The Robert Mueller Investigation

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Just now, David Dennison said:

They are actually winning the undecideds.

That is why Donald Trump is the underdog going into his own re-election.

Keep fucking that chicken. Democrats will lose if they don't stand up to Trump immediately and forcefully. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Many still doesn’t understand we’re playing under despot rules now despite Trump proving every day that he’s a despot and doesn’t acknowledge written rules. 

[henrygandorf 29,189]

22 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Doing nothing will have devastating consequences that will go well beyond the next election.  There will be no coming back from doing nothing.   It will have set the path to the end.   Trump is almost irrelevant when considering the big picture.  

which is why i specifically used the phrase, "doing nothing is a loss."

while i don't think there's an actual way to "win", i think there are certainly ways to "lose", and i'm not talking about impeaching in the house and having the senate not vote to remove.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Many still doesn’t understand we’re playing under despot rules now despite Trump proving every day that he’s a despot and doesn’t acknowledge written rules. 

Exactly. Appeasing dictators and wannabe dictators only lets them consolidate more power. 

[David Dennison 18,854]

21 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Keep fucking that chicken. Democrats will lose if they don't stand up to Trump immediately and forcefully. 

Or they'll win.

[GRHorn 105]

 

1 hour ago, Grade of D as in David said:

I disagree. If the Dems had a fraction of the media savvy they could run with the narrative of the pubs pledging allegiance to party over country. By not doing anything they run the risk of the casual voter thinking it was all just a witch-hunt. 

What is this world that CR posters live in where Republicans are so media savvy and always controlling the narrative? 

The world everyone else lives in has a 90% liberally slanted media that constantly pumps out anti-Trump material. Your message is getting out there. Repeatedly. People just aren’t sold on it for whatever reason.

Maybe it’s Russia’s fault. Maybe people are just too stupid to understand everything you’re laying out for them. Maybe people don’t trust the media as a whole. You tell me. 

[hobbes2702 13,032]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Or they'll win.

Well I guess hoping for the best is a sound strategy.

[hobbes2702 13,032]

Just now, GRHorn said:

 

What is this world that CR posters live in where Republicans are so media savvy and always controlling the narrative? 

The world everyone else lives in has a 90% liberally slanted media that constantly pumps out anti-Trump material. Your message is getting out there. Repeatedly. People just aren’t sold on it for whatever reason.

Maybe it’s Russia’s fault. Maybe people are just too stupid to understand everything you’re laying out for them. Maybe people don’t trust the media as a whole. You tell me. 

I don’t think you know what controlling the narrative means.

[David Dennison 18,854]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Well I guess hoping for the best is a sound strategy.

That's not what they are doing. Everything that the Democrats are doing is driven by reams of polls and focus groups. 

This is big boy politics, not internet message board politics.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's not what they are doing. Everything that the Democrats are doing is driven by reams of polls and focus groups. 

This is big boy politics, not internet message board politics.

Yeah, that’s exactly why Hillary lost.  Too much inside math and focus groups.  People see through that measured bullshit and Trump proved it. 

You think Trump focus group tests his crazy tweets and messaging?  Hell no, he says exactly what he’s thinking and that’s why the democrats will lose again unless they throw out their 3D chess board, pick up a fucking microphone, and do the right thing. 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[hobbes2702 13,032]

22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's not what they are doing. Everything that the Democrats are doing is driven by reams of polls and focus groups. 

This is big boy politics, not internet message board politics.

Well clearly they are better at this. That’s why they win so often. 

People like you and the political class miss the forest for the trees. The goal shouldn’t be to win the political battle. The goal should be to win the ideological battle. Sacrificing your ideals, which is what doing nothing is, is why the Dems lose. You cannot let someone undercut the very foundation of rule of law in the country because the politics are bad. Jesus christ

Edited May 18, 2019 by hobbes2702

[Hank Kingsley 20,921]

Thread. Read the whole thing. 

 

 

[retread 2,951]

^^ Thread in quote ↓

Quote

Here are my principal conclusions:

1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.

2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.

3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.

4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

I offer these conclusions only after having read Mueller’s redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.

In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings.

Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.

Under our Constitution, the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust.

Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.

In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.

Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.

While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct.

Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch’s jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution. When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles.

