Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

?

people have been convicted for less. way less. 

nothing middling about what they've found. there's some discussion about intent (as per barrs ridiculous defence of trump saying he wanted to end the investigation because it was so difficult being a president while being investigated) and most of all the regulations saying you can't indict a sitting president.

edit: @aux

guys guys guys

i'm only saying that this is not 'big' as very honest said, most of this info was public knowledge already (via Mueller convictions already gone to court/reporting/etc), and i'm saying it's obviously not a slam dunk case otherwise Mueller would've been much more aggressive with his statements regarding the evidence he does lay out.

could the Mueller report be a part of an impeachment or later prosecution of Trump? sure. maybe. perhaps....however it's more likely that the Mueller report is only part of the story, and the larger/more actually damning stuff (if there's any) will come out of the other cases at SDNY/etc.

  On 4/19/2019 at 4:47 PM, goDel said:

people have been convicted for less. way less. 

 

nothing middling about what they've found. there's some discussion about intent (as per barrs ridiculous defence of trump saying he wanted to end the investigation because it was so difficult being a president while being investigated) and most of all the regulations saying you can't indict a sitting president.

rich white men who are the president of the united states have been convicted for less? that's the situation, that's the reality.

intent is a HUGE part of this, yes, obstruction is in large part (all? i'm not a lawyer) about intent. that's well known and i'd assume anyone paying attention to this would know that of course. i'm not into stating the obvious tho…….there's 600+ pages of that, I've contributed back there my fair share already 

  On 4/19/2019 at 2:35 PM, chenGOD said:

I read through about half of that, quite good, though it really should be more focused. Does he not write articles somewhere?

books.

@goDel: I mean newspaper articles that would require him to be focused/have an editor.

@aux: you need to read this with government/civil servant lens. This is very strong language to use against the sitting president, especially when the system is stacked against Mueller prosecuting. And, as per the thread gODel linked, the issue is not around the obstruction, which as you point out, is largely public already. The issue is really around the collusion with Russia.

auxien, do you think the president should be allowed to commit obstruction of justice?

  On 4/19/2019 at 5:40 PM, chenGOD said:

@goDel: I mean newspaper articles that would require him to be focused/have an editor.

 

@aux: you need to read this with government/civil servant lens. This is very strong language to use against the sitting president, especially when the system is stacked against Mueller prosecuting. And, as per the thread gODel linked, the issue is not around the obstruction, which as you point out, is largely public already. The issue is really around the collusion with Russia.

lol yeah Abramson might be good if someone were to rein him in and focus him.

I understand that Mueller 'did not conclude that there was a crime but it does not exonerate him either' is something, not saying otherwise....but that's about obstruction. his conclusions re: Russia conspiracy were that there was nothing there. he did point to many pieces of evidence that showed some intent (public and private) but nothing substantial that arose. if they did try to conspire they failed or they hid it very well. bottom line is if Mueller says 'no collusion' (yes I know that term is legally irrelevant, as do all of you) then that's all that's going to matter to the broader American public. and you're not going to impeach the president on it, that's for goddamned sure. if there's something impeachable, it's the obstruction, but again, that's not a strong case...and most importantly it's not strong enough for the American people to demand it of their Representatives and Senators.

  On 4/19/2019 at 5:56 PM, very honest said:

auxien, do you think the president should be allowed to commit obstruction of justice?

very honest i'm trying to actually discuss these things with some amount of general respect and seriousness because I don't have anything in the world against any of you (well, maybe goDel is a dingbat sometimes....  ) but really, don't ask me stupid questions. it's not constructive.

  On 4/19/2019 at 6:04 PM, auxien said:

 

  On 4/19/2019 at 5:56 PM, very honest said:

auxien, do you think the president should be allowed to commit obstruction of justice?

very honest i'm trying to actually discuss these things with some amount of general respect and seriousness because I don't have anything in the world against any of you (well, maybe goDel is a dingbat sometimes.... ) but really, don't ask me stupid questions. it's not constructive.

Right. So why are you downplaying Mueller preparing an obstruction case for Congress?

pffff dingbat. yo momma etc ;)

aux, i think you should read the report. the conspiracy thing is more a counter intelligence thing and looks really bad. regardless of whether the evidence lived up to the small definition which was inside muellers mandate. don't forget there's a reason why there's still plenty investigations going on.

the biggest irony is the stone case. somehow stone is indicted for stuff that goes to the heart of the so-called collusion investigation, and yet, here we are. nothing on trump/campaign and stones indicted for collusion!? what...

the only logical explanation for this discrepancy is that mueller used a very specific definition in his report (which he explained) and all the other stuff, outside of the scope of his mandate, is given to other prosecutors.

it's good to be sceptic about all the hype. but i'd argue that goes both ways. barr/trump has created a beautiful hype of himself. it's better to believe neither, imo. to me the amount of lying coming from the trump campaign speaks volumes. and trump was basically doing business with russians during the entire campaign. not illegal. but potentially compromising the minute he became the president. regardless of criminality, this is problematic.

  On 4/19/2019 at 6:17 PM, very honest said:

So why are you down-playing Mueller preparing an obstruction case for Congress?

I'm not. I'm trying to be realistic regarding all of it. There's something for Congress to look at, but from what I've seen and interpretations from lawyers/reporters/etc. I'm simply not seeing enough of an obstruction case for Congress to anything with. There's something there, yeah, Mueller says 'does not exonerate' of course, but no one except the far left is looking at it as being a roadmap for impeachment, I'm sorry. I don't like Trump either, but the Mueller report alone isn't going to take him down.

  On 4/19/2019 at 6:23 PM, goDel said:

pffff dingbat. yo momma etc ;)

 

aux, i think you should read the report. the conspiracy thing is more a counter intelligence thing and looks really bad. regardless of whether the evidence lived up to the small definition which was inside muellers mandate. don't forget there's a reason why there's still plenty investigations going on.

 

the biggest irony is the stone case. somehow stone is indicted for stuff that goes to the heart of the so-called collusion investigation, and yet, here we are. nothing on trump/campaign and stones indicted for collusion!? what...

 

the only logical explanation for this discrepancy is that mueller used a very specific definition in his report (which he explained) and all the other stuff, outside of the scope of his mandate, is given to other prosecutors.

 

it's good to be sceptic about all the hype. but i'd argue that goes both ways. barr/trump has created a beautiful hype of himself. it's better to believe neither, imo. to me the amount of lying coming from the trump campaign speaks volumes. and trump was basically doing business with russians during the entire campaign. not illegal. but potentially compromising the minute he became the president. regardless of criminality, this is problematic.

i'm not going to read 400+ pages of that report, summaries with details are plenty for me, trying not to live and breathe this shit. yeah, there's plenty of investigations happening elsewhere as mentioned and i'm sure we all are aware of :)

Stone case seems to be only slightly related to Trump/Russia? haven't kept up too much with that, could be wrong, I know some of the details are still hidden (hence some of the redactions in the Mueller report concerning Stone). I don't think anyone is silly enough to think i'm falling for Trump's own hype (I hope sheathe was kidding up there^^). Trump's lying seems to be more to protect his image and to keep division/his supporters loyal than because of any actual shit to hide, really. At first it looks really shady but there's not much behind the curtain as Mueller detailed....it's (almost) all smoke and mirrors.

lots of problematic stuff going on with Trump at all times. his business dealings/taxes/Mar a Lago shit are really more of red alerts in my mind, but what do I know

i really don't understand about nothing much behind the curtain. and especially the added "as mueller detailed". not sure which sources you're parroting as you admitted not having read the report. so this leaves me just curious. who says there's not much behind the curtain? where in the report does mueller say there's nothing there?

i'm not going to fault anyone for not reading the entire 400+ page report, and if you have, not even being American, you've got either a VERY serious interest in foreign politics, or an (imo) unhealthy obsession with this all. if you want to fault me for it then don't talk to me, i'd be 100% okay with that, otherwise, shut the fuck up about jumping to a conclusion that i'm parroting. that's a very stupid attack and I think you have enough sense to know it, tho I wouldn't be surprised if i'm wrong on that.

