The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Ted Lange 16413]

12 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Again "we have no proof of a crime" 

 

So using that logic, Hillary Clinton is 100% clean.  And Hillary isn’t a huge pussy like the Dotard and actually appeared in front of Congress.  

[Crusher 127]

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

The conclusion is quite simple. Trump saw Putin as an ally to his campaign.

Do you agree Putin is an ally to the American Dream?

You are getting a little bit nutty now. 

$$$$$$ That's what it's about. If you can't make a deal with China you might need the Russians?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

The entire concept that a leopard who was twice convicted of tax fraud (amongst roughly another 100 lawsuits he lost), paid out 25 million in another fraud case, had his entire charitable foundation desolved and ordered to relinquish all assets, stands uniquely alone in not releasing his tax returns, publicly brags he pays off politicians, publicly requests a foreign criminal cartel release stolen property, makes Alice In Wonderland claims an investigation 800 former federal prosecutors say contains multiple open and shut obstruction of justice crimes both exonerates him and is total bullshit, an investigation that is sending his campaign manager to prison, his National Security Advisor to prison, and his decade-long lawyer to prison, and who continues to do everything that a guilty man would do at every opportunity, etc, etc, etc....

 

as if each debate club detail exists in a vacuum with a fresh slate and brand new benefit of the doubt independent of past legally binding convictions...

 

could have conceivably changed his spots in the twighlight of his life absent any motivation to do so, is fucking retarded.

 

You're a moron if you entertain this idea.

You're a moron if you pretend to entertain this idea, believing the the power you share with a crying baby on a plane is some special power you possess.

[Crusher 127]

28 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I like this bullshit statement: “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

I'd like to have a  12" cock with about 3" girth.

[Crusher 127]

5 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

The entire concept that a leopard who was twice convicted of tax fraud (amongst roughly another 100 lawsuits he lost), paid out 25 million in another fraud case, had his entire charitable foundation desolved and ordered to relinquish all assets, stands uniquely alone in not releasing his tax returns, publicly brags he pays off politicians, publicly requests a foreign criminal cartel release stolen property, makes Alice In Wonderland claims an investigation 800 former federal prosecutors say contains multiple open and shut obstruction of justice crimes both exonerates him and is total bullshit, an investigation that is sending his campaign manager to prison, his National Security Advisor to prison, and his decade-long lawyer to prison, and who continues to do everything that a guilty man would do at every opportunity, etc, etc, etc....

 

as if each debate club detail exists in a vacuum with a fresh slate and brand new benefit of the doubt independent of past legally binding convictions...

 

could have conceivably changed his spots in the twighlight of his life absent any motivation to do so, is fucking retarded.

 

You're a moron if you entertain this idea.

You're a moron if you pretend to entertain this idea, believing the the power you share with a crying baby on a plane is some special power you possess.

You can stop right there.

Is he a Russian Agent?

If you say yes your fucked.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

He obstructed justice, Master Debater. That's a crime. That's impeachable. It's a crime because it hinders/prevents law enforcement from discovering evidence that would convict beyond a reasonable doubt the original potential crime being investigated, moron. Continuing to project your own real or pretend stupidity on everyone else, as if no one else can wrap their head around this concept, in either scenario, is an embarrassment to you.

[Crusher 127]

25 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

So using that logic, Hillary Clinton is 100% clean.  And Hillary isn’t a huge pussy like the Dotard and actually appeared in front of Congress.  

That's a great ideal. Let's treat Hillary like they have been treating Trump.

[Ted Lange 16413]

1 minute ago, Crusher said:

That's a great ideal. Let's treat Hillary like they have been treating Trump.

They did. Including investigations, which they couldn’t prove criminal wrong doing, so using your logic she is 1000% clean.  Glad to clear that up.  Don’t Lock her up!! Don’t lock her up!

[Crusher 127]

3 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

They did. Including investigations, which they couldn’t prove criminal wrong doing, so using your logic she is 1000% clean.  Glad to clear that up.  Don’t Lock her up!! Don’t lock her up!

Yeah.. With an AG that her back all the way.  Wow it seems like I am living the same day over and over again...

Edited May 11, 2019 by Crusher

[Ted Lange 16413]

1 minute ago, Crusher said:

Yeah.. With an AG that her back all the way.  Wow it seems like I am living the day over and over again...

You can stop right there.

Was she a convicted of a crime?

 If you say yes your fucked.

[Crusher 127]

2 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

You can stop right there.

Was she a convicted of a crime?

 If you say yes your fucked.

It ain't over yet. IG report is still coming.

Barr is doing his own investigation.

Shit is coming down now.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

6 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Yeah.. With an AG that her back all the way.  Wow it seems like I am living the same day over and over again...

No, you simply can't decide what position you want to argue or are pretending to in an ever narrowing spiral of incoherency.

[Ted Lange 16413]

14 minutes ago, Crusher said:

It ain't over yet. IG report is still coming.

Barr is doing his own investigation.

Shit is coming down now.

Keep fucking that chicken, dumbass.

[HornPhD 1389]

6 hours ago, bolverk said:

There may well be some ground that we could agree on in terms of factual occurrences, but I highly doubt that we'd come to the same conclusions vis-a-vis logical and lawful consequences.

"and essentially no obstruction"

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

The obstruction is ongoing and in plain sight. Repeating the shit that Trump the Obstructor says to distract you from the obvious doesn't change anything. 

[CO Horn 172]

6 hours ago, Crusher said:

It ain't over yet. IG report is still coming.

Barr is doing his own investigation.

Shit is coming down now.

Ok Q.  Thanks for the drop.

[Dolemite 143]

9 hours ago, Crusher said:

So you agree that Trump is guilty of obstruction? No I do not. He used all the powers granted to him via the Office of the President to defend himself from a false accusation of a crime. A crime that theoretically could result in his death if proven true.

But you disagree with the Mueller Report's findings that the Kremlin's efforts were "wide" and "sweeping?"  No. I think I said just the opposite. Maybe reread that portion.

You agree that they knew help was coming and welcomed it.  I don't think they knew it was coming but, yes they welcomed the help. The Russians exposed a fraud named Hillary and as I said above this could have definitely won the race for Trump. 

Russia, are you listening?  Meh..I don't think the Russians hold Surly in high enough regard to be listening in on us...:)  

Yeah, but everyone sucks so nothing matters. Well do you agree that the dossier was funded by a cut out law form funded by the DNC ? That is fact. Christopher Steele himself admits that the dossier was Russian intelligence? Possible Russian disinformation to hurt Trump to cover their ass whoever won the vote. It was used to hurt Trump in the latter stages of the election cycle.. 

There is a middle ground here that I think we all can deal with.

No Trump hater here gives a shit. That took me a long time to realize that. At first, I actually thought this thread was for a serious discussion lol. Now this thread, when I bother to read it that is, is for comic relief only. The sooner you realized that the better off you will be.

[TexEx15 17951]

RE: collusion the saying “it’s not what you know but what you can prove” is apropos.  

Trump asked Russia on live television for help finding the emails.  His campaign knew about the Wikileaks ahead of time.  His campaign shared internal polling data with the Russians.  His campaign including his son met with the Russians With the understanding that they had dirt on Hillary that could hurt her and help Trump’s campaign.  While Muller decides he didn’t have enough to prove up charges (a much higher standard) the underlying facts are clear.  Trump asked the Russians for help.  The Russians offered to help.  Trump accepted that help.

Hell, Rudy has openly said he is going to Ukraine to try and get info fro the government that would help them against Biden.

So for every person clinging to the outcome of the investigation and acting like there was no evidence of anything I must ask, did you agree with the OJ verdict?  After all, it’s not about what you know but what you can prove.

[tantric superman 4668]

Please. 

Don't compare an asshole like Trump to the Juice.

[jimmyjazz 47205]

8 hours ago, Crusher said:

Well just take your ball and go home you little bitch. You can't win.

Holy shit.  There's that benevolent tolerance we've all been hearing about.

[Dbeasy 15596]

The rational response to this entire situation should be:

1. Because Trump and his campaign have been caught doing a lot things with the Russians, we as Americans should not be supporting him for re-election. Plus, he’s been caught lying extensively on almost every policy issue, and he’s embarrassing nationally and globally. Those things should be more than enough to withdraw support. But, for whatever reason a bunch of people haven’t.

2. The report was clear that the evidence gathered on conspiracy was not enough to take action on the President. Given this, voters have to be the ones to take action, not the government. Everyone should just accept this until or unless other investigations emerge to take him down.

2. The Mueller report was not clear on obstruction. We should all be waiting for Mueller’s testimony to see if that makes the situation clearer. If it doesn’t, see #1.

3. Given the above, the real question is whether impeachment should be happening. It is not clear cut. On one hand, you can argue that there has been enough evidence listed to justify it. However, the evidence on Trump himself is not a slam dunk. You could squint your way into the viewpoint that his behavior doesn’t warrant impeachment. To move forward now on impeachment can look to many as a politically motivated action, rather than a patriotic action. This is why Pelosi isn’t yet recommending it (plus it would be symbolic only). She’s looking for a real piece of evidence to reference. Mueller testimony might be a candidate.

The problem on this board, and with America in general, is that Republicans (conservatives) are not withdrawing their support when they should be, and the Democrats (liberals) are potentially reading too much into the obstruction part of the report and pushing for impeachment prematurely.

I don’t understand the Republican viewpoint at all. I’m stunned people continue to get scammed by this con man. I’m a little more sympathetic to the Democrat viewpoint because there is a lot of evidence.

[bolverk 30325]

28 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

RE: collusion the saying “it’s not what you know but what you can prove” is apropos.  

Trump asked Russia on live television for help finding the emails.  His campaign knew about the Wikileaks ahead of time.  His campaign shared internal polling data with the Russians.  His campaign including his son met with the Russians With the understanding that they had dirt on Hillary that could hurt her and help Trump’s campaign.  While Muller decides he didn’t have enough to prove up charges (a much higher standard) the underlying facts are clear.  Trump asked the Russians for help.  The Russians offered to help.  Trump accepted that help.

Hell, Rudy has openly said he is going to Ukraine to try and get info fro the government that would help them against Biden.

So for every person clinging to the outcome of the investigation and acting like there was no evidence of anything I must ask, did you agree with the OJ verdict?  After all, it’s not about what you know but what you can prove.

And two points the report makes clear is that he couldn't prove it because a) Mueller didn't think the Trump campaign actually knew it was a crime to seek the Kremlin's help and b) the Trump campaign destroyed evidence of communications.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

18 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

and the Democrats (liberals) are potentially reading too much into the obstruction part of the report and pushing for impeachment prematurely.  

Because if I’m trying to help Russia get away with one of the greatest crimes in history, the fact I tried to help them get away with it by obstructing justice into the investigation of that crime should be considered very legal and more importantly very cool. 

IMO the crisis is mostly with the Republicans because they stand to lose the most if they don’t stand up soon. 

But yeah, the democrats are just being over reactionary hysterical triggered snowflakes for making a big deal out of all this.  

[wildcat09 29579]

7 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

The rational response to this entire situation should be:

1. Because Trump and his campaign have been caught doing a lot things with the Russians, we as Americans should not be supporting him for re-election. Plus, he’s been caught lying extensively on almost every policy issue, and he’s embarrassing nationally and globally. Those things should be more than enough to withdraw support. But, for whatever reason a bunch of people haven’t.

2. The report was clear that the evidence gathered on conspiracy was not enough to take action on the President. Given this, voters have to be the ones to take action, not the government. Everyone should just accept this until or unless other investigations emerge to take him down.

2. The Mueller report was not clear on obstruction. We should all be waiting for Mueller’s testimony to see if that makes the situation clearer. If it doesn’t, see #1.

3. Given the above, the real question is whether impeachment should be happening. It is not clear cut. On one hand, you can argue that there has been enough evidence listed to justify it. However, the evidence on Trump himself is not a slam dunk. You could squint your way into the viewpoint that his behavior doesn’t warrant impeachment. To move forward now on impeachment can look to many as a politically motivated action, rather than a patriotic action. This is why Pelosi isn’t yet recommending it (plus it would be symbolic only). She’s looking for a real piece of evidence to reference. Mueller testimony might be a candidate.

The problem on this board, and with America in general, is that Republicans (conservatives) are not withdrawing their support when they should be, and the Democrats (liberals) are potentially reading too much into the obstruction part of the report and pushing for impeachment prematurely.

I don’t understand the Republican viewpoint at all. I’m stunned people continue to get scammed by this con man. I’m a little more sympathetic to the Democrat viewpoint because there is a lot of evidence.

See, this is a good non-troll post even though I disagree with part of it, because it doesn't blatantly misrepresent the report.  I actually think the report is quite clear on obstruction, but Mueller was clear why he didn't conclude that it was obstruction nor make an explicit impeachment referral (because he felt either would have been inappropriate).

