It’s Mueller Time ....running thread

[Thyrsis]

I mean it's pretty simple. Trump can be indicted if he loses in 2020. That indicates obstruction was committed but Mueller could not indict due to the OLC memo

No, Mueller won't go there right now. He's saying that an indictment decision would require some credibility assessments and review of all the evidence in toto before one could reach such a final conclusion. He's purposefully stopping short of conducting that assessment. But the evidence is there to see.

 

[SNU0821]

Substitute "allowed" for "able".

Where does it say this? Mueller said they didn't reach a determination. He didn't say they couldn't reach a determination. I love how much you're reaching. LOL.

 

[Thyrsis]

Where does it say this? Mueller said they didn't reach a determination. He didn't say they couldn't reach a determination. I love how much you're reaching. LOL.

Last time, have you read the report?

 

[SNU0821]

I mean it's pretty simple. Trump can be indicted if he loses in 2020. That indicates obstruction was committed but Mueller could not indict due to the OLC memo

^^^Trump Derangement Syndrome^^^

 

[outside shooter]

Mueller made it clear in the report that it would be unfair of his office to reach a conclusion on obstruction, since obstruction cannot be charged by rule, and thus the person charged could not defend his crooked self from that conclusion.

 

[Stuffshot]

He doesn’t have to exonerate Trump. In America, you’re innocent until proven guilty. He wasn’t proven guilty.

Well, except for the part where Trump and Barr have both said Mueller exonerated Trump. Trump hasn't specifically said he (Trump) is innocent, right?

Mueller pretty much said Trump is a liar (so what else is new). Does that matter with you?

 

[zeke4ahs]

I agree that would be better, but there will be several ads like this:

"Question: Did your report exonerate Trump?

Mueller: No."

That's pretty effective, too.

An interesting exchange RE your post-

Ratcliffe, in fact, asked Mueller if he could cite a single example besides Donald Trump where the DOJ “determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined.” Mueller responded: “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/24/the-mueller-testimony-was-a-disaster-for-democrats/

Why is that unique? The answer is blatantly obvious. There hasn’t been an investigation into a president where one couldn’t be indicted, even if they knew he was guilty.

 

[SNU0821]

Mueller made it clear in the report that it would be unfair of his office to reach a conclusion on obstruction, since obstruction cannot be charged by rule, and thus the person charged could not defend his crooked self from that conclusion.

But he reached a conclusion of no charge on conspiracy/collusion? Whooooooooooops.

 

[Thyrsis]

But he reached a conclusion of no charge on conspiracy/collusion? Whooooooooooops.

Okay, one more last time, this point's been specifically addressed in this thread and in the Mueller report.

 

[outside shooter]

I thought the discussion on Trumps lack of cooperation was telling.

Recall that DJT insists that he was fully cooperative, to an unprecedented level.

Rep. Val Demings asked Mueller: "Director Mueller, isn't it fair to say the President's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete, because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers showed he wasn't always being truthful?"

Mueller responded in four simple words: "I would say generally."

 

[SNU0821]

Well, except for the part where Trump and Barr have both said Mueller exonerated Trump. Trump hasn't specifically said he (Trump) is innocent, right?

Mueller pretty much said Trump is a liar (so what else is new). Does that matter with you?

I know Trump is a liar. I know Trump is a douchebag. I know Trump is a bad person. I happen to agree with his policies and the decisions he's made as president. I also stand by voting for him considering the alternative options on the left which has gone full socialist and full blown extreme left.

 

[Neves]

No, Mueller won't go there right now. He's saying that an indictment decision would require some credibility assessments and review of all the evidence in toto before one could reach such a final conclusion. He's purposefully stopping short of conducting that assessment. But the evidence is there to see.

So basically a review of the Mueller report and underlying evidence? The report has 10 instances of obstruction

 

[Stuffshot]

No, I'm not. You're trying to read into it what you want it to be. Again, I'm taking Mueller's words as they are. He said what Ted Lieu asked him was INCORRECT, meaning the only issue holding him back was the OLC opinion (essentially). Mueller said that was incorrect.

