The Mueller Report thread

[hollodero]

(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.

Trump did not obstruct the investigation.

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.