Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[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.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

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.

Regarding the line in bold, I start with the premise that politics is a very contentious and dirty business. Both parties in this election were using derogatory language, spin and underhanded tactics. In that context, and in the context that Trump felt he was in the right not to comply with the Mueller investigation, it becomes a question of degrees rather than a moral absolute. Besides, Trump didn't just "feel" he was right, he "knew" he didn't collude. For example, making a speech that says, "I hope the Russia releases Hillary's emails," is crude, but it doesn't constitute collusion with Russia. Neither does being informed that wikileaks is going to release information on Hillary. A meeting took place at Trump Tower and Russia might well have been discussed, but Russian interference didn't require the Trump campaign's involvement. The evidence on collusion turned out to be pretty weak. Enough so, that the attorney general proclaimed that Trump was being "falsely accused." No, Tump can't 'disprove' that collusion didn't take place, but in realty, there's no way to do that (prove a negative), and Trump doesn't have such a burden of proof. It would be like accusing someone of sexual assault nearly 30 years after the fact, providing no evidence--not even a date and location, and then telling the person accused he needs to prove it didn't happen. That's not how justice works.

Regarding your second statement, I'm looking from the attorney general's perspective. He is presented a set of facts gathered in the Mueller report and must make an analysis in a purely legal context. Is there enough evidence here to successfully bring criminal charges under collusion and/or obstruction statutes? The attorney general's answer on both counts was no. Amidst all the accusations that Barr is a liar, or traitor, or is hiding, or is acting to protect the president, I hadn't yet seen anyone actually attempt to refute the merits of his legal conclusions, that is, until this group of attorneys sent a public letter in the last week to make an argument that obstruction could potentially be criminally litigated (were the defendant not the President of the U.S.).

Regarding your third statement, yes, the Congress can consider impeachment, and the Mueller report may have opened the door to explore impeachment. So far, the Democrats haven't rallied enough support to pursue it. The Republican Senate would also likely block impeachment, as for the most part, they support the President. If the Democrats aren't going to pursue impeachment, they don't have anywhere meaningful to go with this, other than to drag out more hearings, issue subpoenas, hold people in contempt of Congress when they don't participate, and complain about it all.

 

[babe]

You do realize that would be tens of thousands of investigations.

We typically investigate where there is evidence of illegal activity.

yah. This has been my basic opinion on government generally.....all governments.... all history.

But you are dead wrong. We rarely investigate following evidence..... almost everything we investigate is politically driven, with a sort of arrogance and contempt for the law.

The msm is practicing basic human psycology, not as an objective investigative profession, but as "responsible managers" of public opinion.

In a world with birthing pains for a new world order, which is based on different principles than American traditional values or Constitutional concerns, but on how to achieve a new balance of power that is much more convenient for management, we have the spectacle of prominent Americans receiving huge emoluments from "foreign nationals" now seen as fellow kleptocrats, which are ignored entirely...… while hounding an outsider who isn't already in game for things that might have happened.

The evidence on Joe Biden's billion-dollar "favors" is beyond dispute. His son got a grant from the Chinese in a business he has no skill in. Ukraine officials dumped their investigation of corruption connected to his son.

The Chinese have long "bought off" American politicians as regular procedure, and now have significant holding in American media giants and social network monopolies, enough to have some say in what is permitted in our contemporary society.

You can study the way things are in China today, and you are looking at us ten years from now.

And, no Xi doesn't have to accept election results and ours are about to become irrelevant.

 

[Hotdog]

yah. This has been my basic opinion on government generally.....all governments.... all history.

But you are dead wrong. We rarely investigate following evidence..... almost everything we investigate is politically driven, with a sort of arrogance and contempt for the law.

The msm is practicing basic human psycology, not as an objective investigative profession, but as "responsible managers" of public opinion.

In a world with birthing pains for a new world order, which is based on different principles than American traditional values or Constitutional concerns, but on how to achieve a new balance of power that is much more convenient for management, we have the spectacle of prominent Americans receiving huge emoluments from "foreign nationals" now seen as fellow kleptocrats, which are ignored entirely...… while hounding an outsider who isn't already in game for things that might have happened.

The evidence on Joe Biden's billion-dollar "favors" is beyond dispute. His son got a grant from the Chinese in a business he has no skill in. Ukraine officials dumped their investigation of corruption connected to his son.

The Chinese have long "bought off" American politicians as regular procedure, and now have significant holding in American media giants and social network monopolies, enough to have some say in what is permitted in our contemporary society.

You can study the way things are in China today, and you are looking at us ten years from now.

And, no Xi doesn't have to accept election results and ours are about to become irrelevant.

Great post babe.

No one here can even come close to challenging it without gaslighting.

Here is comes. Upsidedown world

Honk honk.

 

[Red]

You can study the way things are in China today, and you are looking at us ten years from now.

Great post babe.

Oh, I doubt very much that you boys even know the half of it. No, on the contrary, you're babes in the woods about all this. You need to be brought up to speed. It's far more dystopian then you realize.

China is well on its way to implementing a personal scorecard system where each citizen is monitored 24/7 and ranked on their behavior. Read this short piece to get a taste for the social order China is creating. The United States in 10 years?? Really?? Be careful what you think is coming here:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...e/news-story/6c821cbf15378ab0d3eeb3ec3dc98abf

CHINA’S chilling dictatorship is moving quickly to introduce social scorecards by which all citizens will be monitored 24/7 and ranked on their behaviour.

The Communist Party’s plan is for every one of its 1.4 billion citizens to be at the whim of a dystopian social credit system, and it’s on track to be fully operational by the year 2020.

An active pilot program has already seen millions of people each assigned a score out of 800 and either reap its benefits or suffer its consequences — depending on which end of the scale they sit.

Under the social credit scheme, points are lost and gained based on readings from a sophisticated network of 200 million surveillance cameras — a figure set to triple in 18 months.

The program has been enabled by rapid advances in facial recognition, body scanning and geo-tracking.