The Mueller Report thread
|
The Mueller Report thread
|
04-19-2019, 03:37 PM
Personally, I don't think the Ken Star report on Bill Clinton should have been made public. I never read it. I was quite willing to accept the 'lame stream media' accounts of the lurid details. And yet, it made the top of the best seller's list.
Go figure, eh. ![[Image: 416686247_404249095282684_84217049823664...e=659A7198]](https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/416686247_404249095282684_8421704982366424390_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=p8hMrwwk1IoAX8mnFLJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBXs4gKHr4knFejO874dfV3zzLd_bq4GiUqHxGWFlwbug&oe=659A7198)
04-19-2019, 03:48 PM
(04-19-2019, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh I didn't mean nothing in the literal sense; I concede it has a lot of words in it. The purpose of the report was not to determine how Barr Acts as AG; Of course it wasn't. Still Barr revealed behaviour I would deem highly irritating and questionable. The question of initial purpose of the report doesn't factor into that, and what does that have to do with it? It feels odd to even having to say that. (04-19-2019, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: it was to determine if their was Russian collusion/influence/medaling in the 2016 election. Sure, that and whether the known and unknown, conspicuously frequent contacts of Team Trump members with Russians - from embassadors to sanctioned bankers to oligarchs - amounts to a conspiracy that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It did not. And the report delved into all that. Even if one disregards everything regarding Trump, the report delivers on that first core question and I'm honestly curious why you would dismiss or belittle that so easily. (04-19-2019, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Until I am talking about President Pence I'm going to consider it to be nothing of merit. I fail to see the logic behind that. First, impeachment might still be an issue. Second, as a citizen you're called upon to make an informed decision at the voting booth. Third, the aim and purpose of the investigation, as you stated yourself, never was "impeach Trump". So why would you deny the report any merit if it doesn't lead to that outcome? That makes no sense to me at all. (04-19-2019, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: One's bias will determine the damnation and I doubt 1 person that was already anti-trump will be swayed same as anyone pro-Trump. Maybe you're right on that, I don't know, but I consider it a bit lazy to dismiss everything in the report because of that. Also I consider it a bit sad. The report paints a damning picture of Trump and his people, some of which face serious legal trouble. Your stance of "either it leads to president Pence or it was a worthless exercise", again, seems intellectually lazy and to me looks akin to deliberately covering your ears and eyes and going lalala. (04-19-2019, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've asked for one example of obstruction listed in the report and all I get is "read the report". I have 0 inclination to read a document that I felt was not needed to be made public in the first place. have unbiased, qualified folks read and let them report. Well, if you have zero inclination to inform yourself then it's not fair to ask for examples. I cannot prove to you he obstructed justice and can't make up your mind. But the stuff is out there to read. But sure, the cornerstones seem to be his repeatedly asking Comey to let Flynn go, his firing of Comey when he wouldn't do stuff like that and wouldn't pledge protection and loyalty, his attempts to fire Mueller to protect himself and his presidency and how he tried to pressure Cohen, Manafort and Flynn to not give away damning information about him. (04-19-2019, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks minds are set. What about yours? ![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png) 
04-19-2019, 04:13 PM
(04-19-2019, 02:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: The report details numerous cases in which Trump asked his aides to take actions that would have obstructed the investigation, but stated they were unsuccessful because the aides refused his orders. You were asked for ONE example. Sounds like you are referring to MANY. I watched a deal of Fox news last night. Tucker, Hannity Ingraham and guests were celebrating the total vindication of Fox's two years of denial of collusion and demanding apologies from the MSM which "of course they won't give" because they will never admit they were wrong. Barr proved he was on the side of the people and defending the Constitution. Tucker said that that night was THE LAST time he would be talking about Russian collusion because it was finally put to rest. Bret Hume was so angry at the flak Fox had received for carrying the Donald's water all this time. The ONLY NETWORK THAT HAD IT RIGHT FROM THE START. If there was no collusion then there was no crime to investigate and no real investigation to obstruct. And even if Trump did obstruct he was only worried about the damage done to his presidency because of crime of which he was TOTALLY INNOCENT. Trump's rationales for lying about business ties to Russia were perfectly good and the myriad contacts and interaction between his campaign and the Russians no big deal--certainly nothing to warrant FBI attention. Hannity and numerous guests are ready now for the real investigation into FISA warrants and Obama-led spying to advance Hillary. I find hour after hour of this sort of thing really scary, especially when I think that many or most of the Trump base do not look at "fake news" MSM. The fake news like CNN (Communist News Network) and MSNBC delved deeply into Mueller's rationale: Trump not exonerated from the charge of obstruction; sitting president can/should not be indicted; the only remedy is Congress. Barr stepped into to deflect and cloud the legal issues--working for the president and not the people/constitution. And MANY ACTUAL EXAMPLES of obstruction were discussed. I believe the hard count was 11. So we have a president who repeatedly obstructed justice, whose orders to commit crimes were disobeyed by "deep state" resistance. To put this another way, the nation's chief law enforcement officer was ordering people to break the law, but FOX and Trump's base say "no harm no foul."
