Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Ripster42]

Pursuing impeachment proceedings that can't succeed may be bad PR for the Democrats and help to get Trump re-elected. It may instead be good PR, I'm not sure. But concerns about impeachment stem from more than just Clinton's impeachment proceedings. They're a concern about impeachment in the abstract.

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.

[rda]

^^ Sigh.

Please note that Barr did not have to make any of the report public. Yes, for real. You say above that "Trump is doing his best to keep it all hidden" and it falls flat onto its face five seconds into the matter. If Trump was doing his best to keep it all hidden, we'd have had no report published to date. (Not even talking about Trump being able to fire Mueller at any point during the investigation and a ton of similar things.)

Same for "Trump wouldn't be stonewalling evidence that makes him look good" - there have been lifts of redactions and the less redacted version of the report was available to the top dems / reps for quite some time. The reps looked into it, commented that the redactions in the public version do not contain anything that would run counter to the conclusion and are just technical. The dems deliberately chose not to look into it, because they know there is nothing there and they think they have a better game pretending that they are being denied access to the report while they are not.

Nothing but cheap soundbites that end up being deceiving...

Waiting for next portion of BS next week, wondering what it's going to be (not directed at you personally, directed at the thread).

[Ripster42]

^^ Sigh.

Please note that Barr did not have to make any of the report public. Yes, for real. You say above that "Trump is doing his best to keep it all hidden" and it falls flat onto its face five seconds into the matter. If Trump was doing his best to keep it all hidden, we'd have had no report published to date. (Not even talking about Trump being able to fire Mueller at any point during the investigation and a ton of similar things.)

Same for "Trump wouldn't be stonewalling evidence that makes him look good" - there have been lifts of redactions and the less redacted version of the report was available to the top dems / reps for quite some time. The reps looked into it, commented that the redactions in the public version do not contain anything that would run counter to the conclusion and are just technical. The dems deliberately chose not to look into it, because they know there is nothing there and they think they have a better game pretending that they are being denied access to the report while they are not.

Nothing but cheap soundbites that end up being deceiving...

Waiting for next portion of BS next week, wondering what it's going to be (not directed at you personally, directed at the thread).

Try quoting next time coward. Not like you forgot how that functions.

Pretty sure it was you who said they knew how the real world worked. No one honestly believes trump would still be president if he refused to release any portion of the report. Even this one, the counter-int investigation/assessments were not in the report, only the criminal investigation was detailed (which have a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, a much higher standard than is needed for what would be a non-criminal portion of the impeachment - the portion that would be on national security grounds), and there, none of the underlying evidence was given. Yet another instance of your dishonesty. They are stonewalling, as much as politically feasible.

[rda]

^^ 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.

[Azhran]

I am having a hard time of seeing what specifically you are even referring to..

The problem's you though. It's not hard to understand.

[rda]

The problem's you though. It's not hard to understand.

Enlighten me then, oh, a new burner account. Where specifically I am being dishonest? What is this about?

[Crispin]

^^ Sigh.

Please note that Barr did not have to make any of the report public. Yes, for real. You say above that "Trump is doing his best to keep it all hidden" and it falls flat onto its face five seconds into the matter. If Trump was doing his best to keep it all hidden, we'd have had no report published to date. (Not even talking about Trump being able to fire Mueller at any point during the investigation and a ton of similar things.)

Same for "Trump wouldn't be stonewalling evidence that makes him look good" - there have been lifts of redactions and the less redacted version of the report was available to the top dems / reps for quite some time. The reps looked into it, commented that the redactions in the public version do not contain anything that would run counter to the conclusion and are just technical. The dems deliberately chose not to look into it, because they know there is nothing there and they think they have a better game pretending that they are being denied access to the report while they are not.

Nothing but cheap soundbites that end up being deceiving...

Waiting for next portion of BS next week, wondering what it's going to be (not directed at you personally, directed at the thread).

I'm sure you realise the consequences it would have had, if Barr had decided to not release anything whatsoever. Barr's move was smart, he made sure to set the narrative twice before releasing some of the report. People like you ignore the actual report and stick to the first narrative told which was set by Barr. Your mind is more inclined to accept the first narrative given, especally if it confirms your reality. Fact is that the report concludes that Trump is not not guilty, that's pretty fucking terrible considering it's the potus.

It's odd that Republicans arent interested in replacing this loose canon of a republican president, with one that isnt a dumb fuck who constantly makes republicans look like somewhat fools. Heck last rally Trump implied that he could find dirt on everyone in his audience if he were to investigate them for 2 years, so he's calling the gathering of the "law and order" party a bunch of criminals... wtf?

[Shalcker]

I'm sure you realise the consequences it would have had, if Barr had decided to not release anything whatsoever. Barr's move was smart, he made sure to set the narrative twice before releasing some of the report. People like you ignore the actual report and stick to the first narrative told which was set by Barr.

Except for the part where rda specifically took a few days to actually read the report thoroughly...

