Something is NOT RIGHT. Mueller let Trump get away with TREASON. Just like Flynn wasn't charged

[triron]

likewise.

[drray23]

1. He could not indict him.

It's up to Congress to do so by impeaching.

[Bettie]

15. And congress won't do it

because they don't want to.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

77. He could have. Or he could have gone on a public relations bltz.

Instead Mueller has acted like this is the 1950s Republican Party.

He’s a registered Republican. And he does not seem to recognize how corrupted the GOP is.

His country needed him. And he not only followed every single rule and failed to say anything publicly, he made up new rules to give the president the benefit of the doubt.

Democrats trusted Mueller and we wasted two years doing so.

[Codeine]

2. Here we go again. nt

[live love laugh]

7. 😂

[stillcool]

26. head meet wall...

why do I do it?

[Codeine]

28. How can we not?

[stillcool]

31. Oy...

if not me who?

[sheshe2]

106. Ditto.

That was going to be my exact comment.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Hasn't this been discussed ad nauseam?

Read the Mueller report for an explanation.

[triron]

6. That does not address why Mueller has let Trump get away with it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. For the umpteenth time, Mueller didn't indict him because the OLC memos

say a sitting president can't be indicted, and so far there is no legal authority to the contrary. If Mueller had disregarded the OLC memos and indicted Trump anyhow, apart from the fact that he'd have been instantly fired, the indictment would have been challenged in court and would have gone to the Supreme Court - and this court would almost certainly agree with the separation of powers argument in the memos.

[ecstatic]

9. Why wasn't Jr. indicted?

Oh, that's right, he was too stupid. Yeah. There's a benign excuse for everything, it seems.

[triron]

11. And some others. Mueller also didn't have to indict Trump to accomplish what I said.

[sheshe2]

108. You said:

triron (13,333 posts)

6. That does not address why Mueller has let Trump get away with it.

This has been addressed. Fact is he did not let him get away with anything. He went as far as he was allowed by law. Trump is far from off the hook.

Fact is there are numerous ongoing investigations. It is far from over.

[AncientGeezer]

19. Possibly because the evidene didn't support indictment??

[Solomon]

34. Bullshit. I wish people would stop acting like you must have proof of a crime to indict.

Where did we get this idea that a charge has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before you can charge? That's what the fricking trial is for!

I wish they would apply this kind of privilege before they indict or charge us black folk.

[triron]

35. Thank you! About time someone spoke up about this.

[AncientGeezer]

38. " I wish people would stop acting like you must have proof of a crime to indict."

Did you type that meaning it?
You need no proof of a crime to charge someone with a crime....really?

[Solomon]

45. Yes, Really. All you need is probable cause.

And yes, I'm a damned defense attorney, so I know what the fuck I'm talking about

[Nevermypresident]

52. +1

[AncientGeezer]

63. Probable cause is based on a standard of proof...not suposition..

..not suspicion...not wishful thinking...

Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause.

[Baltimike]

67. Yep, and the drip, drip, drip shows the probable cause...

The "it's worse than you ever knew"...oh wait, "it's even worse than that" that they have ALREADY ADMITTED TO, and people sit in prison right now. So....um...NO

They have never even looked at the machines. Really.

[AncientGeezer]

68. No votes were changed..didn't happen

[Baltimike]

69. Yes they were...it did indeed.

[AncientGeezer]

74. Source that claim....this should be interesing

[Baltimike]

82. Yawn

[Solomon]

84. Jeeezuz guy. Give it up. There's nothing

in that long quote to even remotely suggest that law enforcement must have proof of a crime before they arrest, indict or charge. I told you, I'm a defense attorney. You're obviously not. You cant lecture me on something I've lived in the courts for going on 40 years. Just stop it. Stop digging. There's plenty of evidence of all sorts of crimes in Mueller's report that would support an indictment or charge.

[triron]

86. nice to have some expertise.

