Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Pendulous]

Trump attempting to stop the investigation no matter what the results were, is a crime.

[Orbitus]

If there was any doubt in Muellers mind, KNOWING that his report will first go to the DOJ and AG Barr, why wouldn't he just recommend charges there? The only possible explanation is there wasn't enough actual evidence to show they willingly and criminally obstructed justice. Unless Mueller is playing 9D chess with us all...



Just because somone on TV said meeting or interacting with Russians/citizens is literally the worst thing a person could do, doesn't mean it's true.
If Jr knew this person was a Russian Agent or acting on behalf of the Russian government then he would already be in jail.

They knew she was a Russian Agent acting on behalf of the Russian government. It was in the fucking emails.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.52a9e46d8549

If you can read that, and not come to the same conclusion as the rest of the developed world that the Russian government was coming to give dirt on Hillary Clinton, then you might need to go back to school for more reading comprehension.

[kaelleria]

Then how come Mueller's principle conclusion was: "the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."

You lost, its been fun but its over. You people should be eating crow at this point. There was no collusion and no obstruction of justice as there was no underlying crime.

- - - Updated - - -



I am not moving any goal posts. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton should have been tried because I don't think she had intent when she mishandled classified information. The emails hacked by WikiLeaks did do a lot of damage to her campaign but the emails were not fake they were real. The American people simply got to know her better.

This isn't about winning and losing. The topline summary can be read several ways. We need to see the report.

[Vatrilian]

Again, barr not believing a president can act with corrupt intent with regards to obstruction of justice has nothing to do with whether or not a sitting president can be indicted. I have already covered this in a previous post. Barr's footnote is specific to the constitutional considerations of whether or not a sitting president can be indicted. That has nothing to do with the constitutional considerations of whether or not a president can act with corrupt intent.

That is how the justice department determined that a sitting president could not be indicted. Barr ignored this principle when he concluded that the president did not commit obstruction of justice. Any reasonable person can determine that because there was no underlying crime so why obstruct? In this country we don't make up a crime and when we find no evidence for it say the person committed crimes during the investigation. That is principally unfair and I am glad the justice department concluded there was no obstruction.

[Orbitus]

Then how come Mueller's principle conclusion was: "the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."

You lost, its been fun but its over. You people should be eating crow at this point. There was no collusion and no obstruction of justice as there was no underlying crime.

- - - Updated - - -



I am not moving any goal posts. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton should have been tried because I don't think she had intent when she mishandled classified information. The emails hacked by WikiLeaks did do a lot of damage to her campaign but the emails were not fake they were real. The American people simply got to know her better.

But we know they tried. Just with the Trump tower meeting.

And Wikileaks didn't hack the emails. They got them from the Russian government. And the emails had nothing of value in them.

[Vatrilian]

They knew she was a Russian Agent acting on behalf of the Russian government. It was in the fucking emails.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.52a9e46d8549

If you can read that, and not come to the same conclusion as the rest of the developed world that the Russian government was coming to give dirt on Hillary Clinton, then you might need to go back to school for more reading comprehension.

You need to watch an episode of Ancient Aliens. In fact please everyone who believes this hoax after two years of investigation and millions of dollars.

[Orbitus]

You need to watch an episode of Ancient Aliens. In fact please everyone who believes this hoax after two years of investigation and millions of dollars.

Two years of investigations 37 indictments, 7 guilty pleas and it MADE FUCKING MONEY. I don't believe conspiracy theories. You do though, considering how fucking wrong you are.

[Ripster42]

That is how the justice department determined that a sitting president could not be indicted. Barr ignored this principle when he concluded that the president did not commit obstruction of justice. Any reasonable person can determine that because there was no underlying crime so why obstruct? In this country we don't make up a crime and when we find no evidence for it say the person committed crimes during the investigation. That is principally unfair and I am glad the justice department concluded there was no obstruction.

Again, barr doesn't think a president can commit obstruction. That conclusion is separate from whether or not a president can be indicted. He literally doesn't believe a president can act with corrupt intent with regards to obstruction of justice when he orders an investigation to be stopped.

Let me try to make it more clear, barr does believe a president can commit a crime. He does believe, if the president maliciously shot and killed someone, that it would be murder. Here is when his statement about "constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president." would be relevant. When he thinks a crime has been committed. Barr, quite literally doesn't think the president can commit obstruction of justice in cases like this, because he subscribes to the idea that, "when the president does it, it's not a crime."

[Vatrilian]

Two years of investigations 37 indictments, 7 guilty pleas and it MADE FUCKING MONEY. I don't believe conspiracy theories. You do though, considering how fucking wrong you are.

Again the principle reason we had a special counsel was the aspect of collusion. We can let this hang out:
"the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."

