It's Mueller Time!

[markw]

I'm a man of few words. If a picture can convey the thought, why not? I know y'all lack comprehension so pictures seem to be what you can understand

 

[lovinthehd]

I'm a man of few words. If a picture can convey the thought, why not? I know y'all lack comprehension so pictures seem to be what you can understand

Oh I'd prefer to see you write out your thoughts, as hard as that is to read. It is funny how many "conservatives" rely on memes for their thoughts these days, though. Not very good ones, either.

 

[mtrycrafts]

View attachment 29656

Don't read the report as it may cause a heart attack. Or, a brain aneurysm.

 

[markw]

Y'all can't get over the fact the fat lady sung and the sentient audience has left the theater.

 

[markw]

Oh I'd prefer to see you write out your thoughts, as hard as that is to read. It is funny how many "conservatives" rely on memes for their thoughts these days, though. Not very good ones, either.

I don't waste my time on useless tasks.

 

[lovinthehd]

I don't waste my time on useless tasks.

Indeed would be useless supporting your position....at least in reality.

 

[Trell]

The New York Times has a "translation" of Mueller's public statement, and I find it a good read:

NY Times: Decoding Robert Mueller In short: No exoneration. (And please don’t make me testify!)

"After two years of frenzied speculation, the special counsel Robert Mueller at last spoke publicly about his investigation of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 elections. His statement Wednesday was considered and temperate, its delivery passionless, if not robotic. If you tuned out for a moment — and who could blame you — you might have missed the import of the messages encoded in Mr. Mueller’s cautious language. Yet if you listened carefully, both for what he said and what he did not say, the statement was quite clarifying. Below are Mr. Mueller’s key points, translated."​

​

 

[markw]

 

[highfigh]

Democrats won 79% of the Jewish vote in 2018. I think a major factor in this is that Jews tend to be more highly educated.

Nice job of trying to hide your "You and anyone who didn't vote for Hillary are stupid" comment. Very nice.

Being intelligent doesn't preclude bad decisions.

 

[highfigh]

Mueller told reporters today at the Dept. of Justice press conference:

"As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so."​

Trump responded on Twitter to Mueller's statement:

"nothing changes from the Mueller report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you".​

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan),a vocal Trump critic and the only Republican to call for his impeachment, took Mueller's statement as a sign that Congress should step in.

Eight of the 24 Democratic presidential candidates have now called for Trump to be impeached.

Cory Booker wrote on Twitter:

"Robert Mueller's statement makes it clear: Congress has a legal and moral obligation to begin impeachment proceedings immediately. I've been asking for Mueller's testimony – today he made his views clear."​

Kamala Harris wrote on Twitter:

"What Robert Mueller basically did was return an impeachment referral. Now it is up to Congress to hold this president accountable. We need to start impeachment proceedings. It's our constitutional obligation."​

Pete Buttigieg said on MSNBC:

"The message really is: Over to you, Congress. This is as close to an impeachment referral as you could get under the circumstances."​

The ball is in Congress's and Nancy Pelosi's court.

The Swerd wrote on the AH Steam Vent:

"What ever happened to the good old days when we called a criminal president an Un-indicted Co-conspirator?"​

So, inconclusive = needs to be impeached?

How do you not see that the DOJ was used to investigate a candidate for POTUS and then destabilize his Presidency?

 

[Trell]

Democrats won 79% of the Jewish vote in 2018. I think a major factor in this is that Jews tend to be more highly educated.

Nice job of trying to hide your "You and anyone who didn't vote for Hillary are stupid" comment. Very nice. Being intelligent doesn't preclude bad decisions.

Nate Silver did a study of the 2016 election and suggested that Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump:

"Sometimes statistical analysis is tricky, and sometimes a finding just jumps off the page. Here’s one example of the latter.​

​

I took a list of all 981 U.S. counties1 with 50,000 or more people and sorted it by the share of the population that had completed at least a four-year college degree. Hillary Clinton improved on President Obama’s 2012 performance in 48 of the country’s 50 most-well-educated counties. And on average, she improved on Obama’s margin of victory in these countries by almost 9 percentage points, even though Obama had done pretty well in them to begin with."​

Nate lists competing hypotheses for these results, and one of them is:

"Trump’s approach to the campaign — relying on emotional appeals while glossing over policy details — may have resonated more among people with lower education levels as compared with Clinton’s wonkier and more cerebral approach."​

 

[TankTop5]

What Mueller really said is that Russia absolutely interfered in the election (as they have since the 50’s). There is no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. He did see evidence of obstruction but per OLC guidelines he did not investigate obstruction. He is now handing off his complete report to Congress to decide what to do next.

So the facts are:

No collusion

Obstruction, maybe. Does it rise to criminal obstruction, is it obstruction if the crime investigated didn’t occur and lastly can you prosecute a sitting president for obstruction?

