• 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!

Are Trump supporters actually reading Mueller report facts

Sand Castle

Sand Castle

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
6,797
Reaction score
3,285
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Are Trump supporters just hearing what they want to hear, Trump, Sanders, Fox and Barr's lies and spin on the facts of report.
Reading the report reveals facts are against Trump

The hours after the public release of the redacted report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller, President Donald Trump took to Twitter with a message that reads, in part, “NO OBSTRUCTION!”

That’s not at all what the Mueller report says, though.

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”
 
Sand Castle said:
Are Trump supporters just hearing what they want to hear, Trump, Sanders, Fox and Barr's lies and spin on the facts of report.
Reading the report reveals facts are against Trump

The hours after the public release of the redacted report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller, President Donald Trump took to Twitter with a message that reads, in part, “NO OBSTRUCTION!”

That’s not at all what the Mueller report says, though.

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”
Click to expand...

You're right.

And the answer to your question is, "no". They listen to Fox and right-wing radio propagandists.
 
Sand Castle said:
Are Trump supporters just hearing what they want to hear, Trump, Sanders, Fox and Barr's lies and spin on the facts of report.
Reading the report reveals facts are against Trump

The hours after the public release of the redacted report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller, President Donald Trump took to Twitter with a message that reads, in part, “NO OBSTRUCTION!”

That’s not at all what the Mueller report says, though.

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”
Click to expand...

It is the left who aren't reading the Mueller report facts.
 
Sand Castle said:
Are Trump supporters just hearing what they want to hear, Trump, Sanders, Fox and Barr's lies and spin on the facts of report.
Reading the report reveals facts are against Trump

The hours after the public release of the redacted report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller, President Donald Trump took to Twitter with a message that reads, in part, “NO OBSTRUCTION!”

That’s not at all what the Mueller report says, though.

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”
Click to expand...

i have read the report from front to back

in a court of law, is there a CRIME that Trump committed that he could be convicted of by a judge and jury?

if he wasnt the president....is there a crime he would be indicted for RIGHT NOW

if the answer is no....then stop the histrionics

if Pelosi wants to impeach Barr or Trump let her....
 
gdgyva said:
i have read the report from front to back

in a court of law, is there a CRIME that Trump committed that he could be convicted of by a judge and jury?

if he wasnt the president....is there a crime he would be indicted for RIGHT NOW

if the answer is no....then stop the histrionics

if Pelosi wants to impeach Barr or Trump let her....
Click to expand...
Pelosi doesn't want to impeach but most of the rest of dems do. I don't see Pelosi long in her job...Pelosi talks of possible impeachment as a political move to keep her job, IMO.
 
gdgyva said:
i have read the report from front to back

in a court of law, is there a CRIME that Trump committed that he could be convicted of by a judge and jury?

if he wasnt the president....is there a crime he would be indicted for RIGHT NOW

if the answer is no....then stop the histrionics

if Pelosi wants to impeach Barr or Trump let her....
Click to expand...

We have the answer from over 800 DoJ officials and US Attorneys: yes, there were clear crimes. Now, Democrats are investigating more fully and then should impeach.
 
Exactly what part of "No collusion" did you not understand?
 
cabse5 said:
Pelosi doesn't want to impeach but most of the rest of dems do. I don't see Pelosi long in her job...Pelosi talks of possible impeachment as a political move to keep her job, IMO.
Click to expand...

Trump is doing all he can to goad the Democrats into impeaching him. He loves playing the victim. His base is itching to ride to his rescue. It's all very dramatic. Makes for great television. Who cares about the country? All for Trump! Nothin for America.
 
Craig234 said:
We have the answer from over 800 DoJ officials and US Attorneys: yes, there were clear crimes. Now, Democrats are investigating more fully and then should impeach.
Click to expand...

great....where are the impeachment hearings

it should be easy to do if you have PROOF as you say of said crimes

but then again....i dont see that happening, so i guess those 800 people are just idiots like the MSM

more TDS....so sad
 
Grandpappy said:
Exactly what part of "No collusion" did you not understand?
Click to expand...

Ask yourself that question: what part of that specifically said it is not addressing "collusion" and not indicting trump because of a rule, no matter how much evidence was found, did you not understand? A whole lot.
 
gdgyva said:
great....where are the impeachment hearings

it should be easy to do if you have PROOF as you say of said crimes

but then again....i dont see that happening, so i guess those 800 people are just idiots like the MSM

more TDS....so sad
Click to expand...

800 lawyers are idiots but Sean Hannity a genius?
 
Sand Castle said:
800 lawyers are idiots but Sean Hannity a genius?
Click to expand...

They're not just lawyers, they're US Attorneys and DoJ officials. Though anyone who understands English can see the report shows crimes. Cultists can't.
 
