Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Belize]

Barr is losing his cool.

Strange how all the "best people" around Trump have a very short temper and go off the rails when asked to stop lying.

Makes you think

[Shaderas]

Wishing death upon others? Really? Maybe it's time to step back and reassess what kind of human being you want to be. When politics generates this kind of reaction, something is wrong, very wrong with one's world view.

To his credit, anticipation of ("I can't wait til...") is slightly different than wishing death upon others.

[Breccia]

Since there seems to be some confusion about whether "firing someone for a reason" counts as "firing someone" or not, let's talk about Mueller's conflicts of interest.

They're fictional.

Trump has made two claims on the subject, and there's no evidence to back either of them.

A) Trump claimed Mueller wanted Comey's job after Trump fired Comey, that he came to interview in person, and Trump turned him down.

There is no evidence of this. Multiple sources, such as WaPo, kept a running tally of people heading for the WH to interview for Comey's job. Mueller wasn't on anyone's list. Simply put, he never interviewed, and Trump claims he interviewed Mueller face to face. Bannon did suggest Mueller and Trump talked, but even he denied Mueller was actually looking for the job.

B) Trump claims there was a business dispute between him and Mueller.

Mueller left Trump's golf club October 2011 because he didn't live close enough and didn't make use of the facilities. Now, maybe some people will claim publicly that they're going to take Trump's word over Mueller's. Those people are lying. Trump has made over 10,000 objective lies in office, and Mueller was respected enough to get massive bipartisan support to lead the investigation.

Even if we accept the premise that "firing someone with cause" is, somehow, not firing someone -- a premise that is completely laughable, by the way -- firing someone for a literally Trumped-up charge with no basis or evidence immediately neuters that as an acceptable answer anyhow.

[Belize]

This hearing is fucking bonkers.

As opposed to any of the normal hearings in the past 2 years?

When has a hearing featuring a Trump ally not been bonkers.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Man this is like Democrats version of Benghazi.

I'd like to see where the lead investigator said that the folks who released public statements on Hillary's innocense in regards to Benghazi and HER EMAILS were completely misrepresenting their investigation/report.

Yeah, thought not.

Mueller was the one who reignited the fire by saying that Barr was wrong in his initial statement in saying that Trump was innocent, lul. What, Zenkai, are you so tilted that you have to report everyone who calls you a woke independent, because you know you aren't one, and you know it works now that a certain mod is on your side? After all those times you've called people bias liberals and didn't get infracted yourself.

I do love that Zenkai can drop a post that's basically a GIANT shit in a thread, and then everyone that replies to him gets infracted for making statements, while he doesn't post any more and gets away with it. That's the very definition of baiting and trolling, but everyone else gets punished because this forum's moderation has gone to shit.

[rda]

Even if we accept the premise that "firing someone with cause" is, somehow, not firing someone -- a premise that is completely laughable, by the way -- firing someone for a literally Trumped-up charge with no basis or evidence immediately neuters that as an acceptable answer anyhow.

Not sure who said that "firing someone with cause" is "not firing someone" - that seems to be your invention. What Barr said - if you are referring to that episode - is that firing someone is different from having someone removed for a cause. Or, if you want to use your words, that firing someone without a cause is different from firing someone with a cause. Now, you can object and say that there was no good cause. And maybe you are going to be right. But the reaction to what Barr said - again, if you are referring to that episode - was someone tweeting patent manufactured outrage created by mischaracterizing of what Barr actually said. Dishonest tricks like that are just bad, period. And somehow, dishonest tricks like that are 90% of what is being said by one of the sides about this investigation / Trump / everything related.

[Breccia]

FOX News continues tearing itself apart as Ingraham calls out Wallace for agreeing with other cable news networks about the Mueller report.

Read that again. Think about what that means.

Related: Yates says Trump would have been indicted if he were not President. Incidentally, Chris Weld said something similar.

Given the evidence laid out by Mr. Mueller, had I been in his place, I would have pursued an indictment of the President of the United States for obstruction of Justice.

"Who cares what some librul -- "

He's Republican.

"Okay, but he's not qualified to --"

Weld was head of the Criminal Division of the DoJ from 1986 to 1988. Yes, Reagan picked him. Yes, he worked with Giulliani. He resigned out of protest when...look, just read up on the Wedtech Scandal. HINT: Someone who was investigated claimed "full exonoration" when that wasn't the case.

"Okay fine. So Weld has authority and experience. If he feels that so strongly, why doesn't he just run against Trump?"

Here is his campaign website.

"Well, fuck."

[rda]

This one has been especially crazy for some reason, to me at least.

I would suggest that this happens because the only weapon left for attacking Trump after the report is "obstruction of justice" and it is a weak one. Like I was saying before. You want something to happen, you want some meat, but nothing can happen, the tool is weak and doesn't scratch.

[zenkai]

I'd like to see where the lead investigator said that the folks who released public statements on Hillary's innocense in regards to Benghazi and HER EMAILS were completely misrepresenting their investigation/report.

Yeah, thought not.

Mueller was the one who reignited the fire by saying that Barr was wrong in his initial statement in saying that Trump was innocent, lul. What, Zenkai, are you so tilted that you have to report everyone who calls you a woke independent, because you know you aren't one, and you know it works now that a certain mod is on your side? After all those times you've called people bias liberals and didn't get infracted yourself.

