Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Theodarzna]

Mueller put quite a few people in jail. Not quite "falling apart".

Mueller failed to prove collusion unless of course you are acknowledging this was merely a witch hunt to find anything and the initial reason for the investigation doesn't matter.

- - - Updated - - -

It's amusing to see people take barr, someone who was involved in the iran-contra cover up who also wrote before he became ag that the investigation was illegal, without a grain of salt. Your bullshit is just that, bullshit. Your ignorance is just that, ignorance. Your psuedointellectualism is just that. Grow up.

Ah, suddenly the people of this thread are mistrustful of Government officials and their word. Where was this skepticism a month or two ago for the man who lied us into the Iraq War but became this threads hope and savior?

How interesting that you guys suddenly now can recall that possibility when it was unthinkable before the Mueller report fizzled.

- - - Updated - - -

The easiest ways would be if it were found that Trump encouraged someone to give false testimony to exonerate him, or destroyed evidence, or ordered evidence to be destroyed. These situations do not actually require Trump to have committed conspiracy. You do in fact have to "play nice" with investigations, even if you are innocent.

Obviously it becomes more difficult to imagine situations where Trump destroyed evidence or encouraged false testimony if he did not actually commit an underlying serious crime like conspiracy. It could certainly have happened, though, things like that happen all the time in criminal investigations. Note also that the investigation did not find that Trump was innocent of anything so you do not necessarily have to consider only scenarios where Trump is innocent of all underlying charges.

I personally doubted from the start that Trump was going to be found guilty of anything serious but that does not preclude obstruction.

Trump is innocent of collusion with Russia, so this threads 10k or so pages of hyperbolic madness about a Putin coup becomes rather amusing.

[Machismo]

Mueller failed to prove collusion unless of course you are acknowledging this was merely a witch hunt to find anything and the initial reason for the investigation doesn't matter.

- - - Updated - - -



Ah, suddenly the people of this thread are mistrustful of Government officials and their word. Where was this skepticism a month or two ago for the man who lied us into the Iraq War but became this threads hope and savior?

How interesting that you guys suddenly now can recall that possibility when it was unthinkable before the Mueller report fizzled.

- - - Updated - - -



Trump is innocent of collusion with Russia, so this threads 10k or so pages of hyperbolic madness about a Putin coup becomes rather amusing.

It's nice to know you think Hillary is also innocent. I guess all those threads you made against her are making you feel really embarrassed right about now.

[Bodakane]

Mueller failed to prove collusion unless of course you are acknowledging this was merely a witch hunt to find anything and the initial reason for the investigation doesn't matter.

- - - Updated - - -



Ah, suddenly the people of this thread are mistrustful of Government officials and their word. Where was this skepticism a month or two ago for the man who lied us into the Iraq War but became this threads hope and savior?

How interesting that you guys suddenly now can recall that possibility when it was unthinkable before the Mueller report fizzled.

- - - Updated - - -



Trump is innocent of collusion with Russia, so this threads 10k or so pages of hyperbolic madness about a Putin coup becomes rather amusing.

Quote the page and paragraph from the report that specifically lays out the "no collusion", please and thank you.

[Ripster42]

Ah, suddenly the people of this thread are mistrustful of Government officials and their word. Where was this skepticism a month or two ago for the man who lied us into the Iraq War but became this threads hope and savior?

How interesting that you guys suddenly now can recall that possibility when it was unthinkable before the Mueller report fizzled.

The same place it is now? I never thought barr was a good ag choice. I still think mueller is following DoJ policy and the law. Intersting how you keep stating falsehoods in some effort to sound smart. Like I said, your bullshit is just that, bullshit; your ignorance is just that, ignorance. You're a joke, and deserve to be told so by everyone you come into contact with.

[Breccia]

This opinion piece, written by someone who worked in government oversight for a generation and uncovered an FBI evidence-rigging scandal, suggests the next move.

First, he suggests that Barr, like Nunes, is likely to cherry-pick data for his summary to intentionally give the wrong impression. This will put Barr on the record, of course.

Second, he says respond to that by immediately having Mueller testify about any missing info, basically to prove the summary is one-sides. If Mueller (and any other related witnesses) catch Barr intentionally misrepresenting the reports, it defeats the purpose of Barr's summary and quite frankly the appointment of Barr itself. Barr would have to either release the full report -- which, if Trump was 100% innocent, he should have done anyhow -- or, by withholding it, basically proves his summary is false and does more damage than he prevents.

[Shalcker]

Second, he says respond to that by immediately having Mueller testify about any missing info, basically to prove the summary is one-sides. If Mueller (and any other related witnesses) catch Barr intentionally misrepresenting the reports, it defeats the purpose of Barr's summary and quite frankly the appointment of Barr itself. Barr would have to either release the full report -- which, if Trump was 100% innocent, he should have done anyhow -- or, by withholding it, basically proves his summary is false and does more damage than he prevents.

