I have absolutely nothing new to say about the Mueller report, but, as I suspect many of you will be looking for a place to start trading “OH MY GOD”s for “I TOLD YOU SO”s once it’s been released, I thought that I’d start a new thread. So, here it is…. Have fun with it.
Now I’m going to go and watch The Thin Man with a glass of scotch, in an attempt to block the insanity of our world out for a while.
Oh, before I go… if you haven’t already heard, news just broke that William Barr will once again be offering his unsolicited interpretation of the Mueller report tomorrow morning, a few hours prior to the document’s public release. That’s right, before anyone in the press has even had an opportunity to read a single page, he’ll apparently be taking one last opportunity to steer the narrative in a way that’s beneficial to the President. And, for what it’s worth, Robert Mueller, the author of the report, will not be present. So, once again, we’ll have the President’s hand-picked Attorney General — a man who got the job by condemning the Mueller investigation, and saying that, if he were Attorney General, he’d make sure that Donald Trump never faced obstruction charges — placing himself in the story to advance the Trump narrative, without any concern, it would seem, about how it might look to those of us who already question his impartiality in the matter. [And, yes, it’s a big deal that the historically independent Judicial branch has been politicized.]
Maybe I’m overthinking it, but I can’t imagine that Barr would once again put himself in this position after being so roundly criticized for denying Congressional access to the report for almost a month, cherrypicking Mueller’s materials to defend an inappropriate and premature “not guilty” verdict, and promoting conspiracy theories about a deep state spying campaign directed at the Trump campaign, but here we are. Not only did Barr hold off on the report’s release until the beginning of the Easter holiday, when members of Congress would be out of DC, but he decided to schedule the day’s events so that he’d take questions from the press prior to handing over the report, instead of afterward, when people knew what was actually in it.
Personally, I suspect the report will be redacted to hell, and we won’t get anything of value tomorrow, but, judging by the way Barr and Trump are acting, I suppose it’s possible that they’re concerned about the public response to the contents… Why else would the White House have spend the past several weeks drafting a “response” to the Mueller report, under the apparent advisement of the Attorney General? [It’s being reported today by the New York Times that “Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the special counsel’s conclusions in recent days,” helping them to get ready with their rebuttal.] If Mueller had ‘completely exonerated’ Donald Trump, as the President has claimed, why stall on the release, conspire to draft a formal rebuttal, and keep having Barr offer his interpretations? It just doesn’t make any sense. No, they know what’s in this report, and they’re scared. They may not be afraid of any legal threat, but my sense is that they know it’ll hurt Trump politically when people see everything laid bare.
OK, I need to stop for the time being… Let me leave you, however, in the very capable hands of Representative Jerry Nadler, who apparently knows a cover-up when he sees one.
Jerry Nadler: "The Attorney General has taken unprecedented steps to spin Mueller's nearly two-year investigation … It now appears the AG intends to once again put his own spin on the investigative work completed by the Special Counsel."
Via CBS pic.twitter.com/XCAPP4uGhY— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) April 18, 2019
151 Comments
Barr’s press conference is scheduled for 9:30 tomorrow morning. The report is scheduled to be released between 11:00 and noon.
So basically, after promising a release tomorrow AM, the morning will instead look like this:
9:30 Barr and Rosenstein brief an ignorant press corps
10:30 Trump releases his rebuttal
11:30 DOJ provides HARD COPIES (!!!!!!) of a 400 page document, not PDF
2:00 Public gets it
Again: Every single word of Trump’s rebuttal tomorrow is something he refused to say under oath.
Every single word.
Seems like Mueller was part of the deflect and delay shit show all along. Impeachment is the Constitutional remedy for a rogue president protected by a rogue party. It’s coming.
Nearly every post here is an open thread for crazies and loons.
I smell fear.
The Greatest Political Hoax of all time! Crimes were committed by Crooked, Dirty Cops and DNC/The Democrats.
Donald Trump just tweeted, “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!”
I smell fear too.
“Presidential harassment?” What exactly does he think democracy, limited government and restrictions on power are?
So you think there will be damning information released today and the President is afraid of that? It’s nice to hold on to your dreams.
Forbes: “The Barr Cover-Up: Call It What It Is”
Read more:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2019/04/15/the-barr-cover-up-call-it-what-it-is/#675b8ccd3638
Former DOJ spokesperson Matthew Miller:
“Barr has no real ability to redact the obstruction portion. Mueller didn’t appear to use the grand jury for it, it wouldn’t be classified, and wouldn’t relate to ongoing investigations.”
https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/status/1118680247631794176
It’s Live now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkZwMgPI9fk
Barr is beating that ass. No evidence of collusion found. Obstruction theories mulled by Mueller not sufficient. Trump redacts nothing.
Barr sounds like Trump’s personal lawyer. That is not the role of the AG who is supposed to be independent. Actually he sounds more like a PR person than an AG.
Has an AG ever spoken this strongly in defense of a president before? Have any of them been this transparently biased?
Rosenstein’s poker face and Whittaker’s contained fury though.
To you, Jean. To you.
“GREENE: Well, here’s a question that came to us about the relationship between the president and AG, not on a personal level but in terms of what the law says. It comes from Ruth Compton (ph). And she wrote – doesn’t the AG take an oath to defend the Constitution? She went on to say that maybe conflict exists because the president isn’t always protecting and defending the Constitution. She wrote, I don’t see this. I must have misunderstood the Constitution piece.
ROBERTS: Well, obviously, the most famous case of an attorney general defending the Constitution over the president’s wishes was the so-called “Saturday Night Massacre,” when Nixon ordered his attorney general, Elliot Richardson, to fire the special counsel investigating Watergate. Richardson refused and resigned. The deputy attorney general refused and was fired. But more recently, there’s the case of John Ashcroft refusing to certify the legality of George W. Bush’s domestic surveillance program. And that’s a dramatic story featuring names that are in today’s headlines.
The president’s lawyer and chief of staff went to the hospital where Ashcroft was in the ICU to get his signature. Mrs. Ashcroft alerted the Justice Department, and the acting attorney general, James Comey, got to the hospital first with FBI chief Robert Mueller telling agents not to evict him. Ashcroft refused to sign, and Bush changed the program.”
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/17/686124033/how-independent-is-an-attorney-general-from-the-president
The Attorney General of the United States pretty much just said that the President did obstruct justice, but that it was understandable, given that his feelings were hurt.
Party time! Whoo hoo baby!
JH,
Where was your concern about how Lynch operated during the Obama administration? Hopefully she will be indicted soon.
Barr said Mueller has is blessing to testify before Congress. If I were Jerry Nadler, I’d invite him to testify before the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow. Vacation be damned.
Yeah, right, M. Reality is here now. You might as well give it up.
“After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Counsel’s report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of the Special Counsel’s investigation. As I addressed in my March 24th letter, the Special Counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense.
After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. Instead, we accepted the Special Counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusion.”
EOS– I think Bobby Kennedy offers better example.
Points to Fox News for pointing up that the AG speaking to the President’s intentions etc like a defense attorney is bizarre at best.
Local equivalent would be a city attorney speaking to defend a mayor accused of malfeasance rather than speaking to the legal issues raised by any given scenario and making recommendations.
Please note Barr did not defend his role when asked about it.
PS That was a long press conference with very few relevant facts– Details on redactions etc. were a small portion of the time used.
“Donald Trump May have been ‘obstructiony,’ but he was frustrated.” @NicolleDWallace compares AG Barr’s defense of Trump to a parent justifying a child’s school vandalism.
https://twitter.com/TheDailyEdge/status/1118877907039002625
Basically he said he humored Mueller’s stabs at establishing obstruction but it didn’t add up even based on Mueller’s premises, some of which the department disagrees with.
@M,
Pelosi and Schumer already have.
On another note, I sure hope all the Obama administration names are redacted.
What did Barr say that was irrelevant? Pretty sure every word he said was relevant. Barr chooses his words carefully and means what he says.
EOS– Is this your concern about Lynch? Please compare her advising Comey on neutra; language re ongoing investigations and the now THREE x we have heard Barr come to open defense of the President while casting suspicion on his inquirers.
From my perspective, Lynch was trying to make Comey;s comments more politically neutral while Barr is being anything but neutral.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/comey-testimony-loretta-lynch.html
HW– your fanboy comments are the absolute worst. You really are guileless. You fall for fucking everything.
The whole world is laughing at you, Jean; your kind of thinking. You ought to be like “Damn, Trump really is innocent of collusion. HW, I am sorry for all the things I have said about you based on this bullshit thing I fell for.” Nope. You won’t do it. With no chance in hell of succeeding you try to turn the tables. That is pathetic but hilarious. It’s ridiculous just like you are through and through, Jean.
BREAKING: AG Barr says 10 “episodes” of potential obstruction related President Trump will be seen in the Mueller report, but he disagreed with Mueller legal theory.
I simply don’t understand how you can actually claim that Trump “took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel” of witnesses when Trump REFUSED TO SIT DOWN FOR AN INTERVIEW WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL!!
JH,
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/the-wrong-attorney-general-is-testifying-today/
This shit is so fuckin’ BADASS!!! I love it. Thought you were hot shit but didn’t know who you were messing with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp6-8g-nw4A
From Fox News.
Chris Wallace on Fox: “The Attorney General seemed almost to be acting as the counselor for the defense, for the counselor for the president, rather than the Attorney General … I suspect that Democrats’ heads on Capitol Hill were exploding.”
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1118884641459589120
Another paid liar lyin. There’s no limit to the craven christo fascist power grabbers. They’re getting an inch, so expect them to take a mile.
Libtards get theyselves to Dunhams for a DPMS Oracle 5.56 at $449
Report to be delivered to committee at 11:00 AM. Public release on DoJ site after that.
It’s a grotesquely ironic parody you are doing, Johnny. You are the paranoid psychotic fascist moron you rail against.
M
Posted April 18, 2019 at 9:00 am | Permalink
The Attorney General of the United States pretty much just said that the President did obstruct justice, but that it was understandable, given that his feelings were hurt.
There is a necessary balancing of evidence for different possible motivations when trying to prove intent. The fact that there is a mountain of evidence that Trump felt like he was the victim of an immoral/unjust witch hunt is obviously a valid piece of evidence for explaining (and offering counterbalance for) possible motives for certain actions Trump made. Keeping in mind that Mueller’s investigation actually found no collusion magnifies X100 the validity of that specific type of evidence.
You can make a joke about it but Barr’s little explanation there is probably the first clue that there is not much of a case for obstruction. A part of you probably picked up on that little clue. You did not like that your intuitions informed you that there is probably not good evidence for obstruction so you made a silly joke to cover up what you are sensing: The evidence for obstruction is not going anywhere.
There is truth in the whiny tone coming from this many in the mm.com community though. Listen to yourselves. For the first time in a long time there is truth weaved around the lying content of your words.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Thanks EOS. I’m going to make a coffee while it loads hahaha! How many hits is that getting right now?
Review of actual report on NPR right now is much better than this drivel.
PS No prosecution of Trump on obstruction because his aides did not follow through on his illegal orders… NOT because the orders weren’t obstruction.
in… the… report.
Sorry Jean. We will try to be better than NPR next time.
Who cares?
This is about as relevant as Clinton’s emails.
Mayor Pete however…..
When is reality irrelevant? Oh, when it’s embarrassing. I see.
What “illegal orders” are they talking about? What law did he break?
I am skimming over the report, no matter how you look at it, this is horribly damning for this administration. While they may not have committed a prosecutable offense, the report shows that they welcomed and willingly encouraged Russian interference into the election. Some things might not be illegal, but there is a huge difference between a guy in his living room saying “Go Russia!” and a Presidential candidate saying the same thing. In the past this would be a major scandal, now people are so partisan and polarized that they just shrug their shoulders. As a Republican (or Republican voter), do you really want a President that encourages a foreign power to influence an election? Is that what you really want?
It’s never been relevant HW. I’ve always, on this, unfortunately, agreed with you.
It’s the Democrats version of “Lock Her Up”
What’s relevant is the election in 2020.
It is not the Democrats version of “Lock Her Up.” This is actually incredibly scary. What are Republicans going to do when a hostile foreign power starts waging a campaign to get an extreme leftist Democrat elected? Because now precedent has been set.
The Lock Her Up chant is a demand for justice for the corrupt privileged ruler class in Washington D.C. The handling of her email case has been under investigation for a while. The stench of corruption is wafting through time and space from that tarmac meeting. Have I ever led you wrong?
“Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked,” – Agent Orange
Even the rot at the top knows the truth of his treason. But the minions anxiously hoping for RBG to die and overturn Roe will never face reality. Ffs, they’ll believe anything. I’m mean just look at Easter…
Anonymous
Posted April 18, 2019 at 10:56 am | Permalink
It is not the Democrats version of “Lock Her Up.” This is actually incredibly scary. What are Republicans going to do when a hostile foreign power starts waging a campaign to get an extreme leftist Democrat elected? Because now precedent has been set.
I keep reading this comment and I have no idea what you mean. What is “this”? What aspect of “this” is scary? Are you afraid Republicans will use media and intelligence community to attempt to delegitimize the elected president for two years if their candidate loses? Is that the scary precedent?
People don’t like Hillary. She was never very electable. Distaste for Hillary is not the result of an ingenious information campaign by Putin. People voted against Hillary because they do not like her. Deal with that fact.
We are individuals living in a global internet community. There will always going to be outside influence on our choices. Responsible voters will need to use discretion. Did you see the examples of Russian attempts over social media to influence the election? Its a lot of silliness. Those attempts are little dark specks, unseen, as they blend into the giant ugly shadow cast by your losing candidate.
I didn’t say anything at all about Hillary Clinton so there is really nothing to deal with. How do you even know who I voted for?
Ahahaha! Agent Orange! You fucking NPC. Your circuit is busted. Game over, bitch. You lose.
I don’t know who you voted for. You responded to a comment about “lock her up” which references Hillary. I was trying to figure out what your comment meant. I offered my best guess as to what you meant and added what I thought it would imply. Please correct me where I am wrong in my assumptions if you care to make your odd statement more clear.
I was referring to a comment by Sad.
HW, I could have sworn that you told us that Mueller’s report was really all about Hillary Clinton, and not about Trump at all.
Use quotes then. What did I say?
Yes, you seemed to be referring to Sad’s comment and your own Anonymous (?) comment prior to Sad’s comment. I don’t understand what you meant. If you care to explain, or reword, then I would try to understand.
Or we can just “drop it” and that is ok too.
“Review of actual report on NPR right now is much better than this drivel.”
lol – It’s the same PDF. Talk about bias…
Don’t worry, NPR brought on some bootlickers like yourselves. Can’t get away from the treason cover-up propagandists.
Not even close to “game over”. Game over will be when his bloated corpse hangs upside down from a wall, like his role model Mussolini.
