• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:914,1223] Robert Mueller's report is out

Cardinal said:
How much of the GOP was directly involved in efforts to work with Russian hackers?

View attachment 67255290
Click to expand...

Oh looky, it actually lists the countries who hacked Hillary's server, yet our leftwing friends denied any such breach, as I remember.
 
Last edited:
OrphanSlug said:
Guys, this is a problem. I am roughly 1/3rd of the way through the report and Trump (himself, his campaign team, and perhaps his administration) is not so innocent.
Click to expand...
From the bits & pieces I'm catching, I'm getting kinda' blown away that Trump managed to skip-out on all this.
 
Xelor said:
Blue:
What did I write? Did it have anything to do with what TV shows you're watching now or will in the future? In a word, no.

Perhaps you didn't learn in school that reading the "Cliff Notes" and the book they discuss are two different things. Similarly, reading the book and watching the movie provides two different degrees of comprehension about what might be the same fundamental story about a given set of characters and situations.


Red:
Plenty of stuff, most notably the indictment documents Mueller and the SDNY submitted in courts of law.
Click to expand...

The day you can prove that Catherine Herridige, Chris Wallace, Andrew Napolitano and Brett Hume's Mueller report briefings are biased, you'll have a point. The point is, Mueller wrote, his probe did not find that Trump campaign officials participated in an illegal conspiracy to aid Moscow’s efforts to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

I haven't read it, nor have you. Your point again is? I will find something different than I stated above?
 
Last edited:
American said:
Oh looky, it actually lists the countries who hacked Hillary's server, yet our leftwing friend denied any such breach, as I remember.
Click to expand...

Pretty funny....Old men bringing up Hillary to defend trump.....Pathetic
 
Chomsky said:
How are these actions not conspiratorial, on Trump's part? And how are the 10 documented instances not indicative of a conspiratorial pattern?

I'm at a total loss to understand the legal concepts here, whereas before I thought I had a rudimentary lay-man's knowledge ...
Click to expand...

I'd have to go digging in the statutes and caselaw. But again, we need to bear in mind that they were never going to recommend Trump be indicted because they're bound by DOJ policy. Hence, they explicitly did not make a determination about whether he committed obstruction-related offenses.

As for conspiracy with Russia, it sounds like it comes down to an absence of direct evidence of an explicit agreement with identified Russian officials. Apparently, coordination doesn't fit under any criminal statutes if everything but that explicit agreement is there. (If I saw a federal conspiracy case it was probably 10 years ago, and not my own case at that; I've been focusing on MA stuff)

(Which I do find strange, because other areas of law - ie, anti-trust law - do not always require an explicit agreement. Agreement can generally be inferred from circumstances, ie, everyone is obviously behaving as if they're coordinating. I guess not here).




So either way it was never going to be a direct accusation of criminality by Mueller, and was always just going to be a pile of facts for congress to deal with. Really, the only thing that was ever going to come from this is creation of a public record of all the things Team Trump did, and all the reactions of Trump supporters to that. That will only matter if at some future point, enough people in politics become interested in objectivity and justice over partisanship. And ever since I've came here, I've been thinking (even saying) that I don't think it looks very likely at this point.

Too much damage has been done since 2007.
 
Last edited:
Are we doing nominations for the most likely to soil themselves over this report or do we have to wait until Maddow lets them know?
 
Saladin4 said:
I hate that fat bitch, she should be indicted
Click to expand...

You hate her because she regularly makes mince meat out of the assholes in the Press Corp, especially your hero Acosta.
 
TamleeB said:
I wouldn't underestimate Trump and his followers. I guess time will tell.
Click to expand...


They don't scare me they are a small tribe against a large nation, and they do not have the surprise attack of a hostile foreign nation to push them over the top again...
 
Chomsky said:
From the bits & pieces I'm catching, I'm getting kinda' blown away that Trump managed to skip-out on all this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, obvious attempts at spin (as demonstrated in this thread aside), a lot of this looks pretty bad for the President and his circle. It looks like another hair's breadth of evidence would have resulted in an indictment...I've only read parts of the report, and won't have time to look at the whole thing (as redacted) for a while. But what I have seen so far doesn't look good.
 
I understand the bulk of the redactions is related to the ongoing charges against the Russians.
Anyone have a problem with that?
 
Chomsky said:
How are these actions not conspiratorial, on Trump's part? And how are the 10 documented instances not indicative of a conspiratorial pattern?

I'm at a total loss to understand the legal concepts here, whereas before I thought I had a rudimentary lay-man's knowledge ...
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
I'd have to go digging in the statutes and caselaw. But again, we need to bear in mind that they were never going to recommend Trump be indicted because they're bound by DOJ policy. Hence, they explicitly did not make a determination about whether he committed obstruction-related offenses.

As for conspiracy with Russia, it sounds like it comes down to an absence of direct evidence of an explicit agreement with identified Russian officials. Apparently, coordination doesn't fit under any criminal statutes if everything but that explicit agreement is there...
Click to expand...
On that Russia-collusion point, it says, ...

"The investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute."

And,

"The Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts. Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report."

In other words, Mueller was hindered by Trump campaign officials lying about or deleting/hiding key information that would've allowed him to come to a thorough conclusion.
 
Saladin4 said:
trump is a liar and a con man...That tried to obstruct in anyway he could.....He should be impeached
Click to expand...

And that's why you'll never be in a position of authority...
 
Chomsky said:
I was joking around here, you know. Right?
Click to expand...

I'm looking for your comments on Jerry Nadler's hypocrisy. I guess you have nothing to say about this, amirite?
 
Criminality is not needed for impeachment. Also, Collusion is not the name of a crime. One can collude and commit no crime.

That's the standard for POTUS in 2019? Presidents can do anything but commit crimes? Wrongdoings are just 'fake news'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom