# Mueller personally told AG that he had mischaracterized the investigation's findings



## Xzi (May 1, 2019)

WaPo said:
			
		

> Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III expressed his concerns in a letter to William P. Barr after the attorney general publicized Mueller’s principal conclusions. *The letter was followed by a phone call during which Mueller pressed Barr to release executive summaries of his report.
> *
> Days after Barr’s announcement , Mueller wrote a previously unknown private letter to the Justice Department, which revealed a degree of dissatisfaction with the public discussion of Mueller’s work that shocked senior Justice Department officials, according to people familiar with the discussions.
> *
> ...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...apture-context-nature-and-substance-of-probe/

It's beginning to look like we're going to need to start another criminal investigation, this time focused on Mr. Barr.


----------



## KingVamp (May 1, 2019)

So, is this the part where I call you crazy and delusional or maybe buttery males? Maybe somehow reading the opposite of what this says. Is this the part where I suddenly flip on rather Mueller report is reliable or not?

The government is going to need so much clean up.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 1, 2019)

oooo i hope this goes well (as in bad for Barr and trump)


----------



## Hanafuda (May 1, 2019)

Did you just read the headline, or the whole article?



> A day after Mueller sent his letter to Barr, the two men spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.
> 
> In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller did not express similar concerns about the public discussion of the investigation of Russia’s election interference, the officials said. Barr has testified previously he did not know whether Mueller supported his conclusion on obstruction.
> 
> When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.


----------



## regnad (May 1, 2019)

Days after the letter and subsequent phone call, Barr was asked under oath if Mueller agreed with his characterization, and he said straight up that he didn't know what Mueller thought.

That's perjury. Simple and unequivocal.

At the VERY least this should require Barr to recuse himself from any further involvement with anything related to the Mueller investigation or any of its ongoing offshoot investigations. But better would be that he step down from his position as AG.

As Ted Lieu said, maybe he could take over SHS's job as Press Secretary where he can lie to the public all he wants.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 2, 2019)

I have to be honest: I never read that "no collusion" in Barr's summary that Trump touted all the time. Yes, it grossly downplayed a lot of mayor things in the report (as now illustrated by Mueller himself), but I don't jump to the conclusion that just because Barr downplayed the investigation result and withheld the report for some more weeks, he is therefore an accomplice.

At this point, I think he's "merely" being extremely naive. And...he did release the (redacted) report in the end, right?


----------



## Xzi (May 2, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I have to be honest: I never read that "no collusion" in Barr's summary that Trump touted all the time. Yes, it grossly downplayed a lot of mayor things in the report (as now illustrated by Mueller himself), but I don't jump to the conclusion that just because Barr downplayed the investigation result and withheld the report for some more weeks, he is therefore an accomplice.
> 
> At this point, I think he's "merely" being extremely naive. And...he did release the (redacted) report in the end, right?


Barr testified today in front of the Senate and was very dodgy about answering a lot of questions directly, if at all.  The answers we did get seemed to indicate that Barr barely read the Mueller report at all before issuing his summary, and he may still have yet to read most of it.

Barr was scheduled to testify in front of the House tomorrow, but he's already announced he won't be attending.  Needless to say, there are already calls for his resignation, but they'll be starting with a subpoena, and then presumably, contempt hearings.


----------



## willebug (May 2, 2019)

Orange man bad.


----------



## Xzi (May 2, 2019)

willebug said:


> Orange man bad.


William Barr isn't orange, he's a Fred Flintstone-looking skinsuit.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Barr testified today in front of the Senate and was very dodgy about answering a lot of questions directly, if at all.  The answers we did get seemed to indicate that Barr barely read the Mueller report at all before issuing his summary, and he may still have yet to read most of it.
> 
> Barr was scheduled to testify in front of the House tomorrow, but he's already announced he won't be attending.  Needless to say, there are already calls for his resignation, but they'll be starting with a subpoena, and then presumably, contempt hearings.


Hmm... I have no answer to that (haven't seen much of that testification). 

And not attending further hearings... Won't that just prove that something's amiss?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> William Barr isn't orange, he's a Fred Flintstone-looking skinsuit.


ROFL... I always thought he looked like John Goodman. Who effectively played Fred Flintstone once.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Barr was scheduled to testify in front of the House tomorrow, but he's already announced he won't be attending.




I haven't been following super closely, but wasn't his objection that it wasn't members of the House who were going to question him, but lawyers tuned for attack? I count it as a sign of wisdom when someone knows not to walk into a trap that actually has a "TRAP!" sign hanging on the door.


----------



## Xzi (May 3, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I haven't been following super closely, but wasn't his objection that it wasn't members of the House who were going to question him, but lawyers tuned for attack? I count it as a sign of wisdom when someone knows not to walk into a trap that actually has a "TRAP!" sign hanging on the door.


Several members of the House are seasoned lawyers themselves.  His excuse might as well have simply been, "I'm scared."


----------



## Hanafuda (May 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Several members of the House are seasoned lawyers themselves.  His excuse might as well have simply been, "I'm scared."



But I believe Barr explicitly stated that he would make himself available to members of Congress only, not their designated inquisitors. The Special Counsel regs state that the AG reports "to Congress."


----------



## Lacius (May 3, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> But I believe Barr explicitly stated that he would make himself available to members of Congress only, not their designated inquisitors. The Special Counsel regs state that the AG reports "to Congress."


Using lawyers happens all the time in these situations, even to attorneys general. Republicans used one during the Kavanaugh hearing in the Senate, for example. Barr is scared, and I would be too after, among other nonsense, perjuring myself.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 3, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Using lawyers happens all the time in these situations, even to attorneys general. Republicans used one during the Kavanaugh hearing in the Senate, for example. Barr is scared, and I would be too after, among other nonsense, perjuring myself.



The Kavanaugh hearings weren't subject to the Special Counsel regs. Different ballgame.

And as for that perjury claim you've been flogging, even CNN doesn't think it holds water.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/fact-check-william-barr-lie-to-congress/index.html

Besides the requirement of an explicit false statement, note that it must also be a _material_ fact that is falsified. And whether Mueller agreed with Barr's conclusion or not wasn't material, since Mueller's report waived providing an answer to the obstruction question. As far as I've seen it reported, Mueller doesn't believe he even can provide an answer. So his opinion 1) shouldn't be known, and 2) isn't relevant. And the materiality of the question is further diluted by the fact that the report, including Mueller's summaries, has been released.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 3, 2019)

you have to admit that if you look at this impartially for even one second....this has been an absolute crap show.
Can they just get Mueller to give his 2 cents and be asked "ok dude, what the F did you actually mean with the darn report"
Republicans are claiming this will hurt democrats and pound on that point consistently....ok...then if this is politics why not let them?
that way everyone call it a day. This whole thing is absurd at this point.



willebug said:


> Orange man bad.



Wrong person dude. this would be more like "yabba dabba do man bad"


----------



## SG854 (May 3, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> you have to admit that if you look at this impartially for even one second....this has been an absolute crap show.
> Can they just get Mueller to give his 2 cents and be asked "ok dude, what the F did you actually mean with the darn report"
> Republicans are claiming this will hurt democrats and pound on that point consistently....ok...then if this is politics why not let them?
> that way everyone call it a day. This whole thing is absurd at this point.


Mueller is limited on what he can say because of the legal framework he set up in the report. It allows him to find him innocent, but doesn’t allow him to indict, to acuse Trump of a crime, or to find him guilty. He’s leaving it to congress and the people to decide.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 3, 2019)

my point is, he can still be called in to testify afaik. If the report didnt capture his meaning he should straight up be asked what the meaning is. 

Also you change avatars and flags a lot.


----------



## Lacius (May 3, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> The Kavanaugh hearings weren't subject to the Special Counsel regs. Different ballgame.
> 
> And as for that perjury claim you've been flogging, even CNN doesn't think it holds water.
> 
> ...


First, there is prescendent for the use of lawyers in comparable circumstances, and it's completely allowed by law and _regs_. The most recent Supreme Court nomination was just a high profile example fresh in most people's heads.

Second, it is a material fact that Mueller did not support Barr's conclusions as presented to Congress and the public, that Mueller told Barr in writing, and Barr lied about it. From Mueller:

"The summary letter... did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

Barr lied. His credibility is more gone than it already was, and I don't want to hear from Barr anymore. I want to hear from Mueller.


----------



## Xzi (May 3, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I want to hear from Mueller.


Well, the latest is that Mueller is in direct negotiations with the House judiciary committee to testify, circumventing Barr's opinion on the matter.  So that's good.  Hopefully it happens sooner rather than later.


----------



## IncredulousP (May 3, 2019)

I've run out of popcorn at this point.


----------



## tatripp (May 3, 2019)

Trump derangement syndrome. This is about the same level as Obama being from Kenya.


----------



## SG854 (May 3, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I have to be honest: I never read that "no collusion" in Barr's summary that Trump touted all the time. Yes, it grossly downplayed a lot of mayor things in the report (as now illustrated by Mueller himself), but I don't jump to the conclusion that just because Barr downplayed the investigation result and withheld the report for some more weeks, he is therefore an accomplice.
> 
> At this point, I think he's "merely" being extremely naive. And...he did release the (redacted) report in the end, right?


In his own link Xzi gave us it says in 2 different paragraphs that Mueller found Barrs summary to be accurate. He just wanted better context provided that is all. I pointed this out in another thread but I guess he’s ignoring that.


I’m waiting for them to get nothing out of Mueller then afterwards learn he and Barr have been good friends for years and accuse him of teaming up with Barr. I already heard them accuse Mueller of being a Republican and a Puppet of Russia so i’m not too far off.


The whole Barr hearing was just bad. They are trying to get him on this summary debacle. Complaining that his summary hiding something, but we have access to the 448 page Mueller Report now, so how can Barr mislead us if we can read the report ourselves and read Mueller’s words is beyond me. And would be stupid if Barr did hide something because of the eventual release of the Report which Mueller assisted in redacting.



It’s just more games which i’m already tired of at this point.


----------



## Xzi (May 4, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I’m waiting for them to get nothing out of Mueller then afterwards learn he and Barr have been good friends for years and accuse him of teaming up with Barr.


Barr is the one attempting to keep Mueller from testifying, and Barr called the letter of concern sent to him by Mueller "snitty" during his Senate hearing.  They certainly seem to be at odds with each other as it stands now.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 4, 2019)

tatripp said:


> Trump derangement syndrome. This is about the same level as Obama being from Kenya.


oversimplification of the issue at hand syndrome.


----------



## tatripp (May 4, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> oversimplification of the issue at hand syndrome.


But only oversimplified a little bit.


----------



## Xzi (May 4, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> oversimplification of the issue at hand syndrome.


Should we tell him that Trump is the one who started the whole "Obama was born in Kenya" thing too?


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 4, 2019)

eh, between "Trump derrangement syndrome" or "Orange man bad" posts that pop in the threads without any rebuttal but as drive by snark, its hard to take them as something of substance to the current conversation. nothing personal though since i dont believe we have met.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 4, 2019)




----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 4, 2019)

do you know when was this letter released? this is an interesting development.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 4, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> do you know when was this letter released? this is an interesting development.




https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/03/politics/graham-mueller-barr/index.html


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 4, 2019)

thank you sir. Appreciate the info. To be fair Ball would be on Muellers side of the court now.


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


>


Could you explain why anything Lindsey Graham says matters?

In order to win re-election, he has to defend Trump at every turn, even though he used to be one of his biggest critics.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 4, 2019)

To be fair though if Mueller has something to say he should testify.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 4, 2019)

Lacius said:


> *Could you explain why anything Lindsey Graham says matters?*
> 
> In order to win re-election, he has to defend Trump at every turn, even though he used to be one of his biggest critics.




Because he chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee?

He's inviting Mueller to testify as to whether Barr lied or not. This is a problem?


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Because he chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee?
> 
> He's inviting Mueller to testify as to whether Barr lied or not. This is a problem?


First, chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee is irrelevant. He's a hack.

Second, inviting Mueller to testify is not a problem at all. My problem is with his motives.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 4, 2019)

Lacius said:


> *First, chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee is irrelevant.* He's a hack.
> 
> Second, inviting Mueller to testify is not a problem at all.




Well, it's relevant because it means he has the authority to extend the invitation.

Lacius, as I said earlier in the thread I wasn't following this too closely at first. I've read a bit more now. I would ask you, what exactly was the content of the question/answer exchange in which you feel Barr lied? I mean quote it verbatim please. And explain why you think it's a lie.


----------



## Xzi (May 5, 2019)

Barr has been given until 9 AM tomorrow to give Congress the unredacted Mueller report, or otherwise be held in contempt.

Mueller has agreed to a 'tentative date' of May 15th to testify before the House.  Trump is objecting to Mueller testifying at all.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Barr has been given until 9 AM tomorrow to give Congress the unredacted Mueller report, or otherwise be held in contempt.
> 
> Mueller has agreed to a 'tentative date' of May 15th to testify before the House.  Trump is objecting to Mueller testifying at all.



