I listened to Mueller's statement yesterday and, although he didn't really say anything new or revealing about what he found, I thought it very significant because of it's tone and emphasis. It confirmed my own understanding of his report.

He pretty clearly found what he believes could be indictable cases of obstruction of justice but could not do anything because of the DoJ policy of not indicting a sitting President. So he has kicked the ball over to Congress to start impeachment, if they so decide.

On collusion too he did not clear Trump but said there was insufficient evidence to indict, which is a very different statement. A broad hint was left hanging that that was not because the evidence doesn't exist but because it was kept hidden from view because of a lack of co-operation.

He was very careful, with his lawyer words, not to prejudice any future trials by making assumptions of guilt.

He said that his report spoke for itself and that he would not add anything more by making any further public statements or expanding on the background to his conclusions during Congressional hearings.

He praised the work of his team, and those in the FBI who supported them, for carrying out their work with objectivity and commitment to finding the truth. Which was a pretty clear rebuttal to the "witch hunt and angry Democrat" jibes.

His tone and parsing left little doubt that he disagreed with Barr's summary of his principal conclusions. (As this is not part of his report I suspect this is where the Congressional committees will now concentrate).

As this has already led to the calls for his immediate impeachment to significantly increase, it gives the House Democrats a real problem.

On one hand there is an imperative to ensure that any President who has seemingly committed such obstructions be made to answer for them, irrespective of any political considerations.

On the other hand there is the reality that with a GOP dominated Senate, who remain terrified of taking him on, that any immediate impeachment could end up strengthening Trump rather than weakening him, as the Senate would clear him, and he would then go into the 2020 race in a triumphant mood.

So Nancy Pelosi has the tricky job of tamping down expectations of an immediate impeachment and building such a case against him, via the various enquiries, that even a GOP dominated Senate could not ignore it.

I am beginning to suspect that Trump wants to be impeached soon, knowing he would be cleared. He would enjoy the drama and the ultimate "exoneration".

So I hope he isn't and that the House committees go on probing and gradually revealing what they can whilst Pelosi explains to everyone why this is necessary. Defeating him at the ballot box looks the best way. Justice for him can wait. Or be served up in other places.

Is this bias against Trump? You bet it is! Everyone should be biased against someone like him and determined to ensure this stain on decency is exposed and then that steps are taken to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

That would be for the Congress to determine but some kind of fit and proper person test would seem appropriate. Not to investigate policy proposals but to investigate the background of candidates to make sure that their weren't skeletons lurking that could harm the country. A compulsory examination of tax returns so that any fraudulent, or even dubious, practises get exposed. Alongside that a physical and psychological medical examination should be carried out to ensure that the candidate is fit to handle the extreme pressures. Only in extreme circumstances should these stop a candidate from standing but at least the electorate would be informed prior to voting.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Not for us to determine! It's for Congress but I suspect such things wouldn't disqualify anyone. Whether they even get revealed is another issue but I would doubt it. I would hope it's more serious issues of potential national importance, like financial impropriety, that would be looked at.

Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. Those that do won't even put themselves forward.

Keeping criminals away from the seat of power and the potential for blackmail seems to me to be a sensible precaution.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

What on earth are you even thinking?

This is very far from over. Once the FBI gets their hands on Assange and his role gets exposed then the Trump campaign's involvement will also be seen. Whether a link to Trump himself can be proved is an open question as there will doubtless be some clever lawyers arguing believable deniability. Then there are his tax returns which he is so desperate to keep hidden. If, as is suspected, they show a web of money laundering originating from Russia then even the GOP won't be able to ignore it.

So you just aren't right and others wrong! The very best you can claim is that it is not yet proven and may never be. Just as Mueller has.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Well, yes. That requirement for any actual proof is a nuisance isn’t it?

Just listen to Lindsey, back when he had a conscience, a modicum of integrity, and hadn’t utterly sold out the American people to prop up a coward who isn’t fit for the office.

[Link]

Skip to 2.42 to hear Lindsey spell out how impeachment works.

Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha.