The Mueller Report

[NorrinRadd]

Confession: I have not read, and probably will not read, The Report.

Question: Has anyone read any of the Turley links I've posted, in this or the related threads?

[Mountain Man]

Confession: I have not read, and probably will not read, The Report.

Question: Has anyone read any of the Turley links I've posted, in this or the related threads?

I've read one or two, but I can guarantee that our resident liberals have not bothered with a single one. This is why you should summarize the articles in your posts, or quote a representative portion.

[firstfloor]

Another Turley article.

Turley seems to be wrong on the intent issue.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...investigation/

[Mountain Man]

Pelosi continues to hedge her bets:

"I do believe impeachment is one of the most divisive forces — paths we could go down to in our country. But if the facts, the path of fact-finding takes us there we have no choice but we are not there yet." (Emphasis mine)

Really? We're not there yet? This almost sounds like a concession that there is insufficient evidence in the Mueller report to warrant impeachment.

[firstfloor]

Pelosi continues to hedge her bets:

"I do believe impeachment is one of the most divisive forces — paths we could go down to in our country. But if the facts, the path of fact-finding takes us there we have no choice but we are not there yet." (Emphasis mine)

Really? We're not there yet? This almost sounds like a concession that there is insufficient evidence in the Mueller report to warrant impeachment.

There’s more than enough to see that impeachment is a distinct possibility despite all the redactions. If the Dems keep the pressure up they might drive him to self-immolation on the White House lawn, or at least some really stupid tweets.

[Mountain Man]

Turley seems to be wrong on the intent issue.

No he's not. Mueller himself said there was no evidence of corrupt intent and that "this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime".

And from the Turley article:

The report is a mess on intent with an array of intents to choose from. Mueller found “substantial evidence” that Trump wanted to limit the scope of the investigation, but that is not necessarily intent. Importantly, Mueller described noncriminal motives for the baffling conduct of Trump. Usually, the absence of evidence of a corrupt intent is resolved in favor of the defendant; however, the special counsel may not have been so inclined after Trump refused to be interviewed on obstruction. If Mueller reached the same conclusion as on collusion, it would have rewarded Trump for his intransigence. There may be an element of comeuppance in declaring that, in the end, it was impossible to determine what Trump was thinking.

None of this produces a compelling case of prosecution, even when any noncriminal motivation or intent is acknowledged. Even the best grounds for obstructive intent with Trump seeking to fire Mueller, an order ignored by White House counsel, was justified by Trump as based on his fear of a conflict of interest. Since Mueller was not fired, we cannot know if Trump would have tried to block any new special counsel. But Trump ultimately did not stop the investigation. He could also claim, in his defense, that he simply wanted a neutral investigator, not someone who was interviewed to replace Comey and then appointed to investigate the firing of Comey.

[oxmixmudd]

Thus confirming my point.

TDS, like its forerunner BDS, is not a "fake" diagnosis, it is a semi-satirical one created by a *real* psychiatrist (the late, lamented Charles Krauthammer), who was himself no fan of Donald Trump.

Anyone want to tell NR a satirical origin does in fact equate to it being fake, as in 'not real'.

Secondarily, the real issue here is that none of my complaints voiced in this thread about trump are in any way irrational. What is irrational is the continued attempts by you and others in this thread to justify the unjustifiable, and to attempt to paint this report as some sort of vindication for trump.

To the contrary: the fact you can even conceive of the content of this report as some sort of vindication of trump only solidifies the utter depravity of the man, and the utter loss of moral direction required of those that blindly support him.

Jim

[Bill the Cat]

When.jpg

[Mountain Man]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36609[/ATTACH]

It's like the joke about "An atheist, a vegan, and a homosexual walk into a bar. Everybody knows because they figured out a way to awkwardly interject it into a conversation within 2-minutes."

[oxmixmudd]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36609[/ATTACH]

And the irrational simple double down on their own irrationality.

This thread is about the meuller report, which is about trump. So we can expect virtually all posts to directly or indirectly reference trump or the investigation of trump.

To then mock a post for mentioning trump in such a thread leaves all bounds of rational discourse behind.

Basically, you two have reduced yourselves to self contradictory, babbling idiots.

Care to return to some semblance of a rational discussion?

Jim

[Cow Poke]

Ad hominens won't help you...

Oh, the Iron E!

[Bill the Cat]

And the irrational simple double down on their own irrationality.

This thread is about the meuller report, which is about trump. So we can expect virtually all posts to directly or indirectly reference trump or the investigation of trump.

To then mock a post for mentioning trump in such a thread leaves all bounds of rational discourse behind.

Basically, you two have reduced yourselves to self contradictory, babbling idiots.

Care to return to some semblance of a rational discussion?

Jim

You hate Trump. You are incapable of rational discussion.

[One Bad Pig]

You hate Trump. You are incapable of rational discussion.

I found out long ago that, strangely, pointing this out doesn't accomplish anything.

[Mountain Man]

I found out long ago that, strangely, pointing this out doesn't accomplish anything.

Because they feel that their hate is not only justified but a moral obligation.

[JimL]

Because they feel that their hate is not only justified but a moral obligation.

No, it is our moral obligation to make sure that an immoral narcisistic autocrat who has no regard for the law doesn't represent the head of western democracy.