Not sure whether you read past the headlines as your sources literally say Mueller has not agreed to anything at all.


----------



## Xzi (May 5, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Not sure whether you read past the headlines as your sources literally say Mueller has not agreed to anything at all.


Oh they must've edited the headline and details of the story as they emerged.  None the less, the 15th still seems to be the plan if at all possible:



			
				Axios said:
			
		

> "Just to clarify: we are aiming to bring Mueller in on the 15th, but nothing has been agreed to yet. That’s the date the Committee has proposed, and we hope the Special Counsel will agree to it. Sorry for the confusion."


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh they must've edited the headline and details of the story as they emerged.  None the less, the 15th still seems to be the plan if at all possible:



Fair enough. Your third source however doesn’t say it was updated so at best you’re using sketchy sources.


----------



## Xzi (May 5, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Fair enough. Your third source however doesn’t say it was updated so at best you’re using sketchy sources.


That one actually says the same thing though, must've been posted later.



			
				TheHill said:
			
		

> Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) on Sunday said the House Judiciary Committee is aiming to bring in special counsel Robert Mueller on May 15, but "nothing has been agreed to yet."



Most stories have multiple outlets confirming, so I usually just pick sources at random (as long as they aren't obviously tabloid sites).  Turns out that even Washington Post had the facts incorrect at first, but I think there was a miscommunication coming from House Dems.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That one actually says the same thing though, must've been posted later.


Which is why I’m saying you’re either not reading your own sources or you use sources that ninjaedit without disclosure. 
It’s not really that big of a deal just thought it was weird.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Which is why I’m saying you’re either not reading your own sources or you use sources that ninjaedit without disclosure.
> It’s not really that big of a deal just thought it was weird.


I admit to not reading the third one before posting it, I try to avoid consuming too much of the garbage that Trump puts out there.  The second one I had read earlier with a different headline and a different overall message, suggesting they had agreed to a 'tentative' date.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 6, 2019)

Is it me, or is Trump getting desperate in his attempts to deflect the attention?

To anyone not in his fanclub, it's a known fact that he lies a lot (in fact...even his fans often admit this). Therefore, him shouting publicly that there is no collusion has roughly the same effect as not having said anything at all.
However, just like with the "Mexico is going to pay for the wall" lie, there are consequences to this. If it turns out that he has instructed Barr to not give a proper reflection on the Mueller report, this is one more example of obstruction of justice for him. And like the consequence of the first lie is that Mexico isn't paying for the wall, the consequence of collusion (once proven) should be impeachment, followed by proper trial (okay: only the latter is needed. But if being the president protects you from the latter, the former should be done first).
Oh, and it also has the consequence of William Barr being an accomplice. You can't have a minister of justice who places his boss above...well...justice.


So to me, it would seem only the obvious course of action to get everything done by the book rather than these delaying tactics. If it's the senate's task to oversee government (which it is), then it should be given the right to do just that. To me, it would also seem that the government literally should not have authority until this is properly dealt with. But since this isn't being debated about, I can only suppose that for some reason that situation isn't what anyone want. And that's odd... 


Let me illustrate that last bit: suppose I decide to rig the next election (news anchor: "...and from out of the blue, having done no campaign whatsoever, a certain "Taleweaver" guy wins the 2020 election with an average 2 trillion votes in each state ") and appoint some loyal henchmen as my minister of justice...would that really mean I could just do whatever the f*** I wanted to? ("yeah, sure...investigate away if that makes you happy. Just drop the report in the mailbox of my minister of justice. He'll deal with it in an objective fashion  ") Really...I would think that wouldn't work in this reality, but for some reason nobody is proving me wrong. Even the most hardcore democrats seem pretty unwilling to piss off Trump fanboys. But...why? the way I see it, those guys manage to be pissed off if you wish them a good morning ("your sources of the weather report are too vague to determine for _everyone _that it can be classified as well enough to be good...therefore it is NOT, as you claim, a "good morning" ), so...since there's no way around it, you might as well ignore them.


----------



## Lacius (May 6, 2019)

Hundreds of former prosecutors say Trump would have been indicted if he were not president.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ay-trump-would-have-been-indicted-if-n1002436

We all pretty much knew that this was Mueller's thinking already, based on the Mueller report itself.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 10, 2019)

Seems to me everyone is in full "mud sling" modus. Except that only one party has all the mud and the other has a twitter account. Let's see:

Democrats:
-are leaking Trump tax returns, claiming that he lost 1 billion dollar in his early career
-are subpoena'ing Donald Trump junior
-are filing a motion of distrust against Barr for contempt
-senate is considering impeachment (not sure on that one...I hear a lot of "they might" and "they should")

Republicans:
-the party is blocking or delaying responses or downright refuse to show up
-Trump is refusing to hand over his tax returns to senate
-Trump is blocking the testimony of McGahn, mentioned in the Mueller rapport as being tasked to obstruct Mueller's investigation (and refused to do that)
-Trump is attempting to block Mueller from testifying himself

EDIT:
somewhat forgot (though it's not really part of this):
-Trump is upping Chinese import taxes some more for no reason whatsoever (and in direct contrast to the negotiations on that front).


----------



## Xzi (May 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Seems to me everyone is in full "mud sling" modus. Except that only one party has all the mud and the other has a twitter account. Let's see:
> 
> Democrats:
> -are leaking Trump tax returns, claiming that he lost 1 billion dollar in his early career
> ...


Yep, it's playing out much as predicted.  Pelosi is going to have to realize sooner or later that it's coming down to either: impeach, or government gets absolutely nothing done for the next year and a half.  Trump and Barr are holding the federal legislative and oversight processes hostage.


----------



## KingVamp (May 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> -Trump is upping Chinese import taxes some more for no reason whatsoever (and in direct contrast to the negotiations on that front).


I'm not saying they should, but it seems to be getting to the point of outright banning them.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 29, 2019)

05/29/19, 10:57am ET. T-minus 3 minutes until Mueller has announced he will give a public statement, but take no questions. Apparently doesn't want to testify before Congress. It'll be interesting to hear what he has to say. (My bet's on "Leave me the fuck alone!")

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-emerge-TODAY-break-silence-Russia-probe.html



Edit: well that was a big meh.


----------



## Xzi (May 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> 05/29/19, 10:57am ET. T-minus 3 minutes until Mueller has announced he will give a public statement, but take no questions. Apparently doesn't want to testify before Congress. It'll be interesting to hear what he has to say. (My bet's on "Leave me the fuck alone!")
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-emerge-TODAY-break-silence-Russia-probe.html
> 
> ...


I didn't realize he was going to be making a statement today, thanks for keeping us updated.  This is pretty big, it shows a rift starting to grow in the DoJ between people who actually want the job done proper and people who just want to be sycophants.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 30, 2019)

The interesting part of the speech is in what Mueller doesn't say. He could easily dispel most of trumps tweets on the topic, but he didn't. But he doesn't seem scared either. It seems to me that he mainly wants the focus away from the political bickering and on the actual proven findings : Russia did interfere in the elections. Multiple times, even. 

I understand a cyber attack doesn't exactly carry the same emotional impact as flying planes into buildings, but it's an attack nonetheless.

And seeing the (lack of) response against Russia, I'd say they were successful.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 30, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> The interesting part of the speech is in what Mueller doesn't say. He could easily dispel most of trumps tweets on the topic, but he didn't. But he doesn't seem scared either. It seems to me that he mainly wants the focus away from the political bickering and on the actual proven findings : Russia did interfere in the elections. Multiple times, even.
> 
> I understand a cyber attack doesn't exactly carry the same emotional impact as flying planes into buildings, but it's an attack nonetheless.
> 
> And seeing the (lack of) response against Russia, I'd say they were successful.




To whatever extent there were Russian attempts to influence the election, I doubt very seriously it changed even one vote. And it shouldn't exactly be shocking to anyone ... governments and foreign private entities have attempted to influence the outcomes of elections in other countries since forever. Obama went to England and spoke out against UK citizens voting "leave," for instance. The US, particularly through the CIA, has involved itself in foreign elections too many times to count. So why is it so shocking that some Russians bought robocalls and Facebook ads???

As for the DNC hack, Mueller appears content to assume that was "teh Russians" also, but he has no proof. The FBI was never allowed to inspect the DNC's servers. They had to take the word of a third party investigation by a DNC-chosen company.


----------



## Xzi (May 30, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> To whatever extent there were Russian attempts to influence the election, I doubt very seriously it changed even one vote.


Mueller specifically stated that there were systematic attacks on our voting systems in addition to disinformation campaigns and social media manipulation.  In all 50 states, none the less.  Let's not pretend that they weren't successful in at least a few of those 50, based on probability alone they had to have been.  The only way to make sure trust in our voting systems doesn't erode entirely is to ensure we have paper ballot backups in every state going forward.



Hanafuda said:


> As for the DNC hack, Mueller appears content to assume that was "teh Russians" also, but he has no proof.


The proof is in the Mueller report.  You seriously think they're charging Roger Stone with zero evidence to back the charges?  That's delusional.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The only way to make sure trust in our voting systems doesn't erode entirely is to ensure we have paper ballot backups in every state going forward.



I'm 100% on board with that idea, and requiring ID to vote as well.




> The proof is in the Mueller report.  You seriously think they're charging Roger Stone with zero evidence to back the charges?  That's delusional.



Aren't the charges against Stone having to do with him trying to make contact with Wikileaks to obtain the emails, _after_ Wikileaks already had them? Still leaves the question of how wikileaks got them, and who actually did the hack on the DNC. The only entity, still, who was ever given access to the hacked DNC's servers was a private cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC called Crowdstrike. Wikileaks has denied since Day 1 that the source of the emails had anything to do with Russia at all.


----------



## Xzi (May 31, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Aren't the charges against Stone having to do with him trying to make contact with Wikileaks to obtain the emails, _after_ Wikileaks already had them? Still leaves the question of how wikileaks got them, and who actually did the hack on the DNC.


There's no question.  It was the GRU.  Russian individuals and entities connected to the hack were also indicted during the course of the Mueller investigation, but those charges can't be enforced without the individuals coming to the US.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 24, 2019)

So... Time to necrobump this thread. Because Republicans don't read reports, Mueller has been summoned  to capitol Hill to read it to them (and once again state that Trump drew a totally wrong conclusion from his report).

Source : https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...russia-investigation-tweets-a9018201.html?amp


----------



## IncredulousP (Jul 24, 2019)

"Mr Mueller, again, confirms that the president can be charged with a crime after leaving office."

Oh boy I can't wait


----------



## Lacius (Jul 24, 2019)

It's not a good day for Trump and the Republicans. Some bullet points from his testimony so far:

Mueller says the reason Donald Trump was not indicted was "because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president."
Mueller says his investigation "did not exonerate President Donald Trump."
Mueller says one could "charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office."
Mueller has also dispelled a lot of the Republican conspiracy theory nonsense.


----------



## Chary (Jul 24, 2019)

Goshhhhh this investigation roundabout is still going? I feel like I've heard Russia and Trump and Mueller every single day on the morning news since 2016.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jul 24, 2019)

Chary said:


> Goshhhhh this investigation roundabout is still going? I feel like I've heard Russia and Trump and Mueller every single day on the morning news since 2016.


And you'll continue to hear about it until this disgrace is finally properly handled.


----------



## Darksabre72 (Jul 24, 2019)

so what is going on with the conference so far?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Chary said:


> Goshhhhh this investigation roundabout is still going? I feel like I've heard Russia and Trump and Mueller every single day on the morning news since 2016.


and it's still talked about throughout the years, or at least certain people keep hammering in that point


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 24, 2019)

Chary said:


> Goshhhhh this investigation roundabout is still going? I feel like I've heard Russia and Trump and Mueller every single day on the morning news since 2016.


Yeah... It's a pretty sad state that a political party let their leader get away with anything (and I'm fairly sure that is close to literally anything). 

Things would've been easier if Mueller had any real power to go with his investigation or the press deciding to properly follow through with ongoing scandals until they're resolved rather than jumping on every new scandal that Trump creates for them, but ey... Things just are what they are.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...apture-context-nature-and-substance-of-probe/
> 
> It's beginning to look like we're going to need to start another criminal investigation, this time focused on Mr. Barr.


Thats what you get from this foolishness? I think its a ton of wishful thinking and confirmation bias at play here.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 25, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> So... Time to necrobump this thread. Because Republicans don't read reports, Mueller has been summoned  to capitol Hill to read it to them (and once again state that Trump drew a totally wrong conclusion from his report).
> 
> Source : https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...russia-investigation-tweets-a9018201.html?amp


The only person that learned anything from the Mueller Report today was Robert Mueller.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jul 25, 2019)

Chary said:


> Goshhhhh this investigation roundabout is still going? I feel like I've heard Russia and Trump and Mueller every single day on the morning news since 2016.


LOL. you do realize this will be in history books one way or the other. You will hear about this decades from now.

also its normal for investigations to take years. Justice is never swift.





