Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Draco-Onis]

Oh they would sure love to, but "orange man bad" is not a legal thing.

You're a Trump supporter you can stop pretending you care about laws.

[Machismo]

Oh they would sure love to, but "orange man bad" is not a legal thing.

Maybe you should read the Mueller report:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...er-Report.html

[Draco-Onis]

Maybe you should read the Mueller report:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...er-Report.html

Reading is like kryptonite to them you ask for too much good sir.

[petej0]

I agree, it is all political theater, I even said as much. The only issue is that they think their hand is better played by not pushing it. That's specifically why I asked you whether you are more likely to vote for a Democrat if they do so.

Will you be more likely to vote Democrat if they impeach? Or, for that matter, regardless of whether they impeach, or not, what are the chances that you vote for a Democrat over Trump in 2020? Would that vote be based on whether they impeach, or not?


And yes, I'm asking you directly. If you are not more likely to vote for a Democrat as a result, then your opinion is literally worthless to the Democrats in power. The same goes for my opinion. The chances of me supporting a Democrat are very small. It's certainly not based on whether they impeach, but who they nominate. There is no chance I vote for Trump. So, whether I want them to impeach him is utterly meaningless, at least as it pertains to politics.

If they vote to impeach or not has no bearing on who I will vote for in 2020. If there is a Democrat with policies I like, I will vote for that person. If there is a 3rd party candidate with policies I like, I will vote for that person. If no such candidate exists, I will vote abstain.

[Paranoid Android]

If Trump committed a crime why hasn't the Democrats moved forward with impeachment? The only people I hear saying that Trump for sure committed a crime are the echo chamber posters in this forum. I haven't read it on any legit news sites.

Many reasons.

My opinion is the Democrats are wussies. They always get trounced on again its happening again.

So it's Pelosi holding it back and if you want to give her credit, she got a headcount and most won't go for it. So this would be so called blue dog Democrats or the ones who barely won or won Trump districts in 2108.

If it's even more of the chicken shit reason of the Senate would likely kill it and hurt the Presidential campaign is the worst of the reason not to proceed.

Now we are getting into political scenarios, which yes I admit I don't know the outcome. Again the Dems play politics of 'will everyone like us' the Republicans play politics of 'We doing this and our base will like it'.

[Machismo]

If they vote to impeach or not has no bearing on who I will vote for in 2020. If there is a Democrat with policies I like, I will vote for that person. If there is a 3rd party candidate with policies I like, I will vote for that person. If no such candidate exists, I will vote abstain.

Then you calling for them to impeach to get it over with is completely pointless to the DNC. Your support (or lack thereof) is completely independent of any such decision. The same can be said for me. My opinion is literally worthless to them.

What are the odds that you vote for Trump? Your answer was rather roundabout, and didn't actually cover him specifically. I ask this, not knowing for whom you voted in 2016. For whom did you vote in 2016?

[Grapemask]

It's rather amusing how most left leaning news sites are pissed at Mueller, but the people here think the guy knocked it out of the park. It just shows you how obtuse they really are because of their political bias is so extreme

You are combining and obfuscating multiple different things here, because that's all you do is troll in bad faith.

You are seeming to claim that Mueller made an argument that supported Trump, by virtue of what some leftist opinion articles felt. This is logic that does not follow.

Mueller helped an argument against Trump, but he was not supportive. Leftists who are "pissed" have expressed it because he pretty much didn't give any helpful soundbytes. Democrats did not need him to even add a new opinion to the mess. They only needed him to so much as read his own report out loud and he was so determined to not be political that he wouldn't even do that much. Which is to say, the compelling argument has already been made, and the left is annoyed that they can't get the idiots of the nation to read it, and now annoyed that they can't get it put into a format that the idiots of the nation will consume.

But at the same time, when Mueller cracked, he did not help Trump's case. He wouldn't directly state that he recommended impeachment - he refused the soundbyte. But he was asked if an option was impeachment - he said he couldn't answer. But he said this:

ESCOBAR: Director Mueller, at your May 29, 2019, press conference, you explained that, quote, “The [Department of Justice] opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” end quote. That process, other than the criminal justice system, for accusing a president of wrongdoing, is that impeachment?