If gutless, corporate hacks like Pelosi don’t finally follow Nadler’s lead into impeachment, and removing Barr, I’m done with Democrats for good. This version anyway. They are weak and spineless and that’s what a good portion of middle of the road Americans who vote Republican hate the most. Weaklings.
Fake John Brown is a very confused person.
The community of high integrity progressives on MM.com make some interesting choices of who and what they critique. More interesting is who and what they fail to critique.
Mark doesn’t have much to say about the Mueller report. Yawn. Time for a nap.
Sad announces how irrelevant the Mueller report findings are. Yawn. Time for a nap.
M makes lame jokes as a defense mechanism. Yawn. Time for a nap.
Jean belittles our commentary as worse than NPR. Yawn. Time for a nap.
A whole host of conspiracy theory pushers from the mm.com community fail to take any responsibility for their little monster, named Fake John Brown. Yawn. Time for a nap.
He belongs to you guys. It seems like many of you guys would feel an obligation to take steps to deal with him…Pretty sure he needs your help. No?
Playing a character or not it is ill to behave like that. It’s so destructive to his goals it is amazing to see him do it. Yeah, that’s the reasonable one there.
I forgot: is the Bob character supposed to be Republican?
Apr 18 2019 14:52:02 (EST)
MUELLER BLOCKADE END.
Fake investigations by committee members will not delay what is about to be unleashed.
Q
Bob is an extreme liberal in general but with a few twists. For instance, if I was ever at the Tap Room or something and someone pointed you out to me, I would literally drag you out and kick the living shit out of you. Not a traditional liberal, pacifist quality I know, but thems the breaks.
If you think you could do that why don’t you meet me right now then and try it?
Mark– I think it’s time for you to concede that we are long past this blog producing any kind of interesting discourse or any valid information, which is really too bad because it used to be a good forum. I have no recommendation about what you should do about it but it’s quite sad. It does seem open threads are a terrible idea at this point.
FF– That you think this forum with it’s trolls, and counter trolls and conspiracy theorists and threats of violence is better than NPR, a legitimate news outlet, demonstrates just how far gone you are. Fox News is better than this joint lately.
You and “Bob” and “John Brown” are the trolls. You do it by trying to bury the truth and hide your shame. They do it by making psycho, if empty threats.
Think of how desperate and bitter and weak it is. It’s bile plain and simple. “Oh I’m gonna get you motherrrfuckerrr!!! You were right and I am wrong so I’m going to threaten you like a psycho!”
I don’t know Bob. Not that I am keeping track but off the top of my head we have had liberal people here that have threatened to:
1)Slap someone in the face.
2)Kick someone in the nuts.
3) Cut someone like a bitch.
4) And now….Kick the living shit out of HW?
Mix in the regular talk by Fake John Brown and others that constitutes a vague form of sedition and I think we can make a case that the lefts non- violent stance is a myth.
On this platform, at least, the violent talk always seems to be coming from the left. Can you provide any examples wherein EOS, myself, or HW have made threats of violence against anybody in this community? Maybe you fit in better than you think with the narcissistic, authoritarian, and sociopathic crowd we have here?
Dan Nexon @dhnexon
There’s not much in the Russia section of the report that hasn’t already been publicly litigated. It’s nice to see most of what we thought we knew confirmed. It’s frustrating that the Mueller team believes they may have been successfully stymied on some fronts.
I do very much worry about how people will process the Russia section in light of the fact that 1) there’s not a lot that’s new, 2) each component came to light over a long period of time and thus could be minimized in isolation & 3) some might’ve been expecting a bombshell.
I worry about all of this b/c the report is ACTUALLY DAMNING. It makes clear that multiple members of the Trump campaign tried to cultivate Russian support, including for a future Trump Tower project & out if the belief it would provide a material advantage in beating HRC.
At the same time, the Kremlin and its allies launched multiple probes to gauge the Trump campaign’s disposition toward its preferred policies and its willingness to work with them.
Almost no one in the campaign rebuffed these efforts. They welcomed them! Jr. & Kushner are *incredibly lucky* the TT meeting was more of a probe than an actual attempt at a serious quid pro quo, because they would’ve accepted the quid.
So while there’s no evidence anyone sat down and said “let’s work together; you give us this and we’ll give you that,* the Trump campaign SOUGHT, and RECEIVED, Russian support.
This is despicable.”
https://twitter.com/dhnexon/status/1118929505538670592
Yeah Jean, it “demonstrates how far gone” I am because you fail to realize I don’t think I am better than National Public Radio.
Jesus.
It’s not so easy to drag me anywhere let alone kick the shit out of me. Pretty sure whoever plays Bob would be on their ass getting their face punched in if they tried it. You never know though: maybe whoever it is is a real badass. Where did Mr. Badass go though?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/mueller-report-impeachment-referral/587509/
Veselnistkaya was a plant by the dems so *wrong buzzer sound*. That’s a liability for you.
But you tell the truth, Flakes. RPN (Rockefeller Propaganda Network) lies.
