The Mueller Report thread

[jj22]

So when I prove to you how many times I've said foreign state throughout this discussion thinking that it's already been set so there's no need to clarify in every post thereafter what I mean will you agree with the statement? And say something bad about Russia? Or is this an attempt to avoid speaking ill of Putin? Because if it is why bother.

I've been gathering receipts (since you guys won't look back through my post history). And am willing to post.

[*michaelsean*]

JJ just a little tip. The more you profess you aren't going to be bullied or pushed around or silenced or whatever, the more insecure you appear. People with certain qualities such as these don't need to tell everyone else, and they don't feel the need to tell everyone else. Don't tell everyone what you are. Just be it.

[jj22]

Oh I don't care about any of that (I've told you that before). I'll always speak my mind. People can say or think what they want about me. If I cared you think I'd still be around going strong? I don't. A message board doesn't define me.

You really think that I'm insecure and can't handle it? This isn't the place for insecurity. Especially if you aren't a Trump supporter. You are likely to be under heavy attack.

I've never let personal attacks against me faze me or throw me off course (most of the time I welcome them). And don't think there's anything wrong letting folks know it.

[jj22]

There's no greater compliment as an American then being disdained by those who champion pro Nazi rights, those who have turned on American intel, turned on our vets like Mueller, McCain etc, and profess their love for our enemy's like Putin and Kim.

If I had their support and admiration, I'd be far more discouraged.

That's what folks who may think I'm insecure are missing.

I don't care to be liked or respected by Trump supporters. I've seen who they admire.

[Goalpost]

So after being told that there was collusion, there wasn't...the same people have put themselves in charge of the obstruction issue. Why should I believe them now?

[Au165]

(04-19-2019, 10:47 AM)jj22 Wrote: There's no greater compliment as an American then being disdained by those who champion pro Nazi rights, those who have turned on American intel, turned on our vets like Mueller, McCain etc, and profess their love for our enemy's like Putin and Kim.

If I had their support and admiration, I'd be far more discouraged.

That's what folks who may think I'm insecure are missing.

I don't care to be liked or respected by Trump supporters. I've seen who they admire.

I am the farthest thing from a Trump supporter, but your hyperbole and sensationalism lately has been a bit extreme. 

[hollodero]

(04-19-2019, 10:47 AM)jj22 Wrote: I don't care to be liked or respected by Trump supporters. I've seen who they admire.

...and imho that's the problem. 
Without getting into it too far, I'd just mention that at a certain point you annoy people more than they are annoyed by Trump. And then many stand by Trump even more intensely merely to oppose folks like you, who openly express such disdain.
Trump supporters ready to be shaken need an alternative, and remarks like yours probably make the existing alternative hard to bear for many. Appearing smug is not the way to go, I'd suppose.

I'm not even trying to single you out, that is the problem of many, including me, in forms small or large. You just take it quite far here. 

[hollodero]

(04-19-2019, 11:00 AM)Goalpost Wrote: So after being told that there was collusion, there wasn't...the same people have put themselves in charge of the obstruction issue.  Why should I believe them now?

You could believe the Mueller report and reach your own conclusions about the acts and behaviour of your president. Is what I'd argue.

This probably is decided in the voting booth. You have all the information to decide for yourselves whether Trump is still a viable candidate worthy of your vote or not.

I'd suggest he is not, but who am I :)

[jj22]

(04-19-2019, 11:02 AM)hollodero Wrote: ...and imho that's the problem. 
Without getting into it too far, I'd just mention that at a certain point you annoy people more than they are annoyed by Trump. And then many stand by Trump even more intensely merely to oppose folks like you, who openly express such disdain.
Trump supporters ready to be shaken need an alternative, and remarks like yours probably make the existing alternative hard to bear for many. Appearing smug is not the way to go, I'd suppose.

I'm not even trying to single you out, that is the problem of many, including me, in forms small or large. You just take it quite far here. 

You really think Trump supporters are going to come around and see your way of thought?

I don't. That's the difference between guys like you and me. Dems too often try to impress these people and look where it gets them. You don't see Republicans trying to impress Dems and their voters. That's why they win.

Until Dems learn they'll always come up short.

And if I annoy people just ignore me. But I'm not trying to be admired by Trump supporters.

[hollodero]

(04-19-2019, 11:18 AM)jj22 Wrote: You really think Trump supporters are going to come around and see your way of thought?

