Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Grapemask]

You seem to have a problem with reading.
Mueller couldn't indict a sitting President and all the former fed prosecutors are saying that if Trump was not president he would totally be charged based on the information in the report.

There is no contradiction there.

It could be actual illiteracy. He's been reminded of all of these points at least two dozen times. He's been quoted specific parts that contradict him 5 times. But here he is, still trolling with the same spam.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

It could be actual illiteracy. He's been reminded of all of these points at least two dozen times. He's been quoted specific parts that contradict him 5 times. But here he is, still trolling with the same spam.

When does Soro sends us our paychecks? I keep calling him but that mofo keeps making excuses.

[Elegiac]

When does Soro sends us our paychecks? I keep calling him but that mofo keeps making excuses.

Yeah we ain’t carrying water for the international liberal conspiracy for free you know.

[Edge-]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/u...struction.html

White House officials asked at least twice in the past month for the key witness against President Trump in the Mueller report, Donald F. McGahn II, to say publicly that he never believed the president obstructed justice, according to two people briefed on the requests.

Mr. McGahn, who was the president’s first White House counsel, declined, one of the people said. His reluctance angered Mr. Trump, who believed that Mr. McGahn showed disloyalty by telling investigators for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, about Mr. Trump’s attempts to maintain control over the Russia investigation.

The White House made one of the requests to Mr. McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck, before the Mueller report was released publicly but after the Justice Department gave a copy to Mr. Trump’s lawyers to read. Reading the report, the president’s lawyers saw that Mr. Mueller had left out that Mr. McGahn had told investigators that he believed Mr. Trump never obstructed justice.

White House officials believed that Mr. McGahn asserting his belief publicly would calm the president and help the administration push back on the episodes that Mr. Mueller detailed in the obstruction section of the report, said one of the people. Neither would be named describing private conversations involving the White House and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The episode shows the lengths the White House has gone to around the release of the Mueller report to push back on the notion that Mr. Trump obstructed justice. House Democrats have used the report to launch investigations into whether Mr. Trump abused his position to insulate himself from the investigations.

“We did not perceive it as any kind of threat or something sinister,” Mr. Burck said in a statement. “It was a request, professionally and cordially made.”

Clearly, this continues to be the behavior of an innocent man who did nothing wrong. I wonder why, if there was no credible evidence that Trump obstructed justice, McGahn wouldn't make this statement?

[bagelmanman]

How to double triple quadruple down after the collusion hoax was destroyed.

[Orbitus]

How to double triple quadruple down after the collusion hoax was destroyed.

But it wasn't. It only was to the people that don't live in fucking reality.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It'd be a public airing of evidence of trump's corruption, and would make a formal, condensed case, instead of the piecemeal we get, where 1/2 the people forget the last outrage because of the next one. Neither the news cycle nor regular congressional hearings lend itself to coherent narratives like an impeachment hearing does, where you have experienced lawyers presenting an actual case.

Unless you think the evidence somehow exonerates him, even though trump is doing his best to keep it all hidden, it won't look good for the president. The impeachment hearings surrounding nixon had the same effect that trump's will. I have seen zero exonerating evidence. It's all been inculpatory. This is where the idea that "it would be bad for democrats" falls apart. Trump wouldn't be stonewalling evidence that makes him look good. If the GOP fails to convict, the dems can literally run on the fact that the GOP is willingly allowing criminality at the highest levels of our government after a public display of evidence, where everyone would be able to see it and judge for themselves.

The problem is that Republicans in the Senate will acquit. Without a doubt, they will acquit. Not because Trump is innocent, but purely because of partisan politics. This is similar to what happened to Clinton, and even though Clinton technically did obstruct justice over a blow job, the Senate's acquittal of Clinton made the public view it as an exoneration. It's also an exoneration in the sense that Trump cannot be tried for the same crime twice. So once he's out of office, they could no longer pursue obstruction charges then either.

In Nixon's time, America was a bit more united against corruption. Ever since Reagan, the country has been splitting, and parties don't care if their side commits a crime, especially Republicans. A failure to convict in the modern era is not viewed as "not guilty", it is viewed as "COMPLETELY INNOCENT, NO WRONG DOING, COMPLETE EXONERATION OF ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE ACCUSED CRIMES!" Failure to convict would likely be viewed by the middle as Democrats "wasting time playing partisan politics".

Unless they can nail a home run to the point that the Senate would convict, impeachment is a very bad idea for attempting to beat Trump in 2020. And the funny part is... not impeaching is "playing partisan politics" while impeachment is the correct move. I fully agree on that, but we know how dumb the average American is, and they'll see a long impeachment trial as partisan politics.

- - - Updated - - -

How to double triple quadruple down after the collusion hoax was destroyed.

Trumpkins always CONVENIENTLY forgetting to mention obstruction when they do driveby shit posts. Stay classy, party of "law and order", lmaoooooooooooooooo.

[bagelmanman]

Not really forget....it is just like the Ford hoax...we all know it is false but the leftists will continue crying/pushing about it while everyone else ignores them. It will fade away in a few weeks, exactly like Ford hoax did.

But Innocent until proven guilty has taken a backseat to leftists for a while now.

[Ripster42]

The problem is that Republicans in the Senate will acquit. Without a doubt, they will acquit.

Again, that's not detrimental to democrats. That literally allows them to run the campaign, "These guys are literally fine with criminals running our government. You all saw the evidence, they're not willing to do anything about it." The senate didn't convict clinton, not because he wasn't guilty, but because he was obstructing an investigation into adultery. This damaged the GOP because very few non-partisans thought adultery was what starr should have been investigating in the first place. They didn't think lying about adultery was worth deposing a president. I already explained this. That's much different than obstructing an investigation into a foreign power undermining our democracy. That's a vastly different situation.

