Trump accuses Mueller report participants of treason

[Gadion]

Trying might cost Democrats election though.

And what would it actually achieve? Add another notch in public knowledge that system is corrupt, and elect another "wrecker" of corrupt DC? (just as Trump claimed to be in his election speeches, with "drain the swamp" and all)

Drive society further apart between Democrats and Republicans?

How might failing cost them the next election? The public isn't a scripted entity rigidly following logical streams. Trying might also succeed. Then maybe they can get someone in that might actually have the interests of their people at heart. Right now, there's a suspected criminal. Are people really ready to let go of all their morals for fear of failure? You're also saying they're already spread so far apart that there's little that can be done to shrink the political divide.

[Shalcker]

How might failing cost them the next election? The public isn't a scripted entity rigidly following logical streams. Trying might also succeed.

There doesn't seem to be a pathway to impeachment success right now. A lot of things would have to change first before Republicans would came around to idea of impeaching one that consistently polls at 90% for their party supporters, and Democrats cannot take Senate until next elections to push it alone (even in they would manage to do it, which isn't obvious).

Then maybe they can get someone in that might actually have the interests of their people at heart. Right now, there's a suspected criminal. Are people really ready to let go of all their morals for fear of failure? You're also saying they're already spread so far apart that there's little that can be done to shrink the political divide.

Impeaching him is setting up vicious circle of suspicion being sufficient to oust president without proving any wrongdoings. One that Republicans are certain to use against next Democrat president. Terrible precedent to set up.

After all, Trump is still not proven to be criminal, and a lot of "suspicion" is just a show.

[Omega10]

There doesn't seem to be a pathway to impeachment success right now. A lot of things would have to change first before Republicans would came around to idea of impeaching one that consistently polls at 90% for their party supporters, and Democrats cannot take Senate until next elections to push it alone (even in they would manage to do it, which isn't obvious).

Impeaching him is setting up vicious circle of suspicion being sufficient to oust president without proving any wrongdoings. One that Republicans are certain to use against next Democrat president. Terrible precedent to set up.

After all, Trump is still not proven to be criminal, and a lot of "suspicion" is just a show.

Republicans already did that to President Clinton and to President Obama, as well as to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Republicans have a proven history of endlessly investigating any democratic administration, and will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this impeachment.

This post of yours makes the case better than anything I have ever read as to why democrats absolutely HAVE to go for impeachment. I was a bit wishy washy about it before reading your post. But you summed up why democrats absolutely positively have to go down that path. Thank you. You made a real difference.

As you said, there is a lot of suspicion and evidence indicating that Trump actually IS a criminal. That is what investigations are about - to determine if he is a criminal or not. There is definitely enough evidence to investigate - a LOT more than what republicans had when they investigated previous democratic administrations.

[Mormolyce]

I see how they live in North Korea and I don't want that shit.

North Korea is an authoritarian state, it's debateable if you can even call it Communist. Regardless, it'd be just as horrible a hellhole if Dear Leader made it "capitalist" instead of "communist" - the problem is that there's a brutal dictator running the show and a completely corrupt system.

You should be very concerned about corruption of public officials and authoritarian streaks in your leaders if you don't like North Korea.

- - - Updated - - -

That sounds like an excuse when you guys regularly say he is hated by his own party. Shouldn't be too hard to get people to flip on him since he is indeed hated.

That's not a matter of debate, we know that a lot of the establishment Republicans hated him. They're the ones who started the Steele dossier during the primaries. Remember all the shit other Republican senators said about him publicly before during AND after the primaries? Remember McCarthy saying to Paul Ryan (unaware he was being recorded) he thinks Putin pays two people in Washington - Rohrabacher and Trump?

But once he won the election, they all shut their mouths and became good little drones. Except for McCain, who was dying, and a few others like Flake who knew the writing was on the wall for them anyway. They're spineless - they know that if they badmouth Trump they alienate the racists in their base and they know they won't win an election without them. Furthermore, Trump and his faction can run a primary challenge against them and replace them with another crony. They don't have the balls.

And of course, some of them are straight up dirty like McConnell and Sessions.

So no, they won't grow a pair in the forseeable future unless the political landscape changes.

But hey, it might:

GOP primary challenger: Trump is a 'one-man crime wave'

President Trump's first GOP primary challenger, former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, is calling the president a "one-man crime wave" a day after the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russia's election meddling.

Mueller's redacted report, which was released Thursday, found no conspiracy between Trump's 2016 campaign and Moscow, but listed several "episodes" of possible obstruction of justice, including Trump ordering subordinates to shutdown or stymie the special counsel's office.

“This man is a one-man crime wave,” Weld said in an interview with MSNBC that aired Friday. “He instructed senior legal officials, senior national security, senior intelligence officials to lie, he actively sought out and suborned perjury. That is obstruction of justice."

Weld described the president's behavior as "criminal conduct and impeachable conduct," but later clarified that he was not calling for the House to impeach Trump.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...man-crime-wave

Depends how likely they think it is Trump will lose re-election.

- - - Updated - - -

Trying might cost Democrats election though.

Dream on LOL.

They're rather cynically weighing up the political benefit of an impeachment vs. simply letting Trump run again, that's literally how weak a candidate they think he is.

Can you imagine? A President so unpopular his enemies would rather go to an election with him again than impeach him.

- - - Updated - - -

shalker has successfully derailed the thread, please ignore them.

Well it is his job after all. Literally.

[pathora44]

Well it is his job after all. Literally.

One more turnip so he will not starve tonight.

[rda]

That was an example of a literal contradiction of a word you used. The report has literally hundreds of pages detailing the extensive coordinated cyber attacks.

You're wrong.

I read through those pages and the scale of the cyber attacks was not big (they do much larger attacks all the time), their nature was meek (they can do - and did - far more dangerous things than what was in the report), and consequently their impact was low and they were inefficient (basically just some noises here and there which are enough to say that there were attacks, but no measurable impact - and it looks like the attackers didn't try for much, they just wanted to do some noise).

Your whole argument that the cyber-attacks are not "low impact / low scale / inefficient / etc" is based on you not knowing the subject area and consequently not being able to assess that based on what is said in the report, as well as on you going for an overeager misinterpretation of a single opening sentence that starts voluminous talks about the attacks. Mueller has every right to use "sweeping" because he investigates how wide the actions were *from the point of view of potential prosecution". He sees multiple different actions in roughly the same direction from multiple agents and he says "hey, guys, this is serious, this is not just one random agent randomly attacking, they are working in concert". But the scale and impact *from the point of view of the elections and from the point of view of how big and involved modern cyber-attacks are in general* are a different matter completely. And they are small.

---
Added: if you want to see high-scale / high-impact cyber attacks, look into Russian attacks onto the Ukrainian infrastructure in 2018.

[VanishingAct]

Of course its treason. They knew it was all lies they fabricated. Leaked texts and the nunes memo showed that the spying was malicious. People like Adam Schiff saying they have direct evidence and all the rest.
Its treason, its the literal definition of treason and its punishable by execution. So the question is, should Trump pursue it and will he pursue it? Well millions of dollars spent on overhauling witness protection, over 60,000 sealed indictments and Assange's soon to be extradition says yes it can very well happen and it should. Because the same treasonous people demanded the same treatment to Trump under lies and false pretense.

[Dontrike]

Of course its treason. They knew it was all lies they fabricated. Leaked texts and the nunes memo showed that the spying was malicious. People like Adam Schiff saying they have direct evidence and all the rest.
Its treason, its the literal definition of treason and its punishable by execution. So the question is, should Trump pursue it and will he pursue it? Well millions of dollars spent on overhauling witness protection, over 60,000 sealed indictments and Assange's soon to be extradition says yes it can very well happen and it should. Because the same treasonous people demanded the same treatment to Trump under lies and false pretense.

So you are in favor of the president killing those against him. I'm sure that's a reasonable response.

[Raqubor]

So you are in favor of the president killing those against him. I'm sure that's a reasonable response.

No.

Killing those who try to sabotage him through false claims > Yes. You need to start somewhere to show stirring the witch's cauldron will burn you.

Infracted

[VanishingAct]

So you are in favor of the president killing those against him. I'm sure that's a reasonable response.

No I said I am in favour of the law being applied.

[Mormolyce]

I read through those pages and the scale of the cyber attacks was not big (they do much larger attacks all the time), their nature was meek (they can do - and did - far more dangerous things than what was in the report), and consequently their impact was low and they were inefficient (basically just some noises here and there which are enough to say that there were attacks, but no measurable impact - and it looks like the attackers didn't try for much, they just wanted to do some noise).

Okay you're basically arguing that up is down here, so I'd say the time for reasoning with you is over.

- - - Updated - - -

No.

Killing those who try to sabotage him through false claims > Yes. You need to start somewhere to show stirring the witch's cauldron will burn you.

So Trump is the witch in this analogy?

LOL.

Really not doing a good job of hiding the old authoritarian jackboot streak there.

[rda]

Okay you're basically arguing that up is down here, so I'd say the time for reasoning with you is over.

You are avoiding the discussion pretending that you made valid points and I didn't answer, but all you had was a single point which was an overeager misinterpretation of a single sentence and I did answer, twice. You try hiding behind "the time for reasoning with you is over" and plain detail-less "you are wrong" because you have no experience in the area and no real ground to stand on, that's it.