04-19-2019, 04:19 PM
"Personal"
What is 'personal' in the world of politics and religion? If a poster criticizes a politician and someone else is a supporter of said politician, is that a personal attack? Speaking on behalf of the mods and admins, no. We do not consider that a personal attack or insult on another poster. And the same thinking generally goes with ideologies. If you are, for example, Mormon and someone else posts their criticisms of the Mormon church, that is not considered a personal attack on you. Now, if that poster also used derogatory slurs and insults in their criticisms of the Mormon church, that could (and probably would, depending upon the comments) be considered as offensive language and could be disciplined. And, yes, we have had examples in the past where offensive language such as slurs and insults against groups of people have been found to actually be insults against individuals. In general (and outside of the Smack Talk forum) slurs and insults will get you into hot water on this site, whether they are against groups or individuals. Most of you know this already and do not do it. Obviously, people feel their political and especially their religious ideas are very personal to them. Someone disagreeing with those ideas is not innately attacking the other person personally. That said, the language used to disagree could turn the disagreement into a personal issue.
04-19-2019, 04:24 PM
(04-19-2019, 03:48 PM)hollodero Wrote: Of course it wasn't. Still Barr revealed behaviour I would deem highly irritating and questionable. The question of initial purpose of the report doesn't factor into that, and what does that have to do with it? It feels odd to even having to say that.As of 4/19/19 bfine's mindset is: Russia tried to meddle in the 2016 Presidential Election There is nothing to point to the fact that Donald Trump colluded with Russia in this meddling Trump was mad that he was becoming the focus of the report and felt he had certain Executive privileges and over-estimated them, but was set straight by counsel. Trump did not obstruct the investigation. ![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
04-19-2019, 04:30 PM
(04-19-2019, 04:13 PM)Dill Wrote: You were asked for ONE example. Sounds like you are referring to MANY. Do we have one example of something he said/did in these "numerous" cases that would result in a broken law or do we have to be lazy and take other's word that they were directed toward obstruction and illegal? I've said from jump if the report showed Trump knowingly broke the law I'd be beside Maxine Waters hold my pitchfork. my stance about this has remained unchanged
04-19-2019, 04:36 PM
Person A: "Trump order folks to break the law numerous times!!"
