The Mueller Report thread

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 11:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

1. I think if voters were better informed and if there were better alternative party options.

2.  A crime is a crime.  If it was assault or murder or shoplifting it would make no difference.

3. The cost of our country losing its way.  The cost of allowing politicians to do whatever without fear of retribution because....politics.

I believe you (personal) have problems with our system of government too.  Do you NOT want a better system with better people who do what is best of us (universal)?

We may disagree on the path to go on, but (probably) agree that the people who run this country are not doing it for OUR (universal) good but to enrich themselves.

[Bengalzona]

(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?

What if you turn that around and then apply it to you and me personally? For example, if you and I are on trial for something, wouldn't you want the case that could possibly convict you to be ironclad rather than based on something less? I know I sure would. Especially if I did not do it.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 11:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: 1. I think if voters were better informed and if there were better alternative party options.

2.  A crime is a crime.  If it was assault or murder or shoplifting it would make no difference.

3. The cost of our country losing its way.  The cost of allowing politicians to do whatever without fear of retribution because....politics.

I believe you (personal) have problems with our system of government too.  Do you NOT want a better system with better people who do what is best of us (universal)?

We may disagree on the path to go on, but (probably) agree that the people who run this country are not doing it for OUR (universal) good but to enrich themselves.

1. Hell requiring ID cards is in the too hard to do block. I doubt we can do much to make them more informed.

2. Sure, and I'd hope he would be impeached and tried.

3. it's been no different since the time Burr shot Hamilton

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 12:27 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: What if you turn that around and then apply it to you and me personally? For example, if you and I are on trial for something, wouldn't you want the case that could possibly convict you to be ironclad rather than based on something less? I know I sure would. Especially if I did not do it.

Wanna change the rules so almost no one goes to trial?  Okay.

But that's not the reality for you and me.

Why should it be the reality for someone just because they held an elected office?

[Dill]

(07-26-2019, 11:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

Granting the presidency is losing its mystique, understanding the causes should be important for anyone who would like to stop the slide in respect.

Enough people now accept and defend a president who breaks all the norms which supported that respect you speak of. That breaking of norms is what precipitated previous presidents to speak out. We have a president who compared his 3rd trophy wife's looks to an opponent's wife's looks in a tweet--and still got elected.

Trump is certainly the immediate cause of drop in respect for the US, world wide. But he remains because a minority keep him in power, indifferent to the damage, seeing it either as a trade off for tax cuts and court appointments or a positive in itself, "shaking things up" and "making liberal heads explode." When Trump is gone, they will still be there, upholding his values and priorities.

If enough people figure out WHY this plurality supports/overlooks the breaking of norms and decide to firmly oppose it, the weekly sinking to ever new depths, then perhaps the respect for office can be restored. But not before.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 01:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Granting the presidency is losing its mystique, understanding the causes should be important for anyone who would like to stop the slide in respect.

Enough people now accept and defend a president who breaks all the norms which supported that respect you speak of. That breaking of norms is what precipitated previous presidents to speak out. We have a president who compared his 3rd trophy wife's looks to an opponent's wife's looks in a tweet--and still got elected.

Trump is certainly the immediate cause of drop in respect for the US, world wide. But he remains because a minority keep him in power, indifferent to the damage, seeing it either as a trade off for tax cuts and court appointments or a positive in itself, "shaking things up" and "making liberal heads explode." When Trump is gone, they will still be there, upholding his values and priorities.

If enough people figure out WHY this plurality supports/overlooks the breaking of norms and decide to firmly oppose it, the weekly sinking to ever new depths, then perhaps the respect for office can be restored. But not before.

I'm sure there are those that thought it started to erode around the time POTUS was getting a hummer in the oval Office.

Trump remains in power because he has not committed an impeachable offense. Not being a "good person" is not impeachable.

[Dill]

(07-26-2019, 01:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm sure there are those that thought it started to erode around the time POTUS was getting a hummer in the oval Office.

Trump remains in power because he has not committed an impeachable offense. Not being a "good person" is not impeachable.

One could argue the erosion began with Johnson/Nixon, though it recovered somewhat in the interim. Until Trump.

"Not being a good person" does erode respect, right?  That's the issue we were addressing.

And it is for Congress to decide whether Trump's bad behavior/criminality should lead to impeachment. It is not at all clear that he remains in power because he hasn't committed impeachable offenses.

Speaking of hummers, what was the standard of impeachment which drove Republicans back in the '90s? Wasn't it "not being a good person"? Even before obstruction of an investigation into bad behavior?

Lindsey Graham on the record.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article230483449.html

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role,” the politician said. “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 01:56 PM)Dill Wrote: "Not being a good person" does erode respect, right?  That's the issue we were addressing.

And it is for Congress to decide whether Trump's bad behavior/criminality should lead to impeachment. It is not at all clear that he remains in power because he hasn't committed impeachable offenses.

One could argue the erosion began with Johnson/Nixon, though it recovered somewhat in the interim.

Speaking of hummers, what was the standard of impeachment which drove Republicans back in the '90s? Wasn't it "not being a good person"? Perhaps also obstruction of an investigation into bad behavior?

If I recall it was lying to Congress under oath.

The rest was to address how he remains in power.

