What's new
By:
Filters

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

  • Total voters
    29
To impeach, or not impeach. An excercise in ultimate futility and failure? A recipe for Democratic defeat in 2020? Or a moral necessity, an obligation to principle, to decide that impeachment represents our decision to choose between "liberal democracy or a form of elective authoritarianism"? "Game Over" Trump declares, and indeed, we have not seen anything yet. Trump unleashed will be set upon us. Lost in the 18 month long focus on "collusion" and "obstruction" is the image of a morally bankrupt authoritarian that is revealed in the report.

Will future generations ask "why did you lay down and simply accept this?"


https://www.theguardian.com/comment...port-bad-guys-play-dirty-trump-democrats-duty

".....they cannot ignore what Mueller has shown them. If they did, they would be accepting what Trump has done: they would be normalising his destruction of essential norms, allowing him to tear down those barriers that stand between liberal democracy and a form of elective authoritarianism, a gangster state."

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-coan-mueller-report-nixon-trump-20190419-story.html

"But if Trump escapes unscathed, future presidents will take notice. The cautionary tale of Watergate will be superseded by the Trump triumph and its very different lesson: In the hyperpolarized political environment of the early 21st century, the president is a law unto himself."
 
Bulletproof said:
So I should actually waste my time watching the link here?

And NPC, there's this ****ing thing called an apostrophe. Look it up. We speak English here.
Click to expand...

Guilty

I dont use the apostrophe. I cant find it on the first page on my keyboard. Its on the second page. Thats too much wasted time to chase that thing down.
 
Red said:
To impeach, or not impeach. An excercise in ultimate futility and failure? A recipe for Democratic defeat in 2020? Or a moral necessity, an obligation to principle, to decide that impeachment represents our decision to choose between "liberal democracy or a form of elective authoritarianism"? "Game Over" Trump declares, and indeed, we have not seen anything yet. Trump unleashed will be set upon us. Lost in the 18 month long focus on "collusion" and "obstruction" is the image of a morally bankrupt authoritarian that is revealed in the report.

Will future generations ask "why did you lay down and simply accept this?"


https://www.theguardian.com/comment...port-bad-guys-play-dirty-trump-democrats-duty

".....they cannot ignore what Mueller has shown them. If they did, they would be accepting what Trump has done: they would be normalising his destruction of essential norms, allowing him to tear down those barriers that stand between liberal democracy and a form of elective authoritarianism, a gangster state."

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-coan-mueller-report-nixon-trump-20190419-story.html

"But if Trump escapes unscathed, future presidents will take notice. The cautionary tale of Watergate will be superseded by the Trump triumph and its very different lesson: In the hyperpolarized political environment of the early 21st century, the president is a law unto himself."
Click to expand...

Red, it doesnt appear that you have accepted the results of the Muller probe. You voted yes in this thread.
 
Red said:
And the Mueller report revealed how the "fake news" emanated, not from the media, but from Donald Trump....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...96e574-61f7-11e9-9412-daf3d2e67c6d_story.html
Click to expand...

Sorry, I cant read the link. It wants one dollar. I refuse to give the Washington Post one dollar, or any other news outlet out there, fake or otherwise. Haha. The nerve of them to ask for a dolar. Wtf

I'll go off the cuff instead. The Muller reports "suggests" the fake news came from Trump. Sorry, but I dont take news reports with the words "appears" and "suggests" as their best proof. Which what you see alot with these "news" outlets.
 
And there you have it.

I bet they’d totally have this same view if the Chinese had hacked the RNC and worked to help elect Clinton. Right?

Yet another democratic norm tossed aside in one party’s desire to hold onto power. Meanwhile, the American electorate is trampled upon.

 
The Thriller said:
And there you have it.

I bet they’d totally have this same view if the Chinese had hacked the RNC and worked to help elect Clinton. Right?

Yet another democratic norm tossed aside in one party’s desire to hold onto power. Meanwhile, the American electorate is trampled upon.