Those are the facts, here is my opinion.

There is a larger mountain of evidence that the basis for the investigation was at the very least highly politically contrived based on contrived evidence and that should also be investigated. Many people believe that to be fact and there is mountains of evidence that points to that being fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Swerd]

So, inconclusive = needs to be impeached?

That bit of illogic escapes me. No one, other than Trump and his team of yes-men, claim that.

How do you not see that the DOJ was used to investigate a candidate for POTUS and then destabilize his Presidency?

Your words drip with political hypocrisy. Apparently, it was OK during the 1990s for Republicans to investigate and disable Clinton's presidency. Although the GOP-led Congress impeached him, the Senate voted against ratifying it – keeping Clinton in office. The radical Republicans who were behind that failed effort, claimed it was their goal all along to politically disable his administration. Now two decades later, it isn't OK for Dems to investigate a 'Republican' (and I use that term loosely) president.

My words above might be interpreted as implying that the accusations the GOP aimed at Clinton and the accusations the Dems aim at Trump are equivalent. They aren't. After more than 5 years of open-ended investigations, the Independent Council Ken Starr came up without any actionable findings. As Independent Council, a position no longer supported by law, Starr had more powers of indictment than did Mueller.

With his investigation of Clinton's possible adultery, Ken Starr was criticized of crossing a line – acting more as a political hit man than as a prosecutor. Now you claim that Mueller's investigation was an effort to "destabilize" Trump's administration. How can you not see the hypocrisy in that?

Besides, Trump's words and actions destabilized his own administration. That ship sailed a long time before Mueller or James Comey were house-hold words.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Democrats won 79% of the Jewish vote in 2018. I think a major factor in this is that Jews tend to be more highly educated.

While there may be a strain of anti-Semitism within the left, it's primarily aimed at Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. And, it isn't left-leaning anti-Semites who are shooting up synagogues.

 

[GO-NAD!]

It's pretty clear that Mueller was hinting that it's up to Congress to pick up the ball and run with it, here's a take on impeachment that I have difficulty arguing with:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/impeach-trump-not-yet/590578/
If it's doomed to failure in the senate because due to the craven behaviour of GOP senators, is there much point to such an exercise?

Regardless of the outcome of any legal proceedings, or the 2020 election, the GOP will have an embarrassing poop pageant of a legacy to live down for generations to come.

 

[Swerd]

It's pretty clear that Mueller was hinting that it's up to Congress to pick up the ball and run with it, here's a take on impeachment that I have difficulty arguing with:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/impeach-trump-not-yet/590578/
If it's doomed to failure in the senate because due to the craven behaviour of GOP senators, is there much point to such an exercise?

Until recently, I agreed with your thinking.

Go back in history, not to Clinton in 1998, but to Nixon in 1974. Watergate took place over some 24 months, from June 1972 until August 1974. Until July 1974, there were enough anti-impeachment votes in the Senate to prevent Nixon's removal from office.

Only after the House Judiciary Committee approved the articles of impeachment, and the Supreme Court unanimously required that Nixon turn over the secret tape recordings, did the Senate GOP leaders realize they could no longer protect him in a Senate floor vote.

I think the pro-Trump support in the Senate could crumble, but only after Trump's criminal behavior has been fully exposed by hearings in the House.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Until recently, I agreed with your thinking.

Go back in history, not to Clinton in 1998, but to Nixon in 1974. Watergate took place over some 24 months, from June 1972 until August 1974. Until July 1974, there were enough anti-impeachment votes in the Senate to prevent Nixon's removal from office.

Only after the House Judiciary Committee approved the articles of impeachment, and the Supreme Court unanimously required that Nixon turn over the secret tape recordings, did the Senate GOP leaders realize they could no longer protect him in a Senate floor vote.

I think the pro-Trump support in the Senate could crumble, but only after Trump's criminal behavior has been fully exposed by hearings in the House.

If more evidence of malfeasance (taxes, money laundering, etc) is exposed, by all means, impeach away. Until then, I think Congress might want to keep its powder dry.

 

[mtrycrafts]

So, inconclusive = needs to be impeached?

How do you not see that the DOJ was used to investigate a candidate for POTUS and then destabilize his Presidency?

So, I guess a counter intelligence operation was unwarranted? Let the Russians do what they want? A candidate is above the law?
Might as well just destroy the constitution, right?

 

[mtrycrafts]

..., the GOP will have an embarrassing poop pageant of a legacy to live down for generations to come.

Let's hope that is the case. People have short memories of misdeeds in government operations.

 

[lovinthehd]

So, I guess a counter intelligence operation was unwarranted? Let the Russians do what they want? A candidate is above the law?
Might as well just destroy the constitution, right?

Especially with none of the drumpf's staff and/or family having any odious connections to Russia.....