The people saying the report exonerates Trump on the "collusion" question are lying. That's not remotely what the report says. The report sets forth evidence that could indicate conspiracy or coordination but states that they determined that the admissible evidence they had would probably be insufficient to prove conspiracy or coordination beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the report also makes it clear that the investigation of whether there was conspiracy or coordination was substantially hindered by certain factors, including by Trump and his associates, that prevented them from being able to assess the full picture. These are from the report's summary on the charging decisions in Volume 1:

Quote

Third, 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. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute.

Quote

The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information—such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media—in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.

This is the Special Counsel's way of saying "there's almost certainly more we were prevented from discovering due to constant obstruction from the subjects of the investigation."  It's not remotely close to an exoneration.

As for whether the Dems should impeach, if the evidence of obstruction by Trump that the report provides isn't sufficient to justify impeachment, nothing is.  The Dems aren't holding back because they're not sure whether multiple instances of obstruction of justice justifies impeachment, they're holding back because they're not sure how impeachment will play politically and that terrifies them.  

[triplehorn 2664]

Thorough and accurate post above, wildcat. 

From what we do know to date, the clearest path to conspiracy with Russia on the election hack, that so far is impeded by lying and obstruction, runs through Roger Stone.  Recall the Mueller bombshell from Stone's indictment the new info that a Trump senior campaign official was ‘directed’ in July 2016 to contact Mr. Stone about additional Wikileaks releases.  Also keep in mind that Stone's indictment links directly to the case number for the indictments of the Russian hackers.

Who was the senior Trump campaign official ?  Would Stone, a decades long friend of Trump and a senior campaign official act without awareness and consent of Trump?  Of course not.  Would the alleged serial lying, obstruction, and witness tampering impair the ability to charge the underlying conspiracy?  fuck yes it would.

And on that note, check out what the filing reveals from yesterday re Stone, produced as a result of Stone's attempts to play the press:

 

Anyone who thinks this is done is being completely foolhardy.

Edited May 11, 2019 by triplehorn

[GW Hayduke 1957]

Below link provides an interview with Jim Baker, former general counsel of the FBI during the initiation of the FBI's investigation into Russia's contacts with the Trump Campaign.  He talks about intelligence received from a foreign agency about Popadop, Carter Page PhD's fisa application, how the fbi handles raw intelligence like the Steele reports, whether the fbi was conducting a coup, his impression of the 100+ pages in the mueller report on russia/trump campaign contacts, the impact of Trump's attacks on the fbi and intelligence community, and tons of other stuff.

He shares that Rod R. and leadership in Congress were fully briefed and on board with expanding the fbi investigation to Trump himself after Comey's firing.

He notes that election system security is his primary concern going forward.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-bonus-edition-jim-baker-russia-investigation

[bolverk 30325]

If any of you doubt Roger Stone's ability or willingness to do any of this, I recommend you go sign into Netflix and watch "Get Me Roger Stone" now.

The man is a loon and would do anything and I mean A N Y T H I N G to win an election.

Edited May 11, 2019 by bolverk

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

15 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Anyone who thinks this is done is being completely foolhardy.

I think the real bad guys on the American side of the Russian conspiracy have been got.  Paul Manafort  and Roger Stone were always the real villains in this story.  Trump and his family are bad people and likely guilty of many crimes but they were useful idiots in the Russian interference conspiracy, mostly because they are bad people and likely guilty of many crimes. 

The story of the 2016 Russian interference conspiracy isn’t finished but the related arrests are done (excluding obstruction of justice related charges).

Edited May 11, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[GW Hayduke 1957]

12 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Who was the senior Trump campaign official ?

It was Steve Bannon.

https://www.axios.com/roger-stone-steve-bannon-emails-wikileaks-assange-b50259c5-61db-49aa-9a71-411e087c49e2.html

[Dbeasy 15596]

As for whether the Dems should impeach, if the evidence of obstruction by Trump that the report provides isn't sufficient to justify impeachment, nothing is.  The Dems aren't holding back because they're not sure whether multiple instances of obstruction of justice justifies impeachment, they're holding back because they're not sure how impeachment will play politically and that terrifies them.  

 

If you look at my post I never said the Democrats were holding back because they were unsure there was justification of impeachment. I said what you just posted, that they are concerned it will look politically motivated rather than patriotic.

