Pelosi officially announces impeachment inquiry

So the dem messaging has changed from corruption and abuse of power to cover-up of whistleblower. Sounds like Russia all over again. It's like they haven't learned a thing in 3 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BriarFox

No. This is factually wrong. Mueller said a few things: 1) The OLC decision prevents a sitting president from being indicted, 2) he could be indicted after he left office and so an investigation is warranted, 3) Mueller chose not to make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime because, since he can’t be indicted, it couldn’t go to trial, and he would then have no trial in which to defend himself, which he deserves, and 4) given the above, Mueller can’t charge the president but he also has too much evidence to exonerate him.

The unfortunate problem here is that people think in simple binaries like innocent/guilty, and this conclusion is too complex for 90% of people to follow.

---

What part of "innocent until proven guilty" are you having such a difficult time understanding?

At this current time, is Trump, legally speaking, considered innocent in regards to Russiagate?

For someone who's supposed to be all smart and enlightened, you seem pretty dumb and full of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

What part of "innocent until proven guilty" are you having such a difficult time understanding?

At this current time, is Trump, legally speaking, considered innocent in regards to Russiagate?

For someone who's supposed to be all smart and enlightened, you seem pretty dumb and full of shit.

---

You guys are all so busy defending Trump that you aren't thinking. First, what Gelston said was:

Quote:

---

Again, you are innocent until proven guilty. Regardless of if they could charge him or not. They concluded there isn't enough to charge. Whether or not it exonerates him is irrelevant.

---

My comment about being factually wrong was a response to this: "They concluded there isn't enough to charge." This is factually wrong, as I explained.

As for the innocent until proven guilty principle, the law says that right now he is innocent because he hasn't been proven guilty, yes. However, what Mueller said was "I can't indict a sitting president for reasons A, B, and C," not that he wasn't culpable. That's a huge caveat that you all are completely ignoring by substituting a simpler, binary principle (innocent/guilty) that serves your agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BriarFox

You guys are all so busy defending Trump that you aren't thinking. First, what Gelston said was:



My comment about being factually wrong was a response to this: "They concluded there isn't enough to charge." This is factually wrong, as I explained.

As for the innocent until proven guilty principle, the law says that right now he is innocent because he hasn't been proven guilty, yes. However, what Mueller said was "I can't indict a sitting president for reasons A, B, and C," not that he wasn't culpable. That's a huge caveat that you all are completely ignoring by substituting a simpler, binary principle (innocent/guilty) that serves your agenda.

---

Mueller did not conclude that Trump committed a crime. STFU already.

Don’t you have a PhD as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BriarFox

You guys are all so busy defending Trump that you aren't thinking. First, what Gelston said was:



My comment about being factually wrong was a response to this: "They concluded there isn't enough to charge." This is factually wrong, as I explained.

As for the innocent until proven guilty principle, the law says that right now he is innocent because he hasn't been proven guilty, yes. However, what Mueller said was "I can't indict a sitting president for reasons A, B, and C," not that he wasn't culpable. That's a huge caveat that you all are completely ignoring by substituting a simpler, binary principle (innocent/guilty) that serves your agenda.

---

You seem to be having a hard time with the whole "no evidence part".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fortybox

Mueller did not conclude that Trump committed a crime. STFU already.

Don’t you have a PhD as well?

---

Mueller did not conclude that Trump had committed a crime because legally he could not do so. All he could do was say that the evidence did not exonerate him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

You seem to be having a hard time with the whole "no evidence part".

---

There is a literal ream of evidence in the Russia report, proving Trump encouraged and benefited from Russian interference.

You all are being bafflingly obtuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

CNN (and probably other "news" sources) deceptively edited their coverage of the transcript by making it sound like the favor Trump asked was in regards to investigating Biden's son, when in fact the favor was Trump asking Ukraine to investigate 2016 election interference.

Now suddenly Democrats are against investigating the 2016 election interference if it's Trump asking for it.

This is why you can't trust the news you read and watch, Briarfox.

---

I'll match that and raise you one.

Schiff claims his summary of Trump's Ukraine call was 'at least part in parody'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Trump economy is great! Layoffs are fake news!

---

They're laying off the entire Gender Studies department!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

I'll match that and raise you one.

Schiff claims his summary of Trump's Ukraine call was 'at least part in parody'

---

He's basically lying on the floor just like Harry Reid did when he fabricated stories about Romney, and then later recounted it, affirmed it was all fabricated, and laughed about lying on the floor.

Republicans need to understand Democrats have taken the gloves off the last decade, and fight back.

Let's start accusing them of racism, sexism and corruption, and make them prove their innocence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fortybox

We need time4funs expert analysis on this.

---

She rates this thread 5 dildos.

Probably.