Time for Mueller to Produce Something the Public can Understand

[MACAULAY]

I would like to say again, as I have said before, that I think this is a well-run board. It is the Wild Wild West, but that is o.k.. Such as is in their power to do, the Operators of this Board have done a good job of making this a good forum....and I appreciate it. Should say it more often.

The Operators, however, have no power to provide Liberal Posters who are not Morons. And so much or most of what we get from Liberals is of the same quality as you will find on the Elementary Schools Playground. SAD!

A Constitutional Crisis is developing over the Mueller Investigation. Its development ought to be discussed here. There is a world out there where intellectual discussion does occur. I submit the following article by a brilliant man---who does not like Trump one bit---one very experienced in the things Mueller is involved in---for discussion. Lets have some fun and see if we can elevate it above the playground.


"How are we supposed to grapple with whether the president should be compelled to testify when we don’t know what Mueller is alleging? What crime does Mueller want to ask the president about? And if there isn’t one, why are we even talking about an interview, let alone a subpoena?"

********

"The question of whether a prosecutor should be permitted to interview a president hinges on whether the president is a suspect. There is no public evidence that President Trump is. This raises the patent objection that he should not be asked to be interviewed under those circumstances. What we hear in response is, “How do you know he’s not a suspect?” But the reason we don’t know — other than the lack of evidence after two years — is that Mueller won’t deign to tell us, and Rosenstein won’t deign to comply, publicly, with regulations that required him to outline the basis for a criminal investigation.

The president should direct Rosenstein to outline, publicly and in detail, the good-faith basis for a criminal investigation arising out of Russia’s interference in the election — if there is one.

That is not acceptable.
"How are we supposed to grapple with whether the president should be compelled to testify when we don’t know what Mueller is alleging? What crime does Mueller want to ask the president about? And if there isn’t one, why are we even talking about an interview, let alone a subpoena?"

********

"The question of whether a prosecutor should be permitted to interview a president hinges on whether the president is a suspect. There is no public evidence that President Trump is. This raises the patent objection that he should not be asked to be interviewed under those circumstances. What we hear in response is, “How do you know he’s not a suspect?” But the reason we don’t know — other than the lack of evidence after two years — is that Mueller won’t deign to tell us, and Rosenstein won’t deign to comply, publicly, with regulations that required him to outline the basis for a criminal investigation.

The president should direct Rosenstein to outline, publicly and in detail, the good-faith basis for a criminal investigation arising out of Russia’s interference in the election — if there is one.

That is not acceptable.

Mueller’s Trump Investigation Should Disclose Crimes Being Investigated | National Review

 

[MarathonMike]

The only thing I want Mueller to produce is his resignation. I fully agree that we are now on a slippery slope toward a Constitutional crisis with the FBI acting every bit like a secret police force.

 

[Coyote]

How many years was the Benghazi investigation again?

 

[MACAULAY]

How many years was the Benghazi investigation again?

______

Child-like Deflection. As a Moderator, you ought to know better. If you want to discuss Benghazi, you should start your own thread. If the Rules don't provide for that, they ought to. Shame on you. Sad!

I don't understand how you don't see that a ridiculous response like you just made defeats the purpose of the very board you are involved in promoting.

 

[Coyote]

How many years was the Benghazi investigation again?

______

Child-like Deflection. As a Moderator, you ought to know better. If you want to discuss Benghazi, you should start your own thread. If the Rules don't provide for that, they ought to. Shame on you. Sad!

I don't understand how you don't see that a ridiculous response like you just made defeats the purpose of the very board you are involved in promoting.

In other words, the length of an investigation before it's concluded only matters when the target is Trump who, of course, is above the law.

Thank you for the clarification

 

[SavannahMann]

How many years was the Benghazi investigation again?

Benghazi was run by the House and Senate. Not the FBI. Or are they all one in the same in your mind?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I would like to say again, as I have said before, that I think this is a well-run board. It is the Wild Wild West, but that is o.k.. Such as is in their power to do, the Operators of this Board have done a good job of making this a good forum....and I appreciate it. Should say it more often.

