The Mueller Report thread

[jj22]

(04-18-2019, 03:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: When you say "biggest attack since Pearl Harbor", you leave out quite a big attack with planes on the WTC.

Sure what Russia (or say Putin) did was bad, but I'd suggest you keep some perspective.

By a foreign state.

[jj22]

(04-18-2019, 05:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That makes zero sense as that would make the case for obstruction

He makes the case for Obstruction. Just not intent. So far, from what I'm reading. Which is interesting given how Trump supporters thought intent shouldn't be an issue when it came to Hillary. Wonder if they change their mind.....

But as far as Obstruction, Barr says it's because Trump was scared and emotional and that doesn't justify criminal intent (I think it does, but I'm no legal expert).

[jj22]

Barr tried his best to put a positive spin on the report for Trump which we should have expected, but I was wrong to attack his want to redact parts. Still reading but so far I am fine with the report as is. It explains a lot and has enough there to give a good overall review of how Russia swung the election for Trump, and Trumps willingness to at the very least, turn a blind eye and use the info provided by the Russians to his benefit.

I think the report is fine as is. Now will Americans care (or read it)? Who knows. But as for the Report, there's enough in it even with the redactions.

[*bfine32*]

(04-18-2019, 05:20 PM)jj22 Wrote: He makes the case for Obstruction. Just not intent. So far, from what I'm reading. Which is interesting given how Trump supporters thought intent shouldn't be an issue when it came to Hillary. Wonder if they change their mind.....

But as far as Obstruction, Barr says it's because Trump was scared and emotional and that doesn't justify criminal intent (I think it does, but I'm no legal expert).

I've read reports of the report and all I see is POTUS being pissed that an investigation was launched.

In your extensive reading of the worst attack on America by a foreign state since Pearl Harbor, what specific instances do you have of obstruction (intended or otherwise).

As to Hills: I've always stated she broke the law but it was decided she didn't commit a crime.  

[Goalpost]

Got to remember the report is a one sided report with no defense. On collusion, Trump is completely cleared and yet resources were used to spy on Trump...of which still to be determined those resources were/weren't politicized. I would like to know the reason why Mueller dumped Strzok to distance from him. Mueller might have known something was tainted there.

[jj22]

I'm not going to go through them all for those who won't read it but there was 10 specific situations he mentioned.

But we've all followed Trump's Presidency, and you won't find anyone on either side who says Trump didn't obstruct. Some just think he had good reason, and other's see obstruction as obstruction regardless of reason/intent. Just review his twitter feed if you want a summary.

As an American, making light of Russia's attack on this great Nation is a disgrace.

But Americans making light of an attack on America is what is different from now and 1942 (or 9/11 for that matter). But carry on.

[fredtoast]

(04-18-2019, 05:48 PM)Goalpost Wrote:   On collusion, Trump is completely cleared and yet resources were used to spy on Trump...of which still to be determined those resources were/weren't politicized.

How can you clear anyone with out investigating him first?  You do agree there was plenty of good reason to initiate the investigation, don't you?

There was no "spying" unless every investigation ever is "spying".

[Bengalzona]

(04-18-2019, 05:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That makes zero sense as that would make the case for obstruction

Trump and Fox News are hoping others don't actually read the report as well.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-18-2019, 12:56 PM)jj22 Wrote: This was clearly and unequivocally the biggest attack on America since Pearl Harbor. How the American POTUS (we now know why) and Americans allowed Putin to get away with it is outrageous as you read this.

Jaw dropping.

Thank God Americans were a little more patriotic in 1942.

(04-18-2019, 01:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: Man, there might an obstruction case in there....but I don't know if it is worth the effort knowing that the GOP will never, ever do anything to uspet the Trump Cult.

I think it's more that it's not worth the effort 18 months away from the election. By the time any actual attempt at impeachment (and the various court fights and appeals that will take place in the process) it will be the 2020 election. It is also less about the GOP upsetting the Trump cult, and them wrecking their own incumbent's election (which statistically is very favorable for re-election).

Since the GOP won't likely tank their incumbent for the opposing part, it means it would be an effort that is doomed to fail. An effort against Trump that is doomed to fail probably only actually helps Trump on the campaign trail because it gives him an easy and clearly defined enemy and attack point.

It's like The Usual Suspects... "How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?"... either have a rock solid impeachment effort, or have none at all. Half-measures really only helps Trump whip people into an us-vs-them, they're-out-to-get-us voting frenzy. They don't have rock solid here, so they should probably just let it be and focus their efforts on winning in 2020.