Hanafuda said:


> I'm 100% on board with that idea, and requiring ID to vote as well.


I am not sure where people get this from. In my years in my local voting centers, they usually ask you for an ID out of politeness to find your registered voter entry to make sure you are in the right voting place. This is in liberal California, so am i missing something here?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The only person that learned anything from the Mueller Report today was Robert Mueller.


Perhaps. On the one hand, I'm optimistic in that republicans can't be that dense. Surely it's no surprise to them that Trump could be prosecuted the moment he's no longer the ruling president, to name just a random example.

On the other hand...these are guys that "counter" the green deal with this shit....so I wouldn't bet on them already knowing what was in Mueller's report. Maybe some literally have never read Mueller's report.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The only person that learned anything from the Mueller Report today was Robert Mueller.


If only that were true.  The reality is that roughly 60% of adults in this country don't read anything, let alone a 400+ page document consisting mostly of lawyer-speak.  Even I haven't read the Mueller report in its entirety.  The "movie" version was a necessity, I just wish it had happened sooner.  Now we wait to see if it generates enough pressure on Pelosi to start the impeachment inquiry, or if the accountability the country voted for in 2018 fails to materialize.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Now we wait to see if it generates enough pressure on Pelosi to start the impeachment inquiry, or if the accountability the country voted for in 2018 fails to materialize.


Erm...just to be sure: you are aware that impeaching Trump won't get rid of him, right? It means that there'll be a vote in the senate. It's only if 2/3rd of the senate votes to get rid of him that the impeaching process has any value. In other words: starting the impeachment process means that Trump will ramp up his "democrats hate democracy!!!!"-rants even more and republicans will just postpone, undermine or downright vote in favor of Trump.
I disagree with Pelosi that impeaching him will somehow increase his popularity (e.g. Bill Clinton's popularity votes were already high when that process started...it just didn't lower). But I agree with her that the way reality works, impeachment simply isn't a battle that can be won.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 25, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm...just to be sure: you are aware that impeaching Trump won't get rid of him, right? It means that there'll be a vote in the senate. It's only if 2/3rd of the senate votes to get rid of him that the impeaching process has any value. In other words: starting the impeachment process means that Trump will ramp up his "democrats hate democracy!!!!"-rants even more and republicans will just postpone, undermine or downright vote in favor of Trump.
> I disagree with Pelosi that impeaching him will somehow increase his popularity (e.g. Bill Clinton's popularity votes were already high when that process started...it just didn't lower). But I agree with her that the way reality works, impeachment simply isn't a battle that can be won.


Simply starting the process removes many of the legal roadblocks Democrats are facing right now when it comes to compelling witnesses to testify and gathering evidence.  The end goal isn't necessarily removing him from office, but rather simply demonstrating that the rule of law isn't dead in this country.  The House can also spend as much time as they want and build the strongest possible case for impeachment before getting the Senate involved, so that if they still decide to vote it down, it's likely to harm those Senators' re-election chances.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 25, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Perhaps. On the one hand, I'm optimistic in that republicans can't be that dense. Surely it's no surprise to them that Trump could be prosecuted the moment he's no longer the ruling president, to name just a random example.
> 
> On the other hand...these are guys that "counter" the green deal with this shit....so I wouldn't bet on them already knowing what was in Mueller's report. Maybe some literally have never read Mueller's report.


Considering Robert Mueller is Republican I wouldn’t expect him to know what’s in his own report either.


Oh ya, I remember that velociraptor Star Wars guy. Im for an Green Deal just not the one Cortez is proposing. It has less to do with a Green New Deal and more to do with Socialism. It mentions the male-female gender wage gap? What does that have to do with green energy? I have no idea. Come up with a green new deal that’s actually better please.


I have no idea how are they are still on obstruction. They asked Mueller if anybody obstructed or impeded his investigation and he said no.

Mueller also said no one told him to not look into Trumps finances. And that was supposedly the big smoking gun that some tried to stop Mueller from looking into his finances but Mueller said that didn’t happen.




This thing was a mess. He didn’t even know what was in his own report. He was the last guy to learn what Fusion GPS was, even though it mentions it in his own report. Either he’s lying pretending not to know or has gone senile on us. They counted around about 198 times he avoided the question or says it’s not within my purview even though it was within his purview like knowing about the Fusion GPS which is in the report.


In the Mueller Report after Trump became President it said Russian government tried to contact Trump  campaign but didn’t have prior contact information. How was Trump supposedly colluding with Russia before he became President to help him win the election if after he became president the Kremlin and top Russian elites didn’t have prior contact number so they couldn’t reach him? They had no contact information. That should of gave it away that this Russia collusion thing is non sense. I have no idea how this is still going on.



Also they question him on the words Collusion and Conspiracy saying are those colloquially the same thing. Mueller says no, but in his own report it says yes, he contradicted himself. So they caught Mueller lying and pressed him on it and it became a painful disaster. You know they been doing a bunch of word play and word manipulation to try to mislead and say we didn’t look into Collusion we looked into Conspiracy so maybe there is collusion, they say that to try to confuse people, even though his report says colloquially and says in legal parlance they are considered the same thing.


And people saying look we got Trump because Trump is not exonerated. But prosecutors don’t exonerate anyone ever, they don’t have that power. It can not say Mueller exonerates the President, he doesn’t have the authority to do that. They laid out the United States Code, constitution, and even laying out books to the law school Mueller went to. There is no office of exoneration. The attorney general does not have the power to exonerate and when they asked Mueller that he said “I’m going to pass on that.” Just more question avoiding. They are not God so they can’t exonerate. It’s innocent until proven guilty.

Mueller was so out of touch with his own report. This looks bad for him.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jul 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Simply starting the process removes many of the legal roadblocks Democrats are facing right now when it comes to compelling witnesses to testify and gathering evidence.  The end goal isn't necessarily removing him from office, but rather simply demonstrating that the rule of law isn't dead in this country.  The House can also spend as much time as they want and build the strongest possible case for impeachment before getting the Senate involved, so that if they still decide to vote it down, it's likely to harm those Senators' re-election chances.


i feel like you might be underestimating the moral bankruptcy of the political right in your country, as much as you overestimate your peoples ability to vote in their own best interests.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> ...




did you just copy and paste all of this nonsense straight from trumps twitter?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I have no idea how are they are still on obstruction. They asked Mueller if anybody obstructed or impeded his investigation and he said no.


Saying his investigation wasn't successfully impeded isn't the same thing as saying criminal obstruction of justice didn't occur. He also said during his testimony that unsuccessful obstruction of justice is still obstruction of justice.

Trump criminally obstructed justice. Mueller could have evidence of it (he did), and he still couldn't say Trump obstructed justice because of the OLC opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Mueller also said that he would have said so if he could exonerate Trump, but he couldn't do that. Finally, Mueller said that the president could be indicted after leaving office.



SG854 said:


> Mueller also said no one told him to not look into Trumps finances. And that was supposedly the big smoking gun that some tried to stop Mueller from looking into his finances but Mueller said that didn’t happen.


Mueller said it wasn't within the scope of his investigation, so he didn't do it, and unfortunately, Mueller is correct. That means it's the job of another investigation (e.g. Congress) to look into Trump's finances.

The "big smoking gun" wasn't that he tried to stop Mueller from looking into his Trump's finances. The "smoking gun" was the acts of obstruction of justice explained in the Mueller Report.



SG854 said:


> This thing was a mess. He didn’t even know what was in his own report. He was the last guy to learn what Fusion GPS was, even though it mentions it in his own report. Either he’s lying pretending not to know or has gone senile on us. They counted around about 198 times he avoided the question or says it’s not within my purview even though it was within his purview like knowing about the Fusion GPS which is in the report.


It's a big report, and he's not the only author. He also seemed to know the report pretty well, aside from specific page numbers.



SG854 said:


> In the Mueller Report after Trump became President it said Russian government tried to contact Trump  campaign but didn’t have prior contact information. How was Trump supposedly colluding with Russia before he became President to help him win the election if after he became president the Kremlin and top Russian elites didn’t have prior contact number so they couldn’t reach him? They had no contact information. That should of gave it away that this Russia collusion thing is non sense. I have no idea how this is still going on.


Regarding the scope of the Mueller investigation, there was no evidence of "collusion" between Russia and the Trump campaign. However, the scope of this specific investigation was relatively narrow and doesn't extend to counterintelligence investigation(s) that apparently might still be going on.



SG854 said:


> Also they question him on the words Collusion and Conspiracy saying are those colloquially the same thing. Mueller says no, but in his own report it says yes, he contradicted himself. So they caught Mueller lying and pressed him on it and it became a painful disaster. You know they been doing a bunch of word play and word manipulation to try to mislead and say we didn’t look into Collusion we looked into Conspiracy so maybe there is collusion, they say that to try to confuse people, even though his report says colloquially and says in legal parlance they are considered the same thing.



Assuming what he said was factually untrue, there's a difference between a "lie" and being wrong.
There's a difference between legal jargon and colloquial uses. I didn't see a contradiction.



SG854 said:


> And people saying look we got Trump because Trump is not exonerated. But prosecutors don’t exonerate anyone ever, they don’t have that power. It can not say Mueller exonerates the President, he doesn’t have the authority to do that. They laid out the United States Code, constitution, and even laying out books to the law school Mueller went to. There is no office of exoneration. The attorney general does not have the power to exonerate and when they asked Mueller that he said “I’m going to pass on that.” Just more question avoiding. They are not God so they can’t exonerate. It’s innocent until proven guilty.


Regardless of whether or not you think Mueller had the power to exonerate anybody, it was Mueller's intention to do so if he could. The problem for Trump and the Republicans is that Mueller not exonerating the President has nothing to do with his alleged lack of power to do so. It was because the evidence didn't exonerate him, which is damning in the context of the aforementioned OLC opinion.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 25, 2019)

There were no winners from that senile shitshow. I felt deeper shame from every hour I watched on the secondary monitor in my work office.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jul 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The House can also spend as much time as they want and build the strongest possible case for impeachment before getting the Senate involved, so that if they still decide to vote it down, it's likely to harm those Senators' re-election chances.



The only thing that will result from impeachment is Trump getting away with his treasonous crimes. It'd be better to wait until the orange lard is out of office so he can be tossed into his new home with bars.



Lacius said:


> there was no evidence of "collusion" between Russia and the Trump campaign.



"[Mueller] notes that there was not sufficient evidence to charge any Trump campaign members with conspiracy, and that 'collusion' is not a legal term." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...tigation-tweets-a9018201.html?page=2#liveblog

Firstly, collusion is the wrong word here since it has no legal meaning. And it's not to say that *no* evidence of conspiracy was found, rather, that there wasn't a *sufficient* amount of evidence. Putin is far too brilliant to leave big enough crumbs behind, he probably just had his pet eat them.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 26, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> i feel like you might be underestimating the moral bankruptcy of the political right in your country, as much as you overestimate your peoples ability to vote in their own best interests.


Well, I have to hold on to some small shred of hope.  IIRC support for impeachment was up around 50% in some recent polls, which is way higher than it was for the beginning of Nixon's impeachment process.  The idea is to bring new evidence and testimony to light throughout the process, in order to continually drive that number up.



IncredulousP said:


> The only thing that will result from impeachment is Trump getting away with his treasonous crimes. It'd be better to wait until the orange lard is out of office so he can be tossed into his new home with bars.


Trump can still be charged once out of office, regardless of whether the Senate votes to convict or not.  I think right now, Democrats just need to demonstrate to their base that they're doing everything within their power to hold Trump accountable.  Otherwise a lot of the voters that helped carry them to victory in 2018 may not show up in 2020.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 26, 2019)

You kids will never learn..... HILLARY PAID FOR THE RUSSIAN DOSSIER AND THAT IS THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION!
Trump will never be impeached or charged with a made up crime!


----------



## Lacius (Jul 26, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> You kids will never learn..... HILLARY PAID FOR THE RUSSIAN DOSSIER AND THAT IS THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION!
> Trump will never be impeached or charged with a made up crime!



The dossier is irrelevant to the Mueller Investigation.
Paying for the dossier has nothing to do with "Hillary colluding with Russia."
Obstruction of justice is not a made up crime. There's a chance there will at least be impeachment hearings in the House, and there's a chance he will be indicted after leaving office.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 26, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> You kids will never learn..... HILLARY PAID FOR THE RUSSIAN DOSSIER AND THAT IS THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION!
> Trump will never be impeached or charged with a made up crime!


Yes yes...Hillary is responsible for the Holocaust, and the sinking of the Titanic, and JFK's assassination too.  

I remember when conspiracy theories used to be thought-provoking and have some semblance of originality, now it's all based on blind political dogma.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Considering Robert Mueller is Republican I wouldn’t expect him to know what’s in his own report either.
> 
> 
> Oh ya, I remember that velociraptor Star Wars guy. Im for an Green Deal just not the one Cortez is proposing. It has less to do with a Green New Deal and more to do with Socialism. It mentions the male-female gender wage gap? What does that have to do with green energy? I have no idea. Come up with a green new deal that’s actually better please.
> ...