MUELLER: I’m not going to comment on that.

ESCOBAR: In your report, you also wrote that you did not want to, quote, “potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,” end quote. For the nonlawyers in the room, what did you mean by, quote, “potentially preempt constitutional processes?”

MUELLER: I’m not going to try to explain that.

ESCOBAR: That actually is coming from Page 1 of Volume II in the footnote—is the reference to this. What are those constitutional processes?

MUELLER: I think I heard you mention at least one.

ESCOBAR: Impeachment. Correct?

MUELLER: I’m not going to comment.

In context, he could only be speaking about impeachment. But we can't soundbyte that. That's why the left is pissed, and that's nothing for you to delight over - because your delight suggests you understand the crime, you're only glad they're having trouble doing anything about it.

[Vankrys]

Why do you think she took it off the table, what was her reasoning?

cause Trump is his own worst enemy. His declaration, his anger tweet, everything he does contribute to reduce more and more his support.

[Blur4stuff]

Mueller's testimony was exactly what it needed to be. We already knew that Trump would be on trial/in jail if he weren't president. We already knew he should be impeached to remove the protection from justice.

Every single person on this board knows with 100% certainty that if parties were reversed, republicans would have already impeached a dem president for a fraction of what Trump did and continues to do.

They can no longer argue that Trump isn't guilty. They can only argue that they don't care that he's a criminal.

[Paranoid Android]

All I have to say about the impeachment proceeding to Democrats and not proceeding:

'if you want to play the election game where it's 1) toss up on best day 2) most believe we have a President who needs a 2nd term to stay out of prison 3) Since the Mueller report said Russia interfered and if you remember this own Orange Idiot admitted on tv he would take foreign help on the election.

Seems like the Democrats want play a risky game of roulette.

I guess on a macro level you can argue most Americans don't care or paid attention to Russia Investigation so stick with those good ole Mmmericans talking points.

Sure Trump has been dirty and corrupt and has not followed through on his policies he promised.

Still amazing to me that a person who can ruin or at least have long lasting damage to how we function as a Deocracy is not important.

[Xyonai]

Why do you think she took it off the table, what was her reasoning?

The simple answer is that because Congress would vote entirely on partisan lines and it wouldn't go anywhere.

[petej0]

Then you calling for them to impeach to get it over with is completely pointless. Your support (or lack thereof) is completely independent of any such decision.

Yes, it may be pointless, there is so much more we should be focusing on instead of listening to Mueller stumble over his words or ask questions to be repeated.

What are the odds that you vote for Trump? Your answer was rather roundabout, and didn't actually cover him specifically. I ask this, not knowing for whom you voted in 2016. For whom did you vote in 2016?

The odds are very low that I would vote for Trump. I would rather vote abstain than for Trump. I voted for McCain (purely because he was a veteran like myself) in 2008 and Gary Johnson in 2012 and again in 2016.

[Acidbaron]

Knowing all that, it does make sense why trumpy wants to remain president forever. He can't be charged with all he did.

Of course he was only joking when he said that about having several terms

[zenkai]

cause Trump is his own worst enemy. His declaration, his anger tweet, everything he does contribute to reduce more and more his support.

Hey this guy committed treason and obstruction of justice we should impeach him before he destroys the country

nah man, he's an embarrassment, let him make a fool of himself.

So you want to keep a traitor in the most powerful position in the world for the lawls?

Yup

nice!

[Donatello Trumpi]

cause Trump is his own worst enemy. His declaration, his anger tweet, everything he does contribute to reduce more and more his support.

Yet the democrats cringe inducing political incompetence is trumps biggest ally.

[Machismo]

Yes, it may be pointless, there is so much more we should be focusing on instead of listening to Mueller stumble over his words or ask questions to be repeated.



The odds are very low that I would vote for Trump. I would rather vote abstain than for Trump. I voted for McCain (purely because he was a veteran like myself) in 2008 and Gary Johnson in 2012 and again in 2016.

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

I hope Johnson doesn't run, people are sick of him, and he's not really maintaining a solid libertarian ideology. I think new blood is needed. I don't know if that's Justin Amash, or not.

