ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Did Mueller's statement clear up any of Trump's fog of lies that you folks are suffering from?

I note that Scrotie, to his credit, had figured out some of that already on his own by reading the Mueller report. You other poor folks still seem to think that the Mueller report fully exonerates our pathological lying President.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Did Mueller's statement clear up any of Trump's fog of lies that you folks are suffering from?

I note that Scrotie, to his credit, had figured out some of that already on his own by reading the Mueller report. You other poor folks still seem to think that the Mueller report fully exonerates our pathological lying President.

The message was crisp and clear, IMO.

It was clear. Mueller in the end didnt disagree with Barr, stood by his report, and did not find collusion or criminal obstruction. He did point out behavior in his report that required investigation, but to which charges would not have been filed.

So while it doesnt fully exonerate, surely nothing further is suggested either. If you are unfamiliar with the laws in this country, not having enough evidence to find someone guilty doesnt infer innocence, nor does it implicate guilt. You just cant prove criminality.

So it's over. The report stands for itself. Dems can do whatever they want with it, but ultimately Trump is in the clear from a criminal standpoint, and there is 0% chance of him being removed from office by the Senate.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Nope. He essentially called Barr a liar for saying that the policy had nothing to do with how the investigation was carried out when it had EVERYTHING to do with it.

"If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

Congress will bring the witnesses and they will eventually impeach criminal Trump for FAR MORE than just obstruction of justice.

Hahah far more than obstruction? Like what? Jesus the delusions. And impeachment is a political process not a criminal one. You dont even make sense.

They dont have even close to 67 Senate votes. Get a grip. And of all members of the House they only currently have 39 Dems and 1 Republican willing to move forward with impeachment.

ITS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. So go to your safe place and clutch those pearls, the next 18 months is gonna be long for you.

"

Turtledove wrote:

I note that Scrotie, to his credit, had figured out some of that already on his own by reading the Mueller report.

Nothing Mueller said today was different from what I had already constructed in my mind. Where Rush Limbaugh was today, I was weeks ago. (Limbaugh audio via Breitbart.)

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

It was clear. Mueller in the end didnt disagree with Barr, stood by his report, and did not find collusion or criminal obstruction. He did point out behavior in his report that required investigation, but to which charges would not have been filed.

So while it doesnt fully exonerate, surely nothing further is suggested either. If you are unfamiliar with the laws in this country, not having enough evidence to find someone guilty doesnt infer innocence, nor does it implicate guilt. You just cant prove criminality.

So it's over. The report stands for itself. Dems can do whatever they want with it, but ultimately Trump is in the clear from a criminal standpoint, and there is 0% chance of him being removed from office by the Senate.

Nope. He essentially called Barr a liar for saying that the policy had nothing to do with how the investigation was carried out when it had EVERYTHING to do with it.

"If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

Congress will bring the witnesses and they will eventually impeach criminal Trump for FAR MORE than just obstruction of justice.

I think you're both partially right. Strangely, Mueller had kind words for the Attorney General today — strange considering Barr's statements that Mueller said the OoLC's position wasn't relevant when Mueller made such a big deal about how a sitting President cannot be indicted. It's a contradiction, which means either Barr lied or Mueller did. (The_Impeacher is unsurprisingly quick to assume.)

I think Congress will impeach. I think they will go for more than just obstruction. And I think there is a 0% chance of the Senate convicting.

It's very odd how Mueller behaves. Almost as if his mission in life is to bait the House into an impeachment that has no hope of removal. I said within 48 hours of the report's release that it had a strong "psychic poker" feel to it, and now we have the man holding the cards saying, directly and publicly, that we won't be getting any more reads off of him. "My testimony is the report" — what you see is all you're gonna get. The opposite of clarity.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I said within 48 hours of the report's release that it had a strong "psychic poker" feel to it, and now we have the man holding the cards saying, directly and publicly, that we won't be getting any more reads off of him. "My testimony is the report" — what you see is all you're gonna get. The opposite of clarity.

Yes, the slightly different way that I'd characterize it is that Mueller laid his cards out on the table face up for all to see, that being his report.

Over 900 retired federal prosecutors, whose job was deciding to indict or not have stated that based on the Mueller report they would indict on at least three charges of obstruction of justice if the President was a private citizen. Further they stated that it wasn't even a close call on those three charges. The "cards" are easy to read for the professional card readers whose job it was to read those cards.

The House could impeach but, my hope is that Pelosi can hold them off and get them to focus instead on investigation and the 2020 election.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Over 900 retired federal prosecutors, whose job was deciding to indict or not have stated that based on the Mueller report they would indict on at least three charges of obstruction of justice if the President was a private citizen. Further they stated that it wasn't even a close call on those three charges. The "cards" are easy to read for the professional card readers whose job it was to read those cards.