Click to expand...


These are all just political games. You are acting like Trump shot your grandma. The left is over reacting, on purpose. To get you gullible guppies revved up and outraged. It clearly working.

Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to not see it? Did the left have the same level of outrage when Hillary was committing obstruction of justice?

You are being hypnotized and dont even know it.

No, there isnt anything wrong with taken information from the Russians. Your whole stance against it flies in the face of your supposed thirst for truth. Or your supposed stance against government corruption. Or your supposed ok-ness with not being a country and ok with open boarders, anti-nationalism etc... Why arent the Russians included in your warm welcome of everyone to the country? Why are they inherently evil? Why cant they influence elections like Mexico does? Whats the difference? Location? Well then why cant Russians just come right over and be instant citizens who can vote?

What I am saying is that there are a million holes in your logic. You have inconsistencies and hypocrisy littered through your logic. That can only mean you really aren't thinking. Someone is telling you what to think.
 
Last edited:
NPC D4617 said:
Red, it doesnt appear that you have accepted the results of the Muller probe. You voted yes in this thread.
Click to expand...

I view the Mueller report as being, in part, a roadmap for Congress to decide what further action they want to take.

Further, in the report itself, and regarding obstruction of justice, Mueller specifically stated that if they felt the evidence justified exonerating the president, they would have done so, but that the evidence presented did not permit such a conclusion. He spells that right out. I don't find myself disagreeing with that at all, or unaccepting of it. What part of that eludes your comprehension?

It's possible that you have a different interpretation of the report then I do, but that does not mean your conclusion above is accurate.

Further, the picture that emerges of Trump, from the Mueller report, is of a man unfit for the office. Democrats may feel, as I believe Cummings indicated this morning, that "history would smile on the Democrats" if they defended the Constitution, even if drafting articles of impeachment were doomed to be defeated by Senate Republicans.

I have not decided as yet where I stand on that component of the problem facing my nation at this time. I don't wish to do anything that might actually help Trump win in 2020, but I can appreciate Cumming's perspective. Sometimes you have to take a stand.

At any rate, the picture of this president's character that emerges from the Mueller report is of a man unfit for that office. The conclusions of the Mueller report do not preclude possible articles of impeachment at all. That is my opinion, and your judgement of where I stand simply carries no weight with me.
 
NPC D4617 said:
Red, it doesnt appear that you have accepted the results of the Muller probe. You voted yes in this thread.
Click to expand...

I left a searchable version of the Mueller report. Go to page 2 of Vol. 2, or simply type "exonerate" into the document search field:

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgement".

In fact, I may not agree with Mueller's judgement there, but I must accept it. The question remains what must the House Democrats decide at this point? And that question always hung over the eventual report. The "problem" here is likely your idea of the "results" differ from mine. Try to keep that in mind, since, basically what you're really saying here is "Red, it does not appear as if what you see as the results of the Mueller report are the same as what I see are the results of the Mueller report". Regarding which, I could not care less that we differ. Remember that, and save yourself the bother of making pointless observations.
 
Last edited:
Red said:
Cheapskate.



Fixed.
Click to expand...

Haha.

I can afford a dollar, but its the principal of the matter. I feel like its a biased news organization. And most other news is free anyways. Why would I want to pay for someone's else rude and biased opinion on things? I feel like they have a lot of nerve even asking for it. They are targeting a certain group of people, well then thats all the type of payers they are going to get.
 
NPC D4617 said:
Haha.

I can afford a dollar, but its the principal of the matter. I feel like its a biased news organization. And most other news is free anyways. Why would I want to pay for someone's else rude and biased opinion on things? I feel like they have a lot of nerve even asking for it. They are targeting a certain group of people, well then thats all the type of payers they are going to get.
Click to expand...

Actually, I find the number of news sites erecting paywalls is increasing. Kinda ticks me off, but in the case of the Post, I just surrendered and subscribed for a year, in my second year now. The investigative journalism is just too good, they have the resources many other news outlets do not. With something like the New York Times, I get 5 articles per month before the paywall goes up. I can't afford them all. Even my one state wide local paper has a paywall. I can understand some of this is due to a big decline in hard copy subscriptions. In other cases, the news sites only have an online version, no hard copy versions, and I just see that trend increasing.

If it's done due to declining subscription rates for the traditional hard line copies, or they simply are not selling the papers they once did, then I can at least understand the struggle to simply survive in the internet age. I will likely always prefer reading a hard copy newspaper, but my local rates for that went up to the point I canceled delivery years ago now.
 
NPC D4617 said:
Haha.

I can afford a dollar, but its the principal of the matter. I feel like its a biased news organization. And most other news is free anyways. Why would I want to pay for someone's else rude and biased opinion on things? I feel like they have a lot of nerve even asking for it. They are targeting a certain group of people, well then thats all the type of payers they are going to get.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, if it's the Post, I will do a search for the article title to see if I can find a free copy of the piece, but most times I don't bother going through that. I am aware people will run into a paywall, but others will not run into one, whether because they have not reached the limit allowed for free reads, and other times I'm not sure why they don't have a problem where paywalls are concerned. I think sometimes if one finds the article on Apple News, the paywall does not come into play. And of course we gravitate toward outlets that support our own viewpoints.

The Post article you could not read simply listed a number of occasions where Trump said a news report was fake news, but Mueller demonstrated the news report was in fact accurate. I would not hold the fact that the word "suggested" was used against them in that instance.

I have always seen much of Trump's fake news mantra as the technique or position I expect to see from authoritarians or would be authoritarians. Attacking an adversarial press is authoritarianism 101, but of course all presidents have had problems with adversarial press coverage. IMHO, it beats a totally compliant press, since we must never abdicate the freedom to speak truth to power.

Of course, we should expect debate and disagreement on what constitutes "truth", but Trump's relentless attacks on our free press is one of the chief ways he is helping erode our democratic institutions. In that endeavor, it does not help that the press suffers from historic low opinions among the public.
 
Last edited:
If The Mueller Report didn't prove a coordinated attempt by Trump and the Russians to rig the election in his favor, can we all agree that it illustrated that the people representing the nominated candidate for one of our major political parties had WAYYYYYY more interactions with Russian operatives than we should be comfortable with?
 
The Mueller Report Amounts To A Democratic Oppo Research Document

https://www.dailywire.com/news/46272/hammer-mueller-report-amounts-democratic-oppo-josh-hammer

"For two years now, many in the right-leaning political/commentariat class have advanced the notion that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe, which began as a counter-intelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election but quickly transmogrified into a catch-all criminal probe against the president's 2016 campaign and subsequent administration, would ultimately serve no purpose other than as grist for over-zealous Democratic impeachment efforts."
 
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...an-rips-media-obsession-over-impeaching-trump

"On ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos Sunday, Terry Moran doubled down on a surprising admission he made one month ago on the program, that the Mueller report would be a “reckoning” for the media and Democrats, after they spent so much time hyping it. On Easter Sunday, Moran emphasized again how the “obsession” of using Mueller to impeach Trump was going to backfire spectacularly for both the media and the left."
 
candrew said:
If The Mueller Report didn't prove a coordinated attempt by Trump and the Russians to rig the election in his favor, can we all agree that it illustrated that the people representing the nominated candidate for one of our major political parties had WAYYYYYY more interactions with Russian operatives than we should be comfortable with?
Click to expand...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ies-continue-establishment-column/3535024002/

"Trump is not subordinate to Russia
Even post-Mueller, the hysteria continues. Ralph Peters, on CNN, referred to President Trump as "slavishly subordinate” to Vladimir Putin. But that’s crazy. Trump has sanctioned Russia for its actions in Ukraine, Syria, and Iran, under his command the United States military killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria, has been sending weapons to Ukraine to resist Russian invasion, and most importantly has promoted U.S. oil production, crushing Russia’s main source of money and influence.