Your mind is more inclined to accept the first narrative given, especally if it confirms your reality. Fact is that the report concludes that Trump is not not guilty, that's pretty fucking terrible considering it's the potus.

Maybe you're the one sticking to narrative of your group, evidence be damned? Have you considered that option?

Noone argues that Trump isn't terrible president.

It's odd that Republicans arent interested in replacing this loose canon of a republican president, with one that isnt a dumb fuck who constantly makes republicans look like somewhat fools. Heck last rally Trump implied that he could find dirt on everyone in his audience if he were to investigate them for 2 years, so he's calling the gathering of the "law and order" party a bunch of criminals... wtf?

It isn't odd; they won with him and he given them two Republican Supreme Court judges and a tax cut.

And he might win again.

Maybe the question should be how American political system doesn't actually get competent and intelligent people on top?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, nothing in the report was really all that good for Trump and now they’re doubling down in Ukraine.

Doubling down on what in Ukraine?

[Shalcker]

Trump sent his personal lawyer to interfere in the investigation of Biden’s family.

Ah, Ukrainians to provide evidence of previous government wrong-doing and smear Biden?

I'm sure they'll manage once they actually swear in next president, American support is worth a lot to them (just like Biden's was at the time).

[Crispin]

Trump sent his personal lawyer to interfere in the investigation of Biden’s family.

Just an advice, avoid "debating" with Shalcker. It's a waste of time.

[Dacien]

^^ Sigh.

Please note that Barr did not have to make any of the report public. Yes, for real. You say above that "Trump is doing his best to keep it all hidden" and it falls flat onto its face five seconds into the matter. If Trump was doing his best to keep it all hidden, we'd have had no report published to date. (Not even talking about Trump being able to fire Mueller at any point during the investigation and a ton of similar things.)

Same for "Trump wouldn't be stonewalling evidence that makes him look good" - there have been lifts of redactions and the less redacted version of the report was available to the top dems / reps for quite some time. The reps looked into it, commented that the redactions in the public version do not contain anything that would run counter to the conclusion and are just technical. The dems deliberately chose not to look into it, because they know there is nothing there and they think they have a better game pretending that they are being denied access to the report while they are not.

Nothing but cheap soundbites that end up being deceiving...

Waiting for next portion of BS next week, wondering what it's going to be (not directed at you personally, directed at the thread).

Are you suggesting that this is all theater?

[rda]

Are you suggesting that this is all theater?

The dems pretending that they want full access to the report and are denied it? Yes, that's theater, an insincere pose.

Or what do you mean?

[Felya]

The dems pretending that they want full access to the report and are denied it? Yes, that's theater, an insincere pose.

You don’t mean that when it comes to Trump, transparency is not a virtue? Just like with tax returns, every candidate that ran since Nixon from DNC or RNC, didn’t have to release their taxes. Trump is the only one that didn’t. The report on Hillary email investigation is up on the FBI site. You have to fight in courts to get any truth out of Trump... which if you paid attention to Trump’s 30+ years in the public eye, is exactly what Trump’s MO is.

[Shalcker]

The dems pretending that they want full access to the report and are denied it? Yes, that's theater, an insincere pose.

And it is frequently used pose on both sides too.

Check this:
Nunes demands Justice Department records. Then he doesn't read them.
As Nunes has moved aggressively to publicly sow doubt about the Russia investigation, the moment marked at least the second time that he has demanded sensitive documents from the Justice Department, only to choose not to read them -- allowing his staff or Gowdy to pore through the materials instead. The California Republican admitted in February that he did not read any applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
His supporters say there's nothing untoward about a chairman being briefed by his staff. But critics say it's another sign Nunes is merely interested in wielding his power to target his political enemies and give cover to Trump, rather than independently learning about the nuances of a complex investigation.

[Grapemask]

^^ Sigh.

Please note that Barr did not have to make any of the report public. Yes, for real. You say above that "Trump is doing his best to keep it all hidden" and it falls flat onto its face five seconds into the matter. If Trump was doing his best to keep it all hidden, we'd have had no report published to date. (Not even talking about Trump being able to fire Mueller at any point during the investigation and a ton of similar things.)

Same for "Trump wouldn't be stonewalling evidence that makes him look good" - there have been lifts of redactions and the less redacted version of the report was available to the top dems / reps for quite some time. The reps looked into it, commented that the redactions in the public version do not contain anything that would run counter to the conclusion and are just technical. The dems deliberately chose not to look into it, because they know there is nothing there and they think they have a better game pretending that they are being denied access to the report while they are not.

Nothing but cheap soundbites that end up being deceiving...

Waiting for next portion of BS next week, wondering what it's going to be (not directed at you personally, directed at the thread).

You specifically have been point for point corrected on nearly everything you say here, and pretty much all of your last 30 posts, yet you continue to post the same thing over and over. At some point you're either flat out trolling or just spamming, and now we're three hills past that point, looking back and waving.

