Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She actually has plenty of credibility. If she didn't, FOX and its henchmen, as well as the other right-wing loons in the media, wouldn't be so threatened by her.
Maddow is a warmonger. A cheerleader for Obama's drone war, silent on Trump's escalation of that drone war, and a de facto cheerleader for Trump's illegal bombing of Syria.
Let's evaluate the issues and keep the personalities out of it.
Just a word of advice.
If Maddow had given an argument pointing out the legal actions available to Mueller, then criticizing that argument by making fun of her past accomplishments would count as an appeal to accomplishment fallacy (or an ad hominem fallacy).
However there needs to be a proper argument involved, with sound premises or evidence to support her conclusion.
Maddow's tweet (below) is just an opinion and the NBC article she links to doesn't cite sources. Here, your friend is right to point out that she isn't qualified to act as an authority on legal matters. That type of criticism is valid in this case.
Not to diss Rachel but I could come up with that list---
People who believe Trump is obstructing justice every day he is in office have been talking about those same items since they have appeared in the news---
My understanding of the legal definition of obstruction is there has to be proof of INTENT on the part of the person who is presumed to be obstructing justice
The proof is in the pudding--
What proof would Mueller have that Trump did those things with a willing desire to deter/prevent/submarine the investigation into the Russian hacking/threat to the 2016 election...
And there has been no leak about any of that
We don't know what Mueller has in the way of conversations between Trump and any intimates
We have minimal info about comments his intimates have made to other people--
Like Hope Hicks's comment about Trump's interference not coming to light
Or perhaps some email communications regarding the Trump Tower meeting from outside sources-like other Intel agencies...
I don't believe Rachael came up with the list. I think it's Mueller's list.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,624 posts, read 12,543,921 times
Reputation: 10485
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrganicSmallHome
She actually has plenty of credibility. If she didn't, FOX and its henchmen, as well as the other right-wing loons in the media, wouldn't be so threatened by her.
No one is threatened by her.
If anyone feels threatened it's mueller, comey, mccabe, etc.
Perfect timing on that first part of the IG report, eh, coming out the same day as the comey book.
And, quietly chugging along in the background is the investigation of the info that Campbell had given. It's no surprise that mueller had suppressed what Campbell knew and the evidence he had. Tsk, tsk, he didn't let the committee (on foreign investment) in on that little secret. hillary made $147 million off of that deal, I wonder how much mueller made from it.
That's why from the very first OP post this thread could not be taken seriously. You cannot find a more slanted biased person on TV than Maddow. She's not a journalist, she's a far left progressive commentator.
Op might have well just said "Michelle Obama thinks Turmp..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
I tuned you out when you started with Maddow as a source of speculation. She is a clueless ideologically driven leftist kook who has been shown to be wrong so many times, she has no credibility.
If Rachael Maddow's assessment is accurate, Mueller has determined there are at least four points that show the president obstructing justice. And Mueller may present these to Congress within a few days.
1. Do you think the President will be impeached?
2. Do you think the President will be indicted?
3. In either case, what happens then?
4. Will the President fire Mueller?
1. No, unless Dem's take over Congress and they try, but they would be foolish to. There is nothing to impeach him for.
2. Indicted for what? What's the crime? A sitting President cannot be indicted, according to the Office of Legal Counsel of the DOJ. This has been established many years ago.
3. If the Dem's try to impeach President Trump, they will be paying for it for many years.
4. I wish the President would fire Mueller, and he has every right to, and he has the authority. However, I realize their would be political fallout, justified or not. Mueller is a "dirty cop." He has a reputation of ethics violations. He was responsible for the conviction of four innocent men in Boston for a murder they didn't commit because he withheld exculpatory evidence. Their convictions were overturned years later, but not before two had already died in prison. Mueller is a scum bag.
Jeff Sessions should fire Mueller and Rosenstein, right before he resigns.
If Rachael Maddow's assessment is accurate, Mueller has determined there are at least four points that show the president obstructing justice. And Mueller may present these to Congress within a few days.
1. Do you think the President will be impeached?
2. Do you think the President will be indicted?
3. In either case, what happens then?
4. Will the President fire Mueller?
There is no obstruction of justice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