Bla bla bla, atleast you show how tribal you are in the first sentence.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Yes yes...Hillary is responsible for the Holocaust, and the sinking of the Titanic, and JFK's assassination too.
> 
> I remember when conspiracy theories used to be thought-provoking and have some semblance of originality, now it's all based on blind political dogma.


Right, just use the term the CIA invented to try and make people look crazy and use some sort of fallacy arguments on top of it. Shes 100% linked to it, and countless other deaths and cover ups.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Pretty sure one of the Clintons will end up in jail before Trump, the Epstein stuff isnt looking too good for Wild Willie.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 26, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> Bla bla bla, atleast you show how tribal you are in the first sentence.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


There is no reason to think either one of the Clinton's is going to prison. On the other hand, the Mueller Report outlines numerous instances where Trump criminally obstructed justice, and that's ignoring the other issues of insurance fraud, bank fraud, campaign finance violations, etc.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 26, 2019)

Lacius said:


> There is no reason to think either one of the Clinton's is going to prison. On the other hand, the Mueller Report outlines numerous instances where Trump criminally obstructed justice, and that's ignoring the other issues of insurance fraud, bank fraud, campaign finance violations, etc.



no reason? are you kidding me? The Clintons did all that plus much more, god they have been caught laundering money through their foundation. Also, Clinton and Podesta are directly linked to Epstein. Im not asking you to like Trump, he can go to jail too for all I care, but please stop getting so tribal you are blind to what Clinton and the DNC have done. https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.165539b614cd

and the washington post is a left leaning news source. Trump won because millions voted against Hillary, they would rather a bumbling moron than her.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 26, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> they have been caught laundering money through their foundation.



They have not.
You're confusing the Clinton Foundation with the Trump Foundation. The Trump Foundation was actually involved with numerous illegal activities and was forced to shut down because of it. Donald Trump could still be charged.



kevin corms said:


> Also, Clinton and Podesta are directly linked to Epstein.



Trump is also directly linked to Epstein.
Having been associated with Epstein isn't evidence of another person's guilt.



kevin corms said:


> you are blind to what Clinton and the DNC have done.


There is nothing scandalous, nor criminal, about anyone hiring Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump. What's your point?



kevin corms said:


> Trump won because millions voted against Hillary, they would rather a bumbling moron than her.



Clinton received almost 3 million more votes than Trump.
Trump won in part because of a broken Electoral College system that prioritized an arbitrary set of 78,000 votes over 3 million votes.
Trump won in part because of Russian interference in the election.
There are lots of other reasons that led to Clinton losing the election (running a bad campaign, certain weaknesses she had as a political candidate, etc.), but the above three factors cannot be overstated.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 26, 2019)

Lacius said:


> They have not.
> You're confusing the Clinton Foundation with the Trump Foundation. The Trump Foundation was actually involved with numerous illegal activities and was forced to shut down because of it. Donald Trump could still be charged.
> 
> 
> ...


So your just going to double down with blind tribalism, guess Im wasting my time if you are going to just ignore facts.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 26, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> So your just going to double down with blind tribalism, guess Im wasting my time if you are going to just ignore facts.


I'm communicating the facts as I understand them. There is no "blind tribalism." For example, I fully acknowledged some of the shortcomings of the 2016 Clinton campaign.

If I made any mistakes, feel free to point out what I got wrong.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 26, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I'm communicating the facts as I understand them. There is no "blind tribalism." For example, I fully acknowledged some of the shortcomings of the 2016 Clinton campaign.


no you didnt fully acknowledge anything, you are just like the people who cant see how the gop does any wrong. You picked a side and you think they are the good guys, just admit it. Also, pro tip... dont use google since they are biased themselves, duckduckgo is a good alternative. Its sad that google has so much control over information.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 26, 2019)

Lacius said:


> For example, I fully acknowledged some of the shortcomings of the 2016 Clinton campaign.





kevin corms said:


> no you didnt fully acknowledge anything





Lacius said:


> There are lots of other reasons that led to Clinton losing the election (running a bad campaign, certain weaknesses she had as a political candidate, etc.), but the above three factors cannot be overstated.


We are dealing with objective facts here, and there's a record. If you're going to make things up, you're going to look ridiculous.



kevin corms said:


> you are just like the people who cant see how the gop does any wrong.


I can be very critical of certain Democratic politicians and the Democratic Party in general. Don't misrepresent my positions.



kevin corms said:


> You picked a side and you think they are the good guys, just admit it.


I have a political ideology that aligns most closely with the Democratic Party, but that has nothing to do with the facts of what we're discussing. You were wrong about some of the things you said, and I showed you how. My political ideology is irrelevant. I also don't view politics as "good guys" and "bad guys." If a Democratic politician says or does something foolish, I'm one of the first people to criticize him or her.



kevin corms said:


> Also, pro tip... dont use google since they are biased themselves, duckduckgo is a good alternative. Its sad that google has so much control over information.



Regarding our conversation, I didn't have to use a search engine.
You don't know which search engine I use.
Google is not biased, not that it's relevant to the conversation, and I'm unlikely to get dragged into a conversation about Google.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 26, 2019)

Lacius said:


> We are dealing with objective facts here, and there's a record. If you're going to make things up, you're going to look ridiculous.
> 
> 
> I can be very critical of certain Democratic politicians and the Democratic Party in general. Don't misrepresent my positions.
> ...




Well Im wasting my time here, no matter what I say or what I link you wont change your mind. You're tribal and you dont even think you are. The media can do that to people. Just like in Russia, the people love Putin.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 26, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> Well Im wasting my time here, no matter what I say or what I link you wont change your mind. You're tribal and you dont even think you are. The media can do that to people. Just like in Russia, the people love Putin.


If you're just going to shout "tribalism" instead of actually posting a substantive response to the facts I've laid out, then you shouldn't expect to change anybody's mind about anything.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 28, 2019)

@Chary Mueller made himself look like an old man who has no idea what’s going on. And guess what, the Democrats after the Mueller thing announced more investigations. They don’t want to let this go. Everybody is sick of it. No one cares about this dumb investigation anymore. Ratings were low for this.



@Taleweaver



Lacius said:


> Saying his investigation wasn't successfully impeded isn't the same thing as saying criminal obstruction of justice didn't occur. He also said during his testimony that unsuccessful obstruction of justice is still obstruction of justice.
> 
> Trump criminally obstructed justice. Mueller could have evidence of it (he did), and he still couldn't say Trump obstructed justice because of the OLC opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Mueller also said that he would have said so if he could exonerate Trump, but he couldn't do that. Finally, Mueller said that the president could be indicted after leaving office.
> 
> ...


How did he not contradict himself when he answered questions opposite of what the report says about colloquial and legal use. He even says he chooses his words carefully. So either he lied when they questioned him or he lied in his report.

Him having multiple people working on the report is no excuse for him not knowing what’s in his own report. It’s called the Mueller report. He is the head guy in charge of this. If the rest of world read the report what the hell was he doing all these months after the report was released. He did not have a good idea of what’s in his own report. Since he’s the face of this investigation it looks bad for him.





Our legal justice system does not run on exoneration. It’s not guilty until proven innocent, it’s innocent until proven guilty. Only God has the power to Exonerate. It’s not whether I think he has the power to exonerate, no one does. That’s not how our legal system runs. Because then every single case then will say not exonerated,  for me, for you, for other people. It’s like me saying, “you raped someone, but no evidence has been found to establish that. But you are not exonerated though.” That’s ridiculous in an innocent until proven guilty system.


Mueller was caught lying about exoneration. No one has that power, not Mueller, not the attorney General, no one, period. Exoneration is not a legal thing. It’s no where in legal books. It was just pure propaganda to say that to trick people. And it was a successful propaganda because people latched on to those words.



And Turner did a good job making Muller look like an idiot pointing out the exoneration part, because it’s not hard to make someone look like an idiot when they are lying.


Turner even pointed out that exoneration isn’t a legal term yet Mueller put it in the report going to the Attorney General. Why would he put it in there if Barr knows he can’t exonerate him, and Mueller knows he himself can’t exonerate him. But that’s the whole story in the U.S., he wasn’t exonerated. No one watches him get humiliated when they caught him lying.


And people started questioning his mental health, saying he might have dementia because of how badly he answered. But there’s excellent videos from Body Language Ghost pointing out he does not show signs of dementia. When he first walks in he’s completely normal shaking people’s hand not confused or lost. When he reads from a paper he reads it just fine without stumbling. So that throws dementia out the window.

She also has other videos pointing here and here that his body language shows he’s lying. From the tension building up in him, to lip movement, body posture, and how he reacts when he’s being questioned. He’s flat out lying and doesn’t have dementia.



Don’t play these word games with yourself obscuring the reality of this situation to bullshit yourself, desperately trying to salvage anything you can from this investigation. If after you watched the video with Turner and still use the exoneration argument then you are an idiot, plain and simple.



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Clydefrosch said:


> i feel like you might be underestimating the moral bankruptcy of the political right in your country, as much as you overestimate your peoples ability to vote in their own best interests.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


No I didn’t copy it from Trumps Twitter no one has the power to exonerate in the U.S., it’s an innocent until proven guilty system.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jul 28, 2019)

Holy shit if that's not the textbook definition of grasping for straws I don't know what is.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Jul 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> In his own link Xzi gave us it says in 2 different paragraphs that Mueller found Barrs summary to be accurate. He just wanted better context provided that is all. I pointed this out in another thread but I guess he’s ignoring that.
> 
> 
> I’m waiting for them to get nothing out of Mueller then afterwards learn he and Barr have been good friends for years and accuse him of teaming up with Barr. I already heard them accuse Mueller of being a Republican and a Puppet of Russia so i’m not too far off.
> ...


The mental gymnastics and blatant sheeping here is nuts. If you dont have an IQ of under 10, you would know that orange guy AND barr are liars and are NOT the good guys here.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> it’s an innocent until proven guilty system.


Trump has been demonstrated to be guilty. The reason he hasn't been charged is because of the OLC opinion that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime while president.

Everything else in your post only serves as a distraction from this fact.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Jul 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Trump has been demonstrated to be guilty. The reason he hasn't been charged is because of the OLC opinion that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime while president.
> 
> Everything else in your post only serves as a distraction from this fact.


Dont bother. They wont understand fact or logic if it hit them right in their face. Its mental gymnastics from a blind-follower, probably because he likes guns or some shit. Theyre using irrelevant sidenotes to try and argue their point and are failing miserably. Theyre clearly a blind Trump supporter...


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> How did he not contradict himself when he answered questions opposite of what the report says about colloquial and legal use. He even says he chooses his words carefully. So either he lied when they questioned him or he lied in his report.
> 
> Him having multiple people working on the report is no excuse for him not knowing what’s in his own report. It’s called the Mueller report. He is the head guy in charge of this. If the rest of world read the report what the hell was he doing all these months after the report was released. He did not have a good idea of what’s in his own report. Since he’s the face of this investigation it looks bad for him.


There's a third possibility : neither happened and that conclusion is spoonfed to you by reporters having their own agenda. This isn't new... Is just that the quality of these journalists are getting dumber. 

One example :
Numerous Trump tweets: total exoneration by Mueller. Wheee!
Mueller: if that were the case, we would have mentioned it. 
Republican: I have a whole slew of legal books here. Exoneration is not a legal term, is it? 
Mueller: I'll pass on that one
Me: wait... So Republicans providing proof that Trump is full of shit is somehow an argument AGAINST the investigation?


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 29, 2019)

Guys your just being hateful now!
Instead of bringing up evidence to support your beliefs, your just saying,"Wow this guys an idiot pffft there so stupid, they dont get lOgiC and faCtS!!"
Is it possible that politics have filled you guys with hatred for your fellow man?? Please, just love eachother and move on! Were not a threat to you, or anybody for that matter. Instead of asking us what we believe you say "This guy's a Trump puppet and he hates the truth" and when we object it's just "NO UR LYING! u do not noe de wae!" and nothing get's done. nothing is proven. The only thing that happens is that you and me start hating eachother. It's not a battle.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 29, 2019)

MicmasH_Wii said:


> Guys your just being hateful now!
> Instead of bringing up evidence to support your beliefs, your just saying,"Wow this guys an idiot pffft there so stupid, they dont get lOgiC and faCtS!!"
> Is it possible that politics have filled you guys with hatred for your fellow man?? Please, just love eachother and move on! Were not a threat to you, or anybody for that matter. Instead of asking us what we believe you say "This guy's a Trump puppet and he hates the truth" and when we object it's just "NO UR LYING! u do not noe de wae!" and nothing get's done. nothing is proven. The only thing that happens is that you and me start hating eachother. It's not a battle.


