the House of representative where the members are directly answerable to the people is the only entity authorized to bring the impeachment upon the President. It's member then are subject to the will of the people. In this impeachment charade as done by the special counsel, it shortcuts the whole process with no conviction (by the Senate or other) required and no one answerable to the people. No one in the chain of command in this form of impeachment, special counsel or the Assistant AG is answerable to the people.

Nothing about this process can be found in the Constitution. I can see no logical argument for this charade.

 

[MarAzul]

BTW, that the hell is an ivestigation? Is that a new product from Apple? The iVest!

It is for a mod to correct.

 

[barfo]

The appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate the President without evidence of a crime is tantamount to a shortcut to impeachment. The only practical
result is to impede or impair the President. Which is what impeachment is. Collusion while not being a crime, may indeed be an impeachable offense, if Congress deems it so.

However, the House of representative where the members are directly answerable to the people is the only entity authorized to bring the impeachment upon the President. It's member then are subject to the will of the people. In this impeachment charade as done by the special counsel, it shortcuts the whole process with no conviction (by the Senate or other) required and no one answerable to the people. No one in the chain of command in this form of impeachment, special counsel or the Assistant AG is answerable to the people.

Nothing about this process can be found in the Constitution. I can see no logical argument for this charade.

None of that makes sense.

Mueller is not impeaching Trump. Mueller does not have the ability to remove Trump, nor has he tried. He has not even accused Trump of crimes (yet).

There is however plenty of evidence of crimes by various people, as seen in the various indictments handed down so far.

You object because you can see, like everyone else, where this is going - Trump is going to be impeached (by Congress) based at least in part on the evidence that Mueller turns up. If you didn't believe that, you wouldn't be bothered by the investigation.

Your objection is an admission that you think there is evidence to be found, and that your boy is guilty.

barfo

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Trump takes off his mask and reveals he is Joseph Stalin. He then does a Bolshevik dance over the US constitution while russian hookers pee on him

 

[barfo]

Trump takes off his mask and reveals he is Joseph Stalin. He then does a Bolshevik dance over the US constitution while russian hookers pee on him

Implausible, that part about Trump dancing.

barfo

 

[dviss1]

I predict this will look much like the Starr Report - multiple alleged counts of illegal behavior, albeit this indictment will likely allege crimes far greater than perjury in a civil trial, which is all they really had on Clinton.

"Collusion"? Yes, although that's not illegal. The real fruit would be "conspiracy" between the Trump campaign (Manafort?), Russians, and Wikileaks. I think that is the meat of the matter personally. That would be a "high crime and misdemeanor" and would likely be an act that is both impeachable, and removable from office.

As some of you know, I have written extensively professionally about impeachment. I would be happy to discuss what the old English term "high crime and misdemeanor" likely refers to.

He certainly obstructed justice though. Even an attempt is obstruction.

 

[dviss1]

None of that makes sense.

Mueller is not impeaching Trump. Mueller does not have the ability to remove Trump, nor has he tried. He has not even accused Trump of crimes (yet).

There is however plenty of evidence of crimes by various people, as seen in the various indictments handed down so far.

You object because you can see, like everyone else, where this is going - Trump is going to be impeached (by Congress) based at least in part on the evidence that Mueller turns up. If you didn't believe that, you wouldn't be bothered by the investigation.

Your objection is an admission that you think there is evidence to be found, and that your boy is guilty.

barfo

To piggy back on that, we also have this:

Kavanaugh signaled sitting president couldn't be indicted.

https://www.politico.com/video/2018/07/11/180711-kavanaugh-sitting-president-indict-067107

 

[MarAzul]

None of that makes sense.

You needed to go no further. This is sufficient to show your reasoning capacity.

 

[barfo]

You needed to go no further. This is sufficient to show your reasoning capacity.

And yours as well.

barfo

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Implausible, that part about Trump dancing.

barfo

Its not Trump, but Jospeh Stalin

 

[Stevenson]

Marzy - I must say I generally agree with you that we want our presidents to work on presidential things for the most part.

But another part of our system, a main tenant actually, is that "no man is above the law." That includes the president. The special counsel is duly appointed by law. Laws are laws, even if they are not "in the Constitution." You can't drink and drive. You can't steal, and so forth. Laws like these are passed that have zero to do with the Constitution, yet we all have to abide by them, even, especially, the president.

The special counsel has looked at evidence, just as any prosecutor does, and will or will not indict (or issue a report in this case) depending on what the evidence shows. It's standard procedure.

If Trump didn't want a prosecutor looking at him, he should have not fired Comey. He brought it on himself.

 

[riverman]

We protect the President from this sort of crap so he can concentrate his energies on the business at hand.

His morning routine is 3 hours with a hairdresser...the other half of the morning watching Fox News...then twitter...then golf....he doesn't take security briefings ...doesn't think he needs them...first president ever to waive off briefings from his national security advisors and military command...yeah..don't want to interrupt that schedule....people he's fired pretty much say that is nickname is 2 minute Don...because that's all the attention span he has for business on his table...guy doesn't read...INCOMPETENT! From all reports he's pretty much just repeating his campaign speeches and insulting those who question his motives.

 

[MarAzul]

Laws are laws, even if they are not "in the Constitution." You can't drink and drive.

uh, I think this is covered as well as it needs to be. It is given over to the people and the states via the 10th by it's not being mentioned.

A law that specifies an alternate impeachment process by the federal government is another matter though.
We have no amendment here.

 

[dviss1]

uh, I think this is covered as well as it needs to be. It is given over to the people and the states via the 10th by it's not being mentioned.

A law that specifies an alternate impeachment process by the federal government is another matter though.
We have no amendment here.

How does the 10th amendment apply to a Federal investigation?

There's also this:

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

When MFs talk about the president not being able to be subpoenaed or indicted, please tell me how does a president get convicted of those crimes above without said president going through due process?

 

[MarAzul]

How does the 10th amendment apply to a Federal investigation?

It does not. It does cover for such laws as no drinking and driving as seen fit by the States.

due process?

Due Process is the process of the house bringing the impeachment for the High Crime, and the Senate convicting or not, with the Chief Justice presiding.
As you will note, we have nothing that resembles this due process going on now.