ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

I'll get to you, Scrotie, but first a little quickie before I catch a plane...

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

LOL this fishing expedition is *still* going on? Get a life and a platform Democrats (besides communism) which you cant sell to normal people.

Hey Aim_Deep, here's a question. Have you looked into Elizabeth Warren's big housing proposal? Or her corporate tax plan? Or her parental leave plan? You can find a quick overview here. The idea that the democrats don't have a platform is so utterly divorced from reality that I'm kind of at a loss. In fact, the democrats are the only party to have a platform that actually comes close to addressing the real problems we face. What problems are republicans trying to solve? A border crisis that amounts to lower rates of illegal immigration than the 90s and poor people being allowed to vote?

"

Xavderion wrote:

If you want to see what peak TDS looks like, this guy went on a 450 tweet rampage about how Mueller is wrong and there was actually collusion. Absolutely amazing. America should really focus on its mental healthcare problems.

Xav, if you're goal here is to lose respect by posting irrelevant nonsense then congratulations, your plan is working well.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

let's be clear here - the Muller report may well be the single most damning document we've ever seen published on a presidential administration, other than perhaps the Nixon tapes. At the most basic level, it's Muller telling Congress, "The reason we didn't indict is because it's not our place." It is essentially a referral to congress for impeachment.

Here is a quote from the article you linked, written by Yoni Applebaum:

"

The redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report released on Thursday runs 448 pages. But its most important implication can be summarized in a single sentence: There is sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump obstructed justice to merit impeachment hearings.

Here is a quote from the primary source, written by Robert Mueller:

"

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough examination of the facts that the President 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 present difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Now the reasonable way to interpret this passage, which is a summary of the second half of the Mueller report, is that it is a bipartisan nothingburger — neither side got the vindication it was hoping for. Mueller is simultaneously refusing to conclude that Trump is guilty of obstruction AND refusing to conclude he is innocent of it. Mr Applebaum is peddling fake news; he might infer whatever he wants, but Mueller goes further than implying — he explicitly states he doesn't conclude Trump committed obstruction.

Y'know, Yoni actually quotes that exact segment of the report in his analysis. But the analysis actually goes deeper than that, because it points out that Muller is essentially kicking the ball back to congress.

"

To be fair, the right-wing media is also covering this dishonestly. They're claiming the report fully exonerates Trump, when it explicitly doesn't.

Let's be clear here.

The left-wing media is saying, "The report does not exonerate Trump, but provides compelling evidence that he committed obstruction of justice."

According to you, the right-wing media is saying, "The report fully exonerates Trump".

One of these statements is, broadly speaking, true. Don't believe me? Vox went ahead and asked 12 legal experts, maybe they can change your mind. Note that they're almost all saying similar things - here's Peter Margulies, law professor, Roger Williams University School of Law: "The Mueller report provides a road map for prosecuting Trump for obstruction of justice but stops short of this finding because of legal doubts about indicting a sitting president." That last bit is important. It's the context for why Muller cannot conclude that Trump broke the law. In fact, you keep hearing legal experts point this out. From the same article: "The report also indicates that Mueller did not reach an obstruction conclusion due to concerns arising from the Justice Department’s policy against indicting a sitting president. Mueller concluded that Congress could enforce the obstruction of justice statute when Trump acted corruptly to undermine an investigation. Barr’s suggestions to the contrary were false."

Meanwhile, the right-wing media continues its bold tradition of... Lying through its teeth to further the right-wing agenda.

I'm sorry, these two things are not equivalent. Even taking the most uncharitable look at what liberals in the media are saying, the difference here is between "speculating on why Muller stopped short of indicting the president and landing on existing DoJ policy" and "flat-out fucking lying". As usual.

As I pointed out, even if you ignore every possible legal challenge based on the Muller report, it still paints an utterly damning picture of an administration that is deeply corrupt, dishonest, and shows deep disregard for the rule of law. That he ordered McGahn to fire Muller should be reason enough to impeach. If we cannot bring articles of impeachment against a president after a report like this, then there is no situation where it is warranted.

"

But because the conclusions of the report don't fit into either partisan narrative — indeed, instead of being the ending everyone was hoping for, it's not a conclusion so much as a refusal to arrive at one, an ellipsis where we were craving an exclamation point — both sides of the Fake News complex are repainting it as a victory instead of the tie that it actually is. A series of hoaxes which you have obviously bought into.

BOTH SIDES!

God you're like a living Dril tweet.

Face it, folks, like it or not, this is going NOWHERE. President Trump will never be prosecuted for crimes with which there are and will be no charges filed, and he will win a second term in 2020 because of his work on improving the economy and immigration, the two key issues with American voters at this time.

Mueller's report, for whomever he was actually working, did not, as many here (and more absent) declared it would, see President Trump impeached and removed from office. To yammer on about this massive nothingburger is a further waste of time and energy, and a distraction from real issues going into the election cycle. For the Dems, it's a big, limp soy patty they're throwing their base in lieu of red meat, while their party implodes into bald-faced Socialist fantasy.

I'm far from the only one to predict this end to the Mueller witch-hunt (though there are hints at an epilogue which will demand more popcorn as the nuts and bolts of Dem lawlessness become public through the documentation), and it's been a fun ride... For those of us who did. =^[.]^=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

To yammer on about this massive nothingburger is a further waste of time and energy, and a distraction from real issues going into the election cycle.

