Stonewall.

No prez has ever acted in ways that demand this degree of oversight.

"Congress has no right or authority to subpoena the information that they are doing."

The opposite is true.

"You evidentially think the president has no business carrying on private conversations, but that is idiotic."

Nope. EP is a perfectly legit claim.......where it applies.

 

Bwahahahaha! You must have been born in 2016 and missed the Obama administration.

 

Agreed but there is a proper legal way to deal with it.

 

I imagine the Intel Committee wants to talk to Gates about..............(from Mueller's report)

"Second, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's plan to win the election.930 That briefing encompassed the Campaign's messaging and its internal polling data. According to Gates, it also included discussion of "battleground" states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.931 Manafort did not refer explicitly to "battle round" states in his telling of the August 2 discussion"

 

I would say that the oversight provided by Mueller would be one of the most thorough in history. He was "oversighted" and over-oversighted and his actions brought no legal action. It only brought political action.

 

Mueller's narrow scope of investigation didn't cover all the matters the House wants to know about...........though he did establish Don committed obstruction of justice.

 

He did not establish that. He should have but didn't. His decision was not to charge. Nothing covers what the House wants to know. A world of data wouldn't satisfy them. The whole thing is disreputable.

 

;Why? That's old news, we all knew Manafort talked to his former Ukrainian employee about the election...there is nothing illegal about two former co-workers talking about a public election

 

If you read the Mueller report, you'd know he specifically stated in the conclusion that the he did not conclude the President committed OOJ or any other crime for that matter.

It's really sad so many people commenting on the Report never took the time to read it

 

Stonewall every thing the dems want

 

Executive privilage is a legal tool of the president

 

Yes. But it has limits.

 

The House has no authority or purpose to conduct a criminal investigation even if they cover it with lipstick and rouge. And...... Mueller did not establish that Trump committed obstruction. Your incessant meme is boring people to tears -- it's like Chinese torture. Wake up and go find something new and novel.

 

Now you're just being silly.

"He (Trump) filed a brief in the nation’s second-most-important court that takes the position that Congress cannot investigate the president, except possibly in impeachment proceedings. It’s a spectacularly anti-constitutional brief, and anyone who harbors such attitudes toward our Constitution’s architecture is not fit for office. Trump’s brief is nothing if not an invitation to commencing impeachment proceedings that, for reasons set out in the Mueller report, should have already commenced."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...2795fca3343_story.html?utm_term=.4efdd5011f97

 

Except, of course, that constitutionally Congress cannot investigate the president, except possibly in impeachment proceedings. Thinking otherwise is what is silly and downright ignorant. What do you suppose the concept of three independent branches of government means? Can the president investigate congress? No. Can either congress or the president investigate judges? No.

 

The only people interested in investigating Trump are Mother Jones subscribers.

 

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about thePresident's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Muller Report, Part II; Executive Summary.

 

It is never ever the job of a prosecutor to find anyone innocent or exonerated, and they, if they follow the proscribed long standing process, never ever say such. A prosecutor not saying someone is innocent is equivalent to getting up in the morning.

 

Like I said, he did not find obstruction. He said basically that maybe he did and maybe he didn't. Frankly, without an underlying crime there is little chance a charge would stick in a trial. This is all politics signifying nothing. I would advise you to spend your efforts on the 2020 election. The Mueller mess is over.

 

Its all they got.
They dont really wanna help DACA kids
They dont really wanna stop illegal immigration
They dont really want immigration reform
They dont really want to pass an infrastructure bill
They dont really wanna do anything, except attack the president.

 

Geez, you really don't have a clue.

 

You've got the Repubs pegged.

 

Na, Trump offered to work with democrats on all of that.....

democrats refused

 

You have your facts wrong. You must be a Faux viewer.

 

I not only have a clue, I know what I am talking about, which is more than can be said for you.