Verified Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


AUDub last won the day on March 23

AUDub had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,332 Sterling

About AUDub

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Location
    Off the Gus Bus and on the Pearl Parade!
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,183 profile views
  1. Call her a hack if you will, but you follow up with an article that rienforces what she said. On shaky ground though the OLC policy may be, that was the framework under with Mueller was operating. He didn't lack the evidence, but under the framework on which he based his decision not to reach a judgement , he punted to Congress. Simple as that.
  2. If you read that report and can away with "nothing," I don't know what to say.
  3. Greenwald has had a bad few days. Russian interference and individuals withing Trump campaign's interaction with them is well documented in the report.
  4. Pointing out the obvious is far from arrogant.
  5. I don’t necessarily get angry with folks I disagree with (unless it’s something particularly stupid and offensive like “the Jews are responsible for 9/11 and all the world wars). Shameless intellectual dishonesty definitely raises my blood pressure though.
  6. Hardly. Lot of sound and fury, little substance. Nope. Not even close to true. You say this as you paste the most hyperpartisan screed here lol.
  7. A normal person would be ashamed. But then you wouldn't be you.
  8. Eh. Of the examples Mueller pointed out in the report, 8 were examples of obstruction of justice where Mueller concluded all three prongs of the statute were met, then four where a prong is "unclear." Trump would've been prosecuted for all eight of those but for the fact he's the president. So, hooray?
  9. Good writer. He gets a lot wrong here though. Lot of red meat and outright horse hockey. Let's focus on the part I bolded here though. Why didn't Mueller reach a conclusion on obstruction? It's right there in the report. They determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement as that is outside Mueller's power. Decades old, long-standing rule. It's a matter of procedural fairness. Removal is in the hands of Congress, and this as close to a roadmap to impeachment as we were going to get. Neither here nor there. No impeachment will successfully remove a president in this climate, though Trump's behavior certainly warrants it. You could try reading the thing and then viewing anything you post though that lense.
  10. It’s a decades old DOJ policy. The remedy is the political process of impeachment. Edit. Misread that. Congress can indeed censure the President.
  11. Given the article you posted, you would hardly know that. His Twitter is a riot right now too. The guy is a lying sack of s***. Hell, he’s a lawyer too, He doesn't even have the excuse of being ignorant about legal standard. He's just a disingenuous a**hole.
  12. Debatable, but you’ll get no argument from me on Obama’s overly cautious behavior toward Putin and Russia.
  13. Nonsense. He harbors bias. He did us a great service with Snowden and PRISM, but his general tenor about the Mueller investigation has been abhorrent. Russia’s efforts at interference and Trump’s deference to Putin are extensive and well documented, a fact he absolutely refuses to acknowledge. It’s going a lot like Assange. Initially hailed as an internet hero acting on some great moral principles; later discovered to be driven by a blind hatred for the United States government; willing to do anything to undermine the US.
  14. Remember what Biden said? Obama wanted to go public with a rebuke on interference. McConnell, in no uncertain terms ("You're trying to screw the Republican nominee."), cried foul. Obama put hard sanctions on Russia in response to the interference. Sanctions that Trump and the GOP have since removed. Obama should have nutted up and gone public unilaterally.