[AncientGeezer]

98. What do you think probable cause is? Stop and Frisk. Do you support that?

[Baltimike]

101. wow. you'd think you'd give it up while you're ahead

I don't think you're a citizen here...otherwise you wouldn't be postulating such silliness.

[sprinkleeninow]

126. Whoopsie. Oh, ouch. 😁

[Cetacea]

130. Former prosecuter from SDNY says most indictments are the result of circumstantial evidence

And she was discussing the Mueller probe. There is some confusion surrounding OLC memo and whether or not that limited Mueller's scope when it involved financial deals and other areas and people.

[triron]

131. So why would the OLC memo limit his scope??

[triron]

132. I repeat, same question. Really curious about your statement.

[Cetacea]

133. There are ongoing probes and pending indictments.

Justice also has a policy that those that haven't been indicted now/yet can't be mentioned in public (this is how I understood it). I suspect that this why Nadler is after Grand Jury materials. There is far too much missing/redacted. So it's more to do with Justice Dept rules rather than OLC.

[triron]

134. Thank you for the explanation/clarification.

[Cetacea]

135. Sure. I'm guessing that the real "meat" lies in the Grand Jury testimonials.

And don't forget that Mueller could not pursue financial leads. Congress can. And Pelosi has hinted that they will be looking into Trump Tower Moscow, among other matters. And where Mueller could not consider evidence of collusion/conspiracy, Congress can and most likely will. But then again, Mueller said that evidence was destroyed and nearly everybody lied.
What I am confused about is why we were not informed about the extreme limitations Mueller was working with until the investigation neared completion. Even Maddow was surprised. (she deserves a Pulitzer for her coverage imo)

[triron]

136. Yes that is quite strange isn't it?

[ecstatic]

53. +1000. nt

[COLGATE4]

54. Thank you for highlighting this very important truth. nt

[wasupaloopa]

57. You need evidence for a grand jury. You cannot just indict someone.

[Solomon]

58. (Rolls eyes) nobody is talking about indicting without evidence.

Evidence but not proof. Get it? Evidence is not proof. There's plenty of frickin evidence.

[AncientGeezer]

62. Evidence isn't proof...Ok wow.. Evidence is the basis of "proof"

You said and I quote...." I wish people would stop acting like you must have proof of a crime to indict."......There isn't a Prosecutor on the planet that would agree with that....

[Baltimike]

70. and no one is indicting without evidence.

reading for comprehension can be fun

[Solomon]

85. Lol. You're hilarious.

You really are. And wrong as hell to boot.
Try and learn how the American legal system works.

[AncientGeezer]

96. Source ONE prosecuter that would do a charging motion to a Judge

or go in front of a JG without "proof"

I'll be waiting for you to source such a case.

This is going to be fun to watch.

[Baltimike]

102. Source ONE example of them actually examining voting machines.

ONE And then please research probable cause, because....wow

[Hoyt]

29. That's the key question. While Mueller might have been constrained from indicting trump,

Junior, Kushner, and Ivanka weren’t protected.

And Mueller could have said in his report, “Except for DOJ policy, we would have locked trump up.” But, he didn’t. To his credit, he was a bit more forthcoming in yesterday’s hearing.

[NewJeffCT]

41. it's possible that Jr was one of the 12 cases

that Mueller referred to other offices

[Nevermypresident]

51. Of course there is...I guess President's sons are above the law too now.

[former9thward]

32. That is not what Mueller said in the report.

He was asked.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

33. Here's what the report said:

Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, ... this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

We considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. ... Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.

[former9thward]

44. You are ignoring what he said at the beginning of the afternoon session.

He said the OLC ruling was not a factor in whether they decided to indict.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

48. Not exactly. Here's what he said:

“Now, before we go to questions, I want to add a correction to my testimony this morning. I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, ‘You didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

[sheshe2]

109. Thank you. nt

[proud patriot]

4. yawn

ZZzzzz

[obnoxiousdrunk]

5. Ooooh the

T word. This is series !!!

