It's Mueller Time!

[Alex2507]

Are those things real?

Real expensive.

And I gotta say, I think I might actually pass on a freebie. Yeah, not unless she got me drunk first.

 

[Swerd]

Real expensive.

And I gotta say, I think I might actually pass on a freebie. Yeah, not unless she got me drunk first.

So, how many bottles of Jack Daniels would it take?

 

[Alex2507]

So, how many bottles of Jack Daniels would it take?

I'm thinking a six pack and no more than half a bottle. That's enough booze for me to do something regrettable.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...As of today the only criminal charge that Trump can be prosecuted for is that he broke campaign finance laws by paying off Stephanie Clifford (née Gregory ) [aka Stormy Daniels] and the other young lady (Playboy mode) $130,000 individually during the 2016 election. Everything else is speculation or circumstantial evidence until proven otherwise. The last I heard you can't be put in jail for that. I’m not defending his political tactics or morals, which is not criminal, but I’d rather we do this by the letter of the law and physical evidentiary evidence.
....

Actually, we have not seen the actual report, only what Barr summarized and his take on things. He is not exonerated from obstruction of justice. A neutral finding by Mueller. Mueller didn't look into it to prosecute him on that. Barr just sees it differently.
So, now it is up to the house to see the actual evidence and act accordingly.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Interesting take on the investigation:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/without-mueller-report-congress-already-had-facts/585616/

 

[Hetfield]

I believe it explicitly says in this report that it does not totally exonerate Trump. Seems to me this is like I said before, maybe you can't prove it but there were a lot of fishy stuff going on. Oh well we move in to 2020 and see if we can get rid of his fat slob. Impeachment would have played right into his hands. That is why Pelosi backed off it a few weeks ago.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[TheWarrior]

I believe it explicitly says in this report that it does not totally exonerate Trump. Seems to me this is like I said before, maybe you can't prove it but there were a lot of fishy stuff going on. Oh well we move in to 2020 and see if we can get rid of his fat slob. Impeachment would have played right into his hands. That is why Pelosi backed off it a few weeks ago.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Really? So we've confirmed Russia meddled in the election, and with that being confirmed by multiple sources of US Intelligence, we seem to still have a President that states, "I believe Putin".

The man is a clear traitor.

 

[Hetfield]

Really? So we've confirmed Russia meddled in the election, and with that being confirmed by multiple sources of US Intelligence, we seem to still have a President that states, "I believe Putin".

The man is a clear traitor.

And I could not agree more. Nothing will come of any of this on that front. SDNY is another story. This dude has been so dirty for so long he most likely is on trouble there.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[mtrycrafts]

Really? So we've confirmed Russia meddled in the election, and with that being confirmed by multiple sources of US Intelligence, we seem to still have a President that states, "I believe Putin".

The man is a clear traitor.

You are absolutely correct.
But, proving a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt to win in court is most difficult what Mueller was after.
I believe from what I have been hearing and reading contact may need to be continuous?

 

[KEW]

Interesting take on the investigation:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/without-mueller-report-congress-already-had-facts/585616/

Thanks for the link!
So often, The Atlantic has the most sane and informed commentaries, I find.

 

[mtrycrafts]

.... He is not exonerated from obstruction of justice. A neutral finding by Mueller. Mueller didn't look into it to prosecute him on that. Barr just sees it differently.
...

Correction. He did look but too difficult, evidence both ways so didn't come to conclusion.
Still not up to Barr to terminate that aspect. Up to congress.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Interesting take on the investigation:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/without-mueller-report-congress-already-had-facts/585616/

Yes, David Frum is very good, see him on TV frequently.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Correction. He did look but too difficult, evidence both ways so didn't come to conclusion.
Still not up to Barr to terminate that aspect. Up to congress.

Also, Mueller was not about to indict a sitting president.

 

[Kvn_Walker]

I believe it explicitly says in this report that it does not totally exonerate Trump. Seems to me this is like I said before, maybe you can't prove it but there were a lot of fishy stuff going on. Oh well we move in to 2020 and see if we can get rid of his fat slob. Impeachment would have played right into his hands. That is why Pelosi backed off it a few weeks ago.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

With the .5 millisecond American Attention Span, it's probably for the best that this wrapped up in early 2019. By the time the Dem primaries end next year, so many other major headlines/scandals/tweets will have occurred that the Mueller investigation won't be a strong campaign point.

Trump is so stupidly self-absorbed that he can't see the easiest way to re-election is keeping his mouth shut and doing his job. The meme on the other page is right- most of America does want him out of office because they hate him as a person. He has a impenetrable 35% floor but every time he opens his mouth the ceiling lowers.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Yes, David Frum is very good, see him on TV frequently.

He comes across as an Eisenhower-type conservative - a mindset the GOP could use right now. He is very measured and reasonable in his political opinions. He admitted to being wrong about supporting the invasion of Iraq, but the left continues to bash him over the head with that legacy.

 

[Trell]

He comes across as an Eisenhower-type conservative - a mindset the GOP could use right now. He is very measured and reasonable in his political opinions. He admitted to being wrong about supporting the invasion of Iraq, but the left continues to bash him over the head with that legacy.

I gather he nowadays is pretty much persona non grata in GOP being a person with moral integrity.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... , but the left continues to bash him over the head with that legacy.

That is unfortunate and should end, pronto. People can see when they were wrong and that should be praised, not continued to be bashed about.

 

[highfigh]

Really? So we've confirmed Russia meddled in the election, and with that being confirmed by multiple sources of US Intelligence, we seem to still have a President that states, "I believe Putin".

The man is a clear traitor.

Not to defend him, but he's not a traitor unless they can convict him of material aid to an enemy state. Just saying "I believe Putin" means nothing, other than he believes Putin. If someone has video with audio of Trump discussing ways to mess with the election, economy, etc, THEN, we'll have something. What did Trump do to affect the election? How was he connected to these acts?

 

[highfigh]

He comes across as an Eisenhower-type conservative - a mindset the GOP could use right now. He is very measured and reasonable in his political opinions. He admitted to being wrong about supporting the invasion of Iraq, but the left continues to bash him over the head with that legacy.

That's what the Left does- beat them to a pulp and deny they ever had similar thoughts, even when they did, by their own admission.

It's a wonder that nobody bashes the Dems over the head who "were for it until they were against it". It would only be fair. I don't think we would gain anything by it, though. The Left should take a page from the GOP about that.

 

[Ponzio]

Not to defend him, but he's not a traitor unless they can convict him of material aid to an enemy state. Just saying "I believe Putin" means nothing, other than he believes Putin. If someone has video with audio of Trump discussing ways to mess with the election, economy, etc, THEN, we'll have something. What did Trump do to affect the election? How was he connected to these acts?

Agreed, technically and by the law, he's not a traitor but sitting there at a press conference during the run-up to the 2016 presidential election and encouraging the Russians to hack his opponents server is an all-time low, even by past US presidential election shenanigans and we've had some doozy's.