If DP is a representative sample, no. In fact, they do anything in their limited powers to avoid reading snippets posted. They seem to lie more colorfully the less they know.
 
Sand Castle said:
800 lawyers are idiots but Sean Hannity a genius?
Click to expand...

wow...high praise for the talking heads of the right....mouthpieces....

i dont listen to hannity...or rush...or levin

you might want to read a little yourself...get your own perspective...not what the msm is telling you to think
 
Craig234 said:
They're not just lawyers, they're US Attorneys and DoJ officials. Though anyone who understands English can see the report shows crimes. Cultists can't.
Click to expand...

no....it doesnt

it has a lot of theories and implications

that is different from actual PROOF

Mueller had a lot of trouble finding actual proof...things he could tie up in nice little bows that would hold up in a court of law

But that is the standard which we live by....innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty

there are hundreds of theories...and people have lots of conjecture that this MUST have happened this way or that....but proving something is much harder than thinking it
 
gdgyva said:
wow...high praise for the talking heads of the right....mouthpieces....

i dont listen to hannity...or rush...or levin

you might want to read a little yourself...get your own perspective...not what the msm is telling you to think
Click to expand...

I only listen to Rachael Maddow for facts, Hannity for fantasy, and Trump for comedy why read too much work.
 
Grandpappy said:
Exactly what part of "No collusion" did you not understand?
Click to expand...

That wasn't in the report, and Mueller spent a lot of text explaining why that wasn't investigated. Read it for yourself. Turn Hannity off already.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
That wasn't in the report, and Mueller spent a lot of text explaining why that wasn't investigated. Read it for yourself. Turn Hannity off already.
Click to expand...

“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.”

You read that part, right?
 
Grandpappy said:
“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.”

You read that part, right?
Click to expand...

But, Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”
 
Grandpappy said:
“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.”

You read that part, right?
Click to expand...

Yes. I touched on that elsewhere, but the quote of mine you pulled related to the word "collusion". That's Trump/Barr's term, not Mueller's.
 
Grandpappy said:
Exactly what part of "No collusion" did you not understand?
Click to expand...

Next time i recommend actually reading the OP before opining and making yourself look foolish, as you just did.

Here it is again for you. Guess what? He never mentioned collusion in his post.

Are Trump supporters just hearing what they want to hear, Trump, Sanders, Fox and Barr's lies and spin on the facts of report.
Reading the report reveals facts are against Trump

The hours after the public release of the redacted report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller, President Donald Trump took to Twitter with a message that reads, in part, “NO OBSTRUCTION!”

That’s not at all what the Mueller report says, though.

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

Looks like you gave the OP his answer. Not only did you not read the Mueller report - you apparently can't even read a 4 paragraph post on a message board.
 
Sand Castle said:
Are Trump supporters just hearing what they want to hear, Trump, Sanders, Fox and Barr's lies and spin on the facts of report.
Reading the report reveals facts are against Trump

The hours after the public release of the redacted report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller, President Donald Trump took to Twitter with a message that reads, in part, “NO OBSTRUCTION!”

That’s not at all what the Mueller report says, though.

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”
Click to expand...

I read it, I know exactly what it says. "conspiracy or coordination by the trump campaign could Not BE EStablished."

I don't give a **** that Trump ALMOST fired Mueller, if there was no conspiracy with the russians.
 
tres borrachos said:
Next time i recommend actually reading the OP before opining and making yourself look foolish, as you just did.

Here it is again for you. Guess what? He never mentioned collusion in his post.

Are Trump supporters just hearing what they want to hear, Trump, Sanders, Fox and Barr's lies and spin on the facts of report.
Reading the report reveals facts are against Trump

The hours after the public release of the redacted report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller, President Donald Trump took to Twitter with a message that reads, in part, “NO OBSTRUCTION!”

That’s not at all what the Mueller report says, though.

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

Looks like you gave the OP his answer. Not only did you not read the Mueller report - you apparently can't even read a 4 paragraph post on a message board.
Click to expand...

I read the report. What is telling it the conclusion. It puts what you quoted in context.

"IV. CONCLUSION
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. "
182

No real conclusion regarding Trump's conduct. Basically, the investigation does not know if Trump committed a crime or not. For me, it is a typical cover your butt conclusion.
 
mike2810 said:
I read the report. What is telling it the conclusion. It puts what you quoted in context.

"IV. CONCLUSION
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. "
182

No real conclusion regarding Trump's conduct. Basically, the investigation does not know if Trump committed a crime or not. For me, it is a typical cover your butt conclusion.
Click to expand...

The sitting President of the United States is never prosecuted via the "traditional" ways. He is "prosecuted" using the power of Congress to impeach and the Senate to preside over the trial.

There was absolutely a real conclusion there. You just don't want to admit it. If Mueller could exonerate him of obstruction of justice, as he did of conspiracy, he would have. He didn't. There is a reason for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom