First Charges filed by Mueller

Luca
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Luca » Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:38 pm

WHOA!

There were “individuals”?
And they had ties?
And they thought information deleterious to Clinton would benefit them?

Good lord. Somebody get a rope!
Y’know, maybe after all it was Miss Scarlett (get it? Scarlet as in red, like those atheistic commies) with the knife in the conservatory!!!!

This is hysterical, grasping at ephemeral straws. You guys are the left wing equivalent of those birther whackos opposed to Obama................Luca

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24065
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Wabash » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:32 am

Luca, if there was never any wrongdoing, then why all the lies?

Keep in the the self proclaimed big brain couldn't recall things several dozen times.......Wabash
Last edited by Wabash on Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24065
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Wabash » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:44 am

John Q. Public wrote:And keep in mind that removing Trump by impeachment (or otherwise) gives Pence the advantage of incumbency. I doubt that's anything the D's want.
Pence would be easier to beat. He has zero charisma.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Vilepagan » Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:44 am

Luca wrote:QR_BBPOST I can certainly understand why you might want to hope so, pagan. I’m sorry, but it’d never work out............Luca
I assume you were trying to be funny, but that statement doesn't make much sense...

At any rate Luca, you keep saying "it's over" but there are some Democrats in Congress who don't think that's the case.

Perhaps if you just tell them the fat lady has sung they'll finally get the message. :mrgreen:
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Vilepagan » Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:52 am

Luca wrote:QR_BBPOST WHOA!

There were “individuals”?
And they had ties?
And they thought information deleterious to Clinton would benefit them?

Good lord. Somebody get a rope!
Y’know, maybe after all it was Miss Scarlett (get it? Scarlet as in red, like those atheistic commies) with the knife in the conservatory!!!!
I can't tell if this post is an attempt to downplay the results of the Mueller investigation or if you really are this naive and ignorant. Well, the opinion of Mr. Mueller is a lot less forgiving of the president...he had this to say about trump's "non-crimes':

"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,” Mueller wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... nt-n996191

I know you're anxious to declare victory and all, but personally I don't think that Mueller's report should be a reason for celebration. It shows just how rotten our president is, and yet here you are enjoying yourself. Go figure.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18130
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Fordama » Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:21 am

I've read about a third of the report plus Trump's written testimony.

If this is what the Republicans are declaring a victory, then they have sunk lower than I would have thought possible.

It is not a pretty picture of that campaign, this administration, and this President.
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18130
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Fordama » Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:14 am

Vilepagan wrote:I can't tell if this post is an attempt to downplay the results of the Mueller investigation or if you really are this naive and ignorant. Well, the opinion of Mr. Mueller is a lot less forgiving of the president...he had this to say about trump's "non-crimes':
What you are going to find is that those who want to support Trump are not going to read the report. Period.
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 18983
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by John Q. Public » Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:49 am

I'm curious why all of you seem to think only Democrats are upset with Trump. I see an awful lot of Angry Republicans, as well.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

RPW
Posts: 6001
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:11 pm

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by RPW » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:02 am

Where? The Republicans on this board think he is still a fine human being, and I have not seen one Republican congressman come out and say something to show anger. If you got something please post it.
Last edited by John Q. Public on Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: unnecessary quote removed
I am The Voice of Reason

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 18983
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by John Q. Public » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:24 am

For starters, an op-ed by George Conway in the Washington Post. Half of the people tweeting support for it are Conservatives. The obstruction part of the report showed numerous attacks on the Constitution and they aren't happy about that.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

Luca
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Luca » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:28 am

Vilepagan wrote:
"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,” Mueller wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.".
For those with a diminished attention span, recall that two years ago this investigation started out with the supposition that a sitting US president had “colluded” with “Russia” to influence the election in his favor. And now two years later you pin your hopes on “We cannot prove that the president did not obstruct justice in the investigation of this event that never occurred.”

And you wonder why so many people consider this whole episode a colossal waste of energy. Eventually you have to produce actual evidence of a crime because after two years “We can’t prove it didn’t happen” doesn’t quite meet any rational individual’s threshold of evidence.........Luca

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 18983
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by John Q. Public » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:35 am

And you felt the same way about the so called "Whitewater" investigation?

N.B. Not being Wabash here. I wasn't a fan of Clinton and I was a loyal Republican at the time but I thought Barr's investigation really was a WITCH HUNT.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Vilepagan » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:43 am

Luca wrote:QR_BBPOST For those with a diminished attention span, recall that two years ago this investigation started out with the supposition that a sitting US president had “colluded” with “Russia” to influence the election in his favor.
Are you sure? This is different from your earlier claim..and it's not quite right. The Mueller investigation was started after trump fired Comey because Comey was investigating trump for possible illegal contacts with Russians. So we have two possible crimes that trump was being investigated for...conspiracy with Russians, and obstructing the investigation into said conspiracy.
And now two years later you pin your hopes on “We cannot prove that the president did not obstruct justice in the investigation of this event that never occurred.”
No, you're defending a known liar, and someone who may very well be guilty of obstruction. My only "hope" is that in the next election reason prevails.
Eventually you have to produce actual evidence of a crime because after two years “We can’t prove it didn’t happen” doesn’t quite meet any rational individual’s threshold of evidence.........Luca
Well, we probably don't share a common definition of "rational", because IMO no "rational" person would be here defending this sorry excuse for a president. The question is...why are you?
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

Luca
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Luca » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:52 am

Because after two years of investigation there was no proof of any criminal activity. Most people including me don’t “like” the man, but he was fairly elected President and there was no crime. So the rational individual moves on, as they say............Luca

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 18983
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by John Q. Public » Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:14 am

So witness tampering, lying to investigators, encouraging your underlings to also lie and threatening and firing leaders of the investigation are all just hunky-dory as long as the charges are dropped? I don't think it works that way.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

RPW
Posts: 6001
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:11 pm

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by RPW » Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:30 am

WTF am I typing that warrants being deleted?

I am not attacking or ridiculing anyone on this board.
I am The Voice of Reason

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18130
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Fordama » Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:33 am

Mueller said he didn't feel the evidence--and there was evidence--was strong enough to prosecute on any collusion related charges. I'm fine with that. Unlike the lunatics on the right still blathering on about Hillary's emails. She wasn't prosecuted in the same manner that Trump wasn't.

Now the obstruction is a different matter. A number of times Trump tried to influence and obstruct investigations by the FBI and Mueller. The only thing that saved him from being openly prosecutable in Mueller's eyes is that Trump failed in his attempts because the people he asked to obstruct all defied him.

So basically his lack of leadership skills saved him from Mueller accusing him of obstruction of justice!

Now that doesn't save him--there are still multiple open investigations going on. Most of the redaction is about ongoing matters. And there is also the outside possibility that the House could impeach him. In John Dean's opinion, Trump's attempts to obstruct justice even went beyond Nixon's. That's pretty amazing.
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Vilepagan » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:02 am

Luca wrote:QR_BBPOST Because after two years of investigation there was no proof of any criminal activity.
By trump himself you mean. There are still ongoing investigations into others, and there's also the individuals who surrounded the president who were indicted and convicted. This investigation, despite your attempts to portray it as a "colossal waste of energy" was actually quite productive in weeding out undesirables from government office...wouldn't you agree?
Most people including me don’t “like” the man, but he was fairly elected President and there was no crime.
There was plenty of crime, but if you're talking about trump as an individual, the report doesn't make him look good does it...but hey, it's a victory, right?
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 18983
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by John Q. Public » Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:12 am

RPW wrote:WTF am I typing that warrants being deleted?

I am not attacking or ridiculing anyone on this board.
:eh?: The logs don't show anything deleted.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

Luca
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Luca » Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:02 pm

I think I see the beginnings of insight here. Unless I’m wrong I sense that there is a sullen admission that the "collusion" issue is dead, the belief that the President directly or through his representatives conspired with "Russian agents" (God, this reminds me so much of the ‘50s, or a Tom Clancy novel) to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. If not, then all I can do is point out that a 2-year investigation by a special prosecutor did not find evidence of it. And if the response is that the prosecutor didn’t dig deep enough or didn’t prove that the nefarious conspiracy did not occur, well………. you have kindred brethren in the Flat Earth Society.

But now, as predicted by many, the issue has morphed into "obstruction of justice" of the nonexistent conspiracy, to wit:
John Q. Public wrote:So witness tampering, lying to investigators, encouraging your underlings to also lie and threatening and firing leaders of the investigation are all just hunky-dory as long as the charges are dropped? I don't think it works that way.
and
Vilepagan wrote: No, you're defending a known liar, and someone who may very well be guilty of obstruction..
If all the above were true and represented "obstruction of justice" it is difficult to see why the investigation concluded “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment." As though the absence of proving innocence were evidence of guilt. As you say, it does not work that way.

Of course he lies. He is uncouth, unnecessarily abrasive and frequently adolescent. We knew that when we elected him and did n'tt need this two year long kabuki theater to remind us. But he is the legally elected US president and innocent of the politically inspired and inherently absurd conspiracy charges. So I defend someone who is innocent of charges, as should you.

But probably what is going to happen is that those politicians whose political careers now depend on continuing this charade will press on with torches and pitchforks such that not much will come out of Congress other than heat and smoke for the next 2 years. As a result of all the animosity and leftward drift the Democrats will once again nominate some intuitively unelectable and obstinately leftist candidate and we will be forced to choose between two crappy presidential possibilities once again. And the way things are headed right now it’s probably going to be Donald Trump. And you will have no one to blame but yourselves.

Unless there something new to add that has not been gummed to death in the previous 1000+ posts, I don't have a lot more to say on the issue..............................Luca

Post Reply