[watoos]

10. Flynn is still waiting sentencing.

[triron]

12. I know. But he won't be charged with treason.

[Codeine]

13. He also won't be charged with bestiality,

as neither charge has anything to do with the crimes at hand.

But you know this.

[sheshe2]

110. ;)

[AncientGeezer]

14. Because he didn't comit treason..a good reason not to be charged

[Codeine]

16. The OP knows this,

as it’s been explained to him in absolutely excruciating detail. He’s just compelled to post the same shit endlessly, legalities notwithstanding.

[AncientGeezer]

17. Gotcha...

[lapucelle]

114. Yes, but this time it's TREASON. The caps make the difference. N/T

[Baltimike]

20. aid and comfort to a hostile foreign government that attacked us

cyber war is an act of war.

[AncientGeezer]

23. Actually it isn't....you need a declared "enemy"

I would ask you to consider under who's watch the attack occurred?
President Obama had never declared the Russians a "hostile foreign government".

[Baltimike]

24. actually...you don't need a "declared enemy" since RUSSIA'S attack declared themselves

by your logic, ONLY the USA can declare war, and not other nations declaring war on us.

And, yes, President Obama DID indeed declare it...but HE didn't have to...again by your logic, no country that attacks the USA is a declared enemy until the powdered wig folk declare a country hostile. This is not so.

But Obama banished the Russians for sure.

oh, and you're welcome!

[AncientGeezer]

37. What????

"And, yes, President Obama DID indeed declare it".......when? Citation?
"ONLY the USA can declare war, and not other nations declaring war on us." Yes..it takes a declaration from Congress to declare War. That's a Constitutional mandate.
And without that deceleration of War....you don't have the Constitutional definition of Treason

[Baltimike]

43. Russia declared the war when they committed the act of war.

Cyber war is indeed an act of war, and Obama threw them out of their embassies.

But keep pretending that "it's all worse than they knew" but they never switched any votes. You do you

[onenote]

50. Can you give another example of countries that were at war with each other

that maintained diplomatic relations, allowed their citizens to travel between them, and had billions of dollars in trade?

The concept of being in a state of war has meaning in international law and domestic law.

If we're at war because of a cyber attack, why hasn't NATO responded? And who else are we at war with -- China? After all, the Chinese are known to have engaged in cyberattacks against US interests.

[Baltimike]

55. Can YOU give another example of a foreign government hacking a super power

and getting their candidate installed? Billions of dollars in trade...and sanctions THEY were desperate to rescind.

[triron]

56. Good post.

[AncientGeezer]

97. So you can't answer onenotes question ..right?

."Can you give another example of countries that were at war with each other

that maintained diplomatic relations, allowed their citizens to travel between them, and had billions of dollars in trade?

The concept of being in a state of war has meaning in international law and domestic law.

If we're at war because of a cyber attack, why hasn't NATO responded? And who else are we at war with -- China? After all, the Chinese are known to have engaged in cyberattacks against US interests.

[Baltimike]

100. So you can't answer mine, right?

[triron]

105. Attacking our elections systems is tantamount to an attack on democracy and our national security.

That's not an act of war? If not I don't know what is.

[onenote]

118. Then I guess you don't know what is.

[AncientGeezer]

65. Actually not....We have to declare a war...

We trade with the Ruskies, we share intel with the Ruskies, we have embassies in each other countries...we aren't at war.

[Baltimike]

66. That is patently untrue...we do not have to declare a war

And in fact, we never declared war in Viet Nam, or even Desert Storm...EITHER of them.

Also, they're back in their embassies because MF45 was paying them back. Obama made them leave, and they fucking face sanctions right fucking now...even as we type these messages.

Holy. fucking. fuck.

[AncientGeezer]

75. For Treason you need a "war"....

A declared enemy....you're passionate about this...I get it...but you are wrong.

[Codeine]

78. Sort of. You need an "enemy", which is strictly defined

by the US Code. Russia doesn’t qualify by any stretch.