I do love that Zenkai can drop a post that's basically a GIANT shit in a thread, and then everyone that replies to him gets infracted for making statements, while he doesn't post any more and gets away with it. That's the very definition of baiting and trolling, but everyone else gets punished because this forum's moderation has gone to shit.

Mueller report clears of him of collusion it just doesn't clear him of possible of obstruction. Democrats don't care about justice in this, they care about "GOTCHA" They want Trump to be guilty regardless if he is or not. Republicans wanted Hillary Guilty of something even though she was just incompetent and not criminal in it. Thus this is just like Benghazi.

[Jtbrig7390]

Mueller report clears of him of collusion it just doesn't clear him of possible of obstruction. Democrats don't care about justice in this, they care about "GOTCHA" They want Trump to be guilty regardless if he is or not. Republicans wanted Hillary Guilty of something even though she was just incompetent and not criminal in it. Thus this is just like Benghazi.

Well only reason your ilk voted Trump in was to have a "GOTCHA" moment.

That moment will backfire really soon and I will enjoy it, Don't vote a criminal in next time.

[Edge-]

Mueller report clears of him of collusion it just doesn't clear him of possible of obstruction.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...g-barr-hearing

"The report says collusion is not a thing they considered," Williams continued. "It doesn't exist in federal code."

Democrats don't care about justice in this, they care about "GOTCHA" They want Trump to be guilty regardless if he is or not.

Incorrect. You have lawyers on both sides of the isle agreeing that were Trump not president, this would pretty much be a slam dunk obstruction case.

And that's to say nothing else of all the other illegal, questionable, and concerning behavior uncovered through this investigation by both Trump and those surrounding him.

Republicans wanted Hillary Guilty of something even though she was just incompetent and not criminal in it. Thus this is just like Benghazi.

This isn't, no matter how much you want it to be. Remember: This wasn't a Democratic investigation. Those are ongoing in other areas, but the Mueller investigation was not a part of that.

[rda]

Keep repeating your mantra. Learning to read the report would be too hard.

The above is just noise. I read it. If you want to link something from there, do it instead of wasting electrons. You won't link anything because you know that I read the report, and you know you cannot link anything strong, it's just not there.

[Ashina]

Barr did the worst possible thing: throw Mueller under the bus. Barr has chosen his hill to die on, and die he will.

[Sky High]

Keep repeating your mantra. Learning to read the report would be too hard.

I really am at a lose as to who the fuck that is and why we should take his word as undeniable fact. like at least link where the report~ oh wait, the report pretty clearly lays out how Trump tried to obstruct justice.

[rda]

I really am at a lose as to who the fuck that is and why we should take his word as undeniable fact. like at least link where the report~ oh wait, the report pretty clearly lays out how Trump tried to obstruct justice.

I really am at a loss as to who you are either, but I can clear things up about the obstruction of justice a bit: the entire question of obstruction of justice is weak and uninteresting. The report was about cooperation / conspiracy. It failed to establish that. That's 99% of everything that could possibly be related to this report - in the eyes of everyone except those who want to see Trump charged on anything at all - and that was rendered by the report to be summarily ZERO. Like Edge says above, "no matter how much you want to deny it".

[Fahrenheit]

Barr needs to be impeached, Trump needs to be impeached. Either we're a nation of laws or not. I'm tired of this bullshit. Democrats need to follow through with the threats, Republicans need to grow a fucking set of balls and confront this behavior for what it is, take the "L" and not let the horror of transient political losses deter them from doing what right.

[Edge-]

Republicans need to grow a fucking set of balls and confront this behavior for what it is

Based on all available evidence, the current state of affairs what the Republican party wants. Power over all else.

[rda]

Based on all available evidence, the current state of affairs what the Republican party wants. Power over all else.

They would have changed their mind if the report actually found coordination / conspiracy. (Yeah, I know you probably are going to be skeptical, but they would, and even if the point is that they would do it mostly because of pressure from ordinary folk, that does not matter much - they still would and that's all the difference. I would mull about that if I were a dem or wanted to get rid of Trump so super-badly - not referencing anyone in particular, just talking generally. The only reason the republicans are not strongly against Trump is because - what? - because there was no conspiracy found. Despite trying for years.)

[Grapemask]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...-william-barr/

Well Barr is pretty fucked.

Not really. Barr has already spun his responses to the questions that could be used to show perjury - he was asked if he knew why Mueller's team would be dissatisfied with his summary. See, what he wrote wasn't a summary, and the letter was from Mueller, not his team. This is of course absolutely ridiculous, but ridiculous isn't necessarily impossible, so the right will latch on.

And also, Republicans will literally never hold another Republican accountable for anything, and democrats are kind of failing to show everything that's wrong here, because elected democrats are so awful at committee hearing questioning that a 13 year old YouTuber could outmaneuver them.

[Sky High]

I really am at a loss as to who you are either, but I can clear things up about the obstruction of justice a bit: the entire question of obstruction of justice is weak and uninteresting.

oh, that's a cute opinion ya got there, can I just~

/crumples your opinion up and tosses it in the bin

also we have republicans like that shit head Graham saying he doesn't care about how much evidence there is, and the republican base despite all this is still very much in Donny boy's corner, there is no incentive for the base OR the elite in the Republicans to move against Trump. you seem to have this knack for talking out of your ass.