The Mueller Report thread

[BmorePat87]

(07-25-2019, 03:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: The "lady" who blocked both bills yesterday tweeted this...after.

The House hearings rehashed what we already knew. There was no collusion. Let’s move forward to fight Russian meddling, get past the partisan wild goose chases and work on issues that matter to everyday Americans.

— U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (@SenHydeSmith) July 24, 2019

 


Completely unironically.

Good ol' Confederate Loving, Anti-Segregation School attending Cindy Hyde-Smith, demonstrating that we send only the best to the US Senate. 

[Bengalzona]

(07-25-2019, 01:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or they  just get pardoned and no one can do anything.

Or suddenly develop a disease where they can't remember anything.

I meant after they left office, theoretically, authorities could pursue charges for things that occurred prior to or after their Presidency, depending upon the evidence. But going after them for the stuff that happened during the Admin is too politically charged.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2019, 04:06 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I meant after they left office, theoretically, authorities could pursue charges for things that occurred prior to or after their Presidency, depending upon the evidence. But going after them for the stuff that happened during the Admin is too politically charged.

Damn shame that people can get away with anything because we don't want to offend people on the other side of the aisle.

[jj22]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/25/watch-trump-deny-mueller-said-things-he-definitely-said/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a5fd4d0da927

This would be comical if his defenders didn't ignore the horses mouth and turn around and repeat these lies to us and try to shame us like we have some sort of syndrome.

And they should be upset with conservative media for lying to them too.

Do folks just like to get conned? Blatantly?

I have a secret for you. Conservative media and Trump are all laughing at you guys for being so "gullible".

But what can you say? You can't feel sorry for them because they've been told over and over again.

[Belsnickel]

(07-25-2019, 01:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks, You get spins from all directions. I found it funny when he basically said "we decided not to decide".

Yeah, what he said was what I was trying to drive home. Saying that they decided they had no decision to make because the OLC memo meant there was no decision to be made is a bit of a mind bending thing. I get it, but putting it in words is difficult.

[Dill]

(07-24-2019, 08:31 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Even though the redacted reported didn't really hide anything meaningful and Mueller would have nothing new during his interview, if neither of those 2 things happened Dems could have hid behind saying there is bad stuff being hidden from the public. It was purely about prolonged negative press on Trump. 

As I understand it, from the Dem's view the Report had not been read or understood by the majority of the public. Trump had been claiming "total exoneration" for months, and before the redacted report was released Barr had publicly stated it provided no basis for a charge of obstruction. That's what was circulating on the news for those who had not read the Report or taken time to understand Mueller's task and constraints; if your news source was Fox, there would be added commentary on how the disappointed Dems had "found nothing" but were "still looking" instead of "moving on."

The Dems' goal with this and hopefully future hearings is to help people understand that

1. the Report established there actually was a multi-pronged attack on the US election led by Russia, that it was intended to help elect Trump, and that amidst that attack, Trump appealed for help from Russia and repeatedly praised the service of Wikileaks, even as numerous members of the Trump administration met with Russian operatives and lied about their contacts afterward. Trump's campaign manager met with a spy and gave him in-house polling data, apparently for use in the Russian troll campaign.

2. Mueller did find that Trump and his team actively obstructed this investigation, intended to help protect the US from future attacks. The report explicitly details that obstruction.

3. Mueller did not recommend prosecution because on his view that was not his job, not because there was no evidence of obstruction. Because the president is the president, the only remedy, the only force which can legally hold the president to rule of law, is Congress responsible to the (hopefully informed) people.

4. With this base established, then public could also understand the need to look into Trump's finances, via his tax returns. His repeated lies about non-dealing with Russia have been exposed, making his word on such matters completely untrustworthy. 

So, yes, "prolonged negative press about Trump," because he broke the law, ordered others to break it, and otherwise significantly failed, and continues to fail, in his duty to protect.

But not everyone buys this. The hearings would hopefully contest the Trump/Fox counter-narrative, that the Report completely cleared Trump of all wrongdoing because there had never been any wrongdoing.

The larger version of this narrative includes other elements as well, some voiced without challenge at the hearing: the Deep State attempted to spy on the Trump campaign, the Steele dossier initiated surveillance and constituted the REAL Russian interference, no evidence the Russian Troll farms were Russian, the Russia "witch hunt" was nothing more than revenge for Hillary. This narrative fuels the current DOJ "investigation" into the investigators currently underway. Hannity wants to see people jailed. JAILED.

None of this matters, though, if enough people don't care or hold firmly to the counter-narrative. This Yougov poll from July 1 indicates the problem for Democrats. 46% of Republicans at that time thought the Report exonerated Trump. Incredibly, that number rises among those who claim to have read parts of the report.  https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/07/01/robert-muellers-report.   

[hollodero]

(07-25-2019, 12:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You nailed it, here. Pretty sad that you're understanding our system of government better than some of our own citizens.

That wasn't hard to do. All it took to get it were the small passages from the Mueller report I cited.

(07-25-2019, 01:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So are you saying the Dems were just talking out their asses when they kept saying "No one is above the Law"?

Yes.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-25-2019, 05:11 PM)jj22 Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/25/watch-trump-deny-mueller-said-things-he-definitely-said/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a5fd4d0da927

That's kind of misleading, and was contradicted by another WaPo article I saw yesterday but can't find it.

The actual text of Mueller's correction:
"Before we go to questions, I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller told the panel. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, 'You didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

This is again the second time he appeared to contradict Barr's summary, only to issue a correction.  The above statement does not say, as some keep trying to suggest, that the OLC opinion prevented either charges or a determination of charges.

The correction changes a seeming bombshell to nothing new, and those reporters appeared to be attempting to engage in hypotheticals that ignored the correction.

President isn't going to acknowledge a question about whether or not he could be indicted after leaving office.  That's a stupid gotchya question and Trump justifiably crapped on it.

[CJD]

(07-25-2019, 11:16 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That's kind of misleading, and was contradicted by another WaPo article I saw yesterday but can't find it.

The actual text of Mueller's correction:
"Before we go to questions, I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller told the panel. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, 'You didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

This is again the second time he appeared to contradict Barr's summary, only to issue a correction.  The above statement does not say, as some keep trying to suggest, that the OLC opinion prevented either charges or a determination of charges.

The correction changes a seeming bombshell to nothing new, and those reporters appeared to be attempting to engage in hypotheticals that ignored the correction.

President isn't going to acknowledge a question about whether or not he could be indicted after leaving office.  That's a stupid gotchya question and Trump justifiably crapped on it.

I dunno about a Washington Post article, but CBS addressed it:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-corrected-statement-did-mueller-change-his-statement-that-trump-could-be-indicted-after-leaving-office/

But he did say in a separate question that Trump could be indicted once he left office. I think it was a Republican who he was responding to. I don't believe he corrected his statement in that regard.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-25-2019, 04:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Damn shame that people can get away with anything because we don't want to offend people on the other side of the aisle.

Point completely missed, me not surprised. :andy:

[JustWinBaby]

(07-25-2019, 11:48 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I dunno about a Washington Post article, but CBS addressed it:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-corrected-statement-did-mueller-change-his-statement-that-trump-could-be-indicted-after-leaving-office/

But he did say in a separate question that Trump could be indicted once he left office. I think it was a Republican who he was responding to. I don't believe he corrected his statement in that regard.

He could definitely be indicted, I mean you can indict a ham sandwich.  Mueller clearly did not correct that.  He also didn't say "would" be indicted. 

But thanks for posting the question that was actually asked. Although I think I can see Trump's point. "You could be charged" is both statement of fact that charges could be brought, but "could be charged" also intones a threshold of evidence...which Mueller did not say.

It's a very crafty question, and Trump was surprising wise not to fall for it. You pretend to ask with respect to the former, but what you're really asking and will report is that the POTUS acknowledged wrongdoing the "could result in him being indicted". They don't indict you without an expectation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so if you acknowledge you "could be indicted", then implicitly you are confessing to some degree of wrongdoing.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 12:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Point completely missed, me not surprised. :andy:

Both you and Bengalzona said (paraphrasing) because of politics these kinds of things won't happen.

So I posted that it's a shame one side won't do the right thing because they're afraid of the other side doing the same.

I find if sad that we continue to elect people who are willing to look away from broken laws and bad behavior because they are afraid someone on THEIR side might be doing the same.

I find it odd any would just shrug their shoulders about that.  Personally I want to fight for people to do the right thing no matter their fears.  Maybe that just me?