Basically, you are just putting your hand into the sand and yelling "na na na na I don't hear you". I mean, whatever, but I am not sure what's the use of that.

[Mormolyce]

You are avoiding the discussion pretending that you made valid points and I didn't answer

I don't know what more to say to you, your posts are blatantly in contradiction with the Mueller report which has been quoted to you multiple times.

All I could do is quote it to you yet again. You're wrong.

[rda]

I don't know what more to say to you, your posts are blatantly in contradiction with the Mueller report which has been quoted to you multiple times.

All I could do is quote it to you yet again. You're wrong.

For the last time, they are not. You think they are in contradiction with the Mueller's report (meaning a single sentence here, but whatever, exaggerations are nothing new) because you don't know what Mueller's report is actually saying in that sentence you are citing. Because you have no experience in the area and because you are ignoring my posts which explain to you what the context is and what Mueller is saying.

You are like a baby who says "my teacher said that 2+2 is a big number, so it cannot be 4, because 4 is not too big". The baby is wrong because he is making assumptions without seeing it, and these assumptions turn out to be wrong. It's the same with you, you are making assumptions about what Mueller's words mean based on I don't know what, these assumptions are wrong, but you refuse to see it despite me pointing out where specifically they are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not surprised that you don't know what more to say to me. Of course, you don't. You just don't have much knowledge in the subject area. I am just puzzled at why you act like you are right while you don't know what more to say to me save for a single misinterpreted sentence.

[Grapemask]

No.

Killing those who try to sabotage him through false claims > Yes. You need to start somewhere to show stirring the witch's cauldron will burn you.

Ignoring that this is pure crazy town, the only claim to these being false claims is that a person who is objectively a pathological liar insists that they are false.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Of course its treason. They knew it was all lies they fabricated. Leaked texts and the nunes memo showed that the spying was malicious. People like Adam Schiff saying they have direct evidence and all the rest.
Its treason, its the literal definition of treason and its punishable by execution. So the question is, should Trump pursue it and will he pursue it? Well millions of dollars spent on overhauling witness protection, over 60,000 sealed indictments and Assange's soon to be extradition says yes it can very well happen and it should. Because the same treasonous people demanded the same treatment to Trump under lies and false pretense.

This has to be a parody account, there's no way this could possibly be real.

[Dextroden]

God. I love this fantasy universe where Trump is the most hated individual in America and his party wants him gone but none of them will kick him out for far more tolerable to Republicans Mike Pence.

I mean, we have people who say he has Alzheimer's and they refuse to push for impeachment based on mental capacity to lead.

[Grapemask]

God. I love this fantasy universe where Trump is the most hated individual in America and his party wants him gone but none of them will kick him out for far more tolerable to Republicans Mike Pence.

I mean, we have people who say he has Alzheimer's and they refuse to push for impeachment based on mental capacity to lead.

You're right, that his party wants him gone is a fantasy. They may grumble sometimes about the things he says, but Trump is the best thing their party could ever wish for - he's so on board with the Fox narrative that conservatives are the next coming of christ, and that liberals are the devil, that he'll sign anything the GOP puts on his desk and oppose anything they oppose so long as they do a round on Fox about how bad it is.

[Dextroden]

You're right, that his party wants him gone is a fantasy. They may grumble sometimes about the things he says, but Trump is the best thing their party could ever wish for - he's so on board with the Fox narrative that conservatives are the next coming of christ, and that liberals are the devil, that he'll sign anything the GOP puts on his desk and oppose anything they oppose so long as they do a round on Fox about how bad it is.

So, why the posts saying his party wants him gone and his staggeringly low approval rating? Just like he can't be a moron but also a cunning treasonous dictator, he can't be loved by the party to the point of fanaticism and also despised by his party.

[Dontrike]

No.

Killing those who try to sabotage him through false claims > Yes. You need to start somewhere to show stirring the witch's cauldron will burn you.

Oh so all it takes is false claims to be killed. So then that means Trump gets that same treatment how many times for each of his lies about people?

- - - Updated - - -

No I said I am in favour of the law being applied.

And when was the last time execution was applied to treason? Go ahead and defend killing your political enemies. I'm sure this won't come back to bite you in any way.

- - - Updated - - -

God. I love this fantasy universe where Trump is the most hated individual in America and his party wants him gone but none of them will kick him out for far more tolerable to Republicans Mike Pence.

I mean, we have people who say he has Alzheimer's and they refuse to push for impeachment based on mental capacity to lead.

Because he's a useful idiot, simple as that.