At least one of the biggest national emergencies. I am especially concerned about our warmongering, particularly when it involves bipartisanship.

You know, people like to say that, BUT it's technically not true.
While it is DoJ's "policy" not to indict a sitting president, there is no law
anywhere that says a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.

"The U.S. Constitution explains how a president can be removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors” by Congress using the impeachment process. But the Constitution is silent on whether a president can face criminal prosecution in court, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question." -- Reuters

@KKGator That's true. But Mueller, being who he is, and working for who he's working for, knew there was no way he could make that determination. Had Barr thought Mueller was going any other way, he'd fire Mueller on the spot.

Just like the House trying to impeach Trump. It's what they should do, but they know he'll never be ousted by a Republican Senate, no matter what.

Makes me think Trump needs to be charged in court for his crimes. What court? I don't know. It's probably the only hope of anything happening to this criminal before 2021.

@david75090 I'm down with pitchforks and torches. Among other things.

@KKGator

A ride in a tumbrel, even if just around the block a few times, as long as it passes rotted fruit and vegetable stands.

I noticed the source, but didn't think they needed to be dismissed on those grounds alone. The questions were something I'd like answers to as well.

@WilliamCharles They werent. I read first, then looked at source after having read it, bothered by the things pointed out above. The questions were written so that outcome was already assumed and were not written to get at any truth.

@t1nick

I thought a line of questioning is meant to establish points in a manner that goes beyond assumptions. It would seem to me that getting the answers to these would prompt further action with regard to impeachment of Trump. It would also go a long way towards understanding Mueller's reasoning for the terms he couched his findings in. I find that helpful approach. It's anyone's guess what the actual approach of Congress will be.

@WilliamCharles I am a researcher. The point is to ask poignant, yet unbiased question so that the answers given are not intentionally driven in a paticular direction. If the person is guilty or the facts take the the answers on a given direction, its not the questionnaire or the questioners doing, but the respondent. The questions were stated such that the respondent was always guilty or answering in a way that biased the only responses they could give. Sort of like a perjury trap. It was an unfair line of questioning ad inadmissible as such. Called leading the witness.

@WilliamCharles I'm no Trump fan and would love to see him and his family jailed for the rest of their unnatural lives. But the questioning needs to be correct to avoid them using a technicality to get off.

@t1nick

Maybe you'd be willing to reword one of the questions to provide an example. The perjury trap reference also throws me a bit as it still involves knowingly lying, does it not?

@WilliamCharles That was my point regarding the way the questions were worded.

@WilliamCharles If I can find a break I'll try.

Let's hope Congress proceeds accordingly.

Thanks. I like your analysis.

@WilliamCharles I read the report...