Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[LogGrad98]

Here's a question. If Mueller didn't find enough to indict, and considering the high bar of high crimes and misdemeanors, what do you think is going to be uncovered in the report that really does anything to Trump? If you like Trump, anything short of a conviction equals full exoneration. If you don't like Trump, nothing will likely ever equal anything but full guilt. But what could possibly be in there that would lead to anything other than an "I told you so" moment?

To me this has become like his tax returns. Frankly there isn't going to be anything in his tax returns that will lead to anything meaningful. The odds of finding some strange numbers or business dealings that are bad enough to do something like impeach, but that the IRS find just fine, are very slim. Same with the Mueller report at this point.

Believe me I am in camp release the full report. I just don't really see what anyone thinks will come of it beyond what we have right now.

These 2 things are starting to feel more and more like the birther ******** with Obama.

 

[Stars Fan]

Lost in the discussion of what Trump and his campaign did or didn't do, is talk of what he should have done, and should be doing now.

Here are the facts as I see them.

1. The Russians interfered in our election on behalf of the Republican candidate.

2. That campaign and candidate welcomed the interference.

3. The newly elected president took an oath of office to protect and defend the constitution and the nation it represents.

4. In encounter after encounter with the author and director of the interference, Putin, Trump defends not the nation he has sworn to defend, but the guy who is trying to undermine it and it's place in the world. The most egregious example was the Helsinki encounter, the most recent was just a week ago during a phone call.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...port-agreed-no-collusion-white-house-n1001706

The President, and his staff, continues to blame the previous administration for not doing more to stop the interference, while doing nothing. Why does he not call Putin out? Because his ego can't take admitting Russia helped him win? Because he believes the Kremlin more than the CIA and FBI?

He may not have conspired with Russia during the campaign, but he sure is falling short in performing his duties now. He and his supporters have created such division, by spinning the institutions that protect us, the FBI and CIA, as the enemy and true conspirators, and by slamming any news agency that disagrees with him as the enemy of the people.

I hope that we, as a nation, wake up soon, and start the process of "moving on" from the alternate reality of the Trump presidency.

#D.O.N. is the answer to all our challenges!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

Here's a question. If Mueller didn't find enough to indict.

From what I understand he did find enough to indict a regular person but there is some kind of rule that makes its harder or impossible for him to indict a president. Also have heard that only the DOJ has the power/ability to indict so Mueller's hands were tied as it pertains to indictment

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[One Brow]

When you post trash like this it can only be summed up as gas lighting.

Yes, we are all aware you think reality is trash.

 

[Stars Fan]

When you post trash like this it can only be summed up as gas lighting.

Danger!, danger! Will Robinson!

No supporter of the president can ever use the term "gas lighting" without drawing attention to the concerted efforts he makes to gas light us all.

One Brow actually makes a good point. Which Republican is it that has accepted that the Russians attacked our democratic process? That the investigation did not have a complete understanding of that attack because of efforts to resist the investigation? That there is evidence of obstruction of justice by the President? Those were all findings in the executive summary of the report.

#D.O.N. is the answer to all our challenges!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You mean, CNN favors the center, because you just above said the far left doesn't count. I wish you could be a little more consistent here.

Oh, so all Fox News has to do to become centrist in your eyes is to get some sort of fact wrong on a story about an ultra-right whacko that they (along with practically everyone else) disagrees with? Good to know.

 

[One Brow]

Oh, so all Fox News has to do to become centrist in your eyes is to get some sort of fact wrong on a story about an ultra-right whacko that they (along with practically everyone else) disagrees with? Good to know.

My eyes? I thought we were talking about your eyes.

I am curious who is so far to the right that Fox News disagrees with them, though.

 

[One Brow]

Remember this chart:

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

CNN, basically in the middle, and has the lowest quality rating by far of any organization there. Basically centrist, but with a strong bias for sensationalism over news.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

My eyes? I thought we were talking about your eyes.

I am curious who is so far to the right that Fox News disagrees with them, though.

If we were talking about my eyes this debate would have been over a long time ago. And LOL that you think there is nobody to the right of Fox News. Goodbye.

 

[One Brow]

If we were talking about my eyes this debate would have been over a long time ago. And LOL that you think there is nobody to the right of Fox News.

No, I think there are people to the right of Fox News. What I asked is who was so far right that Fox thinks they are too far right?

 

[Harambe]

No, I think there are people to the right of Fox News. What I asked is who was so far right that Fox thinks they are too far right?

No one.

Except maybe the left.

 

[Red]

 

[Gameface]

Here's a question. If Mueller didn't find enough to indict, and considering the high bar of high crimes and misdemeanors, what do you think is going to be uncovered in the report that really does anything to Trump? If you like Trump, anything short of a conviction equals full exoneration. If you don't like Trump, nothing will likely ever equal anything but full guilt. But what could possibly be in there that would lead to anything other than an "I told you so" moment?

