Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Paranoid Android]

I hate the talk of, 'well if the Democrats pursue this it might hurt them later".

Fuck that noise. They were elected to do a job, not to pursue reelection. Reelection should come through merit, not because you played it safe. The only thing that saved. As of now its 100% okay to run a dirty campaign as long as you win and use the office as your shield. Trump might be an idiot so it might not seem, 'worth it' to dive deep into this but what happens 20, 30, 40 years from now? When there is a competent who uses this very investigation to grab the country by the balls and take it for everything it has? Let this kind of behavior spread now because its 'not worth it' is only going to create a much bigger problem in the future. Even if the impeachment falls flat it signals to future office holders that this behavior will not be tolerated.

I mean Mueller did pass this to Congress, basically the Dems to do the right thing. Now, you can say Mueller is an upstanding guy by going by the book, yet its going to be a mess for any investigation or procedures against Trump.

I know what you are stating. This is truly a perilous time in our Democracy. The whole "can't indict a sitting President and up to Congress" should work and be the principle of our democracy. I'm a pessimist and see this just running out its last year and half.

[Mormolyce]

But cubby is right. Failing to impeach him, could backfire and make him more popular.

Well since you guys like being technical about it, he would likely be impeached quite easily. It's just that the Senate would vote not guilty in the Senate trial.

Just like Bill Clinton.

[Flower Milk]

https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/statu...36737051488256

WikiLeaks asked Russian military intelligence operatives to give them stolen DNC documents ahead of the Democratic Convention specifically to inflame tensions between Hillary and Bernie supporters. #MuellerReport

[Grapemask]

you do know that it was perfectly within his rights to fire Mueller, or anyone else for that matter? Not smart politically, but perfectly legal.

Mueller addressed this line of reasoning specifically. Within his constitutional authority does not negate obstruction.

[Orbitus]

you do know that it was perfectly within his rights to fire Mueller, or anyone else for that matter? Not smart politically, but perfectly legal.

No, actually it wasn't. Remember when Nixon did that to the guys investigating him? Remember what caused him to resign? Obstruction of justice for firing the investigators into his corrupt actions.

[PACOX]

They're reading a 448 page investigative report...

- - - Updated - - -



I mean sure, Twitter is not fit for the purpose people use it for, take #19,403.

Tell me about it. We have a president who thinks it appropriate to make official announcements on...except when they can be used against him then he's just kidding.

[Mormolyce]

you do know that it was perfectly within his rights to fire Mueller, or anyone else for that matter? Not smart politically, but perfectly legal.

It's perfectly legal for a President to grant a pardon to someone who assassinates a political rival.

Just because something isn't explicitly against the law doesn't mean it isn't blatant corruption. The US system of checks and balances is very, very weak. If you have enough of the Senate you can block pretty much any accountability for the President.

[gondrin]

Nobody has been removed based on impeachment. Although if Trump leaves his children and probably Stephen Miller do as well. The thing with doing it before the election is it puts senators in the hot seat. There are a whole ton of republican senators who already are gonna have a tough time with re-election, voting against impeachment could be a death knell. The only Democrat senator who is at risk in 2020 is Doug Jones and let's be honest, he's probably fucked either way. He only won cause he was against a child diddler, and even then only barely won.

Don't get me wrong, it most definitely can be used as a means to show the nation that Republicans are corrupt, but when has that ever stopped them from being reelected. I already pointed that out earlier that it can be used as a political piece.

The biggest thing is how the optics of this plays out. If it plays out in the favor the democrats, then yes, it will be a big win even if it loses in the senate. However, if the optics go the other way, it would mean big losses for the democrats as more republicans would turn out to vote.

I am only going by what history has shown as far as when an impeachment goes through the House but loses in the Senate.

[Orbitus]

https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/statu...36737051488256

Oh, so Wikileaks didn't just get a package delivered to them anonymously and posted the information? They specifically asked for it? Color me shocked.

[Brubear]

Talk to Mueller about it. He said it wasn't there. Is he a liar?

Here's a bunch of legal experts who are saying that's not what Mueller said. And they're far less likely to be biased than Barr, the only person we've actually heard speak on the matter that's seen the full report.

You keep saying "Mueller said" when Mueller specifically said that there is a lot of evidence of collusion and obstruction there just wasn't enough evidence to prove the intent beyond a reasonable doubt, which he attributed to the dishonesty and uncooperative behavior of the Trump campaign. To quote Jessica Levinson from Loyola University:

If we were talking about Mr. Trump, not President Trump, we’d be talking about an indictment for obstruction of justice. Today we know that Attorney General Barr put a highly positive (for Trump) gloss on the report. Today we know that Mueller found substantial wrongdoing that would plague, and perhaps end, any other presidency in American history. Today we know that perhaps the difference between a suggestion that Trump be prosecuted for obstruction of justice and a suggestion that he not be was 1) Mueller’s inability to sit down and speak with the Trump without subpoenaing him and Mueller’s decision not to subpoena Trump, and 2) actions by Trump’s staffers that may have protected the president from legal liability.

The headline of the report is helpful to Trump. The actual substance of the report is damning.

[Orbitus]

Here's a bunch of legal experts who are saying that's not what Mueller said. And they're far less likely to be biased than Barr, the only person we've actually heard speak on the matter that's seen the full report.

You keep saying "Mueller said" when Mueller specifically said that there is a lot of evidence of collusion and obstruction there just wasn't enough evidence to prove the intent beyond a reasonable doubt, which he attributed to the dishonesty and uncooperative behavior of the Trump campaign. To quote Jessica Levinson from Loyola University:

Don't worry, they will try to ignore it somehow.