[rda]

You specifically have been point for point corrected on nearly everything you say here, and pretty much all of your last 30 posts, yet you continue to post the same thing over and over. At some point you're either flat out trolling or just spamming, and now we're three hills past that point, looking back and waving.

I keep hearing these stories that I specifically has been point-for-point corrected on nearly everything, and stories that I have been lying or posting in bad faith, but every time I hear this there are zero examples.

What are you talking about with your "specifically"? Link me those cases. Put up or shut up.

- - - Updated - - -

And it is frequently used pose on both sides too.

Check this:
Nunes demands Justice Department records. Then he doesn't read them.
As Nunes has moved aggressively to publicly sow doubt about the Russia investigation, the moment marked at least the second time that he has demanded sensitive documents from the Justice Department, only to choose not to read them -- allowing his staff or Gowdy to pore through the materials instead. The California Republican admitted in February that he did not read any applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
His supporters say there's nothing untoward about a chairman being briefed by his staff. But critics say it's another sign Nunes is merely interested in wielding his power to target his political enemies and give cover to Trump, rather than independently learning about the nuances of a complex investigation.

Well, yes.

This all current post-report circus, the way I see it, is essentially this:

The Trump camp / Barr / whoever know that no matter what they do, they are going to have to fight the dems sooner or later. Because the dems just constantly jump demanding more and more. They cannot get anything implicating Trump enough from the report, so they just pick on everything and they won't stop on their own. So, it's not a question of if Barr / whoever is at the spear is going to have to fight, it's a question of where the fight will happen. So, for now, we see this nonsense about who will testify and who won't and about the executive privilege regarding this. This is all temporary. Same as the dems are in it for the show, Barr is also not putting everything into not testifying - he will testify alright should that become better. It all is a stupid game, this time it was started by the dems. The reps did their fair share of such games as well.

(What's beyond me is the anti-Trump posters in this and other threads who think this is the fight for freedom, blind to really obvious dishonest tricks of their side.)

[Huehuecoyotl]

I keep hearing these stories that I specifically has been point-for-point corrected on nearly everything, and stories that I have been lying or posting in bad faith, but every time I hear this there are zero examples.

What are you talking about with your "specifically"? Link me those cases. Put up or shut up.

Hmm. Interesting. Then right under you post:

They cannot get anything implicating Trump enough from the report, so they just pick on everything and they won't stop on their own.

You do realise that there was just hundreds of former Federal prosecutors coming out to say that the report gave clear examples where Trump was implicated by the report to the extent that he would already be facing charges if he weren't President? Because what you've just written there suggests that you don't know that. Or that you are deliberately posting misinformation to try and cloud the issue. There isn't a third option.

[rda]

You do realise that there was just hundreds of former Federal prosecutors coming out to say that the report gave clear examples where Trump was implicated by the report to the extent that he would already be facing charges if he weren't President? Because what you've just written there suggests that you don't know that. Or that you are deliberately posting misinformation to try and cloud the issue. There isn't a third option.

I know about that, you could have just asked.

There are hundreds of former fed prosecutors coming out to say that the report gave clear examples of Trump doing the wrong thing. They are entitled to their opinion. But that's just an opinion. It starts becoming more than just an opinion when some of them will be in the position to actually take this report for real and act on it, turning it into a case if their opinion stands, etc. Currently, Mueller was in such a position. He failed to recommend indictment. If you are saying that an opinion of hundreds of former fed prosecutors should be somehow preferred to the opinion of Mueller, well, go ahead and fight for that, I suppose, but you won't have much support.

[Fahrenheit]

I know about that, you could have just asked.

There are hundreds of former fed prosecutors coming out to say that the report gave clear examples of Trump doing the wrong thing. They are entitled to their opinion. But that's just an opinion. It starts becoming more than just an opinion when some of them will be in the position to actually take this report for real and act on it, turning it into a case if their opinion stands, etc. Currently, Mueller was in such a position. He failed to recommend indictment. If you are saying that an opinion of hundreds of former fed prosecutors should be somehow preferred to the opinion of Mueller, well, go ahead and fight for that, I suppose, but you won't have much support.

Because he couldn't. If Trump were anyone beside POTUS, he'd have been indicted already. Mueller's whole point was to kick it to Congress for them to mull over impeachment, but Barr ran interference purposely to shape the public narrative to be as pro-Trump as much as he could before the bulk of the report came out.

Essentially, the report was about as bad as it possibly could've been, at least in regards to Obstruction, with the rules Mueller set up for himself initially.

[Gorsameth]

I know about that, you could have just asked.

There are hundreds of former fed prosecutors coming out to say that the report gave clear examples of Trump doing the wrong thing. They are entitled to their opinion. But that's just an opinion. It starts becoming more than just an opinion when some of them will be in the position to actually take this report for real and act on it, turning it into a case if their opinion stands, etc. Currently, Mueller was in such a position. He failed to recommend indictment. If you are saying that an opinion of hundreds of former fed prosecutors should be somehow preferred to the opinion of Mueller, well, go ahead and fight for that, I suppose, but you won't have much support.

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.