Here's Ted Lieu's comments/question.
"'I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC (the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel) opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?' Lieu asked"

Mueller initially said that was correct. But then came this.
"In Mueller's opening statement that came later before the House Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to 'correct the record' on his exchange with Lieu. 'That's not the correct way to say it,' Mueller said. 'We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.'"

So let's break that down. Lieu basically asked him if he would charge him if not for the OLC's opinion and Mueller said that WAS NOT CORRECT. I don't know how you can try and spin that in any other way. But, then again, Libs...

Ted Lieu? You said Ted Lieu?

Oh God, how can you type that and still expect to be credible?

 

[Rockfish1]

Immaterial.

You're being willfully obtuse. Mueller wasn't allowed to indict Trump, and he decided it would be unfair even to accuse him, so he expressly decided to reach no conclusion on whether Trump committed a crime. It's right there in the report you haven't read.

As Thyrsis noted, an answer Mueller gave at one point erroneously suggested that he'd determined that Trump had committed crimes. This is what he cleaned up later. He hadn't made that determination, because he'd decided from the outset that he wouldn't make any such determination.

Notwithstanding your confusion, this isn't confusing.

 

[Thyrsis]

So basically a review of the Mueller report and underlying evidence? The report has 10 instances of obstruction

Basically, yes.

 

[Lucy01]

Mueller made it clear in the report that it would be unfair of his office to reach a conclusion on obstruction, since obstruction cannot be charged by rule, and thus the person charged could not defend his crooked self from that conclusion.

Yeah Mueller was the same guy that had evidence of WMD in Iraq, we all saw how that turned out didn’t we?

 

[outside shooter]

But he reached a conclusion of no charge on conspiracy/collusion? Whooooooooooops.

He reached a conclusion that he was bound by DOJ guidelines,
the same guidelines that allowed him to make no criminal charges.

He then concluded that it would be unfair to make conclusions about crimes committed when charges cannot be brought and thus the possible criminal cannot defend himself

This isn't really hard to understand at all, if you turn off Fox News and think for yourself, for a moment.

Even Republicans can grasp it. I did.

 

[Rockfish1]

Can you give an example of an investigation performed by a lawyer representing the U.S. gov't which explicitly exonerated the subject of said investigation?

The point is that Trump and his enablers falsely claim that the report does exonerate Trump.

 

[meridian]

Did you read the report?

What makes think SNU can read?
My bet is that he watches Fox News 10 hours a day, you know the outfit that tells nothing but the truth!

 

[SNU0821]

The point is that Trump and his enablers falsely claim that the report does exonerate Trump.

That’s because it does. He wasn’t charged. It’s not on him to prove his own innocence.

 

[Rockfish1]

I'm taking him at his word. You (and Ralphie) are using your Little Orphan Annie decoder ring to figure out what he really meant.

This doesn't require interpretation or decoder rings. It just requires reading comprehension.

 

[Thyrsis]

That’s because it does. He wasn’t charged. It’s not on him to prove his own innocence.

At some point, folks can question whether Trumpbots are just dumb and what they say is simply the best they can do or whether instead they're bad faith liars. In the end, though, it doesn't really matter.

 

[IUclover]

I know Trump is a liar. I know Trump is a douchebag. I know Trump is a bad person. I happen to agree with his policies and the decisions he's made as president. I also stand by voting for him considering the alternative options on the left which has gone full socialist and full blown extreme left.

You agree with his concentration camp policies? Kids dying and sleeping in their own feces?

 

[zeke4ahs]

So just one question for the Trumpbots: Mueller confirmed under oath that Trump asked his aides to falsify records to help protect him. Is this ok with you? Yes or no?

 

[T.M.P.]

At some point, folks can question whether Trumpbots are just dumb and what they say is simply the best they can do or whether instead they're bad faith liars. In the end, though, it doesn't really matter.

Trumpism has become a foundation of belief for them, much like a cult member believes in the cult. For them to admit they were duped by a conman would be to admit their belief system is flawed. They would have to question their very being.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Oh good the old bogeyman socialism again.