*sigh*

What do you expect, really? Trump is living on controversy. At the start of his presidency, he said he'd be there for all Americans. He also said that he had the greatest show up of people on the inauguration day ever. The journalists who were there scratched their head and said (okay: wrote) "erm...no. that part isn't true". Rather than admit being wrong* he started a personal war against the press. And America split into two groups: those who believe the news, and those who believe Donald Trump. Of course Donald Trump believes fox news, so it's not like only the conspiracy theorists believe him, but it is true that since then, democrats and republicans have done nothing but drift further away from each other.

You're still relatively new on gbatemp, but believe me: there have been discussions. We've brought up evidence, and for the most part we've not stepped into personal territory. then again, it gets pretty tiresome after a while. Things went back and fo..erm...were being deflected all the time.

A: hey! Michael Flynn conspired with Russians. Wasn't he a major player in Trump's team?
B: that's not true! It was all pretty legal, and besides: it's not like that means Trump has done anything.
A: okay...Flynn is found guilty. Oh, and Donald's son was on that meeting as well.
B: that doesn't mean anything. There's no need to investigate.
A: erm...yes, there is? There are traces of interference and collusion everywhere. On a daily basis from Trump's own twitter account, no less!
B: that investigation is a witch hunt that is a waste of tax dollars!
A: sorry: not true. That "witch hunt" got convictions and fines to the point where it far more than payed for itself. here are some parts of the testimony of Michael Cohen.
B: that guy's a rat! He shouldn't tell anything to the general public.
A: ...and here he is, holding a cheque that proves Trump had conflicting Russian interests while running for president.
B: I want to have a source. Where's your source?
A: be patient. it's all in this report...that Barr needs to release...somewhere this decade.
B: that report exonerates the president because he says so!
A: despite the delays and censoring, it turns out that there was massive tampering with the election and a lot of obstruction of justice. That's not even CLOSE to exoneration.
B: then why does the investigator say so?
A: here's the investigator himself saying that he DIDN'T say that.
B: *sigh* are you STILL going on with this? No, I didn't read the report. I want someone to read it for me.
A: here's plenty of press that...
B: not those guys. They hate Trump because Trump calls them fake.
A: okay, here's the main investigator, alive and well. Happy?
B: I don't like how he looks on television!



So in case it's not clear: I disagree. This _is _a freaking battle. The denial of there being a battle is just part of it. In truth, you probably know damn well there's plenty of proof and witnesses and it's not exactly hidden information either. Just get him impeached and properly trialed for it already.





*something many leaders have trouble with, but absolutely not to the degree that simple facts are ignored


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 29, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> *sigh*
> 
> What do you expect, really? Trump is living on controversy. At the start of his presidency, he said he'd be there for all Americans. He also said that he had the greatest show up of people on the inauguration day ever. The journalists who were there scratched their head and said (okay: wrote) "erm...no. that part isn't true". Rather than admit being wrong* he started a personal war against the press. And America split into two groups: those who believe the news, and those who believe Donald Trump. Of course Donald Trump believes fox news, so it's not like only the conspiracy theorists believe him, but it is true that since then, democrats and republicans have done nothing but drift further away from each other.
> 
> ...


Alright then, I can respect that, and thank you for being respectful, we can disagree all we want and be friends at the end of the day. But, I guess your right, it is a battle. It's a battle between good and evil, and of course both sides think their good. However, I'd like to ask you about this right here.

https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/the-facts-on-crowd-size/https://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/the-facts-
on-crowd-size/
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/christopher-steele-admits-dossier-charge-unverifie/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...prohibited-by-u-s-law/?utm_term=.cade6870fa47
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-immigrants-and-crime/?utm_term=.214591d389c0
Sending money to a place that is pro terrorist is morally wrong, legal or not.
Also, that's a far cry from alL meXiCAns arE bAd!!! (sorry guys, I love doing that too much )

I know you get tired of politics, I sure as hell do but would anyone mind linking me to a page where there is proof of the President being guilty of a crime? I'd like to know, thank you.

http://thebullelephant.com/why-do-some-people-hate-donald-trump/

## EDIT: NO WAIT I FOUND IT ALREADY! Oh, I was soooo stupid for ever being a conservative. I'll renounce my ways, soo sorry for even getting involved. Here's the link, if anyone want's to use it in a debate.

http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh


----------



## IncredulousP (Jul 29, 2019)

MicmasH_Wii said:


> It's a battle between good and evil


No it isn't. It's a battle between logic and spin.



MicmasH_Wii said:


> proof of the President being guilty of a crime?


Really dude? Do you just plug your ears and close your eyes when something you don't like shows up? If you did a brief search you can find tons of evidence that he committed crime. The freaking Republican Special Counsel investigator said, himself, on live television, and in 448 pages of a report, that Trump can be convicted for his actions. Nobody cares that you're conservative, just don't be a blind following fool. At some point you just gotta accept the facts, dude.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 29, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> No it isn't. It's a battle between logic and spin.
> 
> 
> Really dude? Do you just plug your ears and close your eyes when something you don't like shows up? If you did a brief search you can find tons of evidence that he committed crime. The freaking Republican Special Counsel investigator said, himself, on live television, and in 448 pages of a report, that Trump can be convicted for his actions. Nobody cares that you're conservative, just don't be a blind following fool. At some point you just gotta accept the facts, dude.



To be 100% clear, I'm not a blind following tool. I always try to make sure, if it's important to me that I know absolutely talking about. I don't just absolutely love Trump. I don't love some of the things he's said, and he's been a part of Hollywood for all his life. I wouldn't care if it was a woman president leading us, or a black guy, or an asian. I would want them to really care for my Country, to keep it neutral politically so that all people who are being persecuted can at least live here and not have government penalties, whether or not their gay, Islamic or Hindu or Jew or Christian or what have you. However, the government shouldn't pick sides like were doing because now it's legal to discriminate against Christians on behalf of the LGBT community. The government is spending waaay too much money, on what??? 120 trillion will never go away, and I'm sure it's not.

Also, Trump hasn't been nice to the Russians, now that he's in office. They've aligned with Iran and Turkey and Syria, and they've threatened us cause we've been fighting with Iran. It's a precarious situation.

And no, I don't plug my eyes and ears, or get out a pot and a spoon and whistle to try to drown out a Fourth of July speech either. If I don't like it, I investigate. I don't take Rush Limbaughs word for it, I don't take Shaun Hannity's word for it, I look for it myself. I don't take Trump's word for it either.

Would you mind reviewing some of the links that I've set forth? I made sure they weren't linking to right wing sources.



The democrats only ask Mueller yes and no questions about what's in his report. I would like to point out that Barr cannot legally release the unredacted report.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also, please don't tell me this is okay.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...uit-social-media-receiving-death-threats.html


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 29, 2019)

Perjury isn't an issue wrt: President Trump, but of course after Mueller declared no collusion it has been all about the 'obstruction of justice' angle. With Rep. Jerry Nadler leading the charge in the House Judiciary Committee.

But Jerry Nadler said perjury and obstruction of justice are not impeachable offenses.



> Mr. Nadler said he was not convinced that Mr. Clinton committed perjury or obstructed justice, but that even if the President did, the offenses would not be impeachable.
> 
> ''An impeachable offense is an abuse of Presidential power designed to or with the effect of undermining the structure or function of government, or undermining constitutional liberties,'' he told several hundred people at the recent town hall meeting at the Fashion Institute of Technology.



https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/01/...lifts-his-profile-house.html?mtrref=undefined


But that was when it was about Bill Clinton. It's about Donald Trump now, so this is different or something.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Jul 30, 2019)

MicmasH_Wii said:


> Guys your just being hateful now!
> Instead of bringing up evidence to support your beliefs, your just saying,"Wow this guys an idiot pffft there so stupid, they dont get lOgiC and faCtS!!"
> Is it possible that politics have filled you guys with hatred for your fellow man?? Please, just love eachother and move on! Were not a threat to you, or anybody for that matter. Instead of asking us what we believe you say "This guy's a Trump puppet and he hates the truth" and when we object it's just "NO UR LYING! u do not noe de wae!" and nothing get's done. nothing is proven. The only thing that happens is that you and me start hating eachother. It's not a battle.


I think its understadable as to why some could be hateful. Trump supporters  are ALL blind followers. That is a fact. If youre a supporter of him after seeing his antics, and turn a blind eye to his blatant corruption and the fact that he's VERY unfit to be president, i think its well deserved to be harsh to the supporters because they ARE blindly following this trash due to racism, bias, etc. The only side throwing around ACTUAL facts, are those against Trump. This isnt a normal "side vs side" or "lets devate this". This is literally one side showing pure fact, and the other side showing ignorance while making claims they cant back up, to excuse their racism and hatered. There is literally no arguing with these closed-minded, blind fools. So yes, in this specific case, i feel the rude comments toward them are just, and if theyre still supporting this twat, they deserve all the hate they get.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 30, 2019)

### DELETED OUT OF RESPECT FOR JOSSHY ###
OFF TOPIC ANYWAYS


----------



## SG854 (Jul 30, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Trump has been demonstrated to be guilty. The reason he hasn't been charged is because of the OLC opinion that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime while president.
> 
> Everything else in your post only serves as a distraction from this fact.


No, it’s not a distraction. Then why would you bring up Exoneration then? I’m putting out a rebuttal to what you said.


And did you see that latter on Mueller walked backed about a what he said about the OLC opinion, he said “I need to make a correction”, that he didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion is not the correct way to say it.

The OLC opinion basically had nothing to do with him not indicting the president. And if he found something then he would’ve of charged him. This was known for months when he and Barr said it way back then.






Taleweaver said:


> There's a third possibility : neither happened and that conclusion is spoonfed to you by reporters having their own agenda. This isn't new... Is just that the quality of these journalists are getting dumber.
> 
> One example :
> Numerous Trump tweets: total exoneration by Mueller. Wheee!
> ...


I know you what Trump said and what Media says. Trump is not an Attorney General or a person in the Justice system so he wouldn’t know how it works. Which is why he said Total Exoneration. And then changes it later on and said “they can’t exonerate” after he learned how our justice system works. So you can call him an Idiot for barely learning a few days ago.


Or anybody else that uses the Exoneration argument. If republicans showed that Trump is full of shit then by your logic anybody that uses the Exoneration argument, that Trump is not exonerated, is full of shit too.

But I give the people the benefit of doubt since they are not legal people, and they abuse the common person not knowing legal terminology and the system to push propaganda, and use words to mislead people. Politicians do this all the time and use double speak all the time, and unless you are keen on language or how the legal system works you won’t catch this.


Our system is the Presumption of Innocence. Not Guilty till proven innocent and exonerated. We don’t exonerate because the default is presumption of innocence. We prove guilt not the other way around.

Ratcliffe does an excellent job questioning Muller. And Mueller says, admitting, the Attorney General does not have the power to Exonerate. Never has the justice department determined the person was not exonerated because they didn’t find evidence to prove their innocence. Since we prove guilt not innocence. And Mueller says this situation was a first and it was unique for Trump. So basically he invented a new genre of law just for Trump. He threw out the core foundation of our legal system. And just for Trump it became Guilty till proven innocent.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 30, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Ratcliffe does an excellent job questioning Muller. And Mueller says, admitting, the Attorney General does not have the power to Exonerate.


So how does this help Trump's case?  It just means that the AG acted improperly by suggesting in his summary that the Mueller report did exonerate Trump.



SG854 said:


> Never has the justice department determined the person was not exonerated because they didn’t find evidence to prove their innocence. And Mueller says it was unique for Trump. So basically he invented a new genre of law just for Trump. He threw out the core foundation of our legal system.


The reason he couldn't be exonerated is that there was too much obstruction of justice going on.  Thus the investigation into conspiracy couldn't be completed properly or in its entirety, and no conclusion on criminal activity could be drawn from it.  Additionally, AG Barr was hired on at the tail end of the investigation for the sole purpose of curtailing it.  The man now running the justice department is the same man responsible for the bastardization of our entire justice system.  The attorney general was never meant to act as a personal attorney for the president, and Barr has continued to do just that well after the release of the Mueller report.  There's no excuse for blocking the testimony of key witnesses, _especially_ if you believe that testimony can only serve to help prove Trump innocent.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Jul 30, 2019)

MicmasH_Wii said:


> Your justifiying hate speech, then? Please no.
> 
> How is anything that you are saying NOT racism and hatred?? You categorized millions of women, hispanics and blacks as blind, ignorant and closed-minded. Why? What is it that keeps you from getting along with people who believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom from government beaurocracy?
> 
> ...


You're _really_ reaching, huh? And what? Do you understand anything about the Obama administration? The fact that you're saying Obama ruined shit makes you look so ignorant. You do realize he sat _after Bush_, correct? He also did a lot to help America, from my research. I think you need to research facts about your own country ahead of time. The fact that you're playing the "Obama was awful" card, shows your ignorance. He really wasn't that bad. And drove the national debt up? What the actual fuck are you talking about?! And what laws LEAD TO THE PARKLAND SHOOTING?!