Person B: "Can you provide me one specific example" Person A: "Lazy, bad American!! Read it for yourself and find out" Person B: "Okay" **walks away and dismisses Person A's claims**
04-19-2019, 05:18 PM
(04-19-2019, 04:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Person A: "Trump order folks to break the law numerous times!!" Person C: "Person B is not trying very hard to understand matters very important to the republic, as it heads towards constitutional crisis." Person C then provides a summary of important points in the Mueller report which describe obstruction of the Russia investigation, including orders to commit illegal acts. McGahn, wary of "Saturday Night Massacre," refused Trump order to fire Mueller https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-report-white-house-counsel-don-mcgahn-refused-trump-order-to-fire-mueller-wary-of-saturday-night-massacre/ "Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations," the report said. Mr. Trump directed McGahn to remove the special counsel in June 2017. McGahn told special counsel investigators that Mr. Trump called him twice, telling him "Mueller has to go" and ordering him to inform Rosenstein of his decision. McGahn felt uncomfortable with the request, according to the report, and did not want to trigger a "Saturday Night Massacre" situation, referring to President Nixon's infamous purge of Justice Department officials who refused to fire the special prosecutor investigating Watergate in 1973. Mr. Trump's order to McGahn was followed almost immediately by a directive to adviser Corey Lewandowski to tell then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the scope of the Russia investigation "to prospective election-interference only." The special counsel's office called these two successive events "a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation." "The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President decline to carry out orders or accede to his requests," the report said. Lewandowski and Rick Dearborn, Mr. Trump's former deputy chief of staff, also did not ask Sessions to limit the special counsel's investigation. After The New York Times reported that Mr. Trump had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller in early 2018, Mr. Trump denied he had done so and called McGahn a "lying bastard." Mr. Trump attempted to convince McGahn to write a letter saying he had never told him to fire Mueller. McGahn refused to do so, according to the special counsel report. He also "shrugged off" the potential threat that Mr. Trump might fire him, saying "the optics would be terrible if the President followed through with firing him on that basis." After a "tense" meeting in the Oval Office, in which Mr. Trump called on McGahn to put out a "correction" and McGahn insisted the conversation had occurred, "the President's personal counsel called McGahn's counsel and relayed that the president was 'fine' with McGahn." More Don McGahn may have single-handedly saved Donald Trump's presidency https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-report-donald-trump/index.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/
04-19-2019, 05:21 PM
(04-19-2019, 04:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are you suggesting the report should lead to a new investigation of the AG's actions? Barr rendered a report as required I did no such thing. I'd be happy if it would be acknowleded how he misinformed the public about the report and did not act like a fair and impartial attourney, but rather like a political tool. That's all. I consider that quite noteworthy. (04-19-2019, 04:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you want to discuss requirements to vote we can. Hell we say obtaining a picture ID is in the too hard to do block, but as voters we should read a 500 page, highly redacted, legal report. Well, first off "we" do not say that. You don't and I don't (disclaimer, I find it quite odd that the US doesn't require photo ID to vote and hence am not "a liberal" in that regard). Also, voter ID has nothing to do with it and I did not talk what's "required", but what would be desirable. As for the report, there is some middle ground between ignoring it and reading it line for line. There are news reports out there summarizing things, one can read (or watch) them. Not every news report is just biased spin without any journalistic merit. Facts are facts and quotes from the report are quotes from the report. It's not too much to ask to get informed about it. (04-19-2019, 04:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IF there's something of merit in the report announce it and stop with innuendo. I think laying out how the Russians proceeded holds a lot of merit. Don't you? Additionally, I consider it meritorious to lay out the deeds of Trump and his people so people who wish to see more clearly on that can do so. I already said so though and see no sense in repeating myself. Also, I mentioned several instances for possible obstruction, straight up, no innuendo. I sure am not going to summarize the whole Mueller report for you though, especially when you state from the beginning that you have "zero inclination" to learn anything about what's in it. I will bring several examples and that's that. If you want to paint that as me only delivering innuendos, so be it. I disagree. (04-19-2019, 04:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's not "fair' to ask for examples of something happening as people are claiming, instead I should read for myself and find their examples for them? That I did not say. I'd argue you should do it for yourself, and for your own merit. And if you don't, then people might call your opinion biased, preconceived and/or