The Operators, however, have no power to provide Liberal Posters who are not Morons. And so much or most of what we get from Liberals is of the same quality as you will find on the Elementary Schools Playground. SAD!

A Constitutional Crisis is developing over the Mueller Investigation. Its development ought to be discussed here. There is a world out there where intellectual discussion does occur. I submit the following article by a brilliant man---who does not like Trump one bit---one very experienced in the things Mueller is involved in---for discussion. Lets have some fun and see if we can elevate it above the playground.


"How are we supposed to grapple with whether the president should be compelled to testify when we don’t know what Mueller is alleging? What crime does Mueller want to ask the president about? And if there isn’t one, why are we even talking about an interview, let alone a subpoena?"

********

"The question of whether a prosecutor should be permitted to interview a president hinges on whether the president is a suspect. There is no public evidence that President Trump is. This raises the patent objection that he should not be asked to be interviewed under those circumstances. What we hear in response is, “How do you know he’s not a suspect?” But the reason we don’t know — other than the lack of evidence after two years — is that Mueller won’t deign to tell us, and Rosenstein won’t deign to comply, publicly, with regulations that required him to outline the basis for a criminal investigation.

The president should direct Rosenstein to outline, publicly and in detail, the good-faith basis for a criminal investigation arising out of Russia’s interference in the election — if there is one.

That is not acceptable.
"How are we supposed to grapple with whether the president should be compelled to testify when we don’t know what Mueller is alleging? What crime does Mueller want to ask the president about? And if there isn’t one, why are we even talking about an interview, let alone a subpoena?"

********

"The question of whether a prosecutor should be permitted to interview a president hinges on whether the president is a suspect. There is no public evidence that President Trump is. This raises the patent objection that he should not be asked to be interviewed under those circumstances. What we hear in response is, “How do you know he’s not a suspect?” But the reason we don’t know — other than the lack of evidence after two years — is that Mueller won’t deign to tell us, and Rosenstein won’t deign to comply, publicly, with regulations that required him to outline the basis for a criminal investigation.

The president should direct Rosenstein to outline, publicly and in detail, the good-faith basis for a criminal investigation arising out of Russia’s interference in the election — if there is one.

That is not acceptable.

Mueller’s Trump Investigation Should Disclose Crimes Being Investigated | National Review

Ah, yes. Government should be able to make the public understand shit that's far beyond their intelligence levels.

It's not for the rednecks to increase their understanding. No, the government has to go down to their level.

That's why they elected Trump, right?

 

[MACAULAY]

How many years was the Benghazi investigation again?

______

Child-like Deflection. As a Moderator, you ought to know better. If you want to discuss Benghazi, you should start your own thread. If the Rules don't provide for that, they ought to. Shame on you. Sad!

I don't understand how you don't see that a ridiculous response like you just made defeats the purpose of the very board you are involved in promoting.

In other words, the length of an investigation before it's concluded only matters when the target is Trump who, of course, is above the law.

Thank you for the clarification

_________________________

No. Nonsense.

Try:

In other words...like a debating neophyte and blind partisan....you address an issue raised in the O.P. by going back and dredging up an irrelevance (Benghazi)....irrelevant, unless you meant it to be an example of very bad government several years ago as justifying even more very bad government today.

How Sad is that. Vengeance Politics. Is that where we are? Where will that get us?

 

[Coyote]

How many years was the Benghazi investigation again?

______

Child-like Deflection. As a Moderator, you ought to know better. If you want to discuss Benghazi, you should start your own thread. If the Rules don't provide for that, they ought to. Shame on you. Sad!

I don't understand how you don't see that a ridiculous response like you just made defeats the purpose of the very board you are involved in promoting.

In other words, the length of an investigation before it's concluded only matters when the target is Trump who, of course, is above the law.

Thank you for the clarification

_________________________

No. Nonsense.