[Sinyc]

They knew she was a Russian Agent acting on behalf of the Russian government. It was in the fucking emails.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.52a9e46d8549

If you can read that, and not come to the same conclusion as the rest of the developed world that the Russian government was coming to give dirt on Hillary Clinton, then you might need to go back to school for more reading comprehension.

If what you just said is true, he would be in jail. Nowhere in that article, that I have now read multiple times, does it say that their conversations in that article get to that point. Unless my eyes don't work. Otherwise it sounds like you are seeing something that isn't there due to blatant bias.

[Vatrilian]

Again, barr doesn't think a president can commit obstruction. That conclusion is separate from whether or not a president can be indicted. He literally doesn't believe a president can act with corrupt intent with regards to obstruction of justice when he orders an investigation to be stopped.

Let me try to make it more clear, barr does believe a president can commit a crime. He does believe, if the president maliciously shot and killed someone, that it would be murder. Here is when his statement about "constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president." would be relevant. When he thinks a crime has been committed. Barr, quite literally doesn't think the president can commit obstruction of justice in cases like this, because he subscribes to the idea that, "when the president does it, it's not a crime."

How do you obstruct justice with no underlying crime? What actions did the president take that obstructed Mueller's investigation?

[Orbitus]

If what you just said is true, he would be in jail. Nowhere in that article, that I have now read multiple times, does it say that their conversations in that article get to that point. Unless my eyes don't work. Otherwise it sounds like you are seeing something that isn't there due to blatant bias.

It's not bias, it was from their fucking emails.

- - - Updated - - -

Again the principle reason we had a special counsel was the aspect of collusion. We can let this hang out:
"the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."

We know they colluded. It isn't my fault that Manafort and the people that know are protecting Trump.

[Vatrilian]

It's not bias, it was from their fucking emails.

- - - Updated - - -



We know they colluded. It isn't my fault that Manafort and the people that know are protecting Trump.

Again Fact: NO COLLUSION.

[Orbitus]

Again Fact: NO COLLUSION.

You can keep saying that, it doesn't make it true. You must be Trump's Twitter writer.

[Belize]

Again Fact: NO COLLUSION.

Not fact.

The only thing we know is that Barr decided almost unilaterally that he didn't think it was.

[Dontrike]

I can't answer questions about what goes on inside of peoples heads..

But you can based on their actions, but that would mean NOT deflecting and dodging questions and actually answering them and that's never fun.

[Benggaul]

2 years and for what? The media has been trying to spin this nonsense as well. What's going to happen to them? Whoops. Guess their ratings are going to go back into the toilet.

What's that? It's not good enough? We need to see the full report so we can pull more out of our asses? Typical.

Why do you people always try to spin the "it was all for nothing!" angle? That's utter bullshit.

1) 34 indictments, several guilty pleas, several people currently facing sentencing. That's a LOT of crime rooted out by this one investigation, not even including a host of indictments farmed out to other districts (like SDNY) for them to handle.
2) $50 million in seized assets, so not only did the investigation pay for itself, it made a surplus--something Trump has never managed in his life, let alone in office.
3) It brought to light several discrepancies in Trump's dealings and those of his spawn which will be the subject of 18 further investigations--and counting.
4) We STILL don't know exactly what is in the report and probably won't for some time, particularly since the WH, Barr and several high-ranking GOP will sandbag like their lives depend on it...and probably do. While it may be Mueller's opinion that there isn't enough evidence to charge Trump with collusion (which is not the same as saying there's NO evidence), there's bound to be plenty of "interesting" items in there that the public needs to know about.
5) Even if you're a Trump supporter--gods help you--this shouldn't be a "it was all for NOTHING" moment but rather "see? It vindicates him!" (even though, spoiler, it doesn't).

It is absolutely insane how many MAGAs I see jumping on this as if it justifies all that he's fucked up the past two years--and it's not even a full exoneration! I'm almost glad the farmers are suffering under Trump's policies given that rural yahoos make up a large portion of the jackasses that voted for him.

[Dontrike]

Is it about justice... I mean really about it or is it about spite towards a man you dislike...?

The idea it's only because he is disliked is asinine.

[Ripster42]

How do you obstruct justice with no underlying crime? What actions did the president take that obstructed Mueller's investigation?

There doesn't have to be an underlying crime (and, regardless, there was, see: all the indicted russians, michael flynn's merciful plea deal down from conspiracy to commit kidnapping to lying to the FBI [and his son getting off scot free]).

He obstructed the FBI's original investigation by firing people involved with it on slight pretext, from mccabe to comey. The corrupt intent (which barr, again, believes a president cannot possess) provably came on one of those firings (because of "the russia thing"). He obstructed the FBI's original investigation by attempting to make comey drop the flynn investigation ("let this whole thing go").

I notice you've backtracked from your original bullshit though. At least you're that honest.

[MoanaLisa]

This investigation and all the money spent on it could've been spent on something else.

Asset seizure from Manafort paid for it.