Mueller report delivered

[jsharmon7]

Can we at least investigate the opposing team? We know for a FACT that the DNC and Clinton campaign colluded with Steele to create a fake dossier in order to get the fraudulent FISA warrant, but nothing has been done about that. There was admitted collusion with a foreign national (Steele) to affect the election. Why is it only suspicious if one thinks a Republican did it (and as it turned out that was false), but NOT suspicious or illegal for the Democrats to do it? One side played by the rules, and the other admittedly didn't, and yet, not a peep out of the DOJ (and since it was still Obama's DOJ that was complicit, I guess that shouldn't surprise me).

If I were Trump, I'd have every one of them investigated intensively from now until after the 2020 election, and maybe even beyond. Subpoena every last one of them, put them under public scrutiny under oath. Show the American citizens who the real criminals are and if found guilty, sentence them to the maximum that the law will allow.

Absolutely! All I’m saying is that they’re mutually exclusive. Misconduct by the DNC doesn’t mean Trump must have been innocent. It’s more nuanced than good vs. evil. And I’m not arguing Trump did anything wrong. I’m simply saying the Mueller report leaves a lot of questions and we shouldn’t let blind following of political tribes blind us. Just because no charges are being filed and the bad guys (Democrats) are mad doesn’t mean all is perfect in the world.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Absolutely! All I’m saying is that they’re mutually exclusive. Misconduct by the DNC doesn’t mean Trump must have been innocent. It’s more nuanced than good vs. evil. And I’m not arguing Trump did anything wrong. I’m simply saying the Mueller report leaves a lot of questions and we shouldn’t let blind following of political tribes blind us. Just because no charges are being filed and the bad guys (Democrats) are mad doesn’t mean all is perfect in the world.

I just found it quite telling that Trump could have invoked executive privilege at several points during this witch hunt, and he chose not to do so. That's not the action of a guilty man with something to hide, or trying to obstruct the investigation, IMHO.

 

[Doug]

WHAT!!?! INVESTIGATE DEMOCRATS?

Any suggestion of investigating Democrats is hate-filled, racist, Nazi, misogynistic, political dirty tricks.

Just ask any Democrat or ABC, NBC, CBS, MS[STRIKE]NBC[/STRIKE]DNC, PBS, OR CNN.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

WHAT!!?! INVESTIGATE DEMOCRATS?

Any suggestion of investigating Democrats is hate-filled, racist, Nazi, misogynistic, political dirty tricks.

Just ask any Democrat or ABC, NBC, CBS, MS[STRIKE]NBC[/STRIKE]DNC, PBS, OR CNN.

Well, it's a little like investigating the Gotti family, so there's that. Witnesses suddenly become accident prone or suicidal for some reason.

 

[Mgderf]

Well, it's a little like investigating the Gotti family, so there's that. Witnesses suddenly become accident prone or suicidal for some reason.

What are you saying, that the democrats may conVince witnesses to Foster
an alternate story?

​Or else what?

 

[Doug]

 

[mmpsteve]

I’m not nearly as concerned about my political team winning as I am the very real possibility of the kind of tyranny for which this country was founded to guard against. If a US President was using his power to disrupt investigations into possible criminal activity, that’s very bad. There are things in that report that tend to clear him, and a lot of things that seem to say “well it looks like this happened but we just can’t jump the legal hurdles to move forward.” Ultimately, the investigation is clearing him of charges and that’s the way the system is supposed to work. I just think we need to be careful not to let our support of the home team make us accept everything we like to hear.

Have you seen evidence that Trump used his power to disrupt Mueller? Seems like it continued to go forward full steam ahead, even when Trump could have disrupted it at any time, but he didn't. In your earlier statement you mentioned a dozen times he tried to take over the investigation and get Mueller fired. I must not have been paying attention, because I don't recall those attempts.

p.s. At Barr's press conference today, he said Mueller's report stated that Trump gave unfettered access to all records and executive branch personnel. Those were Mueller's words.

.

 

[2A_Tom]

If I were Trump, I'd have every one of them investigated intensively from now until after the 2020 election, and maybe even beyond. Subpoena every last one of them, put them under public scrutiny under oath. Show the American citizens who the real criminals are and if found guilty, sentence them to the maximum that the law will allow.

That would be reported and loudly decried to be Politically motivated and anyone tried and convicted would be declared a political prisoner by Amnesty International.

Trump wouls be "LITERALLY STALIN".

 

[IndyDave1776]

Absolutely! All I’m saying is that they’re mutually exclusive. Misconduct by the DNC doesn’t mean Trump must have been innocent. It’s more nuanced than good vs. evil. And I’m not arguing Trump did anything wrong. I’m simply saying the Mueller report leaves a lot of questions and we shouldn’t let blind following of political tribes blind us. Just because no charges are being filed and the bad guys (Democrats) are mad doesn’t mean all is perfect in the world.

What about the fact that the probable cause was a fabrication? I do not see a nuance in the investigation especially FISA warrants being based on fiction. Why are the guilty parties not in prison?

 

[jamil]

So he tried to take over the Russia probe nearly a dozen times. He tried multiple avenues to get Mueller fired, and even said it would be the end of his Presidency. But somehow that’s not obstruction?

Obstruction has a legal definition. I think obstruction would have been easier to prove if his attempts actually succeeded. But also there’s an element of intent required. He told the WH attorney to fire Mueller, and say it’s because he has a conflict of interest. But they had already made the determination that there wasn’t a conflict.

He refused to obey Trump, which likely saved him from a bad outcome. It’s easier to prove obstruction when the investigation is impeded by the investigator being fired for dishonest reasons. I think you could say some unethical things happened, but to be proven as a crime is something else. Trump should thank that guy for saving Trump from himself.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That would be reported and loudly decried to be Politically motivated and anyone tried and convicted would be declared a political prisoner by Amnesty International.

Trump wouls be "LITERALLY STALIN".

Pfft... like this whole Mueller investigation wasn't politically motivated? A politically motivated temper tantrum is all it ever was.

 

[2A_Tom]

Pfft... like this whole Mueller investigation wasn't politically motivated? A politically motivated temper tantrum is all it ever was.

Absolutely, that is the point. The media was 88.9% for the investigation against Trump so it was not reported as political.

If Trump pushed investigations, The media will be 88.9% against him and it will be reported as purely political.

ETA 99.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[BugI02]

Absolutely! All I’m saying is that they’re mutually exclusive. Misconduct by the DNC doesn’t mean Trump must have been innocent. It’s more nuanced than good vs. evil. And I’m not arguing Trump did anything wrong. I’m simply saying the Mueller report leaves a lot of questions and we shouldn’t let blind following of political tribes blind us. Just because no charges are being filed and the bad guys (Democrats) are mad doesn’t mean all is perfect in the world.

If a citizen's use of deadly force goes before a grand jury and they return no indictment, do you conclude it was a good shoot or that the grand jury's failure to indict "... leaves a lot of questions ..."? Asking for a compadre

 

[KG1]

I think the obvious obstruction was when Trump deleted subpoenaed emails then bleached washed hard drives and smashed cellphones devices.

 

[Alpo]

As I said earlier, it's the duty of a citizen to utilize every constitutional means available to make the prosecutor's task a living hell.

Obstruction? You damn right. **** you, mother****ers.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

As I said earlier, it's the duty of a citizen to utilize every constitutional means available to make the prosecutor's task a living hell.

Obstruction? You damn right. **** you, mother****ers.

Alpo, you continue to impress me...

[video=youtube;x1q2F_18cjg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1q2F_18cjg[/video]

 

[KG1]

End of his presidency can mean more than one thing. In context I read it as the end of accomplishing what he wanted to do during his presidency.

^This^ As always the MSM media seized on that tidbit and misrepresented the **** out of it and inferred that Trump was as much as admitting he was guilty of some wrong doing and he thought he was ****ed because of it.

 

[jamil]

If a citizen's use of deadly force goes before a grand jury and they return no indictment, do you conclude it was a good shoot or that the grand jury's failure to indict "... leaves a lot of questions ..."? Asking for a compadre

That’s not the same thing. The Mueller report leaves a lot of unanswered questions. It pretty much says that. If we had an equivalent “dead force” comparison, maybe the conclusion is, well. It doesn’t look good, but not enough evidence to say it’s bad, therefore no charges. That’s not the same thing as saying good shoot. At best, it’s probably not a bad shoot.

But, bottom line is, no charges. I think, probably, Trump didn’t collude with the Russians. Maybe did some shady stuff that didn’t break the law.

 

[jamil]

As I said earlier, it's the duty of a citizen to utilize every constitutional means available to make the prosecutor's task a living hell.

Obstruction? You damn right. **** you, mother****ers.

Citizens? damn straight. POTUS? Not usually, but I’d say when the president has to endure the manufactured ****storm this has been, he has a few “**** you’s” stacked up that he gets to hand out.

 

[BugI02]

I see it differently, as better than indicted, tried and aquitted

In the former, the prosecution thought it could convict and was proven wrong; in the latter the prosecution didn't even think there was enough evidence to make the attempt