You fake-ass wilting violet trumptards sure stick to the talking points for your fascist masters! Like yap dogs on a lease at the stiletto heel of Laura Ingram.
JH, I think your comment could be extended to most of modern human discourse.
Take your fuckin’ meds. You have nothing. You have humiliated yourself.
All of you need serious psychological help.
Why would Flakes, EOS and I need that? Each of us has told the truth. Everyone else save for the occasional interloper believed in a mega fucking lie. What is your rationale?
HW,
They offer a lot of politically biased content but they also provide(d) some awesome stuff like Wiretap and Radiolab. I just think it is hilarious that Jean would insult me/ us minutes after the drop of the report by saying NPR is better than me/ us….Yeah, I am guilty. I have worse content and coverage than a news organization that has 1000 employees and millions of listeners. You got me, Jean.
FTW:
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1119004121846231045
FF: I was simply trying to redirect people somewhere useful.
I didn’t read your post as sarcasm. Sarcasm, by your own admission, is not your strong suit. And a lack of certainty and bloviation is not the strong suit of you or your compatriots here. Try this next time. or /sarc or just /s
I am feeling extreme joy. I know all the other Q people are too to see it occur just how we all said it would. Definitely a big party day leading into the holiday weekend for many. Now comes DECLAS and if you have paid attention to what I said you know what comes with that.
“I know it’s not intuitive for non lawyers to understand Mueller’s reasoning, but it would be helpful if reporters made clear that Mueller declined to reach a decision on obstruction *not* because of evidence, but because the legal framework he used precluded him from doing so. ”
-Asha Rangappa
https://www.justsecurity.org/63665/the-redacted-mueller-report-first-takes-from-the-experts/
HW I’m afraid your joy holiday will be short-lived as impeachment by the house seems inevitable according to reports. It’s unlikely to make it through the Senate but it will make the case to the public.
If the Dems don’t seize this opportunity, especially to get Mueller to testify to why he made no recommendations, then they deserve to lose.
Jean,
No reasonable observer would think that this is over–certainly not Trump. Trump’s reaction is not proof of anything. This Mueller report is just a little stopping point. The Democrats will push pause for a second and then they will probably try to proceed with impeachment. Proceeding with impeachment also proves nothing. Trump is caught up in the process that will unravel slowly (on purpose). Today was not about ending anything. It was about defining the means by which the Dems will try to impeach. Impeachment without regard to the truth was always the goal amongst the psychos. The super psychos like Fake John Brown, have more gruesome goals, but with the same non-orientation toward the truth.
On the other hand, I think the finding of “no collusion” will spur an investigation into whether or not the origins of the “collusion” investigation were legal/ shady. Even if nothing is found the narrative will benefit the other side….
In my opinion, moving forward with steps toward impeachment might make a lot of people feel like they are winning in the short term, within their little bubbles, but in fact they will be insuring their own groups future losses over the long term. I don’t see how this ends well for Dems. Some Dems might be in really big trouble like HW has been suggesting for a long time now….
If the case is based on bogus intel, which it is then how could it be ‘just’ to begin with?
Aloha, like most Americans I worked all day and have no idea what Mueller, Barr or Rosenstein had to say. What most interest me is, are we going to war against the “Troika of Evil”. I have nieces and nephews who will be cannon fodder if we are. Any news?
FF– There was no finding of ‘no collusion’ There were no findings. You are quoting Barr’s interpretation (spin) of the report, not the report. The report presents the evidence and does not offer any findings as to collusion or obstruction. I’ll wait to hear from Mueller himself about collusion. What the actual report, not the spin, seems to show is that most of the reporting on the Mueller probe has been accurate.
I frankly love it that you all are still convinced the Steele dossier is fake when it’s been essentially verified by the report.
HW, like you, continues to spew the Trump spin like they are facts. but then he makes predictions. All of which we will for sure hold him to. As he has asked. Please bring on the FISA memos. Can’t wait.
Sorry, Wobblie– no war threatening your nieces and nephews so far. It’s clear you will be disappointed.
I’m not spinning anything but you are trying to like always, Jean.
FF your overuse of the word ‘reason’ reminds me of a young newlywed I worked with who kept announcing how happy she was every day. She got divorced within 6 mos. Reasonable people don’t feel a need to assert how reasonable they are all the time.
HW with another “I know you are but what am I’ reply. that plus unfounded predictions, premature gloating, claims of victimization, Qanon conspiracy links and violent reactions. Do we have HW Bingo yet? Oh, we just need a heavy metal link. So close.
I should have said, ‘chest pounding threats of retaliation”
(And yes I am trying to dominate this thread and make all the bullshit go away.)
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1118917787605454848
Mueller report full sentence: Although the investigation established that the Russian Government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency ad 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.*
Barr only quoted the part within asterisks. Just a reminder that not establishing collusion beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as exoneration from collusion. It’s not even the same as finding no evidence of it.
The investigation clearly found evidence of efforts on the part of the Trump campaign to establish ties with Russia. It also found substantial evidence of Russian meddling in the election as well as attempts to hack into the elections. It just did not find a smiking gun, like the Nixon tapes. And my guess is it never will.
