The Mueller Report thread

[SunsetBengal]

(07-24-2019, 10:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: lol...bunch of posters still "not defending" Trump ignoring that the report did not fully exonerate him but trying to make fun of Mueller for not being as good at his age as he once was.

Anyone who is saying Mueller is "slipping" but still is backing Trump is delusional and blinded by party.

Mueller could not answer certain things.  He is a man who thinks before he speaks...something that this format does not allow for.  

Nothing new was said, but for the GOP to insist this somehow makes Trump look better is just sad.

Lol, "exonerate"...   American system of justice "exonerates" no one.  The verdict is either guilty or not guilty.  There's no such thing as "exoneration" from a court, a prosecutor, or anyone.  It's only freakin' guilty, or not guilty..  If there wasn't enough evidence to refer for charges, then there's no crime to even be guilty or not guilty of.

Dude, I always thought that you were smarter than that??  

[GMDino]

(07-24-2019, 06:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: House Democrats introduced legislation to address it when they were in the minority only to have Republicans kill it in committee because it made reference to foreign interference in the 2016 election. Fortunately they just advanced it out of committee last week, but McConnell won't let it advance in the Senate.


https://thehill.com/homenews/house/453514-house-panel-advances-bill-to-protect-elections-from-foreign-interference

So by "they" I mean Republicans. 

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/454635-gop-blocks-election-security-bills-after-mueller-testimony?fbclid=IwAR2FHv9OheUYWgXandNqRVVmRcmMcuCjcdpLX0W-AQXtxGWRcGo9FXZBQ00#.XTkGpt-jE9s.facebook

Quote:Senate Republicans blocked two election security bills and a cybersecurity measure on Wednesday in the wake of former special counsel Robert Mueller warning about meddling attempts during his public testimony before congressional lawmakers.  



Democrats tried to get consent to pass two bills that would require campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission about foreign offers of assistance, as well as a bill to let the Senate Sergeant at Arms offer voluntary cyber assistance for personal devices and accounts of senators and staff. 


But Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) blocked each of the bills. She didn't give reason for her objections, or say if she was objecting on behalf of herself or the Senate GOP caucus. A spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.  

Under Senate rules, any one senator can ask for consent to pass a bill, but any one senator is able to object. 


The floor drama comes after Mueller warned about election interference during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, saying Russia was laying the groundwork to interfere in the 2020 election "as we sit 
here."


“We are expecting them to do it again during the next campaign,” Mueller said.


But election interference bills face an uphill climb in the Senate, where Republicans aren't expected to move legislation through the Rules Committee, the panel with primary jurisdiction, and have warned about attempts to "federalize" elections. 


Democrats cited Mueller as they tried to get consent on Wednesday evening to pass their bills. 


"Mr. Mueller's testimony should serve as a warning to every member of this body about what could happen in 2020, literally in our next elections," said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. 


He added that "unfortunately, in the nearly three years since we uncovered Russia's attack on our democracy, this body has not held a single vote on stand-alone legislation to protect our elections." 


Warner tried to get consent to pass the Foreign Influence Reporting in Elections Act by unanimous consent. 
Under Warner's bill, campaign officials would have to report contacts with foreign nationals who are trying to make campaign donations or coordinate with the campaign to the Federal Election Commission, which would in turn notify the FBI.


"If a foreign adversary tries to offer assistance to your campaign, your response should not be 'thank you.' Your response should be a moral obligation to tell the FBI," he said. 


But Hyde-Smith objected to passing his legislation. Sen. Marsha Blackburn(R-Tenn.) similarly blocked the legislation in June, arguing that it was overly broad.


Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) tried to get consent to pass similar legislation that would require candidates, campaign officials and their family members to notify the FBI of assistance offers.


"It differs in some technical aspects [from the Warner bill] … but it is the same idea because it codifies into law what is already a moral duty, a patriotic duty and basic common sense," Blumenthal said.
Hyde-Smith also objected to Blumenthal's bill.


She objected a third time when Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) tried to get consent to pass legislation he crafted with 
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) that would allow the Senate Sergeant at Arms to provide voluntary cybersecurity assistance for personal accounts and devices of senators and staff.