I don't know. Some might, or maybe not. I'm just certain the chances are higher if one just points out "Trump is a horrible president, here are 10.000 reasons for me to say so" - compared to someone saying "Trump is a horrible president, here are 10.000 reasons for me to say so - and the fact that you do not see it that way makes you a stupid/ignorant/awful person".

That's all.

(04-19-2019, 11:18 AM)jj22 Wrote: I don't. That's the difference between guys like you and me. Dems too often try to impress these people and look where it gets them. You don't see Republicans trying to impress Dems and their voters. That's why they win.

Until Dems learn they'll always come up short.

And if I annoy people just ignore me. But I'm not trying to be admired by Trump supporters.

I do not agree with your analysis, but that's hard to argue. So just one clarification - you don't need to aim for admiration, that was not what I was saying at all.
Also, I'm done saying stuff about that, so I will take your advice if required.

[GMDino]

(04-19-2019, 08:21 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nah, I'm pretty comfortable with my track record on this. I'm also not saying obstruction occurred. I was merely asking why someone was so certain there was no crime when the report said explicitly that it was not stating that.

Now, kindly stop trying to make things personal all over this forum and move on, yourself.

Anyone saying this report is "nothing" and still saying Barr's summary was 100% right and there was "no collusion. no obstruction" is really just not looking at the report in any way shape or form.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2019, 10:21 AM)jj22 Wrote: Oh I don't care about any of that (I've told you that before). I'll always speak my mind. People can say or think what they want about me. If I cared you think I'd still be around going strong? I don't. A message board doesn't define me.

You really think that I'm insecure and can't handle it? This isn't the place for insecurity. Especially if you aren't a Trump supporter. You are likely to be under heavy attack.

I've never let personal attacks against me faze me or  throw me off course (most of the time I welcome them). And don't think there's anything wrong letting folks know it.

You do care or you wouldn't feel continually obligated to tell everyone you don't care.  People who don't care, don't care.    It's OK if you do, and it's OK if you don't. I'm just pointing it out to you.  

[jj22]

Well you don't know me so you can assume what you want. But I assure you I don't care what people think about me on a message board.

I've never been mistaken as thin skinned until you came along. If you knew me you'd realize how off you are about me. But you don't. And you're entitled to your opinion.

I don't get why you don't want me to defend myself against personal attacks. You just want me to take it. That's not how I am.

It's fine for the POTUS to fight back against perceived person attacks per people here and he's considered a leader.

"Interesting" how that is.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2019, 12:19 PM)jj22 Wrote: Well you don't know me so you can assume what you want. But I assure you I don't care what people think about me on a message board.

I've never been mistaken as thin skinned until you came along. If you knew me you'd realize how off you are about me. But you don't. And you're entitled to your opinion.

I don't get why you don't want me to defend myself against personal attacks. You just want me to take it. That's not how I am.

It's fine for the POTUS to fight back against perceived person attacks per people here and he's considered a leader.

"Interesting" how that is.

I never said don't defend yourself against personal attacks.

[GMDino]

https://hillreporter.com/watch-gop-rep-says-its-not-a-crime-to-ask-someone-to-assault-someone-31981

Quote:Appearing on “Cuomo Prime Time” with CNN host Chris Cuomo, two Republican representatives, longtime defenders of President Donald Trump, disputed the notion that requests made by the chief executive to interfere in the Russia investigation amounted to a criminal act.



Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Rep. Mark Meadows (R-North Carolina) got into a disagreement with Cuomo over Trump’s repeated orders and insinuations to his White House staff, to curtail or restrict the probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller.


Cuomo cited an instance, detailed in a redacted version of Mueller’s report released Thursday, in which the president told then-White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller. McGahn refused to do so, suggesting he’d rather quit than fire the special counsel.

Trump relented and didn’t make the order to terminate Mueller from the inquiry. The fact that he didn’t follow through, however, and that Republicans didn’t think it was a big deal, upset Cuomo on his Thursday evening broadcast.


“When the president goes to Don McGahn and says, you need to do this to stop this, and the guy has to threaten to resign or leave for it not to happen, and you ignore it, I think that matters, too,” Cuomo said to Jordan and Meadows.


“He didn’t do it, he didn’t fire Mueller…they didn’t do it,” Jordan responded.

“But asking matters, Jim,” Cuomo retorted. “If I ask you to punch Mr. Meadows and you don’t do it, the request was still wrong.”
[/url]

Quote:
Aaron Rupar

@atrupar




.@ChrisCuomo: It matters that Trump asked WH lawyer to fire Mueller!

JIM JORDAN: But he didn't do it

CUOMO: If I ask you to punch Meadows & you don't, the request is still wrong

MEADOWS: But it's not a crime unless he assaults me!

