Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Frusciante]

There is no legal view on this planet that isn't technically an opinion. This is evidenced by the very existence of federal courts, which interpret law. What you are arguing now is purely fallacy, because you're stating that a topic which is comprised solely of what could be classified as opinions is faulty because you have been provided an "opinion." It's like saying the hershey bar you gave me is bad because it's made of chocolate.

However, as this guy - and others, who he has linked - have shown, it's hard to come to any other conclusion from Mueller's report. I've yet to find a rightwing legal mind that has come to an opposite conclusion and bothered to post similar breakdowns. Probably because it can't be backed up without deliberately butchering Mueller's words.

The guy linked provides his reasoning for his conclusions. He's pretty strict in that he doesn't use his own interpretation of the evidence for these conclusions - he ranks the words Mueller used to describe it, and how these statements correspond to statements of evidence in the real legal world. Mueller said X "strongly supports" Y, and that's meaningful in the legal world where they don't throw words around like our president does.

You said that the report shows clear obstruction. I said show me. You give me an opinion piece. I didn't ask for someone else's opinion - I want to know where YOU find there is clear obstruction from the Mueller report. You're taking someone's word for it. I've read it...don't see it. What I did see was Mueller painting a picture of how he could be seen as obstructing and not obstructing based off of the intent sections that comes after evidence, analysis, nexus. That's why I pointed out what I did - "Case B" (Volume 2 - Page 24 I believe) states in the Intent section why that situation can be seen as not obstruction. You'd have to prove too much with a lack of evidence. So if Mueller himself offers why it can be seen as no obstruction how can you say that there is clear obstruction? It's not that easy.

[Shalcker]

*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*

What we have is Cohen, testifying under oath, that they did talk. Also Stone told Bannon he had in emails that Mueller now has. We'll see them in trial, and find out if he was "joking".

We also know from his indictment that he didn't actually talk to Assange at any point, and only received all information second-hand. Yes, he lied about it a lot to everyone around him.

He is indicted for fairly specific lies to Congress, none of which have anything to do with him talking to Assange.

[Bodakane]

You said that the report shows clear obstruction. I said show me. You give me an opinion piece. I didn't ask for someone else's opinion - I want to know where YOU find there is clear obstruction from the Mueller report. You're taking someone's word for it. I've read it...don't see it. What I did see was Mueller painting a picture of how he could be seen as obstructing and not obstructing based off of the intent sections that comes after evidence, analysis, nexus. That's why I pointed out what I did - "Case B" (Volume 2 - Page 24 I believe) states in the Intent section why that situation can be seen as not obstruction. You'd have to prove too much with a lack of evidence. So if Mueller himself offers why it can be seen as no obstruction how can you say that there is clear obstruction? It's not that easy.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/wh...t-obstruction/

Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

At some point, you people will have to stop trying to obfuscate and back bending and just accept you backed a criminal horse.

It is just completely baffling to me that all of you claim Hillary, Obama and Holder were criminals with 99% less evidence than has been shown about Trump and his co conspirators.

I don;t even know how you people fucking sleep at night.

[Arvei]

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/wh...t-obstruction/



At some point, you people will have to stop trying to obfuscate and back bending and just accept you backed a criminal horse.

It is just completely baffling to me that all of you claim Hillary, Obama and Holder were criminals with 99% less evidence than has been shown about Trump and his co conspirators.

I don;t even know how you people fucking sleep at night.

They don't have morals and/or a conscience, and they treat politics like it's a football game even at their own peril. The only way they can comfort themselves is by trying to gaslight their way out of arguments they're losing, just like what's happening in this thread.

It doesn't really matter what they try to do to comfort themselves though. Barr's little stunt has backfired, and Trump's poll numbers are circling the drain.

[Breccia]

We also know from his indictment

*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*

Here is the indictment.

It specifically says Stone told people, publicly and privately, that he talked to Organization 1, aka "WikiLeaks", and its head, that'd be Assange.

I'm linking things to help you. Please read them so you can post constructively.

[Shalcker]

*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*

Here is the indictment.

It specifically says Stone told people, publicly and privately, that he talked to Organization 1, aka "WikiLeaks", and its head, that'd be Assange.

I'm linking things to help you. Please read them so you can post constructively.

Are you reading what i'm saying? Yes, he told a lie that he talked privately with Assange.

By in or around early August 2016, STONE was claiming both publicly and privately to have communicated with Organization 1. By in or around mid-August 2016, Organization 1 made a public statement denying direct communication with STONE. Thereafter, STONE said that his communication with Organization 1 had occurred through a person STONE described as a “mutual friend,” “go-between,” and “intermediary.” STONE also continued to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign about Organization 1 and its intended future releases.