You are fucking thick. Really. I'm getting pissed. I just cannot handle _*THIS*_ level of stupidity, from someone who is very clearly politically ignorant. I'm a Brit, and only live there off and on, and it's VERY clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. Literally. I cannot handle this level of stupid. If you support Trump, then yes, you're a blind follower. If you know anything of US politics, you'd see how he's damaging the country, and how he is incredibly corrupt and unfit for this role. You seriously don't have any proper grasp nor understanding of your own country's political structure. I can't argue with someone so stupid. I need to take a breath. Your stupidity is overwhelming me.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 30, 2019)

### OFF TOPIC BANTER ###


----------



## Lacius (Jul 30, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The OLC opinion basically had nothing to do with him not indicting the president. And if he found something then he would’ve of charged him.


This is not correct. Have you tried reading the Mueller Report?


> First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but *we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment*. *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 perform its constitutionally assigned functions"* in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), *this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction*.





> Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that *a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible* . 3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that *a President does not have immunity after he leaves office*. 4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, *they may be prosecuted at this time*. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system , *we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available*.





> Fourth, *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 the applicable legal standards , however , *we are unable to reach that judgment*. *The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.*


In summary:

The OLC opinion prevents the Mueller Report from judging that Trump committed a crime, regardless of how much evidence was found.
If he committed one or more crimes, the President can be charged after leaving office (or he can be impeached).
If the evidence suggested Trump did not commit obstruction of justice, the Mueller Report would have said so.
It's explicitly the evidence that kept them from exonerating the President.



SG854 said:


> And did you see that latter on Mueller walked backed about a what he said about the OLC opinion, he said “I need to make a correction”, that he didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion is not the correct way to say it.


The correction was with his wording. There is a technical difference between "we didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion" and "we didn't reach a determination because of the OLC opinion."


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 30, 2019)

## DELETED OUT OF RESPECT FOR JOSSHY##


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 30, 2019)

By the way, if anybody's wondering, Josshy and I had a disagreement and I think we've got it worked out now. I'm sorry if I angered anyone, and I'll be willing to fork over what I said if you request it, seeing as I wrote over all my posts.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 30, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I know you what Trump said and what Media says. Trump is not an Attorney General or a person in the Justice system so he wouldn’t know how it works. Which is why he said Total Exoneration. And then changes it later on and said “they can’t exonerate” after he learned how our justice system works. So you can call him an Idiot for barely learning a few days ago.


Small reminder: the guy is president. Not only is he actually supposed to know how it works in the first place, it's not like it was a small slip before someone corrected him. He touted this "total exoneration" bullshit for months, and he'd still be calling it that today if Mueller hadn't stated that to be a flat out lie.

I guess that in an argument with you "being allowed to call the president an idiot" counts as a win, but c'mon...you know damn well that nobody outside of his fanclub believes this is him being stupid. It's a deliberate lie to make the impact less bad. And seeing how democrats didn't outright start an impeachment procedure months ago shows that it's been successful so far.



SG854 said:


> Or anybody else that uses the Exoneration argument. If republicans showed that Trump is full of shit then by your logic anybody that uses the Exoneration argument, that Trump is not exonerated, is full of shit too.


Sorry, but you make a logical error here. Exoneration doesn't need to be a legal term to make it have a meaning. I'll give an example, complete with the breakdown:

I would describe my health as "well", even though "well" isn't a medical term. So if doctors write a medical report saying I've got a deadly disease and I respond by twittering at everyone that I'm well...then my statement is false, despite (as mentioned) "well" isn't a medical term.
Likewise: if a doctor comes at me and says that if I was well, it would've been in my report, then it would be pretty cynical to come back at him to say that _I_ can say I'm well but _he _can't deny it because "it isn't a medical term".



SG854 said:


> Our system is the Presumption of Innocence. Not Guilty till proven innocent and exonerated. We don’t exonerate because the default is presumption of innocence. We prove guilt not the other way around.


I would agree, but this implies that lawmakers are allowed to do that "prove guilt" thing that you talk about. Countless delays, intimidation of witnesses, hiding of evidence, public slandering...I forgot if it were 10 or 11 counts of obstruction of justice, and these are just the clear proven ones.

Oh, and before it gets swept under the rug: the interference of Russia in the 2016 election is proven, and there are indications it'll happen again.In that light, a truly innocent Donald Trump would take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again? Trump already admitted that Russians interfered, so it would only strengthen his innocence in this matter if he acted strong against them, not only in the interest of the US citizens but also to win over some much-needed votes from his critics.

...but he doesn't. A law proposal that warrants a paper ballot as backup for counting got shot down, and there was at least one other law proposal rejected for a similar reason. And meanwhile, Trump openly admits seeing no harm in accepting foreign help to win the election.




SG854 said:


> And Mueller says this situation was a first and it was unique for Trump. So basically he invented a new genre of law just for Trump. He threw out the core foundation of our legal system. And just for Trump it became Guilty till proven innocent.


Of course his situation was a first: you don't investigate sitting presidents every day. But your next sentences make no sense: there IS a precedent for this, and it's through congress. There's only one person throwing out core foundations of the legal system and inventing new genres of laws...but it ain't Mueller.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jul 30, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Small reminder: the guy is president. Not only is he actually supposed to know how it works in the first place, it's not like it was a small slip before someone corrected him. He touted this "total exoneration" bullshit for months, and he'd still be calling it that today if Mueller hadn't stated that to be a flat out lie.
> 
> I guess that in an argument with you "being allowed to call the president an idiot" counts as a win, but c'mon...you know damn well that nobody outside of his fanclub believes this is him being stupid. It's a deliberate lie to make the impact less bad. And seeing how democrats didn't outright start an impeachment procedure months ago shows that it's been successful so far.
> 
> ...



It's no use, you can logic all day but it won't get through to blind followers. Russia's psyops have proven dangerously effective at creating warped delusions of reality in the minds of far too many people. You're only going to exhaust yourself at this point.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 30, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> *sigh*
> 
> What do you expect, really? Trump is living on controversy. At the start of his presidency, he said he'd be there for all Americans. He also said that he had the greatest show up of people on the inauguration day ever. The journalists who were there scratched their head and said (okay: wrote) "erm...no. that part isn't true". Rather than admit being wrong* he started a personal war against the press. And America split into two groups: those who believe the news, and those who believe Donald Trump. Of course Donald Trump believes fox news, so it's not like only the conspiracy theorists believe him, but it is true that since then, democrats and republicans have done nothing but drift further away from each other.
> 
> ...



It's taken me a little while to respond to this as I've gotten sidetracked a little. Thank you for being respectful, I know this gets tiring but there are some big gaps that don't need any explaining that I wonder about.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
He also said that he had the greatest show up of people on the inauguration day ever. The journalists who were there scratched their head and said (okay: wrote) "erm...no. that part isn't true". Rather than admit being wrong* he started a personal war against the press...

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
PLEASE CLICK !
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/


This is gigapixel above is straight from CNN. So, no question about it's accuracy. Compare it with these images below.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








Why would an unbiased news source tell everybody that a political candidate is lying, and not clear the whole thing up afterwards, they put up the real image later on.

Will anyone please explain to me why this right here is ok?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...us-president-white-house-barack-a7547141.html

I will leave you guys alone if anyone can explain this to me.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 30, 2019)

MicmasH_Wii said:


> Why would an unbiased news source tell everybody that a political candidate is lying, and not clear the whole thing up afterwards, they put up the real image later on.


Occam's razor: the most likely explanation is the most likely one. Since the whole press says something contradictory to the president, who is most likely to tell the truth?

For one, the press is more than one party. The thing is that NONE of the press said it was the largesst turn up ever (this even included fox, iirc),even though every newspaper worth a damn has a reporter there.

Second : who stands to gain with a lie? Certainly not the press, as an actual greatest turn up ever would make for better headlines. They can't just throw their credibility on the line, as there were plenty of people there who could contradict them. Trump, on the other hand, had a very good reason to lie. He lost the popular vote and his popularity wasn't even close to any other president at the start of their term. If this was accepted at face value, he would always refer to his "the greatest lineup ever" to counter bad popularity figures.

Third : you can't just bend the truth like that. You already showed the comparison with Obama's inauguration. I really don't know why he hates that guy so much that he has the need to try to one - up everything he did, but... For some reason he didn't thought that anyone would make a comparison. Either way: why would pictures that showcase the area as it was be photoshopped somehow? Again: there were still plenty of people who could deny it if it were.

Fourth: even tactical powerplays aside... I'm sure the press wouldn't mind letting a small exaggeration slide if Trump's team was cool about it. But Sean Spicer just doubled down on the lie when confronted with the estimated numbers by the cops ('yeah , we've got alternative facts').
Because of course: nothing counters facts from objective sources like 'alternative facts'. 

Fifth : I already mentioned Trumps tendency to attempt to divide. This whole 'democrats are just jealous of my success' spell might have worked if the whole world was this black and white, but it isn't. The international press has no political agenda in things like an inaugural crowd size, so why would they report something other than the truth? A few months after the inauguration, I saw a local celebrity on the television who happened to be there in that crowd (as well as eight years prior). He told the audience that it was surreal : a president just casually telling such an obvious lie like that (though it's only obvious for those who were actually there).

Oh, and there's a sixth, but that one is hindsight. On this side of the ocean, we had no idea who this clown really was. Sure, he took the mud slinging to a next level (it's been years later and some dumbasses STILL don't realise that that slandering campaign only served to make Trump better by comparison), but otherwise we'd figure that he'd settle down and do presidential things when there was no competition any more. We then had no idea that the guy is a pathological liar who just fabricates more lies in order to stay in the news. At that point, he still had some credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 30, 2019)

Thank you for being patient with me.
I realize that all my tomfoolery with the hashtags may have obscured the link to CNN's gigapixel image. The bottom two images aren't comparison's to each other, there just front and back.
I agree, Trump has been really politically divisive. I'm not saying he's perfect by a long shot. He isn't the smartest guy ever, I don't worship the man.

But he hasn't been racist or sexist enough for his supporters to leave.
He held the African-American history month in the white house, and was respectful to the black people. He's put women in charge of very important positions in his administration.

He's a business man. I believe he does have overinflated ego and that's why he said "Biggest crowd ever!!!!" Not the best thing to say, he jumped the gun on that one.

It's just that he's willing to stand up for religious freedom, the 2nd amendment, and of course pro-life causes.

He's a means to an end. Your right. At this point, were willing to vote for him cause he does what we want. Reagan was the only other guy who did things like Trump does. Clinton is a creep. Bush wasn't perfect. Obama was going to allow the Iranians to stockpile uranium, when they have a history of sponsoring terrorist groups. 

Trump fulfilled almost all of his campaign promises in 2 years.
Love it or hate it this is all we got to see. The rest is news articles that are politically flavored against Trump. They lie about what he does. Like that time he removed Martin Luther King Jr's statue from the white house.

The media has only about 6 corporations  who own the entire shebang.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...trol-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevi...n-americas-news-media-companies/#8dfbb42660ad

Half of those are movie companies. Freaking Disney shouldn't own our news.

And Fox news is guilty too.

All I'm trying to say is we should stop hating eacother over politics. That's what the politicans want. Throwing around claims of racism and bigotry and transphobia and what have you ( I'm not talking about you, Taleweaver, you've been very respectful and I appreciate it) makes us angry and that's why we hate the media, because they do it all the time.

There's an underlying reason outside of politics that guides what sides we choose, and what candidates we support, and it's our perception of what good and evil is.

Again, thank you for being patient and respectful, you've been very mature and though we don't agree on politics, I can respect your conduct and I wish more people were like you.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 30, 2019)

By the way I'm sorry for hijacking your thread to debate liberalism and conservatism, this was about Mueller's investigation and I steered it away from that.


----------



## notimp (Aug 3, 2019)

MicmasH_Wii said:


> Why would an unbiased news source tell everybody that a political candidate is lying, and not clear the whole thing up afterwards, they put up the real image later on.


Because they don't have the time or incentive to research and report neutrally on that there was nothing very special at an inauguration. 

They see a few pictures, they come up with a good story.

Now that said - your second image has some very flattering angles...  But those spots seem more populated. 

The thing is - this is nothing anyone would go over and say this is proof that a story was incredibly wrong, and has to be refuted - and... As long as news outlets don't make very, very embarresing obvious mistakes, or someone is threatening to sue, they dont refute stories.

(Oh I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry guy who writes in to the paper to voice his concernes. Oh we, so sorry article commenter who hasn't payed us at all..)

Why would they. You and I wouldnt.

But then 'tha news' are supposed to be this beacon of light, that never err, that always tell you the truth, because people depend on it and ... in reality they just arent and never were. But thats not much of an issue - because thats just people becoming a little less naive.

What actually is an issue - is people riling them up again, to think - that they were cheated out of 'the good lord jebus christ' who brought us them independant and factual news in the past - and never erred. And never made themselves look better, if they had the option to do that or do - factual only reporting.

People becoming less naive: Good.
People wanting to stick with naivity to the extent of new fork and pichfork campaigns: Bad.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Maybe its good to see it from this point for a while.