Still plenty of evidence of obstruction which is an impeachable offense. See, Bill Clinton.
I just don’t think it is going to go the way the impeach obsessed Dems think it is going to go.
To gain favorable opinion the “impeach Trump” crowd will need to figure out a way to extract, out of the minds, of the majority of Americans, the very common sense notion that: Trump should not be impeached for obstruction of Justice on a crime that he never committed.
The impeach obsessed Dems can come up with arguments that challenge that common sense notion but even a great argument, with tons of evidence, is not going to convince the millions of average Joes to let go of that little piece of common sense.
Finding no collusion was not end to anything but it is likely a turning point that will result in either: 1) The Dems either admit things are not going in the exact direction they liked by taking the “L” (unlikely); or 2) the Dems stubbornly driving themselves off of the cliff of public opinion cliff (likely).
I have explained that before, Jean. Factually you are describing exactly what you do. Bloviate for example? My writing is concise. You fit the definition exactly with your empty rambling lawyerly style. You use too many words to try to persuade but you say nothing.
“The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests,” — Mueller Report
Nothing wrong with violence in self defense. Don’t see how it would be a problem to thump your pal if he came up on me.
FF– You’re using Fox news talking points again. In fact, many people have been convicted of obstructing investigations into allegations that were never proven. It’s obstruction of an investigation that he’s charged with. That actual argument used by Barr is that his subordinates didn’t follow his orders, and so protected him from actually interfering or rather protected themselves from indictment for committing crimes as he ordered. (Too bad poor Michael Cohen wasn’t that smart.) I would stick with that argument if I were you.
While HW and FF and EOS wait for the FISA memos, I’ll wait for the Southern District of NY to finish its investigation. Ideal timing would be for a RICO indictment to happen mid impeachment hearings.
FF as an example, if you were charged with a crime, even one of which you were not guilty and even if you feared you would be unjustly convicted, you still can not obstruct the investigation into that crime. That’s just totally obvious with abundant precedent. No one is allowed to obstruct an investigation, period.
What Barr didn’t mention:
“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 applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.” (pg. 182)
“The investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign lied to the office, and to congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.” (pg. 17)
“Just a reminder that not establishing collusion beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as exoneration from collusion. It’s not even the same as finding no evidence of it.”
Just a reminder that not establishing Jean robbed a bank beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as Jean being exoneration from robbing a bank. It’s not even the same thing as finding no evidence that Jean robbed a bank.
The “exonerated/ not exonerated framing used here is phony as fuck–when a person has not been charged with a crime. The burden of the investigation is to provide evidence that passes a threshold of potential guilt. Mueller said he did not find evidence that passes that threshold (regarding collusion), yes or no?
“We noted, among other things, that the President stated on more than 30 occasions that he does not ‘recall’ or ‘remember’ or have an ‘independent recollection’ of information called for by the questions.” (pg. 417)
Didn’t want to be framed like this whole thing. It’s a frame-up of the POTUS. Now you have to deal with the fallout. Q says DECLAS comes next, then OIG, then prosecution. Betting against it? Or can’t expand your thinking enough to ponder what that means…
FF– the investigation is not a trial. Mueller made clear that he could not charge Trump with a crime because he felt that was not his role. Mueller even made the point in the report that a sitting president can’t be charged with a crime.
“The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that ‘the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to preform its constitutionally assigned functions’ in violation of ‘the constitutional separation of powers.’ Given the role of the Special Counsel…this office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.” (pg. 213)
It was procedural, not a finding of innocence. Mueller’s job, as he established it, is to present the findings to Congress and they can then decide whether or not to impeach.
Yes. Let’s just talk endlessly about a Trump. Is there anything he likes better? I thought we agreed he’s a narcissist?
I’d rather talk about Mayor Pete.
FF’s logic: If A didn’t happen (less the fact that A could not happen) and B was not established like C (leaving out that B was in fact established like D) then (BxC) -A = x. QED.
Finding for x by substituting a false equation to get the desired value for x is not actually solving the equation, FF. Logic.
Sad– Does obstruction of justice matter to you? No. then go talk about your new crush elsewhere. Your infatuation is clearly interfering with your ability to prioritize politically.
Jean,
I don’t know if I am using Fox News talking points or not. I obviously understand you can obstruct justice even when you are not guilty of committing a crime. I am not trying to say otherwise. I was trying to offer my opinion about the negative public opinion (by my estimation) that will result if Trump is shown to innocent of collusion but somehow guilty of obstruction of the investigation into his supposed collusion. The appeal to common sense of the public would be too big of a barrier even if obstruction would be able to be proved legally…My comments were simply trying to convey my sense that it might not be within the Dems self interest to go down the impeachment road they seem to be willing to go down regardless of the potential long term cost…
Aloha HW, see you have joined the RICO argument. Most Americans could give a shit. As near as I can tell, we have gone from wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, several unnamed countries in Africa (Somalia and Yemen anyway) to now engaging in economic war (under the UN these are acts of war) with Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba. I’m glad we are not currently bombing them. Only Democrat who has condemned the Republican Administration’s veto of the war powers resolution to stop the genocide in Yemen has been Tulsi. The Republicans are notorious traitors (Irangate–why arn’t the Democrats bringing up past history?) Does not seem like you main line liberals give a shit, which is why you will help reelect the Republicans.
forgot my new name in the last post.