He LIED, and when CALLED OUT on it changed his tune.

STONE also corresponded with associates about contacting Organization 1 in order to obtain additional emails damaging to the Clinton Campaign.

He wouldn't NEED to if he had direct contact.

[Shadowferal]

Waters: 'We must impeach Putin's president Trump'

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) on Tuesday renewed her call for President Trump's impeachment, a day after House Democratic leadership sought to rein in efforts to remove the president.

Waters said Tuesday in a series of tweets that the House must begin impeachment proceedings against Trump by passing an resolution through the House Judiciary Committee to start the process.

"How can you know the enemy Russia is undermining our democracy & say & do nothing? If you don't care, I do," Waters tweeted Tuesday. "We must impeach Putin's president Trump!"

Waters, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, was the first elected official to call for Trump's impeachment and the highest-ranking Democrat to support launching House proceedings into the matter.

-----------------

If Pelosi tried pulling the teeth of this impeachment movement then it seems she failed.
I should think things are starting to snowball.

[Grapemask]

If Pelosi tried pulling the teeth of this impeachment movement then it seems she failed.
I should think things are starting to snowball.

My bet is that Pelosi tries to rein it in next by talking about censuring the president instead of impeaching him. Censure, the embodiment of everything the right makes fun of the left for: pouting really loudly but not actually doing a god damn thing.

[Shadowferal]

If enough noise gets made of it, Pelosi won't be able to ignore it.

Former Trump transition official calls for impeachment

J.W. Verret, a George Mason University law professor who briefly worked on President Trump's transition team, is calling for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Trump following the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report.

Verret, who worked as deputy director of economic policy for Trump's presidential transition from August to October 2016, first argued for impeachment last week, saying that there was "enough" in Mueller's report to justify it.

- - - Updated - - -

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Says Impeachment Would Be Divisive But Is Not Off the Table

[Jtbrig7390]

If enough noise gets made of it, Pelosi won't be able to ignore it.

Former Trump transition official calls for impeachment

J.W. Verret, a George Mason University law professor who briefly worked on President Trump's transition team, is calling for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Trump following the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report.

Verret, who worked as deputy director of economic policy for Trump's presidential transition from August to October 2016, first argued for impeachment last week, saying that there was "enough" in Mueller's report to justify it.

- - - Updated - - -

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Says Impeachment Would Be Divisive But Is Not Off the Table

Like you said a couple posts ago, This is starting to have a snowball effect.

If it actually goes full force anyone who votes no will be seen for what they are and lose their seat come next election.

[Shadowferal]

Nadler: Trying to block McGahn testimony would be 'obstruction'

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) responded Tuesday to reports that the White House would try to prevent former White House counsel Don McGahn from testifying before Congress even though he was subpoenaed by the panel.

The Democratic chairman maintained in a statement released Tuesday evening that the White House does not have the authority to circumvent the subpoena and that an attempt to do so would be "obstruction."

"The moment for the White House to assert some privilege to prevent this testimony from being heard has long since passed," Nadler said. "I suspect that President Trump and his attorneys know this to be true as a matter of law-and that this evening's reports, if accurate, represent one more act of obstruction by an Administration desperate to prevent the public from talking about the President's behavior."

Nadler asserted that the Judiciary Committee's subpoena "stands," adding, "I look forward to Mr. McGahn's testimony."

--------------

- - - Updated - - -

Pelosi hoisted on her own petard

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) near-term effort to tamp down talk of impeaching President Trump could have the paradoxical effect of building support for that very step.

Pelosi and Democratic leaders this week launched a series of aggressive investigations into the myriad allegations facing the president, many stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller's recently released report on Russia's 2016 election interference.

The strategy is designed, in part, to dampen the growing calls for impeachment — a move Pelosi considers premature — by assuring her troops that party leaders have no intention of letting Trump off the hook. The Catch-22 for Democratic leaders is that the more dirt the investigations uncover, the louder the impeachment drum will sound.

[PACOX]

The WH is create a case of impeachment regardless of the Mueller report if they keep ignoring/attempting to block Congressional investigations.

[Felya]

I just want to put this whole “witch hunt” under a different perspective.

Trump was demanding Obama’s birth certificate, in 2015. That’s in Obama’s second term. Trump claimed it, after Obama actually released his birth certificate. Trump also claimed he had the “real” certificate, but never produced it. Same Trump, actually offered a bounty for this real certificate. That same Trump denounced those claim he made, but still made references a year later.