As Walter Russell Mead wrote in 2017:

If Trump were the Manchurian candidate that people keep wanting to believe that he is, here are some of the things he’d be doing:

► Limiting fracking as much as he possibly could

► Blocking oil and gas pipelines

► Opening negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions

► Cutting U.S. military spending

► Trying to tamp down tensions with Russia’s ally Iran

That Trump is planning to do precisely the opposite of these things may or may not be good policy for the United States, but anybody who thinks this is a Russia appeasement policy has been drinking way too much joy juice.

Obama actually did all of these things, and none of the liberal media now up in arms about Trump ever called Obama a Russian puppet; instead, they preferred to see a brave, farsighted and courageous statesman."
 
candrew said:
If The Mueller Report didn't prove a coordinated attempt by Trump and the Russians to rig the election in his favor, can we all agree that it illustrated that the people representing the nominated candidate for one of our major political parties had WAYYYYYY more interactions with Russian operatives than we should be comfortable with?
Click to expand...

I for one am not comfortable with it. Hell no.

I guess my question is, were people expecting a signed contract in blood between Putin and Trump explaining how Putin would hack the DNC and release their hacked info via Wikileaks in exchange for eased sanctions? A signed contract like Mitchell has with the Jazz? Was that the standard that we set in order to impeach Trump? Jeez, because if so... We might as well get rid of impeachment. Even Nixon didn't "order" his plumbers to hack into the DNC. They did that on their own and then when caught, Nixon merely tried to obstruct the investigation. He was caught via the White House tapes and through fellow witnesses. That was his downfall. But there wasn't any official signed contract between him and his plumbers directing them to hack Watergate and commit xyz in exchange for x-amount of dollars. So if we didn't find that with Nixon and his domestic plumbers, why should we hold Trump and Russia to a higher standard? If anything, Russia is going to be far more subtle and sly about their actions.

I think this has played out exactly how I thought it would.

  • Trump and his subordinates had WAAAAYYYYYY too much contact with the Russians. Did the Russians officially and formally draw up a contract? Hell no, that would be stupid. But they sent a clear message that through indirect ways that they were all in for Trump. These messages were received by the Trump camp despite being warned in October 2016 about Russian interference.
  • Once this story didn't go away, Trump tried to flush it down the toilet by firing Comey. Things got worse and he's been lying about contact with the Russians, his business deals, and conspiracy ever since.
  • Now his idiotic lawyer is mixing collusion and conspiracy and claiming that neither is a crime and that there's nothing wrong with working with the Russians in hopes that Americans just grow exhausted and frustrated and lose interest.


So all of this brings up 3 questions:
  • 1. Are we really comfortable with foreign governments playing games in our politics? Should the Democrats enlist the Chinese to help in 2020?
  • 2. Are we really comfortable with a President who is clearly compromised by the Russians? Even right now, as we speak, the Russians hold all the cards. Trump for 2 years has denied having anything to do with Russia. That's been a blatant lie. Do we seriously not think that the Russians haven't been paying attention to his denials? What do you think the world thinks about nonsense tweets like this?

  • 3. Shouldn't the office of the President be held to the highest standards? Republicans can suffer an impeachment here. Get rid of Trump. Come back strong in 2020 with a better candidate. Come back in 2024. The problem is, one political party appears to actually agree with how Trump conducts himself and is totally fine with Russian help. Democracy be damned. And as long as they hold at least 1/3rd majority in the senate, they can filibuster any progressive legislation no matter how many Democrats are in the House and White House.
 
NPC D4617 said:
Sorry, I cant read the link. It wants one dollar. I refuse to give the Washington Post one dollar, or any other news outlet out there, fake or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Protip: if you are using Chrome, you can open the link in an incognito tab for free. (not sure about other browsers but they might have something similar)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top