From the Democrats, the only realistic candidate that I like, is Buttigieg. He's got a great demeanor, is a centrist, and has made actual attempts to show he's not just here to pander to the AOC fangirls.

[Skroe]

Many reasons.

My opinion is the Democrats are wussies. They always get trounced on again its happening again.

So it's Pelosi holding it back and if you want to give her credit, she got a headcount and most won't go for it. So this would be so called blue dog Democrats or the ones who barely won or won Trump districts in 2108.

If it's even more of the chicken shit reason of the Senate would likely kill it and hurt the Presidential campaign is the worst of the reason not to proceed.

Now we are getting into political scenarios, which yes I admit I don't know the outcome. Again the Dems play politics of 'will everyone like us' the Republicans play politics of 'We doing this and our base will like it'.

I mean the funamental issue you're alluding to here is the debate whether parties should play to a broad electorate or the base. Republicans have been going hard on the "turn out the base" direction since 2004. Consultancies and activists love the "turn out the base" direction. It means more money and more influence for them. It means their organizations and people can set the tone, rather than a more generalized one.

Democrats are seeing on the left the same sort of pressures today as progressive groups desperately want them to adopt a "turn out the base" strategy. Don't think they want it for pure political ends. It's the same money, influence and control purposes as on the right. The problem for Democrats is one just has to look at Nancy Pelosi's Democratic minority in 2013 to see what a a "pure blue" map looks like in the House. And same with the Senate... Democrats could claim around 38 seats relatively easily, but above that you start attracting purple-state Democrats, and to get above 50, and are I say, 60 you need lots of the much maligned "Joe Manchins".

Progressives hate being reminded of this. THey really want folks to think that Nancy Pelosi owes her majority to AOC and her ilk. No. She doesn't. AOC won where Democrats always win. Nancy Pelosi owes her majority the Blue Dogs that Democrats left to fend for themselves in 2010 and 2012. Pelosi spent years rebuilding it, and got her majority back. And she owes it to them, not to the people progressives adore.

And it's going to be the same in the Senate. For a Democratic Majority, that means winning two seats in Florida, one or seats in Louisiana, another seat in West Virginia, a seat in North Carolina, and one in Missouri. If we do that, we're at like 52 or 53. And we're not even close to 60. 60 means winning seats in Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota, Georgia and so forth.

Honestly the debate about what the structure of the Democratic Majority in either chamber is beyond stupid for me. It's so clear why activists want party purity and a "turn out the base election". Control. Money. Influence. They want to be the king makers. Not just in the 2020 election, but in the next decade and a half, as happened on the Republican side. But the maps are not the same for Democrats and Republicans, and are broadly better for Republicans which ALLOWS the turn out the base strategy.

It's simple math. The only avenue to Democratic majorities in the House, Senate and electoral college is to win in Republican areas. You don't do that, you don't win. Progressives hate hearing that, but the map doesn't care about what they think.

[zenkai]

The simple answer is that because Congress would vote entirely on partisan lines and it wouldn't go anywhere.

The house can still impeach him, they have the Democrat vote. Now the Senate will, I am sure fail

[Machismo]

The house can still impeach him, they have the Democrat vote. Now the Senate will, I am sure fail

Then you have pointed to the exact reason why such an endeavor is pointless. Until the GOP develops morals and principles, then there's no reason to start it.

Let me know when you realize you just argued against yourself.

[petej0]

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

I hope Johnson doesn't run, people are sick of him, and he's not really maintaining a solid libertarian ideology. I think new blood is needed. I don't know if that's Justin Amash, or not.

From the Democrats, the only realistic candidate that I like, is Buttigieg. He's got a great demeanor, is a centrist, and has made actual attempts to show he's not just here to pander to the AOC fangirls.

I will wait to see who rises to the top in the Democrat party before I put much effort into that research. I know Cory Booker from local news living in PA and what he has done in NJ. He isnt the same person who was mayor of Newark, sad because I really liked him.

As for the Libertarians, Johnson is done. There is no way he can continue, he was ate up by the media and didnt have a grasp on certain issues.