I wonder why Obama never needed to stop anyone from testifying in regards to his birth certificate, while Trump... who went to the above stated length to claim Obama lied about his birth place... would go to such length? Now, I’m not saying he is guilty... I’m saying he is projecting. He knows the major damage Trump and his ilk did to Obama with their lies. Trump, believes that simply saying there is an investigation will hurt him the same way he hit Obama. The difference... Obama doesn’t need to borrow money from a German bank. Obama never went to a hostile country and talk about the condos he can build. Obama never measured economic damage caused by sanctions against Saudi Arabia, in relation to how many condos he sold to them. Obama never pulled ‘you think America is so innocent’, while defending the virtue of any leader. That’s why...

[Shadowferal]

The WH is create a case of impeachment regardless of the Mueller report if they keep ignoring/attempting to block Congressional investigations.

Trump keeps saying he's innocent, and is stuck repeating that...Had he simply ignored the fallout and went about his job, after all why is an innocent man so worried...
But no. He keeps it all firmly in the media spotlight.

[Felya]

Trump keeps saying he's innocent, and is stuck repeating that...Had he simply ignored the fallout and went about his job, after all why is an innocent man so worried...
But no. He keeps it all firmly in the media spotlight.

To be fair... what is he supposed to do? Post ‘you got me, memes’? If he just said ‘I respect the finding of this investigation’, people would think he lost his god damned mind.

[Bodakane]

[Breccia]

The WH is create a case of impeachment regardless of the Mueller report if they keep ignoring/attempting to block Congressional investigations.

Trump specifically says there is "no reason" to comply.

There is no reason to go any further, and especially in Congress where it’s very partisan — obviously very partisan

Hey remember when Trump threatened to have Clinton investigated during the debates and was met with cheers and applause, promised to be the party of Law and Order, promised to have the most transparent admin ever, etc?

Now, he's just refusing to cooperate because he says it hurts his widdle feewings.

- - - Updated - - -

Even KellyAnne Conway says "exonorate" was not the truth.

"And I say this with my zero years in law school and my current role as opioid czar," she didn't say but I'm pretending she did. "Seriously, everyone knows that prosecutors don't say 'total exonoration' and literally nobody but Trump has said so. Trump made that shit up for no reason other than to invite ridicule. What am I doing with my life? My husband hates me. SOMEONE HELP!"

- - - Updated - - -

Mnuchin refused to turn over Trump's taxes to Congress for a second time.

The first time, Munchkin said there wasn't enough time to review the request before the deadline. The second time, he just said he didn't feel like doing it.

Subpoena coming I'm sure.

[Zaydin]

Trump specifically says there is "no reason" to comply.



Hey remember when Trump threatened to have Clinton investigated during the debates and was met with cheers and applause, promised to be the party of Law and Order, promised to have the most transparent admin ever, etc?

Now, he's just refusing to cooperate because he says it hurts his widdle feewings.

For a guy who claims he has been completely exonerated and has done nothing wrong he sure is acting like a guilty man with a lot to hide.

[Gray_Matter]

Was the republican's punishment for attempting to impeach Clinton... getting to have control of the white house for the next eight years?

You are comparing apples and pears. Clinton wasn't up for re-election because he was in his second term. If he was then he would have won. His approval rating increased from before the impeachment to afterward. The reason why the GoP won the next election is because it's extremely difficult for a political party in the US to win a third presidential election in a row. Despite losing the presidential election, the Dems actually picked up a house seat which is unusual because the winning party normally picks up seats. One of the big reasons why the GoP won 2 terms after that is because of 9/11. The whole political environment is different now.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would they lose ground? Granted, the impeachment won't be successful in ousting Trump because the Reps in Congress are hypocrites and cowards. But Trump didn't win the popular vote. He is not beloved by most of the population and the Mueller proved beyond a doubt this was not a nothing burger.

An impeachment that fails because of Repubs would put nails on those Repub political coffins. All the Dems g\have to do is get people do understand the Mueller report is actually VERY damning and stop letting Trump dictate the false narrative.

There are two problems here. Firstly, impeachment is unpopular. A lot of the people that are not in favor are swing voters in purple districts. If the House Democrats in those swing districts vote to impeach then that will count against them in the next election and there is a good chance that will lose those elections. The second problem ties into this. Trump is extremely unpopular. If the Democrats come across as targeting him by trying to impeach him then he could end up more popular and win the election.

If you think that the public could be swayed to be in favor of impeachment then it would make sense to rather get the public in favor and then to act on it because doing it the other way around will lose the Democrats seats.

There is a lot of political risk with impeachment and very little potential upside. Let me turn the question around a bit. What would be the benefit in progressing with an impeachment other than making some people feel good?

[s_bushido]

There is a lot of political risk with impeachment and very little potential upside. Let me turn the question around a bit. What would be the benefit in progressing with an impeachment other than making some people feel good?

It can be argued that "making people feel good" that their institutions aren't irrevocably corrupt is a worthy goal in and of itself.