All that TV newsankers ever where, where ambitious folks, who someone put in a suit, and then had them read stories of people - a little more intelligent then they were. In the best case scenario.

Normally they were just out on a hunt for a good story - and that was something that could easily be explained in a catchy image, and enduced some emotions.

Then, when they didn't feel so ambitious (on the down days) they all were just reporting government taglines for days - because that was an easy job - because someone already wrote them, or talked in a fashion, where thy had just write it down - no thinking involved.

Then add to this, that there always were camps - but maybe, that FOX news still is on the far, far right of the news spectrum. (Democracy Now on the far, far left, if you need someone to hate on..   )

But if you give people an ambitious guy in a suit and let him talk to them via them TV, every day of the week. They somehow start to love that person, and really - really believe them. And the sense of betrayal - if that is not the case - is real, and quite large.

Magic.


----------



## notimp (Aug 3, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Ratcliffe does an excellent job questioning Muller. And Mueller says, admitting, the Attorney General does not have the power to Exonerate. Never has the justice department determined the person was not exonerated because they didn’t find evidence to prove their innocence.


Ratcliffe in the video above doesnt question. Not even once. He builds a line of truisms, to then dump in a questionable point at the end. But the sense of authority he is building, and the sense of authority he is executing, has everyone of the not quite so bright excited - because they want to feel righteous.

Now tell me one thing.

I'm getting sick and tired of the public being mindfucked on this one.

In law, in those high profile cases, there is a very clear line, when someone can be charged with a crime, and when he can not. There was not enough there to charge the president of the united states of a crime. (I'm fairly certain, that you will never come to an interesting result, when doing so - but ponder the concepts of potential deniability and delegation a bit.)

What that effing moron with the authority aura - laying out 'yes', 'yes', 'yes massa' contingencies in questioning then does in the end is postulating the following.

"You never found enough to charge our beloved POTUS oh god give him strength - because there was nothing wrong going on!".

And if you believe, that that is a logical conclusion of any sorts (Hossanna - it was all a misunderstanding, he's innocent all along! Praise the lord), go back and watch more Disney movies.

The difference here is 'legal sphere' and 'public sphere' and if you accept - you couldnt take to court the most powerful man in the world - so that proves, that he is innocent - and there was nothing there - as a potential argument. Ugh.

There is enough ambiguity here, to fill dozens of courtrooms, and livingrooms, with stupid people wondering, what it all could mean. And they look for people who give themselves authority, to interpret the stuff for them.

Why not just go with what the special counsel said? There was tons of ambiguous, and questionable stuff going on. (What, in the race to become the most powerful person on earth?) Not enough though - to impeach a standing president. Because there was no non refutable chain of proof to be had.

Now. The conspiracy theory here is. Muller did make up this ambiguitiy, to make our president look bad. *baby cries*

When have we all accepted, that an investigative report can not adress ambiguity, because thats not their job. We only want black and white. We only want BLACK AND WHITE.

Doesnt that strike you as the most stupid argument, one could ever make?

But then, that guy in that suit had so much authority! He didn't even have to question. He wanted to hear 'yes' and 'no' at the right times, or he answered the leading questions himself ('isn't it so, that...')), to then pronounce one of the most stupid stipulations, that must have ever been made in a judiciary committee.

'You were the first to voice ambiguity! You did not have the legal right to..!'

Yes massa.


----------



## notimp (Aug 3, 2019)

If you ever get into a similar situation, here is how you deal with ambiguity. A little ambiguity back. More certainty.

'I dont know what they are doing, but they cant prevent us from doing our job to do the right thing.'


Not "they couldnt proove that I'm guilty", "the had nothing, look - my legal guy even said so", "it is all a smear campaign, ...", "the special council made it all up, to hurt me ..."

Do you know why?

But then - people didn't vote Trump because he was so innocent in the first place, right? They voted him in, because he was so personable. And authoritative.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 3, 2019)

notimp said:


> Because they don't have the time or incentive to research and report neutrally on that there was nothing very special at an inauguration.
> 
> They see a few pictures, they come up with a good story.
> 
> ...



Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, I didn't do such a good job. That link hidden among all the hashtags is the point I was trying to make.

The two pictures posted below is what the media said the crowd was.
I'll edit it to make it clearer, ok? Sorry for the confusion.

If they have time to blast the president in front of millions of people and say he's lying about his crowd size, then surely it must've been special enough to them.

I'm pretty sure most of us know that Donald Trump is only sympathetic to Christians and not one himself. He only does what all of our past president's have done, because our country was founded by people who were being oppressed because of their faith. 

You've hit it on the nail there. Ambiguity is why it is so hard to debate with people (I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about either side, there are idiots over here too).
I could present what I see as evidence for something, but it can be seen as evidence for the opposite and it doesn't really prove anything.

The reason why people picked Trump is because we are not sympathetic to the political left's ideologies, and from day one it has been the political left who has led the charge against him. It's obviously one side against the other, and it's never been this way before.

It has heated up so bad, people hate eachother so strongly, that it is becoming a legal issue
to be a conservative. You can't be a Christian either because that's evil. Being taught as a child that it's evil to lie, cheat or murder, and that it's evil to hate people for any reason, has become an evil itself. It's somehow wrong to teach this in school, so lets prepare children with all this sexual material instead, and wonder why they rape people afterwards. Let's tell them that truth is relative, that'll make things even better.

I guess my point is, why is politics now a life or death issue? People should unite together, but not under ANY political figure. We can't go on like this anymore. Politics is too divisive and Liberals are just people. They have souls too, just like anyone else.

The point I'm trying to make with the pictures is why we don't believe the media or the democrats. You've all been reasonable responding to me so thanks for taking your time.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Aug 3, 2019)

MicmasH_Wii said:


> Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, I didn't do such a good job. That link hidden among all the hashtags is the point I was trying to make.
> 
> The two pictures posted below is what the media said the crowd was.
> I'll edit it to make it clearer, ok? Sorry for the confusion.
> ...


you're joking right? or are you on presciped meds?
really the photo you made doesn't prove a thing, except from the other side it looked croudier.
the thing the media showed and said was that he lyed about the big come up against obama and they were right, the first photo was best proof since we could set both pictures of obame vs trump in one and the same perspective.
could it be the president saw a great mass, yes, you proofed what he could see, and so it was a great turn up to see, just not in actual mass.
your president isn't christian motivated, he's motivated by money.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 3, 2019)

JaapDaniels said:


> you're joking right? or are you on presciped meds?
> really the photo you made doesn't prove a thing, except from the other side it looked croudier.
> the thing the media showed and said was that he lyed about the big come up against obama and they were right, the first photo was best proof since we could set both pictures of obame vs trump in one and the same perspective.
> could it be the president saw a great mass, yes, you proofed what he could see, and so it was a great turn up to see, just not in actual mass.
> your president isn't christian motivated, he's motivated by money.


I get what your saying, the president saying it was bigger than Obama's was out of the question *Wrong*. But it was still a big crowd despite the fact that* it was raining on Trump's inaugeration!* I don't know about you but it sure would take a lot for me to stand out in the rain for anyone.
I didn't say he had Christian motivations (I was actually trying to dismiss that, sorry).
However I don't believe money is his motivation at all. He doesn't take the Presidential salary (I think $250,000 a year?).
The democrats want to raise taxes, that goes into their paycheck. Their all rich too. Donald Trump is a business man and he knows how to be successful without the government on his side.

By the way, my doptor prescriped me cofevevfe and my obame care plan is paying for it 
(No offense pal, it happens to me too, just poking fun)
BTW This is all off the topic of this thread, so sorry for changing the conversation..


----------



## JaapDaniels (Aug 3, 2019)

MicmasH_Wii said:


> I get what your saying, the president saying it was bigger than Obama's was out of the question *Wrong*. But it was still a big crowd despite the fact that* it was raining on Trump's inaugeration!* I don't know about you but it sure would take a lot for me to stand out in the rain for anyone.
> I didn't say he had Christian motivations (I was actually trying to dismiss that, sorry).
> However I don't believe money is his motivation at all. He doesn't take the Presidential salary (I think $250,000 a year?).
> The democrats want to raise taxes, that goes into their paycheck. Their all rich too. Donald Trump is a business man and he knows how to be successful without the government on his side.
> ...


so you're made of sugar? sorry lazyness has many names...
no offence, i couldn't care less.. it's not my shit he's building on so...
i said money for a reason if i meant salary i said so... he's doing a better job for money this way...
salary is all nice and fun, but won't make you rich unless you've got a plan with it.
changing costs... keep money on your side...
money not spend is money not lost... you can get money one way meaning to loose it another.
trump has a better card for his businesses, i mean fam.'s businesses...


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 3, 2019)

JaapDaniels said:


> so you're made of sugar? sorry lazyness has many names...
> no offence, i couldn't care less.. it's not my shit he's building on so...
> i said money for a reason if i meant salary i said so... he's doing a better job for money this way...
> salary is all nice and fun, but won't make you rich unless you've got a plan with it.
> ...


Actually, he donates it. 
https://thebl.com/politics/what-agencies-did-president-trump-donate-his-salary-to.html


----------



## SG854 (Aug 6, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Small reminder: the guy is president. Not only is he actually supposed to know how it works in the first place, it's not like it was a small slip before someone corrected him. He touted this "total exoneration" bullshit for months, and he'd still be calling it that today if Mueller hadn't stated that to be a flat out lie.
> 
> I guess that in an argument with you "being allowed to call the president an idiot" counts as a win, but c'mon...you know damn well that nobody outside of his fanclub believes this is him being stupid. It's a deliberate lie to make the impact less bad. And seeing how democrats didn't outright start an impeachment procedure months ago shows that it's been successful so far.
> 
> ...


He is President. But he wasn't the only one with the Exoneration argument. Lots of Democrats were using it as well. That's a lot of idiots in congress. And the people know they are idiots.



It would be a lie if he actually colluded with Russia. But the first half of the Mueller Report stated that they couldn't establish anything. The President can't even have a conversation with any Russians without people loosing their minds. It turned a lot of people Xenophobic against Russians. Similar to people claiming Israel is hypnotizing the world, they are doing the same with Russia.



I have no idea what Trump is doing to prevent Russian interference or interference from other countries, or if he will do something. That we can criticize him on.


A lot of presidents don't have a false conspiracy theory logged on them, so Trump's investigation is unique in this way. But I think you know what I meant when I said his situation was a first. They wanted him guilty and worked backwards to try to prove it. They threw out the presumption of innocence, at least in their minds. But only could go so far with it and not actually find him guilty. Then maliciously threw in words here in there to get people rilled up.



I think pushing to mainly focusing on this whole investigation is a distraction from corporate Democrats. They don't want to actually do anything to improve people lives like passing things for Universal Health Care or Tax Reform. So they just go after Trump, screech about him, calling for impeachment to make it seem like they are doing something for the people, while not actually do anything. Even Democrats went after Obama calling him a Republican only because Trump said something about him. An idiot like Trump is the perfect distraction for them. They are just virtue signaling to make it seem like they are on our side when they are not. They are no different then the Republican Party.

I even saw Xzi making a complaint about Corporate Democrats saying he's probably going to register as independent. And a lot of in fighting within the Democratic Party, like between Cortez and Pelosi. I could see the party fracturing. Months ago I called this out but people denied it. Now people are starting to realize how corrupt the party is. Just like I said there's was going to be no evidence of collusion since I relied Progressives (not republican opinions), on NSA Whistle Blowers, Democratic intellectuals, people that Mueller went after but found nothing. This stuff isn't hard to find and is right in our faces out in the open but people just deny it for some reason even when I point it out.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 6, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I even saw Xzi making a complaint about Corporate Democrats saying he's probably going to register as independent. And a lot of in fighting within the Democratic Party, like between Cortez and Pelosi. I could see the party fracturing. Months ago I called this out but people denied it. Now people are starting to realize how corrupt the party is.


It's not that they're corrupt, just too centrist and too complacent with the status quo.  Republicans have just as much reason to be fractured right now, as Donald Trump stands in direct opposition to both Christian and conservative values, but at this point I'm pretty sure there aren't any real Christians nor any conservatives with a spine left in the party.  Only sycophants and contrarians willing to let the country descend into a chaotic banana republic as long as it means some liberals aren't happy about it.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 6, 2019)

SG854 said:


> He is President. But he wasn't the only one with the Exoneration argument. Lots of Democrats were using it as well. That's a lot of idiots in congress. And the people know they are idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The investigation didn't find sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia during the election manipulation Russia definitely did, but it's also important to remember that, according to the Mueller Report:

A lot of the evidence was encrypted and/or deleted.
A lot of the testimony was false (Trump did this).
A lot of people refused to answer questions (Trump did this).
Members of the Trump Campaign welcomed the election meddling with open arms (Trump did this).
It's also important to remember that the Mueller Report lays out numerous instances in which Trump criminally obstructed justice.

It's also important to remember that the Mueller Investigation had a narrow scope that focused only on Russian election-meddling and obstruction of justice by Trump. The details of the counterintelligence investigation(s) involving Trump and Russia are largely unknown, aside from the fact that we know they exist.