I find it odder that someone says "eh, it happens" and goes after posters wanting to change that system instead of saying they don't like that it happens and fighting to change it.

Again, maybe that's just me.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 01:33 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: He could definitely be indicted, I mean you can indict a ham sandwich.  Mueller clearly did not correct that.  He also didn't say "would" be indicted. 

But thanks for posting the question that was actually asked.  Although I think I can see Trump's point.  "You could be charged" is both statement of fact that charges could be brought, but "could be charged" also intones a threshold of evidence...which Mueller did not say.

It's a very crafty question, and Trump was surprising wise not to fall for it.  You pretend to ask with respect to the former, but what you're really asking and will report is that the POTUS acknowledged wrongdoing the "could result in him being indicted".   They don't indict you without an expectation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so if you acknowledge you "could be indicted", then implicitly you are confessing to some degree of wrongdoing.

"They could indict a president once they leave office, but since I did not do anything I am not afraid of that happening to me personally.  Next question."

Throw in something about crooked Hillary and AOC plus three and how Democrats hare America and you got a winner there.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-26-2019, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Both you and Bengalzona said (paraphrasing) because of politics these kinds of things won't happen.

So I posted that it's a shame one side won't do the right thing because they're afraid of the other side doing the same.

I find if sad that we continue to elect people who are willing to look away from broken laws and bad behavior because they are afraid someone on THEIR side might be doing the same.

I find it odd any would just shrug their shoulders about that.  Personally I want to fight for people to do the right thing no matter their fears.  Maybe that just me?

I find it odder that someone says "eh, it happens" and goes after posters wanting to change that system instead of saying they don't like that it happens and fighting to change it.

Again, maybe that's just me.

Except it's not politics, it's understanding that the job can cause one to get their hands dirty.  There are, and should be limits (Epstein leaps to mind), but examples such as the second Iraq war open up a Pandora's Box of second guessing that could (would?) potentially paralyze a sitting POTUS when making a difficult decision.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 10:00 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except it's not politics, it's understanding that the job can cause one to get their hands dirty.  There are, and should be limits (Epstein leaps to mind), but examples such as the second Iraq war open up a Pandora's Box of second guessing that could (would?) potentially paralyze a sitting POTUS when making a difficult decision.

Well if we had better people in office in the first place I think we could severely limit such things as the Iraq War.

I would propose that breaking laws is different than second guessing why we went into an unnecessary war.  That such a thing as going after a former POTUS for anything has never happened I'm going to chalk it up to politics and protecting your (universal) own side at all costs.

I find the cost too high.

[Bengalzona]

(07-26-2019, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Both you and Bengalzona said (paraphrasing) because of politics these kinds of things won't happen.

So I posted that it's a shame one side won't do the right thing because they're afraid of the other side doing the same.

I find if sad that we continue to elect people who are willing to look away from broken laws and bad behavior because they are afraid someone on THEIR side might be doing the same.

I find it odd any would just shrug their shoulders about that.  Personally I want to fight for people to do the right thing no matter their fears.  Maybe that just me?

I find it odder that someone says "eh, it happens" and goes after posters wanting to change that system instead of saying they don't like that it happens and fighting to change it.

Again, maybe that's just me.

Everyone wants "the right thing" done, based upon their concept of "the right thing". And I suspect most of us have similar ideas of "the right thing". But this situation is a bit more complicated. For example, what is your evidence that "the wrong thing" has been done? Before you can go after a sitting President with his/her party holding the Senate, your evidence has to be pretty much ironclad, unquestionable. There cannot be enough room for them to "O.J." their way out of it. It's not having a thousand allegations that matters. It is having the one that can be proven and will stick. So far, nothing thrown at Trump has reached that bar. I believe this is what Mueller has been trying to communicate. I believe that if he found such evidence, he would have made it known.

If you want Trump out (and I do), he is going to have to be voted out. Impeachment will only detract from that effort at this point.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 10:13 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Everyone wants "the right thing" done, based upon their concept of "the right thing". And I suspect most of us have similar ideas of "the right thing". But this situation is a bit more complicated. For example, what is your evidence that "the wrong thing" has been done? Before you can go after a sitting President with his/her party holding the Senate, your evidence has to be pretty much ironclad, unquestionable. There cannot be enough room for them to "O.J." their way out of it. It's not having a thousand allegations that matters. It is having the one that can be proven and will stick. So far, nothing thrown at Trump has reached that bar. I believe this is what Mueller has been trying to communicate. I believe that if he found such evidence, he would have made it known.