"I don't see how anyone can consider what I have proposed to be a partisan issue," Wyden said. 

Obviously they don't care about foreign interference as long as it back them.

[GMDino]

(07-24-2019, 11:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Lol, "exonerate"...   American system of justice "exonerates" no one.  The verdict is either guilty or not guilty.  There's no such thing as "exoneration" from a court, a prosecutor, or anyone.  It's only freakin' guilty, or not guilty..  If there wasn't enough evidence to refer for charges, then there's no crime to even be guilty or not guilty of.

Dude, I always thought that you were smarter than that??  

Tell that to you boy Don Trump...he keeps saying it and everyone keeps saying he's wrong.  Just like I did.

"smarter"

Edit: My bad. I didn't know you were just parroting your boy.

Months after proclaiming "total exoneration," Trump now says Mueller "never had the right to exonerate." pic.twitter.com/tbxbjDp2oz

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 24, 2019

[GMDino]

[GMDino]

Did Trump know about Russian interference on his behalf?

Yes.

Did Trump utilize that interference?

Yes.

Did Trump lie about financial ties to Russia?

Yes.

Was he at risk of blackmail as a result of those lies?

Yes.@GOP: SEE?!? What did we tell you? He did nothing wrong.

— John Henson (@John_Henson) July 24, 2019

 

[GMDino]

Mueller was just asked what he thought of Trump, during the campaign, publicly encouraging & touting the Wikileaks illegal release of stolen information.

Mueller called Trump’s behavior “disturbing,” “problematic,” “unethical,” and “demanding of an investigation.”

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 24, 2019

 

[GMDino]

This was a fun moment too...

The "article" @replouiegohmert just entered into evidence, "Robert Mueller: Unmasked," is by ... Rep. Louie Gohmert: https://t.co/tnwOSX20HO. #MuellerHearings

— David Gura (@davidgura) July 24, 2019

 

[*bfine32*]

(07-24-2019, 11:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Dude, I always thought that you were smarter than that??  

First off: You know you're my man

Secondly: As someone who feels they have been the victim of biased moderation (don't suspend/ban me, you know who you are) I ask that you not engage us common folk in such a manner. 

[Bengalzona]

(07-24-2019, 11:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Tell that to you boy Don Trump...he keeps saying it and everyone keeps saying he's wrong.  Just like I did.

"smarter"

Edit:  My bad.  I didn't know you were just parroting your boy.

Months after proclaiming "total exoneration," Trump now says Mueller "never had the right to exonerate." pic.twitter.com/tbxbjDp2oz

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 24, 2019

I remember that:

[SunsetBengal]

(07-24-2019, 11:05 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Wow, you're more butthurt over the lack of well... anything of substance from the "Mueller report" than I could have ever imagined.  Sleep well tonight.

[GMDino]

(07-24-2019, 11:25 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Wow, you're more butthurt over the lack of well... anything of substance from the "Mueller report" than I could have ever imagined.  Sleep well tonight.

Lame.

Proof you and your ilk didn't really watch (you don't care if Trump is dirty or not).

[SunsetBengal]

(07-24-2019, 11:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First off: You know you're my man

Secondly: As someone who feels they have been the victim of biased moderation (don't suspend/ban me, you know who you are) I ask that you not engage us common folk in such a manner. 

Well, I'm pretty certain that I've never engaged in "selective moderation".  Secondly, If I weren't sure that Dino knew that I was just messin', I would never have made that comment.  

Weather we agree or disagree, we're still all friends at heart, part of the board community.  I feel confident that he knows that my views are as full of crap as I think that some of his are.  At the end of the day, I'd still stop and give him a hand if he needed it.

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2019, 11:04 PM)GMDino Wrote:

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/454635-gop-blocks-election-security-bills-after-mueller-testimony?fbclid=IwAR2FHv9OheUYWgXandNqRVVmRcmMcuCjcdpLX0W-AQXtxGWRcGo9FXZBQ00#.XTkGpt-jE9s.facebook



Obviously they don't care about foreign interference as long as it back them.

Utterly pathetic that this isn't something we can actually address.

[CJD]

It was an interesting show, but I don't see it changing anything.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2019, 07:59 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It was an interesting show, but I don't see it changing anything.