And if Mueller says that Barr's summary is true?

[Rysthruun]

This opinion piece, written by someone who worked in government oversight for a generation and uncovered an FBI evidence-rigging scandal, suggests the next move.

First, he suggests that Barr, like Nunes, is likely to cherry-pick data for his summary to intentionally give the wrong impression. This will put Barr on the record, of course.

Second, he says respond to that by immediately having Mueller testify about any missing info, basically to prove the summary is one-sides. If Mueller (and any other related witnesses) catch Barr intentionally misrepresenting the reports, it defeats the purpose of Barr's summary and quite frankly the appointment of Barr itself. Barr would have to either release the full report -- which, if Trump was 100% innocent, he should have done anyhow -- or, by withholding it, basically proves his summary is false and does more damage than he prevents.

It's against the law to release info pertaining to a grand jury. If I'm not mistaken, this change of rules/law happened after the impeachment of William Clinton because of the "salacious" content contained within. Needless to say, this started out as a counter intelligence investigation so their has to be redactions in regards to sources/methods/etc. Grand Jury information needs to be protected to, the last thing I would want to see is Antifa and digital lynching squads going after them.

I also think the posturing of democrats in demanding the report by the end of today is extremely arrogant and like this entire situation, will come back to bite us. Their is zero percent chance that a subpoena will be executed on these grounds and a federal judge will not squash it. Even in the remote possibility that it does happen, it would be against the law for Barr to discuss grand jury information.

I also think it's bizarre that people are going all in, again, that their will be some iota of evidence that incriminates Trump that "Mueller overlooked". The SC had a dream team of career prosecutors, almost all of whom who are democrats themselves. I have a hard time stomaching that Andrew Weissman, of all people, would be biting his tongue or sitting on some sort of evidence that didn't reach the light of day. That guy is a boss.


All and all, I feel thoroughly embarrassed at the state of my party and not since the election have I felt this sort of hopelessness. Their is a huge disconnect between the behavior and values the democratic party is supposed to have and how they have conducted themselves.

[Ripster42]

It's against the law to release info pertaining to a grand jury. If I'm not mistaken, this change of rules/law happened after the impeachment of William Clinton because of the "salacious" content contained within. Needless to say, this started out as a counter intelligence investigation so their has to be redactions in regards to sources/methods/etc. Grand Jury information needs to be protected to, the last thing I would want to see is Antifa and digital lynching squads going after them.

I also think the posturing of democrats in demanding the report by the end of today is extremely arrogant and like this entire situation, will come back to bite us. Their is zero percent chance that a subpoena will be executed on these grounds and a federal judge will not squash it. Even in the remote possibility that it does happen, it would be against the law for Barr to discuss grand jury information.

I also think it's bizarre that people are going all in, again, that their will be some iota of evidence that incriminates Trump that "Mueller overlooked". The SC had a dream team of career prosecutors, almost all of whom who are democrats themselves. I have a hard time stomaching that Andrew Weissman, of all people, would be biting his tongue or sitting on some sort of evidence that didn't reach the light of day. That guy is a boss.


All and all, I feel thoroughly embarrassed at the state of my party and not since the election have I felt this sort of hopelessness. Their is a huge disconnect between the behavior and values the democratic party is supposed to have and how they have conducted themselves.

Again, a judge can release grand jury proceedings if they deem it to be in the public interest. Someone just has to ask them. Also, it's against the law to release that info to the public, not congress. There doesn't have to be redactions with regards to sources/methods, if the judge deems the value to the public of seeing that info supercedes those concerns. Again, someone just has to bring it to court.

This isn't about mueller overlooking anything. It's about looking at the evidence mueller has, and not just a GOP hack's summery of it.

No one believes that you're a democrat. Next you're going to be starting a #walkaway thread.

[Deletedaccount1]

Imagine talking about this non-issue in April of 2019.

[Dystemper]

Imagine talking about this non-issue in April of 2019.

The more the left keeps this up, the more votes Trump gets

[Arvei]

The more the left keeps this up, the more votes Trump gets

That sure worked out well in the mid-terms eh?

[Elegiac]

The more the left keeps this up, the more votes Trump gets

Which is exactly why the Republican Party still controls the House.

Oh. Wait.

[Flarelaine]

Imagine talking about this non-issue in April of 2019.

It's like talking about the next Avengers movie. We've seen the trailers, now we're hyped for the full release.