True, but you need to understand, it isn't your typical Nothingburger. Mueller put a lot of work into it, and that work clearly paid off — the texture, the flavors, it's all of the highest quality. The Mueller Report is a gormet Nothingburger. The type people can nibble slowly and savor each tiny bite. As you've been seeing, and will continue to see.

Fuckin' should be gormet, having spent 40 million dollars on it.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Face it, folks, like it or not, this is going NOWHERE.

Only because people like you deny, obfuscate, or excuse obscene misconduct. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, mate.

"

=^[.]^=

If you have to explain your smiley in your signature it's a lousy smiley.

The same people who want to lock up Trump for defending himself against a proven hoax are fine with Hillary walking away despite provably committing crimes. Really makes you think.

"

Xavderion wrote:

The same people who want to lock up Trump for defending himself against a proven hoax are fine with Hillary walking away despite provably committing crimes. Really makes you think.

A bogus mention of Hillary, still fighting back those tears I see.

Remember this?

"

Xavderion wrote:

Reminder that in one hour (+24 hours, whoops) Mueller's report will be presented by Barr and Rosenstein. The tears and the salt will be delicious.

Leftists on Reddit are already realizing that despite having the House, they can't do shit. The House can subpoena all they want, Trump doesn't have to deliver.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

let's be clear here - the Muller report may well be the single most damning document we've ever seen published on a presidential administration, other than perhaps the Nixon tapes. At the most basic level, it's Muller telling Congress, "The reason we didn't indict is because it's not our place." It is essentially a referral to congress for impeachment.

Here is a quote from the article you linked, written by Yoni Applebaum:

"

The redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report released on Thursday runs 448 pages. But its most important implication can be summarized in a single sentence: There is sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump obstructed justice to merit impeachment hearings.

Here is a quote from the primary source, written by Robert Mueller:

"

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough examination of the facts that the President 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 present difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Now the reasonable way to interpret this passage, which is a summary of the second half of the Mueller report, is that it is a bipartisan nothingburger — neither side got the vindication it was hoping for. Mueller is simultaneously refusing to conclude that Trump is guilty of obstruction AND refusing to conclude he is innocent of it. Mr Applebaum is peddling fake news; he might infer whatever he wants, but Mueller goes further than implying — he explicitly states he doesn't conclude Trump committed obstruction.

Y'know, Yoni actually quotes that exact segment of the report in his analysis.

Look man, if you can't clearly see that either Mr Applebaum has TDS or is counting on his audience having it in order to ignore obvious contradictions, I don't know how to help you. He literally quotes Mueller writing "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime," then quotes Barr saying "I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense," then Mr Applebaum says that there is a "vital distinction" between those two conclusions, then says "It’s possible to read the two conclusions as different ways of stating the same finding," meaning he admits there might not be a vital distinction despite saying there was not two sentences earlier.

You must have doublethink enabled if you got through that entire article believing it was coherent.

That bit about the OLC saying you can't indict a sitting President, fairness concerns, and so on is the big enigma of the Mueller report — that telepathic poker thing I mentioned a few posts ago. I don't blame Mr Applebaum for being incoherent on those points, because Mueller was confusing on those points. If Mueller actually believes that
1) it is not legal to indict a sitting President, and
2) that the sole function of the Office of the Special Council — in other words, the Mueller probe — is to issue indictments, and
3) it is improper (due to issues of "fairness") to comment on impeachment, since it falls outside its proper area of expertise (that is, indictments)
then the only logical conclusion of those premises is
4) logically, Mueller believes he was pre-ordained to have no conclusion in its investigation of President Trump, as REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE Mueller would not return a "I think he's guilty" conclusion.

This is an absolutely absurd conclusion for Mueller to arrive at. In the context of investigating a sitting President of the United States, Mueller's raison d'être — as repeated by everyone in media, repeatedly — was determining whether or not impeachment was warranted. In essence, Mueller is arguing that the job he's had for the past 2+ years, in regards to making a determination of guilt or innocence in the matter of the President (as opposed to the President's associates) was not legally valid.

That's amazin'!

I am having trouble understanding if Mueller actually believes this nonsense, or whatever it's a deliberate untruth, and if the latter what end is achieved by it. But it is nonsense, albeit pleasant-sounding nonsense. It's like the dying Emperor in Gladiator saying the person who least wants the job is the best for it — it feels good if you don't think about it, and feels terrible once you actually do.

In light of this, I don't fully agree with your assessment that Mueller was kicking the ball to Congress (although I consider it a possibility). I think a more accurate assessment is he was kicking the ball away from himself — to whom it goes, I don't know if Mueller cares or not. He simply refused to do his job, by saying his job wasn't an appropriate thing to do. Whether or not that leaves it to others or not is more the choice of those others that it is Mueller's.

The Mueller report isn't a referral for impeachment as much as it's a decision on impeachment that has been abandoned, partially finished, its previous architect standing by it stubbornly repeating "I would prefer not to." Whether that is seen that as an invitation to finish it or not is in the eye of the beholder.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

The same people who want to lock up Trump for defending himself against a proven hoax are fine with Hillary walking away despite provably committing crimes. Really makes you think.

A bogus mention of Hillary, still fighting back those tears I see.

Remember this?

"

Xavderion wrote:

Reminder that in one hour (+24 hours, whoops) Mueller's report will be presented by Barr and Rosenstein. The tears and the salt will be delicious.

Leftists on Reddit are already realizing that despite having the House, they can't do shit. The House can subpoena all they want, Trump doesn't have to deliver.

The tears are great, so many meltdowns on Reddit and Twitter. Also thanks for admitting being a hypocrite.