C: So that's the standard? Not being a felon?

[url=https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1119220326121070593]5,050
8:44 AM - Apr 19, 2019

Meadows responded by suggesting that didn’t matter. “The request may have been wrong, but it’s not a crime unless he assaults me,” he said.


Cuomo was flabbergasted. “Is that our standard? Is that why you got into public service, was to prove you’re not a felon?”


Beyond the issue of lowering our standards for presidential misconduct, Meadows is wrong — it is indeed a crime to solicit someone else to carry out a physical act of assault. It’s even a federal crime, according to 18 US Code Section 373.



Attempts to obstruct justice may similarly be considered a crime in some circumstances. TheDepartment of Justice website, for instance, explains in an example that obstructing justice by means of trying to influence a juror in a court case doesn’t have to be a successful action in order for it to be a criminal act.

[GMDino]

As I said tonight with ⁦@seanhannity⁩ don’t waste your time reading #MuellerDossier instead read a real report done by House Intel Committee Republicans - finished over a year ago - Cost 30M less and doesn’t read like a really bad Russian Spy novel! https://t.co/jSnAigfnnZ

— Devin Nunes (@DevinNunes) April 19, 2019

[*bfine32*]

(04-19-2019, 05:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: I wouldn't say "nothing". Everything Trump aside, it shows how the Russians proceeded.

As for Trump, I for one don't need to justify anything. Criminal intent or not, it paints once more the picture of an amzingly unhinged president. I also feel it shows Trump pretty much is not indicted because a president allegedly can't be - and that Barr blatantly lied about that on several occasions - but that's just how I read it. Others might use the report to claim exoneration, which I find weak, but ok. But calling it "nothing", that takes it a bit too far for me.

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; it was to determine if their was Russian collusion/influence/medaling in the 2016 election. media made it more of an indictment into "Trump and the Russians". Until I am talking about President Pence I'm going to consider it to be nothing of merit.   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.

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.

Trump once said (paraphrasing) "I could shoot someone and not lose voters"; similarly he could save a life and not gain any. Folks minds are set.

[GMDino]

(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; it was to determine if their was Russian collusion/influence/medaling in the 2016 election. media made it more of an indictment into "Trump and the Russians". Until I am talking about President Pence I'm going to consider it to be nothing of merit.   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.

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.

Trump once said (paraphrasing) "I could shoot someone and not lose voters"; similarly he could save a life and not gain any. Folks minds are set.

The definition of bias in two sentences.

From someone who claims he "doesn't support" DJT.

So sad.

Here, I can provide an audio version later if you are too biased lazy  busy to read this.  

Quote:Robert Mueller's investigation into possible obstruction of justice could not clear President Donald Trump, according to a redacted version of the special counsel's report released Thursday, which provided new details of Trump's efforts to influence the investigation into his campaign and Russia.


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.


"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," Mueller says in the report.


...


The report includes multiple episodes that were previously unknown, stemming from both the collusion and obstruction investigations, which are likely to fuel investigations in Congress into Trump. It's also likely to add to the wave of criticism Barr has faced from Democrats, who were infuriated that he held a press conference Thursday morning.


Mueller wrote he accepted the Justice Department opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted. But the special counsel report rejected the Trump team's legal argument that a President cannot commit obstruction of justice, leaving the door open for Congress to continue to investigate Trump.



"With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice," the report says.

If you are too biased lazy  busy to read the report I doubt you will accept an "unbiased" report on the report.  Of course I also think it could have said Trump did kill someone and you would defend him because....uh....you are not supporting him?

[jj22]

I "can't believe" after 27 pages of "passionate" debate, people aren't even willing to read the report. I'm only on page 62, but will at least read it in full no matter how long so my opinion is informed (or at least based on my personal interpretation), and because I wasn't doing all this posting with no intent on understanding the investigation when the report was released.

Unfortunate that so many people's opinions will be so uninformed or influenced by someone else (with who knows what intentions).

They'll certainly be entitled to their opinion, but how can we take it seriously or learn something from them?

[*bfine32*]

(04-19-2019, 02:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: The definition of bias in two sentences.

From someone who claims he "doesn't support" DJT.

So sad.

Here, I can provide an audio version later if you are too biased lazy  busy to read this.  



If you are too biased lazy  busy to read the report I doubt you will accept an "unbiased" report on the report.  Of course I also think it could have said Trump did kill someone and you would defend him because....uh....you are not supporting him?

Why does it always have to be personal with you and usually an insult?