DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

i had the radio on at work and couldn't really pay attention to it...but i noticed several times he used the term "knowingly".   it sounded to me like he was saying trump and his merry band of idiots were to stupid to realize that russia was using them.   did anyone else notice that?   or did i jsut hear a small portion of something else?   constructions sights are not conductive to being able to pay too much attention to something like this.   lol.

 
knapplc said:
"This reads to me as an impeachment referral."

Yes, that is exactly what it is. Mueller didn't think he had standing to charge the White House himself, so he provided the evidence to allow Congress to do it.
Click to expand...
This is what confuses me. Is he saying he doesn't have enough evidence so he's not confident in doing it himself so he wants Congress to try to do it, and if that's the case what would they be able to do with the evidence he couldn't? Or is he saying due to his position he doesn't think he has the power himself to do anything so maybe Congress can with his evidence?

 
Swiv3D said:
This is what confuses me. Is he saying he doesn't have enough evidence so he's not confident in doing it himself so he wants Congress to try to do it, and if that's the case what would they be able to do with the evidence he couldn't? Or is he saying due to his position he doesn't think he has the power himself to do anything so maybe Congress can with his evidence?
Click to expand...


The bold. He's saying his is not the position to prosecute Trump, that's Congress' job. Here's the evidence - go get him.

 
commando said:
i had the radio on at work and couldn't really pay attention to it...but i noticed several times he used the term "knowingly".   it sounded to me like he was saying trump and his merry band of idiots were to stupid to realize that russia was using them.   did anyone else notice that?   or did i jsut hear a small portion of something else?   constructions sights are not conductive to being able to pay too much attention to something like this.   lol. 
Click to expand...


You're right.

Unfortunately a lot of the criminal statutes people were hoping Trump would get nailed on are predicated on intent. As in, they have to be able to prove the president and his men were KNOWINGLY doing things ON PURPOSE with a criminal intent.

That's a massive legal hill to climb. It's undoubtably the reason we aren't referring the president a criminal this morning (he is one, FWIW, just in his personal capacity and not his governmental one :lol: )

@Swiv3D What Knapp said - the bar that constitutes criminality is too high, but the bar for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors" meaning whatever Congress wants it to be. It's a much lower bar that has to be cleared for Trump to be impeached.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny Bateman said:
You're right.

Unfortunately a lot of the criminal statutes people were hoping Trump would get nailed on are predicated on intent. As in, they have to be able to prove the president and his men were KNOWINGLY doing things ON PURPOSE with a criminal intent.

That's a massive legal hill to climb. It's undoubtably the reason we aren't referring the president a criminal this morning (he is one, FWIW, just in his personal capacity and not his governmental one :lol: )
Click to expand...
so our president isn't a criminal...he is too mentally deficient to be charged as a criminal for his actions.   that makes me feel better.   

 
Back
Top