The Mueller Report

[oxmixmudd]

Then you stink at showing your intentions.

Or you stink and interpreting them ...

Uh, yeah you have.

No, I have never even remotely implied that:

anyone who defends him against false accusations is somehow just as bad an amoral pig as Trump and not behaving like a Christian.

What I have said has been focused on the conflict between the teachings of Christ and Trump as it relates to his immoral actions, never once have I implied defending him against false accusations is a problem. So you have lied about me in print. You are not only being irrational in how you have interpreted my statements, you are flat out lying about what I have said.

And we've stated repeatedly that 1) no one here is excusing his immoral behavior, and 2) Some things he does aren't immoral, but you claim they are. See below.

I would beg to differ. You all are right now defending his attempts to divert or obstruct the investigation under the pretense that the mechanisms he used to try to impede the investigation where within his legal power. Obstruction does not depend on the legality of the action itself, but the intent of it.

From https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...f-justice.html

Source: above

The crime [obstruction] can take any number of forms, whether it's bribery, tampering with evidence, lying to investigators, abusing one's power, or some other act intended to impede a criminal investigation. The federal obstruction of justice statute is written broadly and focuses more on the effect (or intended effect) of a particular action rather than the specific act itself. Therefore, seemingly innocuous acts could be construed as criminal activity if they have the intended effect of impeding justice.

© Copyright Original Source

And this is a matter of legal disagreement, not an immoral action. Constitutional scholars know that he was perfectly within his authority to fire Mueller if he thought it was necessary.

Not if he did it to keep Mueller from discovering a crime he committed.

NEVER quote Rudy.

He is the presidents lawyer and he is trying to campaign for the idea there is nothing wrong with taking help from the Russians while running for office. He is doing this to reduce the impact of the fact that Trump and his campaign willingly accepted help from the Russians and did nothing to try to stop them from helping him win the election.

While the investigation did not prove there was a conspiracy to enlist help from the Russians, it does clearly show they not only knew the Russians were trying to help them, they were happy to receive that help and that members of his campaign where in contact with the Russians about that help.

And that is horribly immoral. Just wrong. It puts Trump in Russia's debt. It is the definition of compromised.

Considering there is absolutely ZERO evidence that the Russians actually changed a single vote, Kushner is correct. That you allow your hatred for Trump to cloud your judgment on this basic fact is your burden to bear, not mine. I've given you the facts of the matter.

In a pigs ... err 'cat's' eye. This is nothing more than blind support for trump, of the kind you are claiming you do not engage in. The Russians engaged in a significant campagn to spread misinformation, fake news, talking points, all designed to influence people opinions about Trump and hillary and through that the election results. If such propaganda efforts are truly powerless, then a large number of governments, including our own, have been wasting a lot of money on such efforts for a very long time. Our intelligence community concluded the exact opposite of your baseless assertion. Not only did they try, they had effect. It would be impossible to conclude they did not have effect. What can't be proven is how much effect, and were their efforts what allowed Trump to win.

How about providing some of that "on and on" since you are Oh fer so far...

Nope. It takes time to do the research, and you and MM could care less what the facts are. You already know what the on and on is. You don't care what it is. The facts mean literally nothing to you. At least not when the facts point to flaw in Donald Trump.

Virtue signaling



virtue signaling

Cute little name. Does it make you feel smart to use it (incorrectly)?

As has been pointed out other places, the use of the term is itself recursive. (or do I need to spell that our for you in simpler, more basic terms: to use the term virtue signalling against another person IS ITSELF VIRTUE SIGNALLING)

There is nothing superficial about routinely trying to substitute half truths for the truth, or characterizing the truth in ways that diminish its importance. The more common term for that would be deception. And participating in deception is wrong. And calling out deception is not some superficial appeal, it is critical to the continuation of our society and our way of life.

There is nothing superficial about calling out the dismissal of attempts to influence our elections. Our democracy depends on fair and impartial implementation of the election process. We can not just ignore the clear and present danger that foreign governments exerting control over our election results represents. And you are fool to buy into the idea this whole deal was a nothing. You would be right to be on Obama's case for not acting more forcefully about it, and I would support repercussions for his own compromise in that matter, but you are acting against our republic by excusing it to protect your man Trump.