HW– if what you predict comes to pass, I will meet you at the taproom, hand you a $1000. and then lick your boots. Literally. Everyone is welcome to come watch.
Whew. Some good news finally.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/439631-poll-buttigieg-surges-into-contention-with-biden-sanders%3famp
Obstruction, emails,whatever.
Finally some good news.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/439631-poll-buttigieg-surges-into-contention-with-biden-sanders%3famp
Jean,
You might be able to convince a professor of logic that something you say is valid and sound and still be fucked (!) because whether or not impeachment road gets you where you want to go has nothing to do with whether or not the professor of logic believes your argument is valid and sound.
Do you have any interest in showing the correspondence between what I have said and your logical formula there? I am curious what you are trying to show there…
That would be wild if you follow through on that. I’m surprised you are confident enough to say that today.
Hw– I am absolutely confident that your Q based predictions of mass indictments of Obama Hillary et al will not ever come to pass. Nothing about today changes that. I made no predictions about the Mueller report. In fact I made the point many times, that indicting a sitting president is extremely hard. Removal from office is even hard without a smaking gun like the Nixon tapes. Early on I talked about how long these investigations usually take and how often they lead to no convictions. The reporting on Russian interference and Trump obstruction has been totally validated. Nothing in the Mueller report questions the validity of the investigation or the Steele Dossier.
I feel very comfortable still thinking you are completely delusional.
FF– I will take neither your council on best Dem strategy approaches or your appeals to logic and reason seriously. Sorry.
(nice backpedal though)
Any attempt by Dems to impeach when it was just announced that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support any charge is going to do much to sway the public against them. Any rational thinkers within the Dems are realizing they have been lied to for years. There is no possibility of impeachment and no stomach for further waste of taxpayer funds or another witch-hunt.
The only conspiracy theorists are those who think Trump used Russians to win the last election. The conspiracy mongers are those who told us for two years that the Trump family would all be arrested. Any shred of credibility is gone.
Trump has 90% support of Republicans. The Dem candidates would do well to start talking about something other than how much they hate Trump.
They are in trouble. You aren’t paying attention. That is your problem. I’m going to put it on youtube.
It was announced by Barr that there was not enough evidence to impeach. that’s not what the Mueller report said at all. He said, as I cited above, that he didn’t have the authority to make a recommendation, that he was presenting the evidence to congress.
Nice try though EOS. Read the report.
HW– please put it all up on youtube. And link here. We can’t wait. That’s going to be great.
@JH,
That you don’t believe in logic or reasoning does not invalidate the the intellectual process, but it begs the question, why do you think you can engage in discourse without it?
Sure, impeach him. How does that happen without the votes in Congress?
Jean,
Which part is backpedalling? The part where I took the time clarify something you misunderstood? Or, the part where I asked you to clarify what you were trying to say with your logical formulation? Some other part?
EOS– I do however agree that Dem candidates need to run on policy not on attacking Trump. On the other hand, the job of Congress is to review this report for impeachment. Congress and Dem candidates are not the same thing.
Ps Trump does not have 90% support among GOP voters. just registered GOP and not even limited to those most likely to vote. Most Americans are independents now. And over 50% say they wouldn’t vote for Trump under any circumstance.
EOS– impeachment is just the process. And the House initiates it and does not need senate approval to do so. There would be hearings and then any censure or removal recommendation would go to a vote of both houses. Impeachment is up to the house. I don’t know if they have the votes even with a Dem majority but it’s going to be fun finding out.
Bill Clinton was impeached. He was not removed from office but he sure as fuck was impeached.
FF– I would answer but you bore me so I won’t. I have tried to navigate the choppy waters of your reason. But it’s really not worth the effort to try to bridge the gap. You can re-read what you wrote and I wrote and try to figure it out if it interests you so.
You often do this thing where you ask for more and more effort from others to engage your perspective and if they aren’t willing to do theemotional labor of explaining things to you, you act like you won an argument. It’s just not worth anyone’s time to follow your instructions.
PS I said I don’t believe in logic. I didn’t say it wasn’t useful as a means to communication/discourse. I don’t believe logic alone reveals the truth. I think it is often used to obscure the truth with false certainty. See the word ‘rationalization.’ See confirmation bias. See most of the history of human thought and belief. See the scientific process which in its structure acknowledges that proving one’s hypothesis produces less reliable results than trying to disprove it. And that every study must be examined rigorously for flaws. I trust logic more when it is supported by facts and is trying to disprove something rather than confirm it.
“FF– the investigation is not a trial.”
What have I said that led you to believe that I think an investigation is a trial? Thinking an investigation is a trial would be stupid.
“[the investigation] was procedural not a finding of innocence.”
