Leaderboard

Remember when the GOP was against going into debt? This two year thing is an abomination. All fun and games until the bill comes due.

And the the Deputy AG was the final authority for said team when hey were hired (since Mueller worked directly for Rosenstein) and could ultimately voir dire (challenge) anyone off the team. If you’ve ever stepped foot in a criminal court room, you would know that you can challenge for cause any attorney, and even the judge, on the record for bias. Any member of Congress could’ve raised the issue as well. Your argument is moot. “One would you assume you are...” Pretty bold statement, I for one could care less because I’m neither left or right. I however don’t use confirmation bias and tin foil hat theories to construct some alternate theory of things. “Fast band loose with prosecutional standards” that’s also a pretty bold statement since the prosecutor is the arguably most powerful person in the court room and has very wide latitude on how to conduct their duties. If one was playing “fast and loose” which violated rights of the accused or ethical standards, then there’s a state bar to have a complaint file upon an attorney. You don’t really know what he looked at completely because you saw a redacted report, like everyone else but people that needed to know. There were pages that were almost fully redcacted, so to claim something like that is hyperbole. At the end of the day I would like this country to move on. Mueller did his job that he was assigned to do. He didn’t find Russian interference on Trump’s part and for those that did, they’re either in prison, awaiting trial, or already got out. He couldn’t make a determination, much like a hung jury, beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed obstruction. But even if he had, the DOJ policy, not a law, states they weren’t going to charge him as a sitting president anyway. I do have a feeling that the states that have brought charges against Trump e.g. New York, will have a different conclusion and there will be a penalty landscape for him to trek across, but I feel they’ll wait for him to leave office before that happens baring any statue of limitation issues they might run into. I think the Dems wanting to shake the proverbial tree for fruit to fall down from this makes them look flat out silly and desperate. They’re so fractured, Trump will most likely win reelection in 2020.

Well, surely one would sue and preserve those unconstitutional changes to file a writ of certiorari to have the SCOTUS rule on the law like they did in King v. Burwell, Halbig v. Burwell, etc? Also, the list you made is a little misleading. There are plenty of states (Minnesota, Washington, Wyoming, etc) that still have high risk pools. It's a state-by-state issue due to funding.

What exactly are Unconstitutional Obamacare changes? The Republicans via Gingrich & Co. had impeachment proceeds over ing an intern. I’d rather spend tax payer money to see if a president/candidate conspired with a foreign entity via an investigation than towards to see if a president got his dick wet. And If Brick wants to refer to Mueller as just a “friend of Comey” you can add in all the years of service he’s provided this country as a Marine, Ranger, in Vietnam who was awarded the Bronze Star with Valor and Purple Heart to a U.S Attorney and FBI Director. That man has done more for this country in a few years than most of us will do in our lives. Regardless of how you feel about the investigation, he did what he was appointed to do and deserves our respect.

To be clear, it was Barr, not Mueller, who said that Mueller hadn’t found anything to charge him with, regardless of DOJ policy. Tell me if that matches Mueller’s opinion on the matter, verbatim from the statement he gave earlier this week: “...we did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. The special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. The department's written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you. First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion said that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. So that was justice department policy, those were the principles under which we operated and from them, we concluded we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.” Full transcript

That isn’t normal?