[Xyonai]

But it wasn't. It only was to the people that don't live in fucking reality.

And even then I'm still kinda squinting at the logic of someone being innocent - or not 'not guilty, in this case - of one thing meaning they're automatically exonerated of all their other alleged crimes so we should stop trying to investigate or pursue those avenues.

Doubly squinting at the people who look at the behavior out of the Trump admin and feel that his actions are entirely reasonable for someone who's innocent of wrongdoing. But I'd rather not summon the sock-puppet again to try and hand wave how it's absolutely normal for someone to abuse their authority and repeatedly attempt to shutdown investigations into their actions because they didn't do anything illegal.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Again, that's not detrimental to democrats. That literally allows them to run the campaign, "These guys are literally fine with criminals running our government. You all saw the evidence, they're not willing to do anything about it." The senate didn't convict clinton, not because he wasn't guilty, but because he was obstructing an investigation into adultery. This damaged the GOP because very few non-partisans thought adultery was what starr should have been investigating in the first place. They didn't think lying about adultery was worth deposing a president. I already explained this. That's much different than obstructing an investigation into a foreign power undermining our democracy. That's a vastly different situation.

I realize all of this, and I wish it could be used as a campaign thing, but we don't know that for sure. It could be viewed as just wasting time on partisan politics by enough of the population to turn it against Dems. Then again, it could be viewed by enough centrist Americans as Republicans being okay with lawlessness. I don't have enough confidence in the American public to be smart enough to recognize this though.

The facts are on the side of Democrats and the left here. The problem is, we live in a post-fact world, where a deranged senile orange man with dementia is considered just as seriously as actual facts, and weighed with equal consideration.

[Orbitus]

Not really forget....it is just like the Ford hoax...we all know it is false but the leftists will continue crying/pushing about it while everyone else ignores them. It will fade away in a few weeks, exactly like Ford hoax did.

No one knew it was false, and there is no evidence that it was false, because the investigation wasn't even a real one. It wasn't even allowed to talk to most of the people involved in the investigation.

[Ripster42]

I realize all of this, and I wish it could be used as a campaign thing, but we don't know that for sure. It could be viewed as just wasting time on partisan politics by enough of the population to turn it against Dems. Then again, it could be viewed by enough centrist Americans as Republicans being okay with lawlessness. I don't have enough confidence in the American public to be smart enough to recognize this though.

The facts are on the side of Democrats and the left here. The problem is, we live in a post-fact world, where a deranged senile orange man with dementia is considered just as seriously as actual facts, and weighed with equal consideration.

Only around 25% of people believed nixon should have been impeached before the hearings started. We're already around double that number for trump. I don't understand where the urge for appeasement in the face of lawlessness comes from.

[cubby]

How to double triple quadruple down after the collusion hoax was destroyed.

You realize that collusion was established, just not actionable as a criminal trial.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really forget....it is just like the Ford hoax...we all know it is false but the leftists will continue crying/pushing about it while everyone else ignores them. It will fade away in a few weeks, exactly like Ford hoax did.

But Innocent until proven guilty has taken a backseat to leftists for a while now.

The Ford hoax? You must chug the kool aid eyes closed, eh? That has been thoroughly vetted. Ford's accusations were legitimate and never properly investigated, because Trump ordered them not to be.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I don't understand where the urge for appeasement in the face of lawlessness comes from.

In the interest of not giving Trump a second term, that's where.

If America were made up entirely of people like you and me, impeachment would be a slam dunk.

That's the problem, I have no faith in the Senate to impeach, and I have no faith in the American people to see this as lawless behavior rather than an exoneration.

The Dems are already set to have great wins in 2020, impeachment is a mid-court shot. If they land it, it's amazing. If not, the other team gets the ball.

[beanman12345]

Only around 25% of people believed nixon should have been impeached before the hearings started. We're already around double that number for trump. I don't understand where the urge for appeasement in the face of lawlessness comes from.

With public opinion being more for impeachment than against, there isn't a sane or logical argument against starting impeachment. Impeach the mother fucker.

[D Luniz]

^^ I did not quote to save space in the thread. I put the arrows on the left to show what specifically I am replying to. Replying like this saves scrolling space for the readers. Sigh again.

Your post is just another set of empty nonsense. "No one honestly believes trump would still be president if he refused to release any portion of the report." -- what are you even trying to say? That you'd impeach him? And apparently everyone would support that? Even with the conclusion making no indictments? Really? That's just one more case of wishful thinking that you for some reason believe and not notice that this is just wishful thinking. You keep talking of my dishonesty yet I am having a hard time of seeing what specifically you are even referring to.

You know, you are just a waste of time.

then use *snip*
like so

*snip*

can even do it if your just replying to one point of a multi point post

[cubby]

With public opinion being more for impeachment than against, there isn't a sane or logical argument against starting impeachment. Impeach the mother fucker.

If there weren't sane AND logical reasons for not initiating Articles, then it would have already began. But there are, so they haven't.

[beanman12345]

If there weren't sane AND logical reasons for not initiating Articles, then it would have already began. But there are, so they haven't.

So your argument is that politicians always make sane or logical decisions?

[cubby]

So your argument is that politicians always make sane or logical decisions?

Did I say that?

My position is that there are both sane and logical reasons for not initiating Articles. I happen to fall right in the middle of this discussion, unfortunately, and can see solid arguments for both sides. I can understand the position that initiating Articles is the morally right thing to do. But I can also see the flip side, where initiating Articles might damage the DNC and cost them the 2020 Presidential election.