 

[HillzHoozier]

This doesn't require interpretation or decoder rings. It just requires reading comprehension.

Ok.

 

[Thyrsis]

Trumpism has become a foundation of belief for them, much like a cult. For them to admit they were duped by a conman would be to admit their belief system is flawed. They would have to question their very being.

That's being too generous. At least, this didn't start with the rise of Trump in 2015 or 2016 or 2017. It's been a reality for a surging part of the Republican Party for going on 40 years. It's just wholly out of control now.

 

[Rockfish1]

At some point, folks can question whether Trumpbots are just dumb and what they say is simply the best they can do or whether instead they're bad faith liars. In the end, though, it doesn't really matter.

Whether it's dishonesty or stupidity, it's what's required of every good fascist:

The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, CRIMESTOP. CRIMESTOP means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. CRIMESTOP, in short, means protective stupidity.

George Orwell, 1984.
​

 

[SNU0821]

You agree with his concentration camp policies? Kids dying and sleeping in their own feces?

You mean the “concentration camps” put in place by Obama? Lol. Whoooooops.

 

[SNU0821]

So just one question for the Trumpbots: Mueller confirmed under oath that Trump asked his aides to falsify records to help protect him. Is this ok with you? Yes or no?

So just one question for the Trump Derangement Syndrome folks. Mueller confirmed no charges for obstruction or collusion. Are you ok with this?

 

[IUclover]

You mean the “concentration camps” put in place by Obama? Lol. Whoooooops.

Deflection and whataboutism. You fit the mold. Good job.

 

[SNU0821]

Oh good the old bogeyman socialism again.

Lol. Please keep pushing socialism. It’s gonna work in 2020. I promise...

 

[SNU0821]

Deflection and whataboutism. You fit the mold. Good job.

Typical idiot liberal response when confronted with reality. Deny anything about my post. I’ll
hang up and listen...

 

[iuwclurker]

When Trump goes to jail in 2021, Trumplings will be most depressed that they lost (the election). On the bright side, they weren't losers for four whole years. Of course, they're likely to misconstrue that and think I'm wishing that upon them. Not. It's not I who considers them losers. That's a personal problem. Unlike Trump, I advocate win-win policies.

 

[iuwclurker]

The best way to attack Trump is probably to repeatedly bring up the Russian threat to our democracy. WWII was successful for the US because we all united against a common enemy. The Russian threat is a common enemy to all of us except Trump. Trump bristles because he simple-mindedly equates the threat of Russian interference with helping him win in 2016. IF Democrats keep airing Russian interference as a national security issue, they force Republicans and Trump to choose sides, the US or Russia. Trump can't do that. He's literally unable to not side with the Russians on that issue. Psychologically blocked. Thus it's a winning issue for the Democrats. I can't think of any other issues that offer such a blanket win.

 

[SNU0821]

When Trump goes to jail in 2021, Trumplings will be most depressed that they lost (the election). On the bright side, they weren't losers for four whole years. Of course, they're likely to misconstrue that and think I'm wishing that upon them. Not. It's not I who considers them losers. That's a personal problem. Unlike Trump, I advocate win-win policies.

You ok? You seem sad.

 

[SNU0821]

The best way to attack Trump is probably to repeatedly bring up the Russian threat to our democracy. WWII was successful for the US because we all united against a common enemy. The Russian threat is a common enemy to all of us except Trump. Trump bristles because he simple-mindedly equates the threat of Russian interference with helping him win in 2016. IF Democrats keep airing Russian interference as a national security issue, they force Republicans and Trump to choose sides, the US or Russia. Trump can't do that. He's literally unable to not side with the Russians on that issue. Psychologically blocked. Thus it's a winning issue for the Democrats. I can't think of any other issues that offer such a blanket win.

Yes. Please keep running on the Russian threat. Please. It’ll work. I promise...

 

[ILUVTOFU]

You're being willfully obtuse.

Replace “willfully” with “effortlessly”

 

[ILUVTOFU]

That’s because it does. He wasn’t charged. It’s not on him to prove his own innocence.

Hillary said thank you for confirming her innocence. She was never charged.