[Dill]

(07-26-2019, 02:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If I recall it was lying to Congress under oath.

The rest was to address how he remains in power.

I added a bit to my original post. No, it was not just obstruction, which we certainly have in Trump's case.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2019, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: I added a bit to my original post. No, it was not just obstruction, which we certainly have in Trump's case.

I thought Mueller testified he was able to complete his investigation unhindered.

[Belsnickel]

(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.

Well, he did say that they proceeded taking this into account.

Quote:We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

So from the start they knew they were not going to be determining whether Trump could be indicted or not, and it was because of the OLC memo.

[Dill]

(07-26-2019, 02:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
I thought Mueller testified he was able to complete his investigation unhindered.

I thought he found that the president, among other things, ordered someone to fire him, then ordered that person to falsify the record. Not to mention he decided to fire Comey because of "the Russia thing.' Those were Mueller's findings, right?

Such findings indicate obstruction of administration of justice--Not for Barr, of course, but for many prosecutors. Or are you with Barr on this?

[jj22]

(07-26-2019, 02:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought Mueller testified he was able to complete his investigation unhindered.

This is just crazy.

If you murder someone and (you or even a friend) try to obstruct justice and it doesn't work (they are able to complete the investigation, and charge the both of you which they do) you still obstructed justice. And you will still get charged for it along with the other charges.

Nowhere in our laws say in order to obstruct justice, the investigation must be hindered. You clearly have no faith in our police officers to work through these attempts (every criminal tries to obstruct justice).

Why folks go to such lengths to defend this hurts their credibility with all other arguments they pose. This is what listening to conservative media leaves you. Looking like a fool. Which is unfortunate but it's not like they don't keep doing this to you guys after repeating their talking points.

[*bfine32*]

The Dems try to take another bite of the Mueller Report. It didn't go too well:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/461775-lewandowski-launches-into-attack-of-trump-haters-in-fiery-hearing

Quote:"Sadly, the country spent over three years and 40 million taxpayer dollars on these investigations. It is now clear the investigation was populated by many Trump haters who had their own agenda — to try and take down a duly elected president of the United States," Lewandowski said in his opening statement.

"As for actual 'collusion,' or 'conspiracy,' there was none. What there has been, however, is harassment of the president from the day he won the election," he continued.

The committee hearing quickly descended into chaos as Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) sought to question Lewandowski.

As I said in the Kavs thread. Those Dems love them some impeachment talk. Lesson learned: Let them win every now and then.

[Bengalzona]

(07-30-2019, 02:24 AM)Dill Wrote: I thought he found that the president, among other things, ordered someone to fire him, then ordered that person to falsify the record. Not to mention he decided to fire Comey because of "the Russia thing.' Those were Mueller's findings, right?

Such findings indicate obstruction of administration of justice--Not for Barr, of course, but for many prosecutors. Or are you with Barr on this?

Unless you have a non-partisan Senate, those things never happened.

[Benton]

(07-26-2019, 02:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought Mueller testified he was able to complete his investigation unhindered.

According to the report :
"The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”


It sounds like Trump's best chance here, in regard to the report, is his ineffectiveness.

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2019, 09:04 PM)Benton Wrote: According to the report :
"The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”


It sounds like Trump's best chance here, in regard to the report, is his ineffectiveness.

So Mueller was able to carry out the investigation unimpeded. Just as I asserted. 

FWIW, that's one of the reason you have "people"; sometimes they have to protect you against yourself. I highly doubt Trump is the first POTUS to experience this dynamic

[Benton]

(07-26-2019, 02:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If I recall it was lying to Congress under oath.

The rest was to address how he remains in power.

(09-17-2019, 09:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So Mueller was able to carry out the investigation unimpeded. Just as I asserted. 

FWIW, that's one of the reason you have "people"; sometimes they have to protect you against yourself. I highly doubt Trump is the first POTUS to experience this dynamic

Mueller was. And, according to the report, Trump tried to obstruct it. Which is as impeachable as lying under oath. 

[GMDino]

(09-18-2019, 12:45 AM)Benton Wrote: Mueller was. And, according to the report, Trump tried to obstruct it. Which is as impeachable as lying under oath. 

This is the disconnect I can't understand.

Trump failed at obstructing but that doesn't mean he didn't try to obstruct.  That is what the charge would be/is.

His supporters that have to use as a defense of Trump that he is incompetent and committing crimes so he can't be charged for trying to commit crimes make me laugh.

"Well, he tried to rob the bank but he brought a water gun instead and tripped on the way in and only left the note behind as he ran out with his pants falling down so I guess we can't charge him with anything since he didn't ACTUALLY rob the bank." 

[GMDino]

"Were you lying on MSNBC or were you lying to Mueller's team?"

"I don't have to tell the truth to the media."

Lewandowski saying he told Mueller the truth that Trump told him to talk to Sessions.

Lewandowski trying to NOT say he told Mueller the truth and NOT say he was lying on MSNBC and looking like a fool.

Good stuff.

That's why these cockroaches don't like talking under oath or to lawyers...they want to save themselves more than they want to protect their bosses.

In which @BarryBerke tears Corey Lewandowski a new one pic.twitter.com/cwLf3NEI2E

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 17, 2019