[Baltimike]

103. You are DEAD WRONG...like 100% wrong about that.

Really. The Viet Nam war was never declared. Neither has Iraq or Afghanistan.

Your silly post insinuates that NO OTHER COUNTRY CAN DECLARE WAR ON THE USA....But they *CAN*. A hostile act, like hacking voting files and email from a foreign country is an act of war...cyber war is an act of war.


You're welcome. There is no such thing as needing Congress to declare a "hot wat". That is Russian tactical disinfo.

[triron]

107. Thanks. And besides we will never declare war against a rival nuclear power. Won't happen.

We would face annihilation before we could press a button.

[Baltimike]

111. and beside that, acting like they can't declare on war on US is pretense...and deza. nt

[triron]

115. I think these naysayers are referring to the treason as defined in the U.S. constitution

[Treason] defined in Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
and in the definition of 'enemy' which I found referenced here: https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/enemy-of-the-united-states/.

Note in the definition of treason according to the constitution it does not require levying war. The is an 'or' in the definition
not an 'and'. logically a or b requires only a or b to be true not both.

[lapucelle]

125. You think the problem with the "naysayers" is that they're looking at the Constitution?

The Constitution contains the legal definition of treason. It's the first place anybody should look.

Many people here are already aware that the word "or" appears in the Treason Clause; they are equally aware of what the word "or" means.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only

in levying war against them,

OR

in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

[lapucelle]

120. Deza? Dezinformatsiya? That's an interesting choice of words.

No one is "acting like [Russia] can't declare war on the US". They're simply stating a fact: Russia has not declared war on the US.

A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state goes to war against another. The declaration is a performative speech act (or the signing of a document) by an authorized party of a national government, in order to create a state of war between two or more states.

[lapucelle]

122. There is "such a thing as needing Congress to declare a [war]" to charge treason.

Official Declarations of War by Congress

The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. Congress has declared war on 11 occasions, including its first declaration of war with Great Britain in 1812. Congress approved its last formal declaration of war during World War II.

Since that time it has agreed to resolutions authorizing the use of military force and continues to shape U.S. military policy through appropriations and oversight.

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/WarDeclarationsbyCongress.htm

[onenote]

119. Obama did not terminate diplomatic relations with Russia

Last edited Sun Jul 28, 2019, 11:36 PM - Edit history (1)

He ordered the expulsion of 35 diplomats. He did not cut off diplomatic relations. He did not order the expulsion of the Russian ambassador. He did not suspend travel between Russia and the US or trade between Russia and the US. He did not ask and Congress did not act to declare Russia to be an "enemy" of the United States under the Trading With the Enemies Act.

By way of contrast, while we there was not a formal declaration of war against the North Vietnamese, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution giving LBJ authorization to use conventional military forces in Vietnam. Nothing comparable to that has occurred with respect to Vietnam so your comparison falls flat. There is a reason why those committing espionage on behalf of Russia during the Cold "War" weren't shared with treason -- we weren't in a state of war with Russia as that term is understand as a matter of law.

[Baltimike]

121. Robert Hansenn too

https://timeline.com/there-was-a-russian-spy-in-the-fbi-for-15-years-and-even-he-warned-of-election-tampering-846fac117561

[lapucelle]

113. Treason is defined in the Article III. Section 3 of the Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

President Obama did not "declare war on Russia", he did not declare that "Russia is our enemy", and he did not "banish Russians".

[triron]

128. The legal definition of "enemy" is here:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/enemy-of-the-united-states/

[lapucelle]

129. Yes. I saw it.

The Treason Clause refers to “enemies,” not foreign nations generally. And “enemy” has been the subject of over six hundred years of consistent judicial interpretation (the phrase goes back to the English Statute of Treasons of 1351). For a foreign nation to be an enemy, we must be in a state of declared or open war with that nation. There is no declared war against Russia, so the argument would have to be that the Russian attacks against us are evidence of a state of open war.

snip===================================================================================

There is no such thing as a “quasi-enemy” under American treason law. If Russia was an enemy in June 2016, it was an enemy for all purposes. That would mean that any provision of aid and comfort to Russia by any person owing allegiance to the United States was not just illegal, but treason, a capital crime.