As for Trump's disrespect for the law. It is legendary, and again, it is no superficial appeal to morality to call it out. Not from my mouth at least. The president VOWS to make sure the laws are enforced and followed. A man with as much demonstrated disrespect for the law as Donald Trump does not deserve to hold the office.

Once you left factual discussion behind and moved to virtue signaling and back-handed insults to our Christian walk, you deserve to be mocked.

You don't have a clue what the term means and have extended it to so far it would include the acts recorded in the scripture of the Prophets themselves as they called Israel to repentance. So sad that you would join the world in its distaste for seeing a clear standard of righteousness raised.

The content of the report shows a man who lies, like most every politician. It also shows no actionable criminal activity. And in this country, whether you like it or not, he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So suck it up, buttercup. So, unless you want to throw due process out the window and show you're no friend of justice, you should reconsider your retort.

Again, defending the bully, the lawbreaker, the liar against the reality of what he has done.

The only one who could righteously lead the Republican Party would be Jesus... not that He would lead any political party... any other person is a flawed sinner just like you and me.

Again twisting the truth to defend the liar. And you know better. Everyone sins so we can't call out gross sin when it appears? Ok then - shut your trap about JimL and NAMBLA. After all - everyone sins. Shut your trap about Hillary. Or the LBGTQ community. After all who are you to call that out - you sinner. The utter hypocrisy of using this specific defense as cover for Trump in his blatant abuse of the innocent, from immigrant families to school girls that dare to defy him, and then turning around and claiming you have the right to say gay marriage is wrong, or that Hillary should not have had a secret email server, or that Obama should not have attacked the press. Now THAT is hypocrisy.

That's a blatant lie.

Is it?? Show me when Trump has done something wrong, been called on it, and you've agreed he should have been called on it rather than defended him in it. Can you find one instance in the last 2 years. 2 instances? 3? Can you break single digits?

And you suck at mind reading.

And you suck at understanding - nothing I've said here even remotely implies an attempt at mind reading.


Jim

[JimL]

Do these idiots really believe that if Mueller found that Trump colluded he wouldn't have recommended indictment, never mind for obstructed of justice?

These idiots understand that, according to Mueller's interpretation of the law, a sitting president can't be indicted, and that collusion, though despicable, is not a criminal offense. In order for the President to be indicted for his crimes, the Congress first has to impeach him. You trumpsters don't seem to get that, and unlike Trump, the special prosecutor has to follow the law.

[JimL]

Legally, no there isn't. And that's why there should be no impeachment. Having not been charged with any "high crimes and misdemeanors", Congress has no grounds to impeach. But, don't tell Auntie Maxine that...

That's up to Congress to decide. What you bozo's don't seem to be able to grasp is that a sitting president can not be indicted, that is charged with any "high crimes and misdemeanors" by the special prosecutor, but he can be indicted if Congress impeaches him first. In other words, it's all up to Congress to conclude Trumps guilt or innocence after having hearings on the matter.

[JimL]

Personally, I think it would be a horrible mistake for the Dems to impeach. As with the Kavanaugh hearings, it will seriously rally the right, and turn Trump into a martyr - and for no achievable result: he cannot be convicted, AFAICT. So impeachment plays right into Trump's hand, keeping the attention firmly on Trump. I personally think the Dems should continue investigations as a background activity, highlighting every obstruction and every attempt to hide information that the Trump administration will inevitably initiate.

Every day spent debating impeachment is another day not spent looking at healthcare, taxation, climate, debt, education, immigration, balancing nationalism with globalism, and all of the other issues that matter to so many of us.

Respectfully disagree carpe. For one thing the president is not only guilty, but he is still obstructing now. This is not about politics anymore, it's about democracy itself, and the american people, not only should, but need to be fully aware of the evidence against this presidents criminal, treasonous (in my opinion) behavior so that, even if the republican senate refuses to hold him accountable, they (the american people) can decide for themselves whether to re-elect the corrupt scoundrel. They need to see and hear the witnesses and the evidence. Besides that, it's the Constitutional responsibility Of Congress to oversee the executive branch and to impeach a dangerous autocrat, to protect the country. It's their job, not a political choice!