uninformed, and I'd say these people have a point. (04-19-2019, 04:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There is nothing to point to the fact that Donald Trump colluded with Russia in this meddling I agree with the jist of that, but I wouldn't quite put it that way. It was not provable beyond reasionable doubt, which is something quite different from saying "there was nothing that points to it". I'd say there is enough stuff that points to it, from all the well-known instances to the newly revealed ones (like Trump jr's communication with Wikileaks or Kushner's friend debating a reconciliation plan with a highranking Russian oligarch), but it didn't amount to an indictable offense (as far as we know now, there is ongoing stuff). I still consider Trump's and his peoples' deeds very dubious, but sure enough that opinion isn't just based on the report, but to a large extent on the stuff that was known before the report. Those things were already discussed in length though in previous debates. (04-19-2019, 04:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump was mad that he was becoming the focus of the report and felt he had certain Executive privileges and over-estimated them, but was set straight by counsel. Well, I respect your opinion, but it is an opinion and not a fact. Mueller didn't say that, he said he didn't reach a conclusion since a president can't be indicted and hence couldn't defend himself in court. That, and that alone, seems to be his reasoning for his proceeding in that matter. That Barr said "no obstruction" doesn't alter anything, as in my view he has proven to be prejudiced and/or in Trump's camp. As it appears to me, Trump's obstruction efforts often were undermined by members of his staff that did not carry out his orders. Like McGahn not firing Mueller as ordered and several other examples that you really could read up by yourself. If you feel comfortable in trusting a man as president who continuously has to be stopped by the people around him to commit misdeeds or even crimes, well, that's up to you. I wouldn't be. 
04-19-2019, 07:38 PM
(04-19-2019, 04:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chris-wallace-william-barr-obstruction-troubling Quote:“When you read the report it becomes clear that the reason that Robert Mueller didn't make a finding on obstruction wasn't because he didn't feel capable of doing it, but because he thought in direct contradiction to what Bill Barr said yesterday, that under department guidelines, there could not be an indictment of a sitting president, and he very much left it to Congress to make that decision,” said Wallace Friday. Honestly, I'm not real sure how it will play out. Dems seem pretty pat on just using the shadiness of an administration redacting its own investigation, along with Trump's polarizing, as ammo for 2020. Nixon and Clinton were both impeached on less, maybe even less without the report. But as it is, I don't think they're going to do anything... unless Trump wins reelection. 
04-19-2019, 07:51 PM
It went from
Trump was a Russian agent to Trump was blackmailed into doing Russia's bidding to Trump colluded with Russia to sway the election to Trump obstructed justice to Trump tried to obstruction justice to Trump tried using executive privileges in a way that would have been self-serving, but it never came to fruition to *We are here, but not for long because this goal post is on the move* ![[Image: Cz_eGI3UUAASnqC.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cz_eGI3UUAASnqC.jpg)
04-19-2019, 08:42 PM
(04-19-2019, 07:51 PM)6andcounting Wrote: It went from It really did not. No serious person called him a "Russian agent" unequivocally (I know some less serious people sure did, but that's not the point). There were certain signs he might be influenced, and these signs still do exist in my view. My question would rather be, are you 100% content with Trump's conduct, does it make you feel well about your president? That question I want to ask you.
04-19-2019, 09:12 PM
(04-19-2019, 08:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: It really did not. No serious person called him a "Russian agent" unequivocally (I know some less serious people sure did, but that's not the point). There were certain signs he might be influenced, and these signs still do exist in my view. Just off the top of my head, a Democrat officially campaigning to become President called Trump a Russian agent on national tv less than a month ago. On 60 Minutes this past February Andrew McCabe stated that while he was director of the FBI there were concerns that Trump “had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests" which cause “the highest levels of American law enforcement [to try] to figure out what to do with the president"- including invoking the 25 amendment. I don't agree with much of Trump's conduct and didn't vote for him. I cheered for him over Hilary and pretty much guarantee I'm cheering for him over any of the Democrats who have declared already, but that because there's only 2 choices to go with. I wouldn't vote based on a false dichotomy though. I also don't agree with the Dems using the investigation to get Trump any way they can just to improve their own election chances. It was an investigation into criminal conduct came back with no charges against Trump or his family. It found no collusion with Russia by any American. The people who got charged got hit for lying during the investigation or hit with crimes that had nothing to do with the election what so ever. That's a win for Trump. EDIT: Serious question - how come the font gets so screwed up when I copy and paste from Word and why does it just get screwed up worse trying to fix it using the board's formatting options?