Mueller himself said there's not much behind the curtain, since you've read the report you should know that. Trump didn't have an active conspiracy with the Russians or anyone to effect the American elections. should I continue stating the obvious conclusions of the report or do you want to go ahead and just jump to whatever you want to say next

His tax returns will be even more revealing, which is weird.

  On 4/19/2019 at 7:53 PM, auxien said:

 

Mueller himself said there's not much behind the curtain, since you've read the report you should know that. Trump didn't have an active conspiracy with the Russians or anyone to effect the American elections. should I continue stating the obvious conclusions of the report or do you want to go ahead and just jump to whatever you want to say next

sorry, i just disagree. and i think you've misread my reply. i said i was curious to your sources if you haven't read the report. that's not faulting you. barr said there isn't anything behind the curtain. the report shows plenty going on behind the curtain, imo. 

  On 4/19/2019 at 8:26 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 4/19/2019 at 7:53 PM, auxien said:

 

Mueller himself said there's not much behind the curtain, since you've read the report you should know that. Trump didn't have an active conspiracy with the Russians or anyone to effect the American elections. should I continue stating the obvious conclusions of the report or do you want to go ahead and just jump to whatever you want to say next

 

sorry, i just disagree. and i think you've misread my reply. i said i was curious to your sources if you haven't read the report. that's not faulting you. barr said there isn't anything behind the curtain. the report shows plenty going on behind the curtain, imo. 

goDel i didn't misread you. 

  Quote

 

not sure which sources you're parroting as you admitted not having read the report.

this is obvious attacking/trolling. 'admit to have not read the report' is condescending, as is 'parroting.' don't play coy.

if there's any misreading it's you focusing on one aspect of what I was saying instead of the larger point: 

  Quote

 

Trump's lying seems to be more to protect his image and to keep division/his supporters loyal than because of any actual shit to hide, really. At first it looks really shady but there's not much behind the curtain as Mueller detailed....it's (almost) all smoke and mirrors.

there's not much actual shit (Russian conspiracy) to hide. that's what Mueller said.

  On 4/19/2019 at 8:16 PM, Candiru said:

His tax returns will be even more revealing, which is weird.

maybe? the ones from a few years back that Maddow got in 2017? 18? those weren't anything special, tho it was the 'simplified' tax returns. we'll probably see the full load at some point, but i'm starting to wonder if it's just more smoke and mirrors and he doesn't have anything seriously hiding in there.

It kind of sounds like the conclusion in the report is saying 'we don't have the authority to prosecute, so we're going to leave that to Congress, if they want to, since it's their job.' Sounds like the report is just one part of an ongoing process.

  On 4/19/2019 at 8:58 PM, auxien said:

 

  Quote

 

Trump's lying seems to be more to protect his image and to keep division/his supporters loyal than because of any actual shit to hide, really. At first it looks really shady but there's not much behind the curtain as Mueller detailed....it's (almost) all smoke and mirrors.

there's not much actual shit (Russian conspiracy) to hide. that's what Mueller said.

he didn't. mueller didn't speculate about why trump lied whatsoever. rather the opposite: because he couldn't interview trump, he couldn't make any assessment about his intent.

he said he couldn't make the case that trump or his people conspired with the russians to hack the dnc and/or clinton. appart from that, there was plenty to hide and plenty evidence they were hiding evidence (and trump trying to kill the investigation). people were pleading the 5th. evidence had been destroyed. people were lying. and much of it was in the hands of russians and therefore outside the hands of mueller. mueller def did not come to the "it's all smoke and mirrors" conclusion. thats mostly barrs spin of the outcome. not muellers.

Sheathe: well, I’m satisfied with my job of trashing the trump thread

Auxien: hold my beer

i enjoyed the colbert take

  On 4/19/2019 at 9:44 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 4/19/2019 at 8:58 PM, auxien said:

 

  Quote

 

Trump's lying seems to be more to protect his image and to keep division/his supporters loyal than because of any actual shit to hide, really. At first it looks really shady but there's not much behind the curtain as Mueller detailed....it's (almost) all smoke and mirrors.

there's not much actual shit (Russian conspiracy) to hide. that's what Mueller said.