I haven’t read a strong rebuttal of Scrotie’s constitutional argument against obstruction. I don’t recall reading a weak rebuttal, either. It’s almost like everyone is talking past one another.

Why should I care about obstruction?

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Over 900 retired federal prosecutors, whose job was deciding to indict or not have stated that based on the Mueller report they would indict on at least three charges of obstruction of justice if the President was a private citizen. Further they stated that it wasn't even a close call on those three charges. The "cards" are easy to read for the professional card readers whose job it was to read those cards.

I haven’t read a strong rebuttal of Scrotie’s constitutional argument against obstruction. I don’t recall reading a weak rebuttal, either. It’s almost like everyone is talking past one another.

Why should I care about obstruction?

Because no one is supposed to be above the law. If the head of state can break the law and go unpunished for it, it's one step closer to fascism and a dictator. Pair that with Trump's constant (personal) attacks on opposition (both in and out of his political party), constant attacks on the media, propaganda of lies and orders coming from outburst, it's very VERY scary. Those are all indicators of fascism.

Trump is a tyrant that happens to have been elected in a country that isn't supposed to allow tyrants to rise to power. I seriously don't understand how the US population is being fooled by that person when ALL of his traits would be despised if he was in another political party.

It's time for republicans to stop caring about winning at all cost and to care more about getting the right people elected.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Over 900 retired federal prosecutors, whose job was deciding to indict or not have stated that based on the Mueller report they would indict on at least three charges of obstruction of justice if the President was a private citizen. Further they stated that it wasn't even a close call on those three charges. The "cards" are easy to read for the professional card readers whose job it was to read those cards.

I haven’t read a strong rebuttal of Scrotie’s constitutional argument against obstruction. I don’t recall reading a weak rebuttal, either. It’s almost like everyone is talking past one another.

Why should I care about obstruction?

You should absolutely not care about obstruction of collusion that was deemed never to have occurred.

It will be VERY interesting to learn more about the genesis of the beginnings of the investigation, including FISA warrants, FBI informants undercover directly contacting the Trump campaign staffers, and the use of the Steele Dossier(discredited horseshit) to obtain judicial warrants for incredibly shaky grounds to surveil.

If Dems were smart, they'd abandon the impeachment nonsense and start really rallying around someone realistically electable like Biden while there's still time. If you really want to see Trump gone, the last thing he needs is another platform to display his victimhood while also running for re-election against someone who has no chance of actually defeating him.

The impeachment process would just take Congress down a road with a dead end in the middle of nowhere, while Trump would still be firing off 2am tweets from his gold toilet in the White House for another four years.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Over 900 retired federal prosecutors, whose job was deciding to indict or not have stated that based on the Mueller report they would indict on at least three charges of obstruction of justice if the President was a private citizen. Further they stated that it wasn't even a close call on those three charges. The "cards" are easy to read for the professional card readers whose job it was to read those cards.

I haven’t read a strong rebuttal of Scrotie’s constitutional argument against obstruction. I don’t recall reading a weak rebuttal, either. It’s almost like everyone is talking past one another.

Why should I care about obstruction?

Because no one is supposed to be above the law. If the head of state can break the law and go unpunished for it, it's one step closer to fascism and a dictator. Pair that with Trump's constant (personal) attacks on opposition (both in and out of his political party), constant attacks on the media, propaganda of lies and orders coming from outburst, it's very VERY scary. Those are all indicators of fascism.

Trump is a tyrant that happens to have been elected in a country that isn't supposed to allow tyrants to rise to power. I seriously don't understand how the US population is being fooled by that person when ALL of his traits would be despised if he was in another political party.

It's time for republicans to stop caring about winning at all cost and to care more about getting the right people elected.

“Because no one is supposed to be above the law” is not a rebuttal to “that law is bad.” I’m not the one making that argument, however, so I’m’a leave it there.

The rest of your post can be summed up with “I’m rubber, you’re glue.” You got the “wrongs” right, but you missed half of the “who.” It is so obvious that everything you just said (minus the hyperbole) applies to the entire American political spectrum, that it makes me wonder when you ignore curtains behind you and point only to the other stage.

You call Trump a tyrant. They’ve all been. It doesn’t take a good guy to wake up in the morning and order up a few more drone strikes. I haven’t seen it, where’s your evidence? I don’t listen to Trump or the news, so I’m not being fooled, brainwashed, or whatever else this month’s flavor of the NPC meme happens to be. He said a mean thing about a Mexican, said a mean thing about a disabled child. Separated families at the border, but it’d take a hypocrite to play that card. Has he been spying on Americans?

You have to realize, I’m indifferent about the guy. The last 16 years have set a pretty fucking high bar for bad, so if Trump is a fascist tyrant, he’s doing a shit job of it. Like. I get it, it’s easy to read these things and be like “yeah, fascism bad, harumph, harumph!” but then I look out my window, and I’m like... nah.

Edited: because I suck at words