To me this has become like his tax returns. Frankly there isn't going to be anything in his tax returns that will lead to anything meaningful. The odds of finding some strange numbers or business dealings that are bad enough to do something like impeach, but that the IRS find just fine, are very slim. Same with the Mueller report at this point.

Believe me I am in camp release the full report. I just don't really see what anyone thinks will come of it beyond what we have right now.

These 2 things are starting to feel more and more like the birther ******** with Obama.

I don't think there is anything in the Muller report (unredacted) that will change anything.

I think there is plenty in the report to establish what Nixon left office for.

His tax returns? Well... I don't know why he is so afraid of letting us see his tax returns. But he sure the **** is afraid of letting us see them.

Could it be that he is nowhere near as wealthy as he claims to be? Is it that he has lost money year over year over year? Is it both? Does he claim his weird toadstool dick as a deduction? Who knows. What we do know is that he doesn't want us to know.

Obama showed his birth certificate. Trump has been too afraid to show his tax returns.

 

[colton]

This thread keeps going and going. At this point, it's a question of whether the Democrats in Congress are ever going to accept the findings of the Mueller probe. I think just about everyone else has moved on.

What do you view as the findings? I view them as

a) The trump campaign had numerous contacts with Russians who interfered substantially and criminally in the election, but the contacts were not to the level where criminal conspiracy could be proven.
b) trump committed numerous acts of obstruction of justice to block the investigation, which in very high likelihood would have resulted in him being indicted were it not the DoJ policy to not charge a sitting president.

Do you see the findings of the probe as being different than that? If so, what and why? I really don't see how any reasonable reading of the report could see it differently than that.

 

[colton]

Lost in the discussion of what Trump and his campaign did or didn't do, is talk of what he should have done, and should be doing now.

Here are the facts as I see them.

1. The Russians interfered in our election on behalf of the Republican candidate.

2. That campaign and candidate welcomed the interference.

3. The newly elected president took an oath of office to protect and defend the constitution and the nation it represents.

4. In encounter after encounter with the author and director of the interference, Putin, Trump defends not the nation he has sworn to defend, but the guy who is trying to undermine it and it's place in the world. The most egregious example was the Helsinki encounter, the most recent was just a week ago during a phone call.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...port-agreed-no-collusion-white-house-n1001706

The President, and his staff, continues to blame the previous administration for not doing more to stop the interference, while doing nothing. Why does he not call Putin out? Because his ego can't take admitting Russia helped him win? Because he believes the Kremlin more than the CIA and FBI?

He may not have conspired with Russia during the campaign, but he sure is falling short in performing his duties now. He and his supporters have created such division, by spinning the institutions that protect us, the FBI and CIA, as the enemy and true conspirators, and by slamming any news agency that disagrees with him as the enemy of the people.

I hope that we, as a nation, wake up soon, and start the process of "moving on" from the alternate reality of the Trump presidency.

#D.O.N. is the answer to all our challenges!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

I was with you until the last sentence. Who or what is #D.O.N.?

 

[fishonjazz]

What do you view as the findings? I view them as

a) The trump campaign had numerous contacts with Russians who interfered substantially and criminally in the election, but the contacts were not to the level where criminal conspiracy could be proven.
b) trump committed numerous acts of obstruction of justice to block the investigation, which in very high likelihood would have resulted in him being indicted were it not the DoJ policy to not charge a sitting president.

Do you see the findings of the probe as being different than that? If so, what and why? I really don't see how any reasonable reading of the report could see it differently than that.

This
Good post

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Stars Fan]

I was with you until the last sentence. Who or what is #D.O.N.?

It is Donovan Mitchell's tag for his shoe line Determination Over Negativity. I tried to add it as a signature, below the script like my other sig about the Mueller report, but for some reason when I post from my phone it appears in the text of the post. I think I'll delete it and try to add it again from my computer and see if that makes a difference.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

What do you view as the findings? I view them as

a) The trump campaign had numerous contacts with Russians who interfered substantially and criminally in the election, but the contacts were not to the level where criminal conspiracy could be proven.
b) trump committed numerous acts of obstruction of justice to block the investigation, which in very high likelihood would have resulted in him being indicted were it not the DoJ policy to not charge a sitting president.

Do you see the findings of the probe as being different than that? If so, what and why? I really don't see how any reasonable reading of the report could see it differently than that.