Any person advising a Russian business, any lawyer representing Russian interests, any person registered as an agent for Russia, perhaps even someone doing an interview on Russian television— all would be equally guilty of treason. The suggestion is absurd, but that is the logical consequence of accepting Russia as an enemy under our treason law.

https://takecareblog.com/blog/russia-and-enemies-under-the-treason-clause

[Codeine]

27. We've been through this

and you’re wrong. Legal terms have very well-defined meanings, and nothing that has happened here even comes close to those definitions.

[Kid Berwyn]

18. Putin programs Trump in secret.

Problematic is an understatement.

[ismnotwasm]

21. Wait WUT?

This is your interpretation on what is possible legally in this situation? Could you please state your case on why you believe this? My understanding is much different

[Codeine]

25. He can't. It's just warrgarbl

posted for attention.

[Joe941]

22. not this again... sigh.

[Caliman73]

30. Come on now...

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.

[triron]

36. Partly agree with you. I still call it treason, say what you will.

[AncientGeezer]

39. You can call it a square dance......but it's NOT Treason

[Kid Berwyn]

40. Accepting help from an enemy attacking USA sure is.

Russia was invited to attack our national sovereignty by interfering in our national election.

Russia then did so on Trump’s behalf at Clinton’s expense.

Trump accepted our enemy’s help.

Trump lied about all of that.

How is any of that not treason?

[onenote]

47. The words of the Constitutional "treason" provision have specific meanings

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Russia and the US are not at war. They are not even "enemies" as that term is understood. Nations at war with another, national that are "enemies", do not maintain diplomatic relations, do not allow citizens to travel between them, do not engage in billions of dollars in trade.

[Kid Berwyn]

61. Russia attacked the US. Trump is "OK" with that.

They are making war on our elections, working to divide our alliances, and getting the benefits of Swiss banking — all with Trump’s assistance.

Not trying to change anyone’s mind or the Constitution. Those are the facts.

[AncientGeezer]

64. Russia diddled the election under President Obama....

Want to drag POTUS Obama into it?

[Baltimike]

71. Holy crap...that is why he sanctioned them...and yes, I want to

[Baltimike]

72. also...they didn't "diddle"...they ATTACKED THE USA

you're welcome

[AncientGeezer]

73. Facebook posts, twitter posts, isn't an attack....it's agitprop

Pearl Harbor was an attack...9/11 was an attack...tweets, facebook posts, NOT even close

[Baltimike]

81. Nice try there...NO DICE HACKING our voter files is an act of war

cyber war IS an act of war...since 2012...right here in the USA

[triron]

76. Why are there DUers still using diminutive terms to describe Russia's attack on our democracy with

Trump campaign cooperation is beyond me.

[Codeine]

79. Its lame when people use words incorrectly,

isn’t it?

[triron]

83. And your point is? Wait for it.....

[Kid Berwyn]

87. Do you like to waste readers' time?

Explanation: Obama wanted to warn the country about the Russian attack. Mitch McConnell stopped that plan as “political” and continues to provide cover. What we got is Putin’s puppet.

Do you think it a coincidence that McConnell also has a relationship with a Russian oligarch who was suffering under economic sanctions levied by Obama? I don’t.

[triron]

88. McConnell's wife Elaine Chao is Treasury secretary in the Trump administration

and has committed potential ethics violations while in that position, including obtaining
projects for Kentucky to aid in McConnell's reelection.

[AncientGeezer]

99. Not wasting time...if you make a claim...back it. Should be easy..right?

[Baltimike]

104. Definitely wasting time.

[Kid Berwyn]

123. Why do you argue Russia election interference isn't an attack?

The traitor Trump appreciates it, very much.