[Aquapod770]

(04-18-2019, 05:19 PM)jj22 Wrote: By a foreign state.

That's not what your original post said 


Like I said before, "sensationalized bullshit". Just admit your hate for Trump makes you sensationalized things. 

[Bengalzona]

It appears the only reason Trump isn't currently being impeached for obstruction is that his aides, some of whom he fired, did NOT do what HE told them to do.

Think about that.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-18-2019, 06:24 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Trump and Fox News are hoping others don't actually read the report as well.

Has nothing to do with reading it. I’m commenting on your comment. But kudos on reading 500 pages in a couple of hours.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-18-2019, 05:49 PM)jj22 Wrote: I'm not going to go through them all for those who won't read it but there was 10 specific situations he mentioned.

But we've all followed Trump's Presidency, and you won't find anyone on either side who says Trump didn't obstruct. Some just think he had good reason, and other's see obstruction as obstruction regardless of reason/intent.  Just review his twitter feed if you want a summary.

As an American, making light of Russia's attack on this great Nation is a disgrace.

But Americans making light of an attack on America is what is different from now and 1942 (or 9/11 for that matter). But carry on.

Yes, yes, 10 situations that didn't amount to anything other than an American exercising his 1st Amendment right to freely express his opinion.  Blah, blah, blah.  Sorry dude, no crime.  :paul:

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2019, 09:30 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yes, yes, 10 situations that didn't amount to anything other than an American exercising his 1st Amendment right to freely express his opinion.  Blah, blah, blah.  Sorry dude, no crime.  :paul:

The report literally says that it is not stating a crime did not occur there. So what makes you so certain?

[SunsetBengal]

(04-18-2019, 09:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The report literally says that it is not stating a crime did not occur there. So what makes you so certain?

So, if he's saying that a crime did not occur, then he's saying that a crime did occur, then where is the referral for charges?  Point is that it takes deliberate intent to constitute obstruction, and from what I understand, that is difficult to prove.  So, there you have it.  Just a guy expressing his opinion, as protected by 1A, albeit probably not the best thing he could have done at the time.  Still, not a crime.

Mueller and his team were pretty thorough, don't you think?  If something concrete would have been there, they would have found it.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-18-2019, 05:49 PM)jj22 Wrote: I'm not going to go through them all for those who won't read it but there was 10 specific situations he mentioned.

But we've all followed Trump's Presidency, and you won't find anyone on either side who says Trump didn't obstruct. Some just think he had good reason, and other's see obstruction as obstruction regardless of reason/intent.  Just review his twitter feed if you want a summary.

As an American, making light of Russia's attack on this great Nation is a disgrace.

But Americans making light of an attack on America is what is different from now and 1942 (or 9/11 for that matter). But carry on.

I can read a headline as well as the next person, but you're the one spouting off about "worst attack...." do you want to provide substance to your assertion or not? 

[*bfine32*]

(04-18-2019, 09:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The report literally says that it is not stating a crime did not occur there. So what makes you so certain?

Folks have read the report and we don't have President Pence.

Hopefully, I didn't put words in Sunset's mouth, just giving my $0.02

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2019, 09:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, if he's saying that a crime did not occur, then he's saying that a crime did occur, then where is the referral for charges?  Point is that it takes deliberate intent to constitute obstruction, and from what I understand, that is difficult to prove.  So, there you have it.  Just a guy expressing his opinion, as protected by 1A, albeit probably not the best thing he could have done at the time.  Still, not a crime.

Mueller and his team were pretty thorough, don't you think?  If something concrete would have been there, they would have found it.  

They stated they made the decision not to indict because of the guidance saying they couldn't. They stated twice that if they did not find evidence of obstruction that they would have stated that, but they were not stating that. Their reason for not referring was because they couldn't based on the policies they were beholden to.

[GMDino]

(04-18-2019, 09:03 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: It appears the only reason Trump isn't currently being impeached for obstruction is that his aides, some of whom he fired, did NOT do what HE told them to do.

Think about that.

I did.  

[GMDino]

(04-18-2019, 10:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They stated they made the decision not to indict because of the guidance saying they couldn't. They stated twice that if they did not find evidence of obstruction that they would have stated that, but they were not stating that. Their reason for not referring was because they couldn't based on the policies they were beholden to.

Yep.  Specifically they said it should be up to congress.

This is not a "full exoneration" no matter how many times DJT repeats it.