Try:

In other words...like a debating neophyte and blind partisan....you address an issue raised in the O.P. by going back and dredging up an irrelevance (Benghazi)....irrelevant, unless you meant it to be an example of very bad government several years ago as justifying even more very bad government today.

How Sad is that. Vengeance Politics. Is that where we are? Where will that get us?

Nothing bad about the current investigation. Everyone needs to shut up and let it conclude. What are they (you) afraid of? So afraid of you have to bitch that it's taking too long even though you approved of other lengthier investigations targeting your opponents?

I'm fine with letting it conclude, and what ever it concludes I will be fine with that because I know it will have been thorough and professional.

 

[Coyote]

How many years was the Benghazi investigation again?

Benghazi was run by the House and Senate. Not the FBI. Or are they all one in the same in your mind?

Does it matter?

 

[MACAULAY]

I would like to say again, as I have said before, that I think this is a well-run board. It is the Wild Wild West, but that is o.k.. Such as is in their power to do, the Operators of this Board have done a good job of making this a good forum....and I appreciate it. Should say it more often.

The Operators, however, have no power to provide Liberal Posters who are not Morons. And so much or most of what we get from Liberals is of the same quality as you will find on the Elementary Schools Playground. SAD!

A Constitutional Crisis is developing over the Mueller Investigation. Its development ought to be discussed here. There is a world out there where intellectual discussion does occur. I submit the following article by a brilliant man---who does not like Trump one bit---one very experienced in the things Mueller is involved in---for discussion. Lets have some fun and see if we can elevate it above the playground.


"How are we supposed to grapple with whether the president should be compelled to testify when we don’t know what Mueller is alleging? What crime does Mueller want to ask the president about? And if there isn’t one, why are we even talking about an interview, let alone a subpoena?"

********

"The question of whether a prosecutor should be permitted to interview a president hinges on whether the president is a suspect. There is no public evidence that President Trump is. This raises the patent objection that he should not be asked to be interviewed under those circumstances. What we hear in response is, “How do you know he’s not a suspect?” But the reason we don’t know — other than the lack of evidence after two years — is that Mueller won’t deign to tell us, and Rosenstein won’t deign to comply, publicly, with regulations that required him to outline the basis for a criminal investigation.

The president should direct Rosenstein to outline, publicly and in detail, the good-faith basis for a criminal investigation arising out of Russia’s interference in the election — if there is one.

That is not acceptable.
"How are we supposed to grapple with whether the president should be compelled to testify when we don’t know what Mueller is alleging? What crime does Mueller want to ask the president about? And if there isn’t one, why are we even talking about an interview, let alone a subpoena?"

********

"The question of whether a prosecutor should be permitted to interview a president hinges on whether the president is a suspect. There is no public evidence that President Trump is. This raises the patent objection that he should not be asked to be interviewed under those circumstances. What we hear in response is, “How do you know he’s not a suspect?” But the reason we don’t know — other than the lack of evidence after two years — is that Mueller won’t deign to tell us, and Rosenstein won’t deign to comply, publicly, with regulations that required him to outline the basis for a criminal investigation.

The president should direct Rosenstein to outline, publicly and in detail, the good-faith basis for a criminal investigation arising out of Russia’s interference in the election — if there is one.

That is not acceptable.

Mueller’s Trump Investigation Should Disclose Crimes Being Investigated | National Review

Ah, yes. Government should be able to make the public understand shit that's far beyond their intelligence levels.

It's not for the rednecks to increase their understanding. No, the government has to go down to their level.

That's why they elected Trump, right?

_________________________

Very Interesting!

Don't let me put words in your mouth, but you seem to be indicating that people who voted for Trump are necessarily rednecks; that rednecks are too ill-informed to vote--thus should not be allowed to do so?

May I remind you that Blacks are the poorest educated group in Country---that's what Blacks say....they complain about it all the time---particularly regarding the rotting schools in Northern cities. And Blacks, being the most ill-informed part of our populace---vote Democratic 90% of the time. And the first generation Hispanics are in the same shape. These two groups form the base of the Democratic Party.

