• 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

Obscurity said:
Spare me the identity politics. I have no stomach for it and it muddles the conversation. I don't give a **** what color your skin is.
Click to expand...

FACT:90% of these trump cult members are angry white people...Deal with it
 
j-mac said:
Don't know, don't care....we aren't talking about 89

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Of course it is relevant. He mislead Congress. Now we will see that he is at it again.
 
apdst said:
Why no charges?
Click to expand...

From who?

Trump was successfully sued for his hiring of illegals. There are multiple exposes of his illicit activities.

Just because charges are not brought does not mean something was illegal. It simply means he didn't get caught, or the statute of limitations expired.

Like I said. Stop playing ****ing stupid.
 
Fruityfact said:
The thing is you haven't engaged with the report at all. Just proclaimed "victory"
Hence, you're disparaged for your dishonesty.
Click to expand...

I was noticing this too.

I've only had time to read the first pages, possibly this evening I'll get further in. I am seeing actual snippets from the report in here, with people commenting which imo it's not a very pretty picture.
 
Saladin4 said:
FACT:90% of these trump cult members are angry white people...Deal with it
Click to expand...

So? The majority of the country is white. Does this, by your standard, mean the whites are also cult members for democrats?

Like I said, it's useless.
 
Republicans don't care. There could be a sentence in the report saying "altought there is plenty of evidence of conspiracy and collusion, we chose not to indict because of the DOJ directive" and they'd say "See? exonerated!"

0 nuance
 
Chomsky said:
Thanks for this excellent post! :thumbs:

From my current understanding, I believe your thorough synopsis is right on the money.

Concerning obstruction, I still am blown away that when we take all the obstruction attempts in totality, how can it not be obstruction? In addition, as Trump attempts and fails to obstruct the investigation, how can it not be conspiracy to obstruct? Additionally, there may be state charges possible.

And yes, as with yourself I believe Trump suffers legal exposure after his time in office. Specifically, I'm thinking with SDNY in the Cohen-Daniels matter, along with possibly improprieties in his and his organization's business dealings, including the Inauguration Committee.
Click to expand...

Haven't read it, but just from what was said in the press conference, is it possible that OTHER motivations could have motivated the actions taken?

That would explain why no obstruction.
 
Objective Voice said:
This is true. However, you have to look at the actions the Trump campaign took after said information was released, who was obtaining said information prior to its release and how said information could work to the campaign's advantage.

While there is no crime in taking advantage of any information once it becomes public knowledge, the fact that the Trump campaign worked so hard to get information on Hillary - sometimes even before it became public and who they tried to get it from other than WikiLeaks - is astounding!
Click to expand...

Well, all of that is false. Stone is a known associate of Assange, and even in the most anti-Trump publications it was Assange informing Stone of the existence of the emails... and that communication is "Spring 2016" while public knowledge of the emails also happened in "Spring 2016".

The was nothing in the communications regarding the Trump Tower meeting that any information that Russian sources might have was received illegally.
 
sjmay said:
Haven't read it, but just from what was said in the press conference, is it possible that OTHER motivations could have motivated the actions taken?

That would explain why no obstruction.
Click to expand...

When your orders spook the NSA director so badly that he documents the conversation and locks the memo in a safe then there shouldn’t be any doubt that your motives are criminal.
 
This is no longer a legal matter and is now a political matter. Congress is going to be very busy.
 
Mr Person said:
Looking through this thread I see a whole lot of people quoting big sections of various pages - bear in mind "Fair Use" limits what can be posted - and describing the various bits of corrupt behavior they describe.

But then I see a whole lot of other people running dishonest victory laps, making sure to avoid the quoted sections at all cost, generally just trolling anyone who is trying to discuss it, and if they do a little of that it's to proclaim Trump's complete innocence on all fronts (not the report says or supports). I don't think those are the kind of people worth worrying about. The only way one could reach the desperation conclusion is if one is starting from the position that Trump is completely innocent and therefore there is nothing in the report to discuss, full stop. So, I suspect someone who the Dems need in 2020 and whose support is worth aiming for is not going to look at this ****storm and conclude the people who discussed the report are being desperate. Those that do are almost certainly in the second category.

As for impeachment, I think you'll find most people are nothing that Trump was never going to be convicted on articles of impeachment, but if this was the 90s he would at least have to answer such charges. Thus far, it sounds like Trump did a whole lot more than Clinton did to cover up the BJ and interfere in the civil suits. There were a few here insisting on impeachment even before the report. I recall one person announcing that Mueller was a "traitor". But those are a small minority.




Bear in mind, each candidate in the main 2020 election was the most unfavored of their party for several decades before, and even then Hillary got the popular vote. Her loss was ultimately down mainly to strategic incompetence (failure to campaign in a few key states or even coordinate with a ground operation), despite the huge contribution of her unlikability. They do have to play their cards right. But.....but not in minimizing the report.
Click to expand...

Like the responses or not on this thread, you seem to be very unhappy that the outcome of the Mueller investigation is a very good day for our country. Nobody should feel upset because you didn't get the outcome you feel entitled to receiving.

I pity people who have to blame those of us, Americans, who applaud that finally we have the truth. You think you are capable of shaming, but hehe, that's an ongoing joke.

I, furthermore, cannot fathom ANY American wishing that our president colluded with a foreign power, or obstructed justice because they were in cahoots with a foreign power. Those "Americans," are no better than the Russians, IMO, who did interfere with the 2016 election!!! Shame on them.

After today's release of
the Mueller report, redacted to protect ongoing grand jury or other investigations and identities of innocent people or witnesses the report could harm, know this..... The left is bluffing because they KNOW full well they legally are not owed an unredacted report.
The Democrats and their boot licking water carriers, in the media and otherwise, are playing politics... They are not interested in the truth, they are interested in pushing a false narrative to further their election agendas.
 
Last edited:
Slavister said:
You mean compared to Trump who used charity to lower his taxes while his charity money (from both his and others donations) was used as his (and his family's) own personal checkbook... that one?
Click to expand...

So you aren't aware of how both Bernie and O'Dourke pulled out all the stops to
lower their tax burden.Bernie the Fraud had an effective tax rate in the mid-20's.
Instead of mid 30's.
 
danarhea said:
^
Quoted for emphasis. He just outed himself as a hack.
Click to expand...

How many of those lawsuits are political motivated? most of the liberals here are hacks, you claim to be a conservative but post like a liberal. Liberals don't recognize the results generated just like you
 
Geoist said:
Most people in my direct and extended family voted for Trump, so I know from personal experience what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

So you are the Black Sheep in your family? That's sad.
 
trixare4kids said:
Bottom line, like Clinton, he was legally cleared.
Clinton didn't win because she got lazy. Even when the anti-Hillary people kept it alive, that is the reason she lost the election. She was told Trump would lose, and she actually believed her own press.
M/O, there is nobody who can beat Trump now... Keeping this alive with hurt the left.
Click to expand...

He was "legally cleared" by his own appointee. Did you unquestioningly support it when Obama's appointees were "legally clearing" in spite of obvious issues? I didn't. And I'm not hypocritical enough to do it now.

Hillary won the popular vote. That's a fact that isn't disputable. She lost because there was absolute and fair skepticism about her trustworthiness. Trump will receive the same, because in spite of some of you willfully ignoring what's in the report, there are problems with him that are pretty clear in this report.

Trump is probably as highly beatable as Carter was in 1976. His approval ratings have never been high. This is only adding fuel. He needs the Independents in 2020 and he won't when they see he isn't trustworthy.

I don't assume voters are stupid. Most of them are smart enough to know that being "cleared" by your own political appointee is irrelevant.
 
foolardi said:
So you aren't aware of how both Bernie and O'Dourke pulled out all the stops to
lower their tax burden.Bernie the Fraud had an effective tax rate in the mid-20's.
Instead of mid 30's.
Click to expand...

Interesting that Beto gave a whopping 1100 to charities last year, big spender and supporter of those in need
 
apdst said:
Oh, ok. By your standard President Trump has been exonerated. See? That wasn't hard.
Click to expand...

Yes, he's exonerated. Of being smart, intelligent, the best.

He's exonerated from being decent, squeaky clean, or not corrupt.
 
apdst said:
Why no charges?
Click to expand...

Did that stop you from complaining about all she did wrong and possible crimes she committed and how she is guilty?
 
TamleeB said:
This is no longer a legal matter and is now a political matter. Congress is going to be very busy.
Click to expand...

Very busy doing what ? ... Spinning like Kids on a playground spinning their tops.
The Democrat Party is a joke.Bad joke at that.
All they have left is to act Crazy in order to get attention.
 
Keridan said:
The investigation did not find collusion with Russia and the leader of our country.
Click to expand...

The investigation was never into "collusion." It was into links and/or coordination with the Russian government re: the election. The report found everything other than direct evidence of an explicit agreement. It was also into obstruction and Mueller specifically did NOT make a determination on that, leaving it for congress.

That is not complete innocence, which is what they were and are claiming. A prosecutor's opinion that he would have trouble convincing a jury of one element =/= the person did nothing wrong. The point is so simple I'm amazed many are either not understanding or are lying about it here.

Easy example:

Stalking (M.G.L. c. 265, s.43). Elements

1. over a period of time, the defendant knowingly engaged in a pattern of conduct or series of acts involving at least three incidents directed at the complainant, and

2. that those acts were of a kind that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and

3. that those acts did cause the complainant to become seriously alarmed or annoyed, and

4. that the defendant took these actions willfully and maliciously, and

5. that the defendant also made a threat with the intention of placing the complainant in imminent fear of death or bodily injury.





Hypothetical: the prosecutor can prove every single part of every single element EXCEPT that there were only two incidents, not three (see 1st element). Defendant is not charged with stalking.

Has the defendant done nothing wrong? Remember, we're not talking about convictions in criminal cases here, since Mueller's report was always for congress to act on. He was never going to charge Trump because DOJ policy prevents him from doing it.



Hypothetical: the prosecutor can prove every single part of every single element, except the only evidence he collected on motive is that the defendant thought it would be really funny to do this and, out there, there's an appellate case saying that doesn't qualify for "maliciously".

Has the defendant done nothing wrong?




When Trump repeatedly orders people to engage in acts that would constitute obstruction, but they see this and refuse, THAT IS DOING SOMETHING WRONG.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom