What's new

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?


  • Total voters
    29
Folks, we can argue another day over what the proper percentage of taxation should be. Right now one party is still trying to “democracy” while the other has completely given up and is now acting as a cult, covering for a wannabe dictator. There’s a reason why those in my profession (history/political science) and intelligence have been sounding the alarm for several years now.

Are we listening?

Trump’s disinformation campaign, the GOP, and our gullible media is shredding our democracy right now. I don’t know if we’ll really find out more about the Mueller probe than what we know today from Barr. Seeing the media today repeat trumpworld’s “exoneration” claim is so disheartening. Seeing Trumpworld play the country (again) really makes me wonder if he’ll he beaten in 2020. The way CNN, MSNBC, and The NY Times just roll over before him without asking any thought provoking questions is just sad for democracy.
 
Folks, we can argue another day over what the proper percentage of taxation should be. Right now one party is still trying to “democracy” while the other has completely given up and is now acting as a cult, covering for a wannabe dictator. There’s a reason why those in my profession (history/political science) and intelligence have been sounding the alarm for several years now.

Are we listening?

Trump’s disinformation campaign, the GOP, and our gullible media is shredding our democracy right now. I don’t know if we’ll really find out more about the Mueller probe than what we know today from Barr. Seeing the media today repeat trumpworld’s “exoneration” claim is so disheartening. Seeing Trumpworld play the country (again) really makes me wonder if he’ll he beaten in 2020. The way CNN, MSNBC, and The NY Times just roll over before him without asking any thought provoking questions is just sad for democracy.
I don't know. I'd say when someone gets a victory let them have their victory lap.

To my dismay, Trump won the Muller probe.

GG Trump, GG.
 
You can't obstruct justice if there is no actual crime.

This is largelyl incorrect. See
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

"Put another way, can you obstruct justice if there was theoretically nothing to obstruct? We decided to take a closer look. We checked with 11 legal experts to nail down answers. Essentially all of these experts agreed that obstruction can indeed be prosecuted without an underlying crime — and has been in the past, notably in the case of Martha Stewart."

But the authors also noted that "Several experts added, however, that there are some important distinctions between these historical precedents and what Mueller found. So the debate (sorry) will likely continue."
 
This is largelyl incorrect. See
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

"Put another way, can you obstruct justice if there was theoretically nothing to obstruct? We decided to take a closer look. We checked with 11 legal experts to nail down answers. Essentially all of these experts agreed that obstruction can indeed be prosecuted without an underlying crime — and has been in the past, notably in the case of Martha Stewart."

But the authors also noted that "Several experts added, however, that there are some important distinctions between these historical precedents and what Mueller found. So the debate (sorry) will likely continue."
My wife would have an answer (she's a HUGE Martha Stewart fan). Martha Stewart is a woman. Different set of rules. Again, this is what my wife said when Martha Stewart went to prison. Different set of rules.
 
If you couldn’t be charged for obstruction if there is no original crime then you’re essentially rewarding someone for the obstructing justice. It encourages criminals to obstruct the investigation so bad that you can’t charge them with the original crime. It makes no sense. Prosecutors can and do charge people even if when they can’t prove that original crimes were committed. The whole point of obstruction of justice is to maintain the integrity of the investigation.

People are charged all the time with tampering with investigations.

A common obstruction of justice involved drug crimes. Let’s say police officers get a warrant for drugs. In the process of investigating, criminals try and get rid of the evidence (drugs). Even if they get rid of all the drugs they are still guilty of obstruction if they can show reasonably that they were tampering with the investigation. And this happens often.

If we were to only accept obstruction of justice charges if the original crime can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then our system would clearly encourage criminals to tamper as much as possible with investigations hoping they could derail the police on the original crime which would clear them of obstruction. It would essentially render obstruction of justice charges useless. Nixon would’ve gotten off had this logic been applied. He didn’t order the Watergate hit. He wasn’t there. But he did try to cover it up. That type of system doesn’t make any sense.
 
My wife would have an answer (she's a HUGE Martha Stewart fan). Martha Stewart is a woman. Different set of rules. Again, this is what my wife said when Martha Stewart went to prison. Different set of rules.

That’s not how James Comey explains it in his book “A Higher Loyalty.” This is a book I own and have read. But here’s a link summarizing Comey’s rational in his book:

I remembered a case I’d been involved in against an African American minister in Richmond when I was a federal prosecutor there, who had lied to us during an investigation. And I begged this minister, “Please don’t lie to us because if you do, we’re going to have to prosecute you.” He lied. And at the end of the day, we had to prosecute him. And he went to jail for over a year. And as I stood in my office in Manhattan, I’m looking out at the Brooklyn Bridge, I remember this moment. And I’m thinking, “You know, nobody in New York knows that guy’s name except me.”Why would I treat Martha Stewart differently than that guy?” And the reason would only be because she’s rich and famous and because I’ll be criticized for it.