We’ve witnessed members of Congress from both parties shift their views 180 degrees—on the importance of character, on the principles of obstruction of justice—depending on whether they’re discussing Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.

Few members of Congress even read Mueller’s report; their minds were made up based on partisan affiliation—and it showed, with representatives and senators from both parties issuing definitive statements on the 448-page report’s conclusions within just hours of its release.

America’s institutions depend on officials to uphold both the rules and spirit of our constitutional system even when to do so is personally inconvenient or yields a politically unfavorable outcome. Our Constitution is brilliant and awesome; it deserves a government to match it.

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by retread

[4th&Five 41,525]

I’m glad there’s one republican with balls. The Dotard meltdown should be epic. 

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

I don’t think you know what controlling the narrative means.

If you control the media outlets, you control the narrative. 

[henrygandorf 29,189]

3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

If you control the media outlets, you control the narrative. 

and when the president talks, or the ag talks, or when the press secretary talks...all the media outlets air the same clip, typically live and unedited.

a lot of people tune out the talking heads, regardless or what channel they're on, but they'll pay attention when important people are talking.  by never having briefings they're actually negatively affecting their abilities to control the narrative even more, which seems like a mistake.

"controlling the narrative" has nothing to do with what anderson cooper says.  or sean hannity.  but in the meantime, let's call that part a wash.

[hobbes2702 13,032]

9 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

If you control the media outlets, you control the narrative. 

Oh so you’re just a moron.

[Hank Kingsley 20,921]

When you control the mail, you control...INFORMATION!

 

[David Dennison 18,854]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

Well clearly they are better at this. That’s why they win so often. 

People like you and the political class miss the forest for the trees. The goal shouldn’t be to win the political battle. The goal should be to win the ideological battle. Sacrificing your ideals, which is what doing nothing is, is why the Dems lose. You cannot let someone undercut the very foundation of rule of law in the country because the politics are bad. Jesus christ

So often. Man you must be young.

[hobbes2702 13,032]

Your only concern is for democrats to win. My concern is that the country still exists after this guy is gone. Allowing massive erosion of our foundational principles accelerates the death spiral regardless of who wins and in my opinion helps Trump win. I would much rather we hold those in power accountable regardless of party. Currently they are doing a fantastic job of making impeachment of any future president an impossibility because they refuse to what is necessary. The president is currently operating outside of the law and the constitution and your answer is hope we win. My answer is hold him accountable for the law otherwise the law will no longer exist.

Continue being a pretentious douchebag though. It really adds value to your opinions

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Thread. Read the whole thing. 

 

 

Y’all know this is a Republican member of Congress right? 

I hope he’s well received by democrats and republicans alike for speaking out.

[hobbes2702 13,032]

No shit. Props to Amash for that. Hopefully he follows up with actually working to hold Barr and the President accountable.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[David Dennison 18,854]

11 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Your only concern is for democrats to win. My concern is that the country still exists after this guy is gone. Allowing massive erosion of our foundational principles accelerates the death spiral regardless of who wins and in my opinion helps Trump win. I would much rather we hold those in power accountable regardless of party. Currently they are doing a fantastic job of making impeachment of any future president an impossibility because they refuse to what is necessary. The president is currently operating outside of the law and the constitution and your answer is hope we win. My answer is hold him accountable for the law otherwise the law will no longer exist.

Continue being a pretentious douchebag though. It really adds value to your opinions

Do we need to go through the long list of presidents who broke the law and were not held accountable?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Comparing Trump’s crimes to any other president is apples to hand grenades.  

Trump couldn’t even testify because he is incapable of not perjuring himself. 

[David Dennison 18,854]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Comparing Trump’s crimes to any other president is apples to hand grenades.  

Trump couldn’t even testify because he is incapable of not perjuring himself. 

Neither could Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, or W.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Neither could Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, or W.

I don’t seem to remember these guys overtly helping Russia destroy American democracy. 

[hobbes2702 13,032]

30 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Do we need to go through the long list of presidents who broke the law and were not held accountable?

Yea we could if you’d like. We probably should have held them accountable too. Great false equivalence though.

[David Dennison 18,854]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t seem to remember these guys overtly helping Russia destroy American democracy. 

Nixon came close in 1968.

[David Dennison 18,854]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Yea we could if you’d like. We probably should have held them accountable too. Great false equivalence though.

It's not false. The crimes are equivalent.