I see that as the problem.  Everything Trump says he didn't do he did.  There was obstruction, there was a desire and encouragement to work with Russia, there were massive amounts of lying, there were people trying to make money off the russian help/interference.

Yet Republicans are crowing that Mueller stumbled a bit while answering questions and because he did not personally conduct every interview, look at every piece of evidence and make every final decision we can ignore that actual facts that were proven.

The Republicans believe they had a good day because they ignored reality to defend Trump.  That pretty much tells me everything I need to know about the party.

And that was before the stopped multiple attempts at protecting our elections from foreign interference...again.

[hollodero]

(07-24-2019, 11:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Lol, "exonerate"...   American system of justice "exonerates" no one.  The verdict is either guilty or not guilty.

But in that case, this is not true. That's not Mueller's fault, it's that DOJ policy that he cannot possibly put a sitting president before a court. Hence he could not accuse him of a crime, for the system would grant Trump no court and therefore no defense as would be designated and in order.

You can't compare that with the "normal" instance, for it is not. It's quite clear. Even if Mueller found evidence Trump shot someone in the street, had found a smoking gun and a hundred witnesses, he could lay ot that evidence, but could not have gone further as to "not exonerate" him and maybe charge him after he's out of office. That's the "American system" for presidents.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-25-2019, 10:31 AM)hollodero Wrote: But in that case, this is not true. That's not Mueller's fault, it's that DOJ policy that he cannot possibly put a sitting president before a court. Hence he could not accuse him of a crime, for the system would grant Trump no court and therefore no defense as would be designated and in order.

You can't compare that with the "normal" instance, for it is not. It's quite clear. Even if Mueller found evidence Trump shot someone in the street, had found a smoking gun and a hundred witnesses, he could lay ot that evidence, but could not have gone further as to "not exonerate" him and maybe charge him after he's out of office. That's the "American system" for presidents.

Did all of that come from the instructions on how to use your secret decoder ring?  

[hollodero]

(07-25-2019, 10:45 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Did all of that come from the instructions on how to use your secret decoder ring?  

Are you disagreeing with my interpretation of the American system for presidents?

Mueller Report Wrote:First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator. 

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. 

[CJD]

(07-25-2019, 09:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: I see that as the problem.  Everything Trump says he didn't do he did.  There was obstruction, there was a desire and encouragement to work with Russia, there were massive amounts of lying, there were people trying to make money off the russian help/interference.

Yet Republicans are crowing that Mueller stumbled a bit while answering questions and because he did not personally conduct every interview, look at every piece of evidence and make every final decision we can ignore that actual facts that were proven.

The Republicans believe they had a good day because they ignored reality to defend Trump.  That pretty much tells me everything I need to know about the party.

And that was before the stopped multiple attempts at protecting our elections from foreign interference...again.

Well, the problem is people who are anti-Trump already knew everything that Mueller said. And many of the people who didn't already know what Mueller said are not going to be swayed by what he said.

Especially the members of Congress. Like Nancy Pelosi. She already knew everything that Mueller said. She was against impeachment beforehand. There is absolutely no reason why she should be for impeachment afterwards.

And the Republicans who were against impeachment before obviously will not be for impeachment afterwards.

So what did this testimony change? Absolutely nothing. It was entertaining to watch though.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2019, 11:14 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Well, the problem is people who are anti-Trump already knew everything that Mueller said. And many of the people who didn't already know what Mueller said are not going to be swayed by what he said.

Especially the members of Congress. Like Nancy Pelosi. She already knew everything that Mueller said. She was against impeachment beforehand. There is absolutely no reason why she should be for impeachment afterwards.

And the Republicans who were against impeachment before obviously will not be for impeachment afterwards.

So what did this testimony change? Absolutely nothing. It was entertaining to watch though.

The only thing it could change would be in the minds of people who didn't care and maybe seeing and hearing it live at least makes them think.

I always hope people will start to think but I am usually disappointed because they believe they already "know".

IMHO repeating that Trump is not only dirty, but a liar (and possible compromised because of it) is never a bad thing.  What am I gonna do? Make Trump supporters angrier?