Rep. Swalwell explains:

Despite Russia’s harmful national interests against the U.S., and its human rights violations around the world, President Trump and his team are directly and indirectly tied to Russia.

Throughout the 2016 presidential election, President Trump not only refused to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin, but was even friendly and accommodating in his remarks. In his own words, President Trump called President Putin “highly respected." More recently, President Trump put the U.S. on equal moral footing with Russia when responding to Bill O’Reilly’s question about Putin being a "killer," saying "We've got a lot of killers... you think our country's so innocent?" This is absolutely false moral equivalence, and unheard of for the President of the United States to insult and demean the country he leads.

President Trump has harshly criticized NATO, and exclaimed that only the NATO allies that paid equally to the alliance deserved protection from the United States. Though these remarks were softened by British Prime Minister Theresa May, who claims that President Trump fully supports the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), it's still unclear how supportive he will be of NATO allies like the Baltic states in light of his relationship with Russia.

President Trump has also surrounded himself with people who do business with and are sympathetic to Russia. The New York Times reported that members of Trump’s 2016 campaign and other Trump associates had frequent contact with senior Russian intelligence officials throughout the campaign. In addition to these questionable communications, here are a few other associates with ties to Moscow:



Continues with names, crimes and associated treasons.

https://swalwell.house.gov/issues/russia-trump-his-administration-s-ties

Readers are leaders.

[at140]

117. If congress had declared war on Russia for attacking our elections,

Mueller might have been able to charge Trump with treason. And then we would stop doing business with Russia, the embassies would be closed, civilians would not be allowed to travel to Russia, etc.

[lapucelle]

124. Treason is a crime with very specific and narrow elements that must be fulfilled.

The fact that it is so narrowly written is a good thing. As written, the definition protects citizens seeking redress from claims of "treason" by an autocratic president or a corrupted government.

You can find a good analysis here:

https://takecareblog.com/blog/russia-and-enemies-under-the-treason-clause

[She_Totally_Gets_It]

42. I believe with all my heart that Mueller--a ReTHUG--is deliberately protecting Trump.

[onenote]

46. And what do you believe with all your heart about the many others who know

everything Mueller knows -- the members of his team, many of whom are Democrats? Are they also deliberately protecting Trump?

[She_Totally_Gets_It]

60. There's a difference between what *I* believe and what Mueller says the facts are...

I am not disputing the facts that he raised. I just don't trust that he genuinely did everything in his power to make the case. And I believe that he didn't try hard enough.

[Blue_Tires]

49. Mueller doesn't have power of prosecution?

He isn't a one-man grand jury...

[Meowmee]

59. He followed a memo that is not law and not in the sacred constitution as far as I know

I see it as part coward, part afraid to rock the boat, large part protecting R. There was nothing stopping him from recommending inditement At some point someone will have to do something or it will be the end if it isn’t too late already.

[smirkymonkey]

89. +1000

[triron]

90. I agree. Trump pulled a double whammy on our nation and is getting away scott free so far.

In fact, he has profited from it and gained prestige by being POTUS even though he is illegitimate.
Plus SCOTUS has been fundamentally changed without recourse it seems. Not to mention
all the bullshit 'executive decisions' which have been forced upon us. Our nation has been raped
by Trump.

[Meowmee]

91. Yep 😳😿

[sprinkleeninow]

127. Word. eom

[UniteFightBack]

80. rump and company destroyed evidence, lied and obstructed justice.....and all of it worked up to a

point.

[triron]

139. Guess we will see up to what point.

[triron]

140. Hopefully sooner than much later (when it's too late).

[triron]

92. knr

[triron]

93. kick again

[triron]

94. kick again

[triron]

95. kick again

[Botany]

112. Disagree .... wait until we see the redacted parts of the Mueller report.

n/t

[triron]

116. Why? There is already abundant evidence Trump committed treason (more than once).

[triron]

137. kick for visibility

[triron]

138. Again.

[triron]

141. When will Flynn be sentenced?