OT posts about Mueller removed from Smollett thread

[realibrad]

I don't actually think he is innocent, I just think it's amusing.

I think the difference, is that there is evidence of him breaking the law. In terms of the Trump report, the quotes seem to be that Trump did not work with Russia.

 

[Maxima1]

I don't actually think he is innocent, I just think it's amusing.

Very. Funny timing with all the fucktards gloating about Donnie being "cleared".

 

[jackstar7]

I think the difference, is that there is evidence of him breaking the law. In terms of the Trump report, the quotes seem to be that Trump did not work with Russia.

Partial quotes.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the difference, is that there is evidence of him breaking the law. In terms of the Trump report, the quotes seem to be that Trump did not work with Russia.

That's a very charitable reading of Barr's letter. It seems to indicate at a minimum there is significant evidence of Trump breaking the law by obstructing justice.

 

[realibrad]

That's a very charitable reading of Barr's letter. It seems to indicate at a minimum there is significant evidence of Trump breaking the law by obstructing justice.

I chose my words carefully. What started the investigation was the allegation that he was working with Russia. What we have been told is that there was no evidence of Trump or any of his aids working with Russia. That is very different than this case with Jussie, where there appears to be evidence of him committing a crime.

I have no doubt that you could find tons of things that Trump has done that is criminal. The difference here is that the investigation into the original claim found nothing.

In terms of obstruction, the Times article I read made it seem like Muller did not take a stance on that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html

"Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice, Mr. Barr said, so he made his own decision."

 

[jackstar7]

I chose my words carefully. What started the investigation was the allegation that he was working with Russia. What we have been told is that there was no evidence of Trump or any of his aids working with Russia. That is very different than this case with Jussie, where there appears to be evidence of him committing a crime.

I have no doubt that you could find tons of things that Trump has done that is criminal. The difference here is that the investigation into the original claim found nothing.

In terms of obstruction, the Times article I read made it seem like Muller did not take a stance on that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html

"Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice, Mr. Barr said, so he made his own decision."

"If it's what you say, I love it."

Do go on...

 

[fskimospy]

I chose my words carefully. What started the investigation was the allegation that he was working with Russia. What we have been told is that there was no evidence of Trump or any of his aids working with Russia. That is very different than this case with Jussie, where there appears to be evidence of him committing a crime.

I have no doubt that you could find tons of things that Trump has done that is criminal. The difference here is that the investigation into the original claim found nothing.

Even if Barr's statement of Trump/Russia connections turns out to be completely accurate (and I suspect it will instead be found to be misleading) I do not find the argument of 'they only found evidence that he committed different crimes' to be compelling. Your mileage may vary.

I do find it compelling that people would view a statement that Mueller found evidence of criminal activity by Trump that Barr said they would not prosecute as being some sort of exoneration for Trump. You would think something similar would apply here and yet it doesn't.

Gee, I wonder why.

In terms of obstruction, the Times article I read made it seem like Muller did not take a stance on that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html

"Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice, Mr. Barr said, so he made his own decision."

You should read the letter instead as it states Mueller compiled evidence that Trump committed obstruction of justice.

The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.

That's a clear statement that Mueller found evidence of criminal activity by Trump.

 

[realibrad]

"If it's what you say, I love it."

Do go on...

Oh gosh. Look everyone, jack found something that Muller missed. Clearly Muller is an idiot and the whole investigation is now invalid.

The reality is that someone offered information, but, it appears that no actual information was provided. That is part of what the investigation was about. If it turned out to have happened, then you might have a case. It would seem strange that Muller does not want to say it happened if it did.

 

[realibrad]

Even if Barr's statement of Trump/Russia connections turns out to be completely accurate (and I suspect it will instead be found to be misleading) I do not find the argument of 'they only found evidence that he committed different crimes' to be compelling. Your mileage may vary.

I do find it compelling that people would view a statement that Mueller found evidence of criminal activity by Trump that Barr said they would not prosecute as being some sort of exoneration for Trump. You would think something similar would apply here and yet it doesn't.

Gee, I wonder why.



You should read the letter instead as it states Mueller compiled evidence that Trump committed obstruction of justice.



That's a clear statement that Mueller found evidence of criminal activity by Trump.

I don't think its a clear statement that Muller found evidence of Russia or obstruction. That is what this investigation was about. Its what people here and elsewhere have said was reality. Turns out to have been wrong as no evidence was found. There appears to be evidence of Jussie committing the crime he was investigated for. Not that he was found to have broken another law.

Again, Trump is dirty and underhanded. There is a long line of people that have worked with him that will say just that. I lived in South FL for over 10 years, and it was not unknown. That is part of the reason I thought he would not win originally.

But, when it comes to Russia, its now pretty clear.

 

[Maxima1]

I don't think its a clear statement that Muller found evidence of Russia or obstruction. That is what this investigation was about. Its what people here and elsewhere have said was reality. Turns out to have been wrong as no evidence was found. There appears to be evidence of Jussie committing the crime he was investigated for. Not that he was found to have broken another law.

Again, Trump is dirty and underhanded. There is a long line of people that have worked with him that will say just that. I lived in South FL for over 10 years, and it was not unknown. That is part of the reason I thought he would not win originally.

But, when it comes to Russia, its now pretty clear.

WTF is wrong with you? The obstruction case is incredibly strong. Anyone saying it's a 50/50 thing or something just shows how impotent the system is for the elite and privileged and makes the jussie outcome not that surprising.

 

[jackstar7]

Oh gosh. Look everyone, jack found something that Muller missed. Clearly Muller is an idiot and the whole investigation is now invalid.

The reality is that someone offered information, but, it appears that no actual information was provided. That is part of what the investigation was about. If it turned out to have happened, then you might have a case. It would seem strange that Muller does not want to say it happened if it did.

Hey, look who is making significant leaps of logic and refuses to believe what is publicly known in favor of an unknown.

But as I said, do go on...

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think its a clear statement that Muller found evidence of Russia or obstruction. That is what this investigation was about. Its what people here and elsewhere have said was reality. Turns out to have been wrong as no evidence was found. There appears to be evidence of Jussie committing the crime he was investigated for. Not that he was found to have broken another law.

Again, Trump is dirty and underhanded. There is a long line of people that have worked with him that will say just that. I lived in South FL for over 10 years, and it was not unknown. That is part of the reason I thought he would not win originally.

But, when it comes to Russia, its now pretty clear.

Mueller could not present evidence on both sides unless there was evidence on both sides to present.

 

[realibrad]

WTF is wrong with you? The obstruction case is incredibly strong. Anyone saying it's a 50/50 thing or something just shows how impotent the system is for the elite and privileged and makes the jussie outcome not that surprising.

Muller said obstruction was incredibly strong? While it might not be possible to charge a sitting president with it, impeachment could still happen if that is true.

 

[realibrad]

Hey, look who is making significant leaps of logic and refuses to believe what is publicly known in favor of an unknown.

But as I said, do go on...

What is publicly known? What we know is at best speculation. Muller did an actual investigation with federal resources. Why is it that he disagrees with you? What do you think is going on there?

 

[realibrad]

Mueller could not present evidence on both sides unless there was evidence on both sides to present.

I really want to see the report, but, we will have to wait and see. I told you a long time ago that I wish that we would get a clear yes or no on what happened.

 

[UberNeuman]

I really want to see the report, but, we will have to wait and see. I told you a long time ago that I wish that we would get a clear yes or no on what happened.

lol.

 

[soundforbjt]

Muller said obstruction was incredibly strong? While it might not be possible to charge a sitting president with it, impeachment could still happen if that is true.

Impeachment can't happen with the current Senate makeup. Repubs love them some Trump, as long as he does what they want.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I guess we didn’t have enough threads about the Mueller report

 

[realibrad]

Impeachment can't happen with the current Senate makeup. Repubs love them some Trump, as long as he does what they want.

If there was something there, I bet it could get done.

 

[Maxima1]

Muller said obstruction was incredibly strong? While it might not be possible to charge a sitting president with it, impeachment could still happen if that is true.

A lot of the obstruction stuff is out in the public, which leaves me floored that you would say "no evidence". The same problem with obstruction (note: with the president, it essentially has to be 100% to bring a case) is occurring with collusion related statutes as well. There is substantial evidence of collusion-y stuff. Such as the Trump Tower meeting (who believes Donnie wasn't aware of it?) and the "Russia, if you're listening" speech after said meeting. There was an incredible amount of negotiation with Russia intermediaries that was biased towards Russian interests (yeah, let's drop all sanctions, despite Russian interference), which implies there may be a quid pro quo going on (e.g. Trump Tower Moscow).

 

[jackstar7]

What is publicly known? What we know is at best speculation. Muller did an actual investigation with federal resources. Why is it that he disagrees with you? What do you think is going on there?

Oh wow... so you don't know anything? My quote was from a relative of the president while communicating with nefarious actors. He didn't direct the FBI to intervene, but instead encouraged the illicit actions.

I guess I can't imagine what-all you don't know... but the public has witnessed plenty. Lester Holt witnessed it in-person from the President himself.

 

[realibrad]

A lot of the obstruction stuff is out in the public, which leaves me floored that you would say "no evidence". The same problem with obstruction (note: with the president, it essentially has to be 100% to bring a case) is occurring with collusion related statutes as well. There is substantial evidence of collusion-y stuff. Such as the Trump Tower meeting (who believes Donnie wasn't aware of it?) and the "Russia, if you're listening" speech after said meeting. There was an incredible amount of negotiation with Russia intermediaries that was biased towards Russian interests (yeah, let's drop all sanctions, despite Russian interference), which implies there may be a quid pro quo going on (e.g. Trump Tower Moscow).

You misunderstood what you read. Muller did not take a clear stance that there was clear obstruction. I'm sure Trump was Trump and did lots of things. What I disagreed with was that the Muller report saying that obstruction was clear.

 

[realibrad]

Oh wow... so you don't know anything? My quote was from a relative of the president while communicating with nefarious actors. He didn't direct the FBI to intervene, but instead encouraged the illicit actions.

I guess I can't imagine what-all you don't know... but the public has witnessed plenty. Lester Holt witnessed it in-person from the President himself.

I know the meme and its origins. A person that supposedly had information on Hillary from the Russian gov wanted to pass it on. He said that if its what was alleged, that he loves it. I also have no doubt that Muller looked into it.

That is why I brought up that you seem to believe there was something meaningful there that is clear and obvious, yet Muller does not. Do you still not follow?

 

[Maxima1]

You misunderstood what you read. Muller did not take a clear stance that there was clear obstruction. I'm sure Trump was Trump and did lots of things. What I disagreed with was that the Muller report saying that obstruction was clear.

He was leaving it to Congress.

 

[jackstar7]

I know the meme and its origins. A person that supposedly had information on Hillary from the Russian gov wanted to pass it on. He said that if its what was alleged, that he loves it. I also have no doubt that Muller looked into it.

That is why I brought up that you seem to believe there was something meaningful there that is clear and obvious, yet Muller does not. Do you still not follow?

Oh, silly you. I'm leading. You're following.

But do go on...