Innocent until proven guilty is a thing. Of course the investigation is not an attempt at finding innocence. We are always already innocent until a threshold of evidence proving guilt is reached following legal procedures.
“Mueller’s job, as he established it, is to present the findings to Congress and they can then decide whether or not to impeach.”
This statement would be more acceptable if Mueller refrained from drawing a conclusion regarding collusion. He left the question of obstruction open but he gave a conclusion/ recommendation regarding collusion, so, it is not entirely true to say that he was simply defining his job as collecting bits of information and passing it off to others for judgment.
“FF– I would answer but you bore me so I won’t. I have tried to navigate the choppy waters of your reason. But it’s really not worth the effort to try to bridge the gap. You can re-read what you wrote and I wrote and try to figure it out if it interests you so.”
You supposedly summarized my argument using variables a,b,c,d,x in a supposed logical formula and then announced my logic is not sound.
I then asked you what statements I made and how those statements correspond to the variables so I might be able to understand what you are talking about.
You respond by telling me you would tell me what you are talking about but I am boring, have choppy reasoning, and it is not worth the effort.
Emotional labor?
Haha. What sort of of bullshit are you trying to sell Jean? You supposedly summarized my argument in a formula and proved my logic was somehow not sound but refuse to give hints what statements a,b,c,d,and x are standing-in for in your formula?
Passing nonsense off as logic in a fraudulent way is thrilling to Jean? Explaining the non-sense she wrote is super boring for Jean. Providing evidence for claims makes Jean feel sleepy. Facts are a drag. Integrity is for the easily amused.
Jean,
What sort of bullshit are you trying to sell?
You pretended to summarize my supposed argument with variables a,b,c,d, and x inside of some kind of logical formula. You then pretended to have demonstrated that my supposed argument was not sound. Isn’t it normal for me to ask you for the statements I made which are supposedly behind the variables?
It was fun for you to just make some variables up in a formula without an explanation of correspondence?
It is boring for you to show the correspondence between statements and the variables?
It is not worth your time to explain your supposed logical summary?
Does Jean think integrity is for the easily amused?
Last question: Are you drunk?
“HW– please put it all up on youtube. And link here. We can’t wait. That’s going to be great.”
I’m talking about when you have to give me money and lick my boot.
Mayor Pete just introduced me to this organization.
Good for him. Let’s put Trump and Trumpism in the rear view mirror!
https://runforsomething.net
Oh. That. That’s not going to happen, HW. Care to counter bet?
FF– you aren’t making any sense. Are YOU drunk?
If the Mueller report was conclusive in redeeming Trump. so much so that it would warrant a counter investigation into the investigation because it had no merit, than why would Barr feel a need to make an unprecedented statement of interpretation, not once or twice, but three times in advance of the report’s release. That’s spin and poor HW, FF and EOS fell for it. And now the reality that this is so far from over is dawning on them.
I think Trump should be impeached. I’m certain he won’t be removed from office. I do think we need more answers and I also think his behavior was so glaringly corrupt that the citizens deserve to see an open hearing before the election. Then if the Southern District of New York steps in before the general, we should be all set to get rid of the guy one way or the other. For the record, I prefer victory by election.
No way. I could be wrong. I would never risk having to do something horrible like you just signed yourself up for.
Yeah Jean. I was drunk and on drugs last night. You are so perceptive. I don’t know why but every time I get really wasted, I black out, and later I find out that I asked people for the correspondence between my statements and the variables (a,b,c,d,and x) , they used,in logical formulations, in their attempt to try to demonstrate I was not being logical. It is embarrassing. I apologize to the forum. I must look like a total idiot.
The other thing I always do when I am drunk and on drugs is I respond to people without reading/ understanding what the other person is saying. I just make up imaginary positions the other person might have as I go along. It is fun for me to read that kind of shit when I am high too.
Last night I was tripping out on:
“If the Mueller report was conclusive in redeeming Trump. so much so that it would warrant a counter investigation into the investigation because it had no merit, than why would Barr feel a need to make an unprecedented statement of interpretation, not once or twice, but three times in advance of the report’s release. That’s spin and poor HW, FF and EOS fell for it. And now the reality that this is so far from over is dawning on them.”
It was like looking into a badass lava lamp during a laser light show, Yo.
“I think Trump should be impeached. I’m certain he won’t be removed from office. I do think we need more answers and I also think his behavior was so glaringly corrupt that the citizens deserve to see an open hearing before the election. Then if the Southern District of New York steps in before the general, we should be all set to get rid of the guy one way or the other. For the record, I prefer victory by election.”
I was like “Wow dude. This smart lady on the internet has this really intense strategy that nobody thought of before. Its like prescient and shit. Bummer deal for the Trumpies who thought their Ruskie Stoogie was going to just chill out as prez and shit.”
FF— you seem super worked up.
H.W.- coward. You talk with great bravado but lack the cajones to back it up. Hell you don’t even use your name. Chicken shit.
Jean,
Your thoroughly dishonest approach does often motivate me to uncover the truth and expose the lies. I guess I should thank you more often.