From what I understand --

a) Russian intelligence made efforts to interfere with the 2016 election, including placing propaganda on social media sites and hacking Democratic computers. Some hacked emails were released to wikileaks and were published. However, this was not initiated by Trump or his campaign, nor did the campaign conspire or collude for it to happen. Hence the underlying criminality of "collusion" was shown to be a false allegation. The effect Russian interference actually caused on the outcome of the election is debatable. Trump had a large and galvanized base of support. In my opinion, James Comey's stating that the FBI should re-open the investigation into Hillary's email server likely had a bigger effect on independent voters.

b) The Trump administration believed the entire Russian collusion investigation was politically motivated and unwarranted. He absolutely resisted and tried to obstruct the investigation. There are 10 clear incidents where this is the case. However, it is a matter of legal interpretation as to whether these constitute obstruction of justice under federal statutes, especially when there is no underlying criminality. The attorney general concluded that they don't constitute obstruction. Hundreds of lawyers are now writing in and making an argument that they do constitute obstruction. The argument becomes moot as a sitting president cannot be indicted.

c) Now, here's the next step.... The FBI colluded with Trump's political opponents to produce the original Trump dossier, which became the basis of a FISA warrant for the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign and then evolved into the full Mueller investigation after the election result. The former MI6 investigator Robert Steele was originally paid by the Marco Rubio campaign and then later the Hillary Clinton campaign, while he was still on the payroll of the FBI, in order to carry out the investigation. This is now being investigated within the Department of Justice, as it's very likely that FBI rules were broken to frame Trump.

https://m.thebl.com/politics/the-tr...-opponents-from-both-parties-and-the-fbi.html


At least, that's my read. It seems the democrats have long moved past the collusion question, but will continue to harp on obstruction, crying outrage and throwing subpoenas, in the hopes of continuing to discredit Trump before the next election cycle. All this after the original Russia collusion allegation is showing to have been a ruse that lasted two years.

 

[fishonjazz]

Poor Trump. Such a good innocent decent human being always getting picked on by the mean ol democrats.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[colton]

From what I understand --

a) Russian intelligence made efforts to interfere with the 2016 election, including placing propaganda on social media sites and hacking Democratic computers. Some hacked emails were released to wikileaks and were published. However, this was not initiated by Trump or his campaign, nor did the campaign conspire or collude for it to happen. Hence the underlying criminality of "collusion" was shown to be a false allegation. The effect Russian interference actually caused on the outcome of the election is debatable. Trump had a large and galvanized base of support. In my opinion, James Comey's stating that the FBI should re-open the investigation into Hillary's email server likely had a bigger effect on independent voters.

b) The Trump administration believed the entire Russian collusion investigation was politically motivated and unwarranted. He absolutely resisted and tried to obstruct the investigation. There are 10 clear incidents where this is the case. However, it is a matter of legal interpretation as to whether these constitute obstruction of justice under federal statutes, especially when there is no underlying criminality. The attorney general concluded that they don't constitute obstruction. Hundreds of lawyers are now writing in and making an argument that they do constitute obstruction. The argument becomes moot as a sitting president cannot be indicted.

c) Now, here's the next step.... The FBI colluded with Trump's political opponents to produce the original Trump dossier, which became the basis of a FISA warrant for the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign and then evolved into the full Mueller investigation after the election result. The former MI6 investigator Robert Steele was originally paid by the Marco Rubio campaign and then later the Hillary Clinton campaign, while he was still on the payroll of the FBI, in order to carry out the investigation. This is now being investigated within the Department of Justice, as it's very likely that FBI rules were broken to frame Trump.

https://m.thebl.com/politics/the-tr...-opponents-from-both-parties-and-the-fbi.html


At least, that's my read. It seems the democrats have long moved past the collusion question, but will continue to harp on obstruction, crying outrage and throwing subpoenas, in the hopes of continuing to discredit Trump before the next election cycle. All this after the original Russia collusion allegation is showing to have been a ruse that lasted two years.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I won't comment on c) because I haven't researched it enough yet myself to know what or what not to believe. But let me ask you more about this that you wrote, "The Trump administration believed the entire Russian collusion investigation was politically motivated and unwarranted. He absolutely resisted and tried to obstruct the investigation. There are 10 clear incidents where this is the case."

Is it your opinion that it's OK to obstruct justice when a person feels an investigation is unwarranted?

Also, I think this comment of yours is quite wrong: "Hence the underlying criminality of "collusion" was shown to be a false allegation." It wasn't shown to be a false allegation. Rather, not enough evidence was found to SUPPORT the allegation. Those are two very different things. And personally, I think it's very possible that Trump's obstruction may very well be the REASON they didn't find enough evidence to support the allegation. But it is what it is, and I'll grant that a criminal conspiracy was not proven to exist. (But it wasn't proven to not exist, get it?)

I will also point out another comment of yours that I think is wrong: "The attorney general concluded that they don't constitute obstruction. Hundreds of lawyers are now writing in and making an argument that they do constitute obstruction. The argument becomes moot as a sitting president cannot be indicted." A sitting president cannot be indicted (as per policy) because it is felt that it's Congress's duty to first impeach said president and remove him from office, should the offenses rise to a certain level. Therefore the argument is very much NOT moot, in that Congress now has a duty to determine whether Trump's obstruction is an impeachable offense. If the 900 or so lawyers are correct, then in my opinion Congress should certainly impeach and remove him from office. And then he should be indicted.