If you want Trump out (and I do), he is going to have to be voted out. Impeachment will only detract from that effort at this point.

What if we applied that to you (personal) and me?

What would have to our justice system if we only charged and had trials for suspects that we had "ironclad" cases against?

This situation is unique, but not complicated.  It is only considered complicated because we attach political motivation to everything.

Everything presented so far shows the POTUS wanted to obstruct justice but failed for various reasons.  That is still a crime (from my understanding).  So charging Trump after he leaves office is not a stretch.

The whole impeachment question is dead in my opinion.  The Democrats do not have the willpower to go through with it.  But that doesn't change the fact that we need to keep reminding people that he's awful.

You (personal) and I didn't hear anything new in the Mueller hearings, but we pay more attention.  Maybe people who weren't paying attention learned something new.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-26-2019, 10:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: What if we applied that to you (personal) and me?

What would have to our justice system if we only charged and had trials for suspects that we had "ironclad" cases against?

We already do.  The DA will not file charges unless they are confident they can prove those charges beyond a reasonable doubt.  That standard of proof could be considered "ironclad".

Quote:This situation is unique, but not complicated.  It is only considered complicated because we attach political motivation to everything.

Everything presented so far shows the POTUS wanted to obstruct justice but failed for various reasons.  That is still a crime (from my understanding).  So charging Trump after he leaves office is not a stretch.

Charging him after office will accomplish nothing other than a sensationalized trial that will further polarize the nation.  Let's say we go through all of that and (unlikely IMO) Trump is found guilty.  What punishment do you think he'll get?  If you think he'll get any custodial sentence you're insane.  Maybe you think the long term benefits of such an outcome, i.e. discouraging future such behavior, would be outcome enough.  Would it counterbalance the extreme reactions from both ends of the spectrum, pushing the margins even farther away from each other and dragging us all with them?  The future of the nation is more important than "feels good man" charging Trump after he leaves office (assuming he doesn't win in 2020).

Quote:The whole impeachment question is dead in my opinion.  The Democrats do not have the willpower to go through with it.  But that doesn't change the fact that we need to keep reminding people that he's awful.

If it  makes you feel better have at it.  I hope you don't actually think it accomplishes anything.  Any message gets lost in repetition.  Even the most true statement/accusation gets lost after a certain number of utterances.

Quote:You (personal) and I didn't hear anything new in the Mueller hearings, but we pay more attention.  Maybe people who weren't paying attention learned something new.

Maybe.  I suppose time will tell.

[GMDino]

I'd also propose that forums such as these are the place to discuss changes to a broken system rather than just talking about how broken the system is.

When my old roommate and I get together for dinner every few months we inevitably ending up talking politics.  

He is a Republican convert. 

And I am obviously firmly in the middle. 

All seriousness aside in the end we always get to the point where we realize we agree more than we disagree and that we WANT a better system and if two guys from opposite sides can sit down for three hours and reach these conclusions where are the people who run for office that can do the same?

So the next question (for me) would be can we fix the system and how.

I don't know that I know the full answer or even a good partial answer.  I just know it will start by voters agreeing that we need better people in office and people in office willing to do the right thing for the country and its citizens and not just for their party.

And I realize I am an eternal optimist and dreamer to even propose such things...but again I think that a forum like this is the place to exchange ideas and not just rail against people with different ideas.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 10:04 AM)GMDino Wrote: 1. Well if we had better people in office in the first place I think we could severely limit such things as the Iraq War.

2. I would propose that breaking laws is different than second guessing why we went into an unnecessary war.  That such a thing as going after a former POTUS for anything has never happened I'm going to chalk it up to politics and protecting your (universal) own side at all costs.

3. I find the cost too high.

1. Do you think we should employ another method of electing political figures other than a general election? Maybe one only for those who know who are the "better people".

2. I think it's more of a respect for the office and the magnitude of decision required to be made. To be honest before Trump I cannot think of another instance where former POTUS's condemned a sitting President. Be it for good or bad the office used to come with a since of respect. We can argue until we're blue in the face who is the cause of that, but the mystic in eroding.

3. The cost of what?