[rogue06]

These idiots understand that, according to Mueller's interpretation of the law, a sitting president can't be indicted

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you one of these who back during Kavanaugh's confirmation were mocking that theory as an outlandish fringe idea but now see it as codified in stone?

[Mountain Man]

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you one of these who back during Kavanaugh's confirmation were mocking that theory as an outlandish fringe idea but now see it as codified in stone?

The saying "any port in a storm" comes to mind.

[Mountain Man]

What you bozo's don't seem to be able to grasp is that a sitting president can not be indicted,...

What you bozos don't seem to grasp is that there is no rule in place that would have prevented Mueller from plainly declaring that Trump had broken the law and recommending indictment which would have put AG Barr in the position to either accept or reject the recommendation. But he didn't. Instead he said quite plainly "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime". No crime, no indictment. It's as simple as that.

Even the Democrats are well aware that the Mueller report gives them no grounds to pursue impeachment, which is why they're desperately trying to subpoena White House staff to do some more fishing, and Trump is happily telling them to take a hike.

[carpedm9587]

Many people still seem incapable of understanding that Bill Clinton was, indeed, impeached. As you obviously are aware, he was not removed by the Senate, and most pundits believe it really hurt the Republicans. Like you say, unless there's something really substantial, it's likely that an impeachment would move to the Senate where removal would fail. Trump could use that as political leverage.

It amazes me how he so consistently demonstrates that he is his own worst enemy!

[seer]

These idiots understand that, according to Mueller's interpretation of the law, a sitting president can't be indicted, and that collusion, though despicable, is not a criminal offense. In order for the President to be indicted for his crimes, the Congress first has to impeach him. You trumpsters don't seem to get that, and unlike Trump, the special prosecutor has to follow the law.

Jim are you really this dense? Mueller certainly could have recommended indictment, which could happen after he left office. He could have just said that Trump was guilty of obstruction or collusion. He didn't.

[carpedm9587]

So directly quoting Mueller (something I notice you didn't do) and stating basic facts (something else you didn't do) is now considered "hand-waving".

I think you mean: directly quoting Mueller, and then turning his words into something he DIDN'T say, while pretending he did. And if you need a few Mueller quotes, let's try these:

While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

That particular quote underscores what I have been saying in this thread.

The evidence supports the inference that the President intended (former campaign Chairman Paul) Manafort to believe that he could receive a pardon, which would make cooperation with the government as a means of obtaining a lesser sentence unnecessary.

The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

I could bring out more, but I have a feeling it is largely a waste of time. The report paints a pretty ugly picture of this president and his administration - and one that aligns with most of the leaks we have had since he was elected. It basically clears them of proactive involvement in collusion, but takes a "not enough evidence to indict" stand on the issue of obstruction. It also convinces me that this is one of the worst presidents (if not THE worst president) we've had in my lifetime. He cannot go soon enough.

[carpedm9587]

Respectfully disagree carpe. For one thing the president is not only guilty, but he is still obstructing now. This is not about politics anymore, it's about democracy itself, and the american people, not only should, but need to be fully aware of the evidence against this presidents criminal, treasonous (in my opinion) behavior so that, even if the republican senate refuses to hold him accountable, they (the american people) can decide for themselves whether to re-elect the corrupt scoundrel. They need to see and hear the witnesses and the evidence. Besides that, it's the Constitutional responsibility Of Congress to oversee the executive branch and to impeach a dangerous autocrat, to protect the country. It's their job, not a political choice!

You're right, we disagree. I have no doubt this man is corrupt, but some thought must be given to outcomes. Impeachment focuses all of the attention on Trump for the next 2 years, and has little/no chance of succeeding before the next election cycle. The attention on Trump plays right into what Trump thrives on: media. He is a master of manipulating it, and is essentially correct in his belief that there is no such thing as "bad press" - as long as the attention is on you.