He went after her because she was so blatant in her obstruction/lying. He wanted to apply the law equally.

https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/j...-to-prosecute-martha-stewart-insider-trading/
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if we’ll really find out more about the Mueller probe than what we know today from Barr.

What do we argue about now?

Lmfao, you think this is over? Hahahahaja

Just because Mueller did not uncover a true conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia does not mean there are not a lot of questions to be answered regarding Trump and Russia. We need to see the entire report, obviously, but it is likely within the counterintelligence component of the investigation that some light may yet be shed on the question of Trump and Russia:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...mary-omits-key-aspect-muellers-report/585703/

"Generally speaking, the wide aperture afforded by a counterintelligence investigation might be key to understanding some of the biggest lingering mysteries of the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russians in 2016—mysteries that, if solved, could explain the president’s continued deference toward Russian President Vladimir Putin and skepticism about his conduct on the part of the U.S. intelligence community."

.....Mueller “always noted that the term evidence meant something different to intelligence analysts who had to work with a variety of sources of varying reliability, whereas an FBI officer needed something so unassailable as to work in a court prosecution,” McLaughlin told me, referring to the conversations he had with Mueller while he was FBI director. But as former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell told me, “We still do not understand why President Trump has this affinity for Putin. What happened yesterday is Mueller took one possibility off the table—that there was a criminal conspiracy. But we still don’t know what is going on between these two leaders, and what is driving this relationship.”

It would once have been unthinkable to even contemplate that a sitting president was putting the interests of a hostile foreign power above those of the United States. But Trump’s consistent praise of Putin, his pursuit of a massive real-estate deal in Moscow while Russia was waging a hacking and disinformation campaign against the United States in 2016, and the secrecy that continues to surround his conversations with his Russian counterpart have given some in the national-security community, including many leading Democrats, pause."
 
Last edited:
There may be matters in the Mueller report that are not good to be released to the public. We will probably never see the full report.

However, I would like the full report to be released to the House and Senate Intelligence committees. Like it or not, we'll probably have to rely on them.
 
To my dismay, Trump won the Muller probe.

Yes, and he is going to bludgeon his enemies right up to election 2020, and since this is Trump we're talking about, the hyperbole will likely be like nothing we have ever seen in American history. As well, if and when we get to see the full Mueller report, we are not going to see a sqeeky clean Trump. But, we will likely enter a new and extremely ugly phase in this political war of ours. That really can't be good for the body politic, but it is most certainly coming our way.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3268972002
 
Thrill, why do you call the GOP a personality cult of the stupid? Why do you claim that the GOPA cares more about protecting Trump and triggering liberals than governing? You’re so partisan when you advocate for voting out the GOP at every level and empowering the democrats. Don’t you think that BOTH sides are equally to blame for the mess in Washington DC?

News today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ness-before-states-first-muslim-woman-swears/

And

https://www.si.com/olympics/2019/03...cation-cuts-special-olympics-funding-proposal

And



So in response to a Muslim democrat being sworn into office, a republican “Christian” gives an absurd islamaphobic prayer. The sec of Edu proposes taxpayer funded handouts to private schools and cuts to special Olympics. And in response to the green new deal, Mike Lee shows pictures of Reagan riding a velociraptor, rather than propose serious legislation to lessen the effects of a very real issue, climate change. In fact, Lee explained that his solution is for people to have more kids...

But Thrill, why do you say the things you do? Aren’t both sides the same thing?
 
Thrill, why do you call the GOP a personality cult of the stupid? Why do you claim that the GOPA cares more about protecting Trump and triggering liberals than governing? You’re so partisan when you advocate for voting out the GOP at every level and empowering the democrats. Don’t you think that BOTH sides are equally to blame for the mess in Washington DC?

News today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ness-before-states-first-muslim-woman-swears/

And

https://www.si.com/olympics/2019/03...cation-cuts-special-olympics-funding-proposal

And



So in response to a Muslim democrat being sworn into office, a republican “Christian” gives an absurd islamaphobic prayer. The sec of Edu proposes taxpayer funded handouts to private schools and cuts to special Olympics. And in response to the green new deal, Mike Lee shows pictures of Reagan riding a velociraptor, rather than propose serious legislation to lessen the effects of a very real issue, climate change. In fact, Lee explained that his solution is for people to have more kids...

But Thrill, why do you say the things you do? Aren’t both sides the same thing?
Thats no velociraptor

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Top