 

he didn't. mueller didn't speculate about why trump lied whatsoever. rather the opposite: because he couldn't interview trump, he couldn't make any assessment about his intent.

 

he said he couldn't make the case that trump or his people conspired with the russians to hack the dnc and/or clinton. appart from that, there was plenty to hide and plenty evidence they were hiding evidence (and trump trying to kill the investigation). people were pleading the 5th. evidence had been destroyed. people were lying. and much of it was in the hands of russians and therefore outside the hands of mueller. mueller def did not come to the "it's all smoke and mirrors" conclusion. thats mostly barrs spin of the outcome. not muellers.

 

jfc you're dense goDel. I'm the one making the jump to assuming why Trump's lying, hence the SEEMS TO BE/speculation regarding Trump's lying. I never said Muller said that, I said Mueller stated that Trump is cleared of conspiring with Russia, legally. the rest of my blabber was obviously not Mueller. ffs man

  On 4/19/2019 at 10:35 PM, sheathe said:

Sheathe: well, I’m satisfied with my job of trashing the trump thread

 

Auxien: hold my beer

it pains me to see this thread so full of itself, everyone constantly sniffing their own farts. I'm generally pretty liberal and i'm no fan of Trump but there's just such silliness here I can't control myself sometimes

  On 4/19/2019 at 11:11 PM, auxien said:

it pains me to see this thread so full of itself, everyone constantly sniffing their own farts. I'm generally pretty liberal and i'm no fan of Trump but there's just such silliness here I can't control myself sometimes

  On 4/19/2019 at 9:38 PM, Braintree said:

It kind of sounds like the conclusion in the report is saying 'we don't have the authority to prosecute, so we're going to leave that to Congress, if they want to, since it's their job.' 

that's explicitly stated in the report. the intro to the obstruction volume (Volume II) says the part about the authority to prosecute. in a couple other places the report mentions that congress should handle these kinds of cases. i quoted them in the previous page of this thread.

this is the entire conclusion to Volume II:

  Quote

 

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state . Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

is he suggesting that they would prosecute? mueller would be able to decline prosecuton - there's only an issue if he wants to prosecute. that sentence specifies: while knowing the evidence. 

why was he vague if he thought obstruction was established? mueller explains in the intro to Volume II. it would be unfair for a prosecutor to say they believed a person to have committed a crime if they were unable to prosecute. it deprives the accused of the official channels to clear their name. so mueller couldn't explicitly say that the case looks solid to him. but there is that one, stand-out, cryptic sentence sitting there in that 5 sentence conclusion.

wow. jurecic is great.

this treason accusation shit is crazy.  fat orange fascist calling everyone who cooperated w/mueller treasonous. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-report-latest-donald-trump-participants-treason-spying-turn-tables-a8878761.html

i think AG barr is not impartial. i think mueller was impartial. he did his job and stuck to the parameters he was given. barr is a hack. AG is not supposed to be a political position.  he's fouled the smell of that office for years to come. 

btw here's trump when he found out he won the election. looks like he just realized at 70 he'd actually have to work and couldn't just spend time on the golf course.. not that he isn't spending lot's of time on the golf course. 

i think what's not being talked about enough is the degree to which russian troll farms manipulated americans.  

apparently the report shows the depths of trumps corruption.. which should have been obvious long ago.. i mean.. australia knew he was corrupt.. wouldn't even let him run a casino.. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/trumps-bid-for-sydney-casino-30-years-ago-rejected-due-to-mafia-connections

  Quote

A bid by Donald Trump to build Sydney’s first casino was rejected 30 years ago after police expressed concerns about his links to the mafia.

News Corp revealed on Wednesday morning minutes of the New South Wales cabinet that show police had warned the state government against approving a 1986-87 bid by a Trump consortium to build and operate a casino in Darling Harbour.