 

I can understand how it may be completely obvious to you that he should be impeached, but for all of the reasons I listed earlier there are many that don’t share the viewpoint that it is obvious. It’s like a prosecutor who knows the guy is guilty but he can’t just put him on trial and get a conviction because the defendant has slipped thru via a lack of complete evidence. Right now you’ve assumed the evidence on Trump is enough and is compelling and there are a bunch of people who don’t. Just out of curiosity, what is the one biggest piece of evidence that you consider enough to impeach him?

 

Edit: one other comment. When you read the report in its entirety it does paint a picture of a pretty coordinated effort to deceive. Maybe the best thing the Democrats should have done is come out swinging full bore when the report was released, encouraging everyone to read it all, pointing out that it demonstrated a complete pattern of obstructive behavior. But Pelosi didn’t do that.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

If you look at my post I never said the Democrats were holding back because they were unsure there was justification of impeachment. I said what you just posted, that they are concerned it will look politically motivated rather than patriotic.

I can understand how it may be completely obvious to you that he should be impeached, but for all of the reasons I listed earlier there are many that don’t share the viewpoint that it is obvious. It’s like a prosecutor who knows the guy is guilty but he can’t just put him on trial and get a conviction because the defendant has slipped thru via a lack of complete evidence. Right now you’ve assumed the evidence on Trump is enough and is compelling and there are a bunch of people who don’t. Just out of curiosity, what is the one biggest piece of evidence that you consider enough to impeach him?

 

Serious question:

How could the democrats impeach Trump without it looking political? 

ETA:

OR

Under what circumstances could the democrats impeach Trump without it looking political? 

Edited May 11, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[triplehorn 2664]

19 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

It was Steve Bannon.

https://www.axios.com/roger-stone-steve-bannon-emails-wikileaks-assange-b50259c5-61db-49aa-9a71-411e087c49e2.html

Thank you - so now, per the Stone indictment, who directed the senior campaign official (Bannon) to contact Stone around additional Wikileaks releases ?  Apart from Trump, I can't think of anyone else with the authority to order Bannon to do such a thing.  It says a lot about what evidence Mueller has that he knows Bannon was directed to contact Stone around additional releases from the Russian cutout Wikileaks.  He knows that, despite allegations of sweeping lying, obstruction, and witness tampering.  What's being covered up wrt Donald Trump ?

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by triplehorn

[triplehorn 2664]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Serious question:

How could the democrats impeach Trump without it looking political? 

If they look too scared and apprehensive to impeach, but have no choice to do it otherwise ?  Which is exactly where we are today. 

So when it happens, anyone crying foul over political stunts is just making shit up.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, triplehorn said:

If they look too scared and apprehensive to impeach, but have no choice to do it otherwise ?  Which is exactly where we are today. 

So when it happens, anyone crying foul over political stunts is just making shit up.

Unless the polls are overwhelmingly supportive of impeachment, then it will look very political.

[Dbeasy 15596]

Serious question:
How could the democrats impeach Trump without it looking political? 

I just edited my post above that answers this in one way. Their response to the release of the report was not forceful enough. Instead the focus was placed on Barr, rather than on the contents of the obstruction volume. Why weren’t Democrats holding press conferences quoting from the report specific passages?

Or, as I said earlier getting Mueller on the stand might provide an opening.

Politics is a very tricky thing. You have to be masterful at aligning resources to your position and the Democrats haven’t done a good enough job yet. Maybe there are more chess pieces in play, like other investigations. Who knows.

Right now, the dominant headline is still swaying too many people to the viewpoint that Trump did nothing illegal. Of course there are also a bunch of people who don’t care if he did, because they believe “everyone does illegal things”.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

23 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Because if I’m trying to help Russia get away with one of the greatest crimes in history, the fact I tried to help them get away with it by obstructing justice into the investigation of that crime should be considered very legal and more importantly very cool. 

IMO the crisis is mostly with the Republicans because they stand to lose the most if they don’t stand up soon. 

But yeah, the democrats are just being over reactionary hysterical triggered snowflakes for making a big deal out of all this.  

One of the greatest crimes in history ?  You really have a poor sense of the word greatest.  They didn't affect the election... Mr. Obama was pretty clear they couldn't.

Edited May 12, 2019 by Onboard 2.0

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:

I just edited my post above that answers this in one way. Their response to the release of the report was not forceful enough. Instead the focus was placed on Barr, rather than on the contents of the obstruction volume. Why weren’t Democrats holding press conferences quoting from the report specific passages?

Or, as I said earlier getting Mueller on the stand might provide an opening.