[hobbes2702 13,032]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's not false. The crimes are equivalent.

What was Johnson impeached for?

[David Dennison 18,854]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

What was Johnson impeached for?

What was Reagan impeached for? What was W. impeached for?

 

[David Dennison 18,854]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

What was Johnson impeached for?

What was Reagan impeached for? What was W. impeached for?

 

[hobbes2702 13,032]

Cool thank you for making my point. We should impeach when the facts merit and we shouldn’t when they don’t. Johnson’s crimes were clearly not equivalent. Reagan’s were. Ws probably were. Clinton’s were also although clearly a lesser issue.

Maybe you should support impeachment when criminals occupy the White House so that we can stop having discussions 20 years later about Presidents getting away with crimes

[David Dennison 18,854]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

Cool thank you for making my point. We should impeach when the facts merit and we shouldn’t when they don’t. Johnson’s crimes were clearly not equivalent. Reagan’s were. Ws probably were. Clinton’s were also although clearly a lesser issue.

Maybe you should support impeachment when criminals occupy the White House so that we can stop having discussions 20 years later about Presidents getting away with crimes

Lying to Congress to fund a war that killed tens of thousands of Americans isn't impeachable?

OK.

And I support impeaching Donald Trump 100%.

[hobbes2702 13,032]

Are you talking about W? Because I said his crimes were probably impeachable. That “probably” comes from my thinking that Dick Cheney is truly responsible for Iraq and should be sitting in a cell until he dies.

And if you’re so in support of impeachment then why do you argue when people are critical of the current strategy among democratic leadership? Are you simply arguing just to argue? 

Edited May 18, 2019 by hobbes2702

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Johnson basically got impeached for being a huge asshole.  He should have been removed. 

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

Really because your posts from the last couple of pages seem like you prefer the "big boy politics" of do nothing and wait and see.

Edited May 18, 2019 by Grade of D as in David
This was meant for DD

[hobbes2702 13,032]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Johnson basically got impeached for being a huge asshole.  He should have been removed. 

Misread. Carry on. 

I agree he fucking sucks and should have been removed. But the grounds for his impeachment were not enough reason to remove him. Removing a president because of a violation of the tenure act is not appropriate. Removing a president because he violated the constitution, which Johnson did by not protecting former slaves, is appropriate 

Edited May 18, 2019 by hobbes2702

[David Dennison 18,854]

2 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Really because your posts from the last couple of pages seem like you prefer the "big boy politics" of do nothing and wait and see.

Nope. That's what's happening. It's not what I want to happen, but I understand why it is.

I want them to start impeachment proceedings yesterday.

[David Dennison 18,854]

Also, I think they are going to impeach him.

[hobbes2702 13,032]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Also, I think they are going to impeach him.

But I thought they were playing “big boy politics”?

[David Dennison 18,854]

15 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

But I thought they were playing “big boy politics”?

That's why they are going through the process of making the administration stonewall after legitimate requests.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,581]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Y’all know this is a Republican member of Congress right? 

I hope he’s well received by democrats and republicans alike for speaking out.

Angry Democrat who can't get over the fact HILLARY LOST! Sad!

[SubliminalHorn 6,786]

I have faith that when more damning info comes—-and I think at this point it will be coming our via the courts because no one respects congress—they will have no choice but to proceed with impeachment. I don’t want to join brisket and the bois (and bama chick?) on the ledge. I have to believe rule of law will prevail. 

Just look at what is coming out from Flynn’s cooperation. There’s more to come. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

Amash should run for president. An Arab libertarian who has consistently opposed him would trigger trump in debates. Should do it just to elevate his name recognition. 

[henrygandorf 29,189]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Amash should run for president. An Arab libertarian who has consistently opposed him would trigger trump in debates. Should do it just to elevate his name recognition. 

fuck it, he can always switch sides for his next house run anyway, he'd be a folk hero.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,444]

I’m old enough to remember when Muslims put Bush over the top in 2000, back when Muslims were mostly Republicans.

[Anastasis 23,469]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’m old enough to remember when Muslims put Bush over the top in 2000, back when Muslims were mostly Republicans.

What data are you referring to?

[Patrick Bateman 3,911]

2 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

What was Johnson impeached for?

High crimes and misdemeanors.  Embraced Lincoln's more lenient plans for Reconstruction.