If exposure of his actions/finances/etc. is what is wanted, the House has investigative powers and should continue to use them. While they are doing so, they should focus on issues that actually matter to our daily lives and take the focus OFF Trump and onto the issues that matter. Democracy is best served by getting that man OUT of office. Impeachment has almost no hope of accomplishing that, and may actually give him 4 more years.

[Mountain Man]

I think you mean: directly quoting Mueller, and then turning his words into something he DIDN'T say, while pretending he did. And if you need a few Mueller quotes, let's try these:

While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

That's more of a political statement then a legal one. Everything after "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" is irrelevant because it is not a persecutor's job to exonerate for the very simple reason that we are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. To put it another way, an innocent man needs no exoneration. That's why courts do not declare a verdict of innocent but, rather, not guilty, because the defendant's innocence is already presumed. Mueller's statement is the equivalent of telling your wife, "You didn't do anything wrong, but I won't forgive you." (Try that line next time you're having an argument. )

As for the laundry list of "almost but not really obstruction", so what? Mueller obviously didn't feel the evidence was compelling enough to state plainly that Trump was guilty, or to recommend indictment. Rather, he unambiguously declared that he could find no reason to charge the President with a crime. Take that in front of a judge, and you know what he would say? "Not guilty!"

Any other conclusion is just spin.

[carpedm9587]

That's more of a political statement then a legal one.

Everything after "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" is irrelevant because it is not a persecutor's job to exonerate for the very simple reason that we are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. To put it another way, an innocent man needs no exoneration. That's why courts do not declare a verdict of innocent but, rather, not guilty, because the defendant's innocence is already presumed. Mueller's statement is the equivalent of telling your wife, "You didn't do anything wrong, but I won't forgive you." (Try that line next time you're having an argument. )

As for the laundry list of "almost but not really obstruction", so what? Mueller obviously didn't feel the evidence was compelling enough to state plainly that Trump was guilty, or to recommend indictment. Rather, he unambiguously declared that he could find no reason to charge the President with a crime. Take that in front of a judge, and you know what he would say? "Not guilty!"

Any other conclusion is just spin.

So the passages that say something you can spin to align with your preconceptions are "legal" and the ones that don't are "political." Got it!

Talk about "spin"

Last word to you, MM. The outcome of this discussion was pretty much a foregone conclusion...

[Bill the Cat]

Or you stink and interpreting them ...

Nah. Everyone on my side of the aisle sees you are irrational and hate Trump. We've discussed your hatred and anti-Trump rhetoric and calling into question our defending Trump from false accusations from your side in our private leadership area. Everyone sees it, and everyone knows it. But, hey... we're ALL just crazy Trump cheerleaders encouraging Trump to do every manner of evil he can think of.

No, I have never even remotely implied that:



What I have said has been focused on the conflict between the teachings of Christ and Trump as it relates to his immoral actions, never once have I implied defending him against false accusations is a problem.

The problem is that you think every accusation against him is true. And as a result, when we defend him against false accusations, you attack us and our Christianity as incompatible with defending him when we see these false accusations.

So you have lied about me in print.

No I haven't. You've not come to Trump's defense ONCE on this forum. And if you can produce one defense, I'll retract my accusation.

You are not only being irrational in how you have interpreted my statements, you are flat out lying about what I have said.

Yup. Everyone else is crazy...

I would beg to differ. You all are right now defending his attempts to divert or obstruct the investigation under the pretense that the mechanisms he used to try to impede the investigation where within his legal power. Obstruction does not depend on the legality of the action itself, but the intent of it.

From https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...f-justice.html

Source: above

The crime [obstruction] can take any number of forms, whether it's bribery, tampering with evidence, lying to investigators, abusing one's power, or some other act intended to impede a criminal investigation. The federal obstruction of justice statute is written broadly and focuses more on the effect (or intended effect) of a particular action rather than the specific act itself. Therefore, seemingly innocuous acts could be construed as criminal activity if they have the intended effect of impeding justice.

© Copyright Original Source

That the statute is broad enough to be interpreted as obstruction does not make it illegal. Not immediately moving out of the way for a police car with lights on could be construed technically as obstruction according to this. I'm not defending his rant to fire Mueller, just stating the legal fact that he could have Mueller fired if he had cause. That's not obstruction because 1) Mueller never got fired, and 2) He legally had the ability to have Mueller fired if he could show cause. Again, this is not a matter of defending him against illegal claims. It is a disagreement that the action was illegal in the first place. It is not immoral to defend someone against an uncharitable interpretation of a law.

Not if he did it to keep Mueller from discovering a crime he committed.

And there is no proof that this was the case. Since there was no collusion, as specifically stated by Mueller, there was no crime to be discovered.

He is the presidents lawyer and he is trying to campaign for the idea there is nothing wrong with taking help from the Russians while running for office. He is doing this to reduce the impact of the fact that Trump and his campaign willingly accepted help from the Russians and did nothing to try to stop them from helping him win the election.

Rudy is nuts. Everyone knows that.

While the investigation did not prove there was a conspiracy to enlist help from the Russians, it does clearly show they not only knew the Russians were trying to help them, they were happy to receive that help and that members of his campaign where in contact with the Russians about that help.

And that means that there was nothing illegal happening on Trump's part. That the Russians did anything is inconsequential to whether or not Trump should stay in office.

And that is horribly immoral.

Trump never asked for Russian assistance with the election. That Russian offered to give it is immoral on THEIR part, not Trump's. That a few members of Trump's team contacted them is, again, on them. Unless you have any evidence that Trump directed any of this, you are just showing your hatred of him, as usual.

Just wrong. It puts Trump in Russia's debt. It is the definition of compromised.

No it doesn't. He owes them nothing. Their "assistance" was unsolicited and even rebuffed several times.

In a pigs ... err 'cat's' eye. This is nothing more than blind support for trump, of the kind you are claiming you do not engage in.

Well, you have information Mueller didn't even have. So, fess up, Jim. Show us a vote that changed.

The Russians engaged in a significant campagn to spread misinformation, fake news, talking points, all designed to influence people opinions about Trump and hillary and through that the election results. If such propaganda efforts are truly powerless, then a large number of governments, including our own, have been wasting a lot of money on such efforts for a very long time. Our intelligence community concluded the exact opposite of your baseless assertion. Not only did they try, they had effect. It would be impossible to conclude they did not have effect. What can't be proven is how much effect, and were their efforts what allowed Trump to win.

Exactly as I expected. You have no direct evidence of a single vote changed, but hey... it HAS to have happened because... reasons.

Nope. It takes time to do the research, and you and MM could care less what the facts are.

You mean couldn't care less. If we COULD care less, that means there is less caring of which we were capable.

You already know what the on and on is.

Ok, AOC...

You don't care what it is.

Sure I do. How about actually bringing some facts, and see.

The facts mean literally nothing to you. At least not when the facts point to flaw in Donald Trump.

And there's your problem. You think we can't despise his lying and personal moral turpitude and still defend his policies that we agree with, nor that we can defend him, or anyone for that matter, against accusations we see as false. You're a hack, Jim, and everyone here sees it.

Cute little name. Does it make you feel smart to use it (incorrectly)?

Truth hurts, huh? You denigrate Trump, and us by proxy, to act morally superior based on nothing more than your disdain for him. It's dead on accurate.

As has been pointed out other places, the use of the term is itself recursive. (or do I need to spell that our for you in simpler, more basic terms: to use the term virtue signalling against another person IS ITSELF VIRTUE SIGNALLING)

Yeah, no it isn't. I'm not claiming to be morally superior to you, just pointing out your attempts to do it.

There is nothing superficial about routinely trying to substitute half truths for the truth, or characterizing the truth in ways that diminish its importance.

Nor is there anything superficial about interchanging your own opinions for facts.

The more common term for that would be deception. And participating in deception is wrong. And calling out deception is not some superficial appeal, it is critical to the continuation of our society and our way of life.

And of course, you're just the unbiased neutral observer to point out deception, right? Especially when you get to dictate what truth is and isn't...

There is nothing superficial about calling out the dismissal of attempts to influence our elections.