Politics is a very tricky thing. You have to be masterful at aligning resources to your position and the Democrats haven’t done a good enough job yet. Maybe there are more chess pieces in play, like other investigations. Who knows.

Right now, the dominant headline is still swaying too many people to the viewpoint that Trump did nothing illegal. Of course there are also a bunch of people who don’t care if he did, because they believe “everyone does illegal things”.

A large majority of Americans think the president is a criminal. A plurality think he committed crimes in office.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

8 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

the dominant headline is still swaying too many people to the viewpoint that Trump did nothing illegal.

700+ former federal prosecutors are now on the record saying Trump committed multiple felonies and abuses of power while in office.

We are at a point where the people that have evaluated the facts of the Mueller Report and come to the correct conclusion on the next step are just waiting on the people that can take that step to act.  

Doing the right thing isn’t political and doing the right thing isn’t going to get much clearer than it is now.  Maybe if we hear from Mueller directly but his report does speak well enough for itself.

Edited May 11, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

One of the greatest crimes I history ?  You really have a poor sense of the word greatest.  They didn't affect the election... Mr. Obama was pretty clear they couldn't.

You ever seen the Usual Suspects? 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You ever seen the Usual Suspects? 

Very appropriate you'd use a work of fiction to compare Russias ability to sway the election.

[Dbeasy 15596]

A large majority of Americans think the president is a criminal. A plurality think he committed crimes in office.

Don’t disagree that many believe he’s committed crimes before and/or after taking the Presidency. I certainly do. Hence the last sentence in my post.

There was a very powerful comment earlier about Hillary that should give Republicans pause about supporting Trump. If they hate Hillary for all the illegal things she did, but wasn’t convicted for, then how can it be right to give Trump a pass? I thought that was a really good point.

By the way, I noticed you quoted Politico here and Vox earlier. It would be more powerful to quote media outlets that are acknowledged as being more objective like NPR, Reuters, etc.

[David Dennison 19542]

7 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Don’t disagree that many believe he’s committed crimes before and/or after taking the Presidency. I certainly do. Hence the last sentence in my post.

There was a very powerful comment earlier about Hillary that should give Republicans pause about supporting Trump. If they hate Hillary for all the illegal things she did, but wasn’t convicted for, then how can it be right to give Trump a pass? I thought that was a really good point.

By the way, I noticed you quoted Politico here and Vox earlier. It would be more powerful to quote media outlets that are acknowledged as being more objective like NPR, Reuters, etc.

I really don't think it matters.

Edited May 11, 2019 by David Dennison

[Poolflood 845]

9 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

Keep fucking that chicken, dumbass.

To be fair y'all been fucking the Mueller report chicken for two years.  And I've yet to see crusher call any of y'all a Nazi or racist

[bolverk 30325]

13 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Very appropriate you'd use a work of fiction to compare Russias ability to sway the election.

God.fucking.damn.it.

Just when I think you might be a decent person, you go and pull this shit. Do you actually think swaying 78,000 Facebook fucks in an election comprised of a 130,000,000 votes is that hard?

[David Dennison 19542]

3 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

To be fair y'all been fucking the Mueller report chicken for two years.  And I've yet to see crusher call any of y'all a Nazi or racist

Oh, that's going to go on for as long as Donald Trump is president, so strap in.

[Dbeasy 15596]

I really don't think it matters.

It doesn’t if you don’t care about your own confirmation bias or your own credibility with others.

[EuroHorn 3295]

Yea, it sucks that we’ll have to deal with this through 2024..

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

God.fucking.damn.it.

Just when I think you might be a decent person, you go and pull this shit. Do you actually think swaying 78,000 Facebook fucks in an election comprised of a 130,000,000 votes is that hard?

Oh no I'm hurt you don't think I'm a good person....  What ever will I do ??!  

People were gonna vote for Hillary or Trump regardless of any subliminal messaging on any social platform.  There are not people who would be on the fence about either candidate. Both are about as polarizing as possible.

Hillarys campaign fucked up by not spending the dollars (and they had them to spend), or making appearances in the very states she ended up losing.  Bill bitched about both of those very facts during the election, often, and loudly. He called it right, but was ignored.  If you believe the premise set out in "Shattered".  

[David Dennison 19542]

6 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

It doesn’t if you don’t care about your own confirmation bias or your own credibility with others.

Even if I did, it still wouldn't matter.

[David Dennison 19542]

7 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

Yea, it sucks that we’ll have to deal with this through 2024..

Maybe!

Probably not, though.