[Rysthruun]

Again, a judge can release grand jury proceedings if they deem it to be in the public interest. Someone just has to ask them. Also, it's against the law to release that info to the public, not congress. There doesn't have to be redactions with regards to sources/methods, if the judge deems the value to the public of seeing that info supercedes those concerns. Again, someone just has to bring it to court.

This isn't about mueller overlooking anything. It's about looking at the evidence mueller has, and not just a GOP hack's summery of it.

No one believes that you're a democrat. Next you're going to be starting a #walkaway thread.

I don't believe any judge, no matter what the public interest may be, is going to release information that reveals sources/methods or that could potentially compromise ongoing investigations, or criminal trials. After all the legal avenues have concluded, yes. Definitely not by the end of today.

I don't get what 'evidence' people think Muller would have? Their wasn't even enough evidence to cross the threshold of conspiracy, express or tacit. Why would career democratic prosecutors remain silent or not continue to leak information to create urgency? Why would Mueller sit on his hands? Why would his staff let him?

Lets say it all does get released, what then? No criminal charges were brought by the SC. Is the house going to roll impeachment articles only for it to get shot down in flames in trial?

It's not going to look horrible, it is going to be horrible if their is no evidence. Everything Trump has said about this being a witch hunt, will be right. I can't imagine a worse possible outcome especially leading up to the 2020 election.

Why would I care what anyone, especially some rando on a gaming forum, believes about my political ideology? Is their some sort of initiation ritual I missed? Or are you the grand inquisitor of peoples beliefs and values?

[Adam Jensen]

You wanted your President to be a crook?

This is what's wrong with the country, people just want to score points for their team, they don't care about right or wrong. This is why when shootings happen people drool to see who the shooter was to try to score some fake political argument.

The assholes who voted him wanted the president to be crook. He was a crook before the election.

The rest of us want him to face justice.

[cubby]

I don't believe any judge, no matter what the public interest may be, is going to release information that reveals sources/methods or that could potentially compromise ongoing investigations, or criminal trials. After all the legal avenues have concluded, yes. Definitely not by the end of today.

I don't get what 'evidence' people think Muller would have? Their wasn't even enough evidence to cross the threshold of conspiracy, express or tacit. Why would career democratic prosecutors remain silent or not continue to leak information to create urgency? Why would Mueller sit on his hands? Why would his staff let him?

Lets say it all does get released, what then? No criminal charges were brought by the SC. Is the house going to roll impeachment articles only for it to get shot down in flames in trial?

It's not going to look horrible, it is going to be horrible if their is no evidence. Everything Trump has said about this being a witch hunt, will be right. I can't imagine a worse possible outcome especially leading up to the 2020 election.

Why would I care what anyone, especially some rando on a gaming forum, believes about my political ideology? Is their some sort of initiation ritual I missed? Or are you the grand inquisitor of peoples beliefs and values?

The point you're missing is that we, the people, don't know - still. We just want to know what the report said. And having a fully biased partisan cover-man (i.e. Barr) "summarize" it does nothing to alleviate those concerns.

Why don't you want to see what it said? You paid for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Mueller failed to prove collusion unless of course you are acknowledging this was merely a witch hunt to find anything and the initial reason for the investigation doesn't matter.

I love that you are still banging this ignorant drum. Or do crimes coming out of an investigation not matter to you? Should we just ignore those unless they fall into the original scope?

[Dystemper]

Which is exactly why the Republican Party still controls the House.

Oh. Wait.

But gained in the Senate. And the Dems picked Pelosi as speaker. But keep clinging to that as the Dems nominate Biden and Trump wins again. The Dems are a mess right now.

[Grapemask]

The more the left keeps this up, the more votes Trump gets

I know this is bait, but pretty much every data point out there shows that it's not just the left talking about this. Independents are talking about it. Because it turns out Trump doesn't have any independents. There are no fence sitters this election cycle, and his only hope of doing well is that Democrats put up their own Donald Trump.

[cubby]

Trump is innocent of collusion with Russia, so this threads 10k or so pages of hyperbolic madness about a Putin coup becomes rather amusing.

But his campaign wasn't. His children weren't. I love that you think the entire investigation is black and white. Gray? Nope - all or nothing with you adorables. Trump is guilty of many crimes, objectively, along with several of his key staff. When you catch up to reality we'll be here laughing at you. As always.

[Dystemper]

But his campaign wasn't. His children weren't. I love that you think the entire investigation is black and white. Gray? Nope - all or nothing with you adorables. Trump is guilty of many crimes, objectively, along with several of his key staff. When you catch up to reality we'll be here laughing at you. As always.

Looking more and more likely that I a a and his administration are going to be investigated along with Clinton campaign. Comey is nervous. I mean you keep holding on to this for over 2 years. Meanwhile the rest of the country thinks the left has collectively lost Thier shit and more Dems start distancing themselves.