Then call out the guilty parties. Russia, Fusion GPS, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Steel, Comey, etc. But unless you have evidence that Mueller misses, Trump himself is not on that list. But, I'd bet my next check you will never admit any of that.

Our democracy depends on fair and impartial implementation of the election process. We can not just ignore the clear and present danger that foreign governments exerting control over our election results represents. And you are fool to buy into the idea this whole deal was a nothing. You would be right to be on Obama's case for not acting more forcefully about it, and I would support repercussions for his own compromise in that matter, but you are acting against our republic by excusing it to protect your man Trump.

Oh really? Cite where I said ANYTHING about the Steel dossier before this thread. And if you don't think THAT little piece of fiction was an attempt to influence the election, you are high.

As for Trump's disrespect for the law. It is legendary, and again, it is no superficial appeal to morality to call it out.

If he breaks the law, then he should be prosecuted for it. But innuendo and public opinion are not the law.

Not from my mouth at least. The president VOWS to make sure the laws are enforced and followed. A man with as much demonstrated disrespect for the law as Donald Trump does not deserve to hold the office.

There is no morality requirement to be President. Heck, George Washington outright bribed his way to his first political office. And, again, show me a law that Trump has been charged with breaking in office.

You don't have a clue what the term means and have extended it to so far it would include the acts recorded in the scripture of the Prophets themselves as they called Israel to repentance. So sad that you would join the world in its distaste for seeing a clear standard of righteousness raised.

First off, this isn't about me. It's about you and your self-appointed smug moral superiority when it comes to anything Trump related. Second, this isn't a theocracy. Religion should not be a key factor in making laws of a secular society. It can help, but secular arguments should be primary. I'd love to have a Christian in office, but we take what we have and hope for the best.

Again, defending the bully, the lawbreaker, the liar against the reality of what he has done.

I called him a liar, and you claim I am defending his lies? Telling people to lie to the press is morally wrong. Doesn't mean he is unfit for leading the country though.

Again twisting the truth to defend the liar.

I'm sorry, but "It also shows no actionable criminal activity" is in no way twisting the truth.

And you know better. Everyone sins so we can't call out gross sin when it appears?

Of course we can. But equating personal sin with political fitness is plain stupid.

Ok then - shut your trap about JimL and NAMBLA.

JimL isn't running for office.

After all - everyone sins.

God, you are being stupid.

Shut your trap about Hillary.

Unlike Trump, Hillary actually BROKE the law, and evidence was clearly presented showing that. Loretta Lynch let her off the hook. Mueller did not say Trump broke the law.

Or the LBGTQ community.

Legal issues and moral issues are completely different. So, stop conflating the two.

After all who are you to call that out - you sinner.

That's so far from the point, it isn't even worth the effort to respond.

The utter hypocrisy of using this specific defense as cover for Trump in his blatant abuse of the innocent,

Gonna chop this up. No one is covering for Trump's personal sins.

from immigrant families

Liberal talking point #1. Let them come here the legal way.

to school girls that dare to defy him

You'll have to be more specific.

, and then turning around and claiming you have the right to say gay marriage is wrong,

I don't care about who marries who from a legal standpoint. Morally, I can say it is against scripture and is sinful behavior, but I don't care who chooses to associate with who.

or that Hillary should not have had a secret email server,

A matter of illegality. Which SHOULD be rebuffed.

or that Obama should not have attacked the press.

Depends on what you mean "attacked"

Is it?? Show me when Trump has done something wrong, been called on it, and you've agreed he should have been called on it rather than defended him in it. Can you find one instance in the last 2 years. 2 instances? 3? Can you break single digits?

Just in this reply, I've listed 3 times where I said Trump lies. I debate policy and legal matters.

And you suck at understanding - nothing I've said here even remotely implies an attempt at mind reading.


Jim

You telling me what I would have done years ago is mind reading. You have no clue what I argue about or why.

[tabibito]

Jim are you really this dense? Mueller certainly could have recommended indictment, which could happen after he left office. He could have just said that Trump was guilty of obstruction or collusion. He didn't.

And if Mueller had found grounds to indict, it's a safe bet that impeachment would have been decided on before a meeting to make the decision had time to be convened.