[Flower Milk]

Don't get me wrong, it most definitely can be used as a means to show the nation that Republicans are corrupt, but when has that ever stopped them from being reelected. I already pointed that out earlier that it can be used as a political piece.

The biggest thing is how the optics of this plays out. If it plays out in the favor the democrats, then yes, it will be a big win even if it loses in the senate. However, if the optics go the other way, it would mean big losses for the democrats as more republicans would turn out to vote.

I am only going by what history has shown as far as when an impeachment goes through the House but loses in the Senate.

In the coming week, you are going to be proven wrong, I'm sorry. There's already mass calls for impeachment from the majority of Democrats. The hashtag is trending on Twitter. If Democrats don't start impeachment proceedings as soon as they can (which I assume is after Mueller testifies), they will completely lose the faith of the majority of their constituents. Nancy Pelosi has already put out a statement that "Congress will not be quiet".

[NED funded]

They're reading a 448 page investigative report....

Would you live stream yourself reading the 448-page report? Because this is the equivalent of that. Read the report and write an article summarizing your thoughts inas normal people do.

Lighten up dude, I'm just poking fun at how absurdly long the thread is.

[Blur4stuff]

Trump certainly deserves to be impeached. Even if this Mueller investigation hadn't existed, Trump has done more than enough to warrant removal. It's been said a million times and it's still true. There are dozens of different things that if a dem president had done them, a republican congress would have already impeached.

We don't even have to guess. Look what they did to Bill Clinton and how they performed an actual witch hunt against Hillary. Can anyone honestly say with a straight face that Trump hasn't done worse than Bill did to get impeachment proceedings?

Even though, I won't bitch if they don't immediately impeach Trump. I'd really love to know the state of all the other ongoing investigations.

[Brubear]

Don't worry, they will try to ignore it somehow.

I know, I already linked that article once with the full text included. So I'm not at all surprised that he brushed right over it.

[gondrin]

In the coming week, you are going to be proven wrong, I'm sorry. There's already mass calls for impeachment from the majority of Democrats. The hashtag is trending on Twitter. If Democrats don't start impeachment proceedings as soon as they can, they will completely lose the faith of the majority of their constituents.

Ok, and if the senate votes not guilty, then what? You cannot try him for impeachment on that same charge twice. Think of that. They get one shot at this.

I've stated things on both sides of this, how it could play out either way so there is no "right or wrong" on my part as I'm not trying to prove anything. If the democrats feel the need to do this, fine. I hope they can get the senate to go along. I really do as I want to see what is he rightfully deserves after screwing over people for decade. However, if the Senate votes the way people are predicting, that is the end of it, even if he gets reelected, and the topper is that he will get away with being the most corrupt president ever and proven not guilty at the same time.

And the worst of it is, he will repeat it time and time again.

So, I hope they succeed and the Senate actually has some moral backbone. I just have no faith in that happening due to past experiences.

[Mormolyce]

No, actually it wasn't. Remember when Nixon did that to the guys investigating him? Remember what caused him to resign? Obstruction of justice for firing the investigators into his corrupt actions.

I mean, he's kind of right, it was only the intense political heat that caused Nixon to resign (also the Democrats had both houses - even if they couldn't get a 2/3rds majority for impeachment, the upcoming elections would likely give it to them after the smoking gun tape). While despicable and clearly corrupt, it's not technically illegal, and the only remediation for a corrupt executive is impeachment which is entirely political.

If the Nixon administration had had Fox News at the time, they could've broadcast 24/7 propaganda and convinced the Republican base to support Nixon come hell or high water, he never would've been impeached for fear of not having the numbers, and Republicans to this day would remember him as a great President who defeated an unfair Democrat witch hunt. That's why Fox News was invented.

There's a straight line from Nixon to Iran Contra and Donald Trump. The US government has a major problem with holding executives responsible for blatant corruption because the remediation is political and therefore controlled by vicious partisan tribalism rather than any real accountability. It wasn't fixed after Nixon, it wasn't fixed after the Iran Contra pardons, and here is its final manifestation. Corruption in plain view, backed by a national propaganda network that convinces people that it's better to be ruled by criminals than vote for THE SCARY OTHER PARTY.

[Bodakane]

you do know that it was perfectly within his rights to fire Mueller, or anyone else for that matter? Not smart politically, but perfectly legal.

It is perfectly within a boss' rights to fire an employee. It is not perfectly within that boss' rights to fire an employee for any old reason, like refusing to have sex, being black, or, you know, obstructing justice.

[Mormolyce]

Would you live stream yourself reading the 448-page report? Because this is the equivalent of that. Read the report and write an article summarizing your thoughts inas normal people do.

Lighten up dude, its just poking fun at how absurdly long the thread is.

Lighten up? How was that a heavy comment?

I mean I agreed that Twitter is bad for this kind of thing in the same post. But that's how everyone chooses to communicate for some reason I can't fathom, and here we are.

[Flower Milk]

Ok, and if the senate votes not guilty, then what? You cannot try him for impeachment on that same charge twice. Think of that. They get one shot at this.

I've stated things on both sides of this, how it could play out either way so there is no "right or wrong" on my part as I'm not trying to prove anything. If the democrats feel the need to do this, fine. I hope they can get the senate to go along. I really do as I want to see what is he rightfully deserves after screwing over people for decade. However, if the Senate votes the way people are predicting, that is the end of it, even if he gets reelected, and the topper is that he will get away with being the most corrupt president ever and proven not guilty at the same time.

And the worst of it is, he will repeat it time and time again.

So, I hope they succeed and the Senate actually has some moral backbone. I just have no faith in that happening due to past experiences.

Then the House voted for impeachment, Democrats did their job, and Trump gets voted out in 2020. The House failing to do their job completely guarantees Democrats don't win in 2020.