04-19-2019, 09:40 PM
(04-19-2019, 09:12 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Just off the top of my head, a Democrat officially campaigning to become President called Trump a Russian agent on national tv less than a month ago.  That's fair enough, thanks for the response.Regarding your edit, seems like some strange fonts get taken over with copy paste. The way to fix it would be using the source code and getting rid of the respective entries manually. - You don't happen to remember which candidate said "Russian agent"? I want to put that person on my no no-list... and as for McCabe. I generally don't like the american way of holding one's nose into every camera for a while to promote a book very much, and I found some things he said a bit questionable too. But regarding the concerns, I kind of get it. Russia got involved with the clear aim to help him win the election. While that doesn't necessarily imply anything nefarious against Trump - they might have chosen him nonetheless - his behaviour towards Putin and Russia seems highly suspicious. Trump believed Putin over his own intelligence agencies, downplayed or straight dismissed their meddling attempts, seemed very reluctant to imply sanctions, met with Kislyak and Lawrow quite secretively, lied about his Russian business interests, took in people like Manafort with a clear, yet shady connection to Russia, took in others who met with suspicious Russians frequently (this Trump tower meeeting just being one example of many), has this odd relationship to the Russian money laundering station Deutsche Bank, his son and Roger Stone held contact to Wikileaks, one of his advisors and one of his business associates openly bragged about Russian aid for Trump... and then some. I'd say that's sufficient reason to be quite concerned.
04-19-2019, 09:48 PM
(04-19-2019, 09:40 PM)hollodero Wrote:Alex, I'll take Elizabeth Warren for $100 
04-22-2019, 09:44 AM
(04-19-2019, 03:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why does it always have to be personal with you and usually an insult? It's only an insult if you feel it was wrong. If someone says they refuse to read something but still insist their opinion must be taken seriously about it I will make fun of the opinion and its obvious underlying bias. (04-19-2019, 04:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As of 4/19/19 bfine's mindset is: (04-19-2019, 04:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Person A: "Trump order folks to break the law numerous times!!" It's hard to have a legitimate discussion on something when one side refuses (and his proud to say they refuse) to educate themselves on the topic. ![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif) Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
04-22-2019, 09:47 AM
(04-19-2019, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do we have one example of something he said/did in these "numerous" cases that would result in a broken law or do we have to be lazy and take other's word that they were directed toward obstruction and illegal? Breaking the law is only a bar for prosecution. Some feel that impeachment should happen even if there are no laws broken.
 Problem is "you stance" isn't consistent with the case that you refuse to educate yourself on despite the information being publicly available. Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self. 
04-22-2019, 10:09 AM
Duh. The left wants to disparage Graham and Barr. Both involved with investigating the investigators. Was there an insurance policy? Did the FBI erase their texts? Did the FBI alter their 302s?
04-22-2019, 10:22 AM
(04-22-2019, 10:09 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Duh. The left wants to disparage Graham and Barr. Both involved with investigating the investigators. Was there an insurance policy? Did the FBI erase their texts? Did the FBI alter their 302s? Isn't weird when someone has their own words used (in context) against them it's a nefarious plot to make them look bad rather than them just looking bad.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self. 
04-22-2019, 10:44 AM
(04-18-2019, 09:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm willing to be corrected here, but did Barr ever say it fully exonerates Trump? What other people say is kind of meaningless as they hadn't seen the report. Trump said it, but he was clearly coordinating with the DOJ to control the release and have advance access to deflect against anything in it. If it fully exonerated him, he wouldn't have needed to do that. ![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg) |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
