Pressure builds for NBC's Kristen Welker to address Hunter Biden at debate:

Your son is a crackhead? Really?

 

One problem....you cant get people to work in unison, just try getting 5 friends to meet at the same time and place for lunch!

(of course if you offer to pay, but I digress...)

 

Wow, I bet you thought that was very clever.

 

Another Trump supporter?

 

You are outdoing yourself in lameness.

 

Typical Trump supporter BS.

 

Yes, there is. Read Volume II again.

 

I disagree. That sounds like right wing rhetoric to me. Based on what evidence?

 

There's not.
Disagree? Cite the page and copy/paste the text of where Mueller, et al, make the factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent.
Pro tip: It does not exist.

And then:
Trump was not impeached for anything in the Mueller report.
How do you not know this?

 

Oh, bee ess.

 

I've been voting since 1972, and this is far and away the most imortant election in my lifetime.

As for other political parties: first, they have to make themselves and their platforms known, not just via websites but by proven track records. Get elected to local and state offices and show voters what you have for them. My biggest problem with Libertarians and Greens and so forth is that they seem to want to start in the Oval Office. Pay some political dues first!

 

Thank you.

That's the most polite and well-researched reply I've ever gotten from you.

You have a good point. Those taxes are way too high. They shouldn't be more than a quarter of that.

As for buybacks: I'm of the opinion that the weapon owner should get a choice between current value of the weapons, or twice that in tax breaks for the next calendar year.

 

That last sentence ... back to your usual snarky self. That's a shame.

From the Conclusion of the Introduction to Volume II"

"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 the President’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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

In the section immediately following, Mueller outlines the framework, or criteria, for an obstruction case. There are three basic elements:

1. The obstructive act itself.
2. Nexus to a pending or contemplated official proceeding.
3. Corruptly, a word in this context to indicate intent.

Of the 11 incidents of obstruction detailed in the report, 8 of them met all three of the above.

(Please note that I could have lowered myself to your level by adding "How can you not know that?" But I chose not to.)

 

And, there must be a factual determination that all three of these elements exist.
Mueller made the factual determinate that Trump committed as many as 10 obstructive acts;
Mueller made the factual determination that these obstructive acts had a nexus with an official proceeding;
Mueller did not, anywhere, make the factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent.

I asked you to:
Cite the page and copy/paste the text of where Mueller made the factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent, as you claim.
You have not done so.
Please proceed.

And, I'll accept your concession regarding your attempt to relate Trump's impeachment to the Mueller report.

 

Of course. I know what I'm talking about.

Interesting.
What other basic exercise of a right do you believe the government can tax w/o violating the enumerated constitutional protections for same?
How does a tax laid upon the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms not create an infringement on that right?

 

Laughable, nothing Trump did could be interpreted as an obstructive act.(Actually, let me rephrase that interpretation is the eye of the beholder. The Trump counsel, as admitted by a former member of the team WANTED to get the guy(and so do you), given THEIR interpretations, what did you think would happen?

Note that not a single member of the counsel, nor even Mueller himself stepped up to the plate to defend their work. That's because they can't with a straight face. I would love to take their case to court, on the defense of Donald Trump.

 

Sometimes I hate technology. I had this written out and was copying from the report, and my response that I hadn't yet posted disappeared. So understand that I'm unwilling to do your homework for you, since you insist on adhering to the Trump supportwes' popular misunderstanding of Mueller intent.

From page 239 of my e-book:
"In assessing the evidence we obtained, we relied on common principles that apply in any investigation. The issue of criminal intent is often inferred from circumstantial evidence."

From page 255, this is the first act of obstruction detailed in the report:

"9. The President Attempts to Have K.T. McFarland Create a Witness Statement Denying that he Directed Flynn’s Discussions with Kislyak"

At the end of those details, from page 60:

"Intent.
Finally, the President’s effort to have McFarland write an internal email denying that the President had directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak highlights the President’s concern about being associated with Flynn’s conduct."

That's just the first instance. You can look at the rest of them for yourself. I'm done here, and done with your arrogant snarkiness, which you resorted to even when I paid you a compliment. I won't make that error again.

 

See #92.

As for not indicting the president, please read the first few pages of the Introduction to Volume II.

 

It's YOUR claim - onus is - completely- on you.

This is not a factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent.

This is not a factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent.

This is not a factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent.

Run away! Run away!!
I accept your concession -- fact is, you cannot copy/paste the text where Mueller factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent, because there is none.

 

Your misinterpretation of the Mueller Report is astounding to me.

I've conceded nothing to the likes of you.

 

I'm sorry -- didn't YOU say that an obstruction case requires:
1. The obstructive act itself.
2. Nexus to a pending or contemplated official proceeding.
3. Corruptly, a word in this context to indicate intent.

Yes you did. The text of actual report states:
Three basic elements are common to most of the relevant obstruction statutes:
(1) an obstructive act;
(2)a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding; and
(3) a corrupt intent.

The report defines "corrupt":
The word “corruptly” provides the intent element for obstruction of justice and means acting “knowingly and dishonestly” or “with an improper motive.”...
The requisite showing is made when a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

The report then says:
Applying the obstruction statutes to the President’s official conduct would involve determining as a factual matter whether he engaged in an obstructive act, whether the act had a nexus to official proceedings, and whether he was motivated by corrupt intent.

It then says:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly”sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

You stated:
Of the 11 incidents of obstruction detailed in the report, 8 of them met all three of the above.
And so, I ask again:
Where does Mueller make the required factual determination - a concrete showing - that Trump acted with corrupt intent, as defined in the report?

As you see, I understand the Mueller report far more than you may have considered, and significantly better than you.

Because you are unwilling to allow the truth to interfere with your obstinate and intolerant devotion to your opinions and prejudices
Fact is, your statement regarding the impeachment and its relationship to the Mueller report cannot be more wrong.
Demonstrate your intellectual honesty and admit it.

 

Ignorance in the age of information is a choice.

 

Based on Biden's own words.

 

You're correct that Mueller made no factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent. Nevertheless, over 1000 former federal prosecutors evaluated the evidence Mueller outlined and agreed that Trump's actions would indeed be prosecuted if he weren't President.

It's interesting to me that many Trump supporters are ready to lock up Joe Biden on the basis that his son made money off his name - without even identifying a crime. Sure, it looks a bit bad for Hunter to do this, but if LOOKING BAD is the standard, consider the dozens of things Trump has done that LOOK BAD. In the case of his obstruction, you have to rely on a legal technicality that might (MIGHT) get him acquitted. No one could possibly deny that dangling pardons looks pretty damn bad.

 

And thus, you agree that the claim in question:
"Of the 11 incidents of obstruction detailed in the report, 8 of them met all three of the (necessary conditions for a charge of obstruction)..."
...is false.
Thank you

Their opinion, not being part of an/the official investigation, does not matter.

That's nice.