I can't figure what you point is.....one that could possibly relate to the O. P.

I can't figure what your point is in any event unless it is that you just feeling like shouting out to the world: I am a Moron.

____

 

[frigidweirdo]

I would like to say again, as I have said before, that I think this is a well-run board. It is the Wild Wild West, but that is o.k.. Such as is in their power to do, the Operators of this Board have done a good job of making this a good forum....and I appreciate it. Should say it more often.

The Operators, however, have no power to provide Liberal Posters who are not Morons. And so much or most of what we get from Liberals is of the same quality as you will find on the Elementary Schools Playground. SAD!

A Constitutional Crisis is developing over the Mueller Investigation. Its development ought to be discussed here. There is a world out there where intellectual discussion does occur. I submit the following article by a brilliant man---who does not like Trump one bit---one very experienced in the things Mueller is involved in---for discussion. Lets have some fun and see if we can elevate it above the playground.


"How are we supposed to grapple with whether the president should be compelled to testify when we don’t know what Mueller is alleging? What crime does Mueller want to ask the president about? And if there isn’t one, why are we even talking about an interview, let alone a subpoena?"

********

"The question of whether a prosecutor should be permitted to interview a president hinges on whether the president is a suspect. There is no public evidence that President Trump is. This raises the patent objection that he should not be asked to be interviewed under those circumstances. What we hear in response is, “How do you know he’s not a suspect?” But the reason we don’t know — other than the lack of evidence after two years — is that Mueller won’t deign to tell us, and Rosenstein won’t deign to comply, publicly, with regulations that required him to outline the basis for a criminal investigation.

The president should direct Rosenstein to outline, publicly and in detail, the good-faith basis for a criminal investigation arising out of Russia’s interference in the election — if there is one.

That is not acceptable.
"How are we supposed to grapple with whether the president should be compelled to testify when we don’t know what Mueller is alleging? What crime does Mueller want to ask the president about? And if there isn’t one, why are we even talking about an interview, let alone a subpoena?"

********

"The question of whether a prosecutor should be permitted to interview a president hinges on whether the president is a suspect. There is no public evidence that President Trump is. This raises the patent objection that he should not be asked to be interviewed under those circumstances. What we hear in response is, “How do you know he’s not a suspect?” But the reason we don’t know — other than the lack of evidence after two years — is that Mueller won’t deign to tell us, and Rosenstein won’t deign to comply, publicly, with regulations that required him to outline the basis for a criminal investigation.

The president should direct Rosenstein to outline, publicly and in detail, the good-faith basis for a criminal investigation arising out of Russia’s interference in the election — if there is one.

That is not acceptable.

Mueller’s Trump Investigation Should Disclose Crimes Being Investigated | National Review

Ah, yes. Government should be able to make the public understand shit that's far beyond their intelligence levels.

It's not for the rednecks to increase their understanding. No, the government has to go down to their level.

That's why they elected Trump, right?

_________________________

Very Interesting!

Don't let me put words in your mouth, but you seem to be indicating that people who voted for Trump are necessarily rednecks; that rednecks are too ill-informed to vote--thus should not be allowed to do so?

May I remind you that Blacks are the poorest educated group in Country---that's what Blacks say....they complain about it all the time---particularly regarding the rotting schools in Northern cities. And Blacks, being the most ill-informed part of our populace---vote Democratic 90% of the time. And the first generation Hispanics are in the same shape. These two groups form the base of the Democratic Party.

I can't figure what you point is.....one that could possibly relate to the O. P.

I can't figure what your point is in any event unless it is that you just feeling like shouting out to the world: I am a Moron.

____

No, you've got it the other way around.

People who are rednecks, voted for Trump.

I'm sure some intelligent people voted for Trump. But a lot of muppets voted for him too. Also, just in case you decide to try and other tactic, I know not very intelligent people voted for Hillary too.