In summary, don't call the Mueller Investigation, or the counterintelligence investigation(s), a "false conspiracy theory."


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 6, 2019)

SG854 said:


> He is President. But he wasn't the only one with the Exoneration argument. Lots of Democrats were using it as well. That's a lot of idiots in congress. And the people know they are idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you already know which parts I don't believe, which I attribute to your opinion or which I can straight up disprove. And considering this is about the third time in this thread that @Xzi and @Lacius beats me to a response, there's not much reason to repeat them.

So I'll ask this : do you really believe what you just wrote? You claim to read other than conservative sources, so you know a radically different narrative is used on both sides. Why push yours?


----------



## SG854 (Aug 8, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The investigation didn't find sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia during the election manipulation Russia definitely did, but it's also important to remember that, according to the Mueller Report:
> 
> A lot of the evidence was encrypted and/or deleted.
> A lot of the testimony was false (Trump did this).
> ...


I will continue to call it a false conspiracy theory. The points you lay out is just not convincing. There's other ways to identify if it was a false conspiracy theory or not by looking at a wide range of things, and not just the points you listed, which I have listed before. Trump was smart not answering questions probably on lawyers advice not because of guilt but because people twist words and might set up Trump and catch him off guard, thats what Mueller did a few times. It usually what happens when you get a lawyer even if your innocent, they tell you to shut up and let them do the talking, on advice. That's the advice that was given in the Vic Mignogna case. Being quiet does not mean automatic guilt or cover up. It's so they wont take advantage and twist things to set you up.

Trump says I welcome Russia maybe as a joke. But he actually didn't team up with Russia and thats the more important thing. Actions over words.

And like I said before since there was no established Collusion, they are not going to go far with indicted him on obstruction charges the people wont let it.



Taleweaver said:


> I think you already know which parts I don't believe, which I attribute to your opinion or which I can straight up disprove. And considering this is about the third time in this thread that @Xzi and @Lacius beats me to a response, there's not much reason to repeat them.
> 
> So I'll ask this : do you really believe what you just wrote? You claim to read other than conservative sources, so you know a radically different narrative is used on both sides. Why push yours?


I don't know about pushing narratives. It's just how I see it. Yes I do, and I have logical reasons as to why I believe it.


Someone steals a candy bar. Catching someone a few blocks down with the missing candy bar doesn't mean automatic guilt that they were the ones that stole it. It could have been given to them by someone else as a gift and didn't know the candy bar they received is stolen. Or it was passed on from one person to another person to another. This is why they need to establish guilt that he was the one that stole the candy bar, and not automatically say guilty because he simply posses the stolen candy bar. This is what our legal system does, innocent until proven guilty and the need to establish a connection. Simply talking with a Russian or being at a suspicious location doesn't mean much if there is no guilt established. So far the evidence is just not convincing especially with Bill Binney the former NSA guy laid down exactly what they were doing.



It's just been nothing but fake news over fake news with Trump recently. They have gone crazy, I know you see the craziness.


MSNBC uses numerology to link Trump decision to fly flags half staff on the day 8/8 to Neo Nazism. Because 88 is a Neo Nazi Number. Which is crazy. https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/06/msnbc-analyst-numerology-trump-flags/


Or MSNBC claiming Trump is giving subliminal hidden messages to white supremacist foot soldiers. Or at least is what foot soldiers see.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...rders_to_white_supremacist_foot_soldiers.html


They have gone crazy with conspiracies. Can't you see it.



And New York Times changed their headline what Trump said about the shootings after people on the left threatened to cancel their subscription. They were laying down facts of what Trump said but changed the headline because pressure. The original headline was Trump urges Unity vs Racism.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...e-after-presidential-candidates-call-them-out
https://splinternews.com/what-was-the-new-york-times-thinking-1836988878




And this Article from CNBC claiming that Trump without evidence accuses google swinging the election.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/06/tru...es-google-of-illegally-swinging-election.html

Except this article is a lie because Trump did give evidence, he quoted a google engineer Kevin Cernekee. And a leaked email published by Project Veritas shows that there is evidence that google is biased against conservatives. There was no point in saying no evidence, in court witness testimony is evidence, its not definitive proof but its still evidence and the article is fake news by CNBC. The whole point of saying No Evidence is just to be more Anti Trump just to virtue signal, thats all. Look how much we hate this guy.


This week was just fake news after fake news after fake news. This is why we can't get any straight answers because they are horrible at news.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Aug 8, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I will continue to call it a false conspiracy theory. The points you lay out is just not convincing. There's other ways to identify if it was a false conspiracy theory or not by looking at a wide range of things, and not just the points you listed, which I have listed before. Trump was smart not answering questions probably on lawyers advice not because of guilt but because people twist words and might set up Trump and catch him off guard, thats what Mueller did a few times. It usually what happens when you get a lawyer even if your innocent, they tell you to shut up and let them do the talking, on advice. That's the advice that was given in the Vic Mignogna case. Being quiet does not mean automatic guilt or cover up. It's so they wont take advantage and twist things to set you up.
> 
> Trump says I welcome Russia maybe as a joke. But he actually didn't team up with Russia and thats the more important thing. Actions over words.
> 
> ...



Jesus, guy. Are you seriously that much of a blind follower, so long as you're able to HaVe YuR gUnZ? Jesus. It's CLEAR that Trump is corrupt, and no amount of shouting "Fake news!" will prove your point. Sheesh. I cannot believe the denial you continue to show. You're putting a blind eye to what you deep down KNOW to be true (anyone who's even REMOTELY intelligent, in ANY way knows this) because you just don't want to admit TO YOURSELF that he's a crook, and that Muller has some real dirt on Trump. Trump is awful, and it's republicans like yourself, that are ruining your country. It's all a conspiracy theory to you guys. I live in America off and on, and throughout the years, these asinine fools come out and support racism, sexism, etc., and pretend they don't. I honestly cannot believe the amount of denial you show. EVERYONE knows what's going on in your country, and EVERYONE knows that Trump is a selfish lying moron, who's guilty of SO many crimes. But please, continue doing what you can to hold onto your selfish views. Seriously. If there's one thing I've noticed, it's that democrats wish for equality, and for love between one-another, whereas republicans have tin foil hats on, thinking that "gun control" is a bad thing. Please. If you understand the concept of "gun control", you'd realize that it's just helping to eliminate these silly shootings that are so often happening in your country. But no, be selfish, and turn it into a "they're taking away mah rights, herrrrrp" train of thought. Seriously. Repubs are ruining your country, and you're following a "leader" who's a rapist, a raciest, a sexist, and a xenophobic idiot with an IQ of approx. 9.  And that's being generous. How you can CONTINUE to deny the FACTS and stick up for something that's CLEAR (AS FUCKING CRYSTAL) to ANYONE AND EVERYONE, not true, is beyond me. I'm all for rights, but I'm convinced that republicans should have their voting privileges taken away. I swear to god, I'm living in a fucking sitcom. And now we've got a right-wing, idiotic prime minister, who rivals Trump in terms of idiocy... you idiots are ruining the world. Seriously. If you cannot vote responisibly, without doing your research, then you shouldn't be able to vote at all. Anyone who knew even the TINIEST detail about Trump, knew he was unfit for presidency from the get-go. It's just deniers and conspiracy theoriests who feel as though something is being taken away from them, and closeted racists who voted for this fool. Seriously. Just... stop. And maybe try learning before voting again. You're ruining your country. The deniers, the conspiracy theoriets who have TERRORIZED those affected by the parkland shooters, are symbolic of Trump followers nowadays. Those fools harrassed families and stated that the kids who were affected by that were "crisis actors". Seriously. How fucking thick, and how FUCKING disrespectful and idiotic must these republicans be to believe such conspiracy theories? You're the laughing stock of the world, and you shouldn't be allowed to vote ever again.  /rant.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 8, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> Jesus, guy. Are you seriously that much of a blind follower, so long as you're able to HaVe YuR gUnZ? Jesus. It's CLEAR that Trump is corrupt, and no amount of shouting "Fake news!" will prove your point. Sheesh. I cannot believe the denial you continue to show. You're putting a blind eye to what you deep down KNOW to be true (anyone who's even REMOTELY intelligent, in ANY way knows this) because you just don't want to admit TO YOURSELF that he's a crook, and that Muller has some real dirt on Trump. Trump is awful, and it's republicans like yourself, that are ruining your country. It's all a conspiracy theory to you guys. I live in America off and on, and throughout the years, these asinine fools come out and support racism, sexism, etc., and pretend they don't. I honestly cannot believe the amount of denial you show. EVERYONE knows what's going on in your country, and EVERYONE knows that Trump is a selfish lying moron, who's guilty of SO many crimes. But please, continue doing what you can to hold onto your selfish views. Seriously. If there's one thing I've noticed, it's that democrats wish for equality, and for love between one-another, whereas republicans have tin foil hats on, thinking that "gun control" is a bad thing. Please. If you understand the concept of "gun control", you'd realize that it's just helping to eliminate these silly shootings that are so often happening in your country. But no, be selfish, and turn it into a "they're taking away mah rights, herrrrrp" train of thought. Seriously. Repubs are ruining your country, and you're following a "leader" who's a rapist, a raciest, a sexist, and a xenophobic idiot with an IQ of approx. 9.  And that's being generous. How you can CONTINUE to deny the FACTS and stick up for something that's CLEAR (AS FUCKING CRYSTAL) to ANYONE AND EVERYONE, not true, is beyond me. I'm all for rights, but I'm convinced that republicans should have their voting privileges taken away. I swear to god, I'm living in a fucking sitcom. And now we've got a right-wing, idiotic prime minister, who rivals Trump in terms of idiocy... you idiots are ruining the world. Seriously. If you cannot vote responisibly, without doing your research, then you shouldn't be able to vote at all. Anyone who knew even the TINIEST detail about Trump, knew he was unfit for presidency from the get-go. It's just deniers and conspiracy theoriests who feel as though something is being taken away from them, and closeted racists who voted for this fool. Seriously. Just... stop. And maybe try learning before voting again. You're ruining your country. The deniers, the conspiracy theoriets who have TERRORIZED those affected by the parkland shooters, are symbolic of Trump followers nowadays. Those fools harrassed families and stated that the kids who were affected by that were "crisis actors". Seriously. How fucking thick, and how FUCKING disrespectful and idiotic must these republicans be to believe such conspiracy theories? You're the laughing stock of the world, and you shouldn't be allowed to vote ever again.  /rant.


You can't fix stupid, you're just gonna wear yourself out. Stupid has to fix itself.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Aug 8, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> You can't fix stupid, you're just gonna wear yourself out. Stupid has to fix itself.


True true. Sorry I got a little heated there. It's not just the fact that I'm angry about this, it's the fact that they're enabling racists/rapists/etc by CHOOSING to stay blind. There was an article I read recently about how These people are essencially terrorists, and after reading it, I completely agree. I'll have to find that article and post it here. And it's not that dems are biased, or closed off, it's that they're LITERALLY *THE* group, that is looking at things from all angles. I feel like I'm in the bloody twilight zone. If you look into it, you'll find that most of the shootings in recent history are from right-wing extremists, who follow Trump. There *IS* a correlation between Trump supporters and racists. There really is. It's like those people who still fly the confederate flag, and refuse to believe it's a symbol of racism and rebellion. It's not that they're just "stupid" (I mean, I'm sure they are...) it's literally the fact that they KNOW what it stands for, they're just too prideful to drop their egos and shove their racist beliefs aside for the facts. They know what's right and wrong, and what's real, and what's not. They just CHOOSE to ignore it because they don't want to face the truth that what they stand for, is racism and is wrong.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 8, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> True true. Sorry I got a little heated there. It's not just the fact that I'm angry about this, it's the fact that they're enabling racists/rapists/etc by CHOOSING to stay blind. There was an article I read recently about how These people are essencially terrorists, and after reading it, I completely agree. I'll have to find that article and post it here. And it's not that dems are biased, or closed off, it's that they're LITERALLY *THE* group, that is looking at things from all angles. I feel like I'm in the bloody twilight zone. If you look into it, you'll find that most of the shootings in recent history are from right-wing extremists, who follow Trump. There *IS* a correlation between Trump supporters and racists. There really is. It's like those people who still fly the confederate flag, and refuse to believe it's a symbol of racism and rebellion. It's not that they're just "stupid" (I mean, I'm sure they are...) it's literally the fact that they KNOW what it stands for, they're just too prideful to drop their egos and shove their racist beliefs aside for the facts. They know what's right and wrong, and what's real, and what's not. They just CHOOSE to ignore it because they don't want to face the truth that what they stand for, is racism and is wrong.



Josshy, don't you think this is dangerous, calling everybody who isn't democrat a racist? Or calling republicans terrorists?
I like you, I know you genuinely wish that the world was a better place and you care about people, you don't want them to die, get raped, or anything else. But why is it ok that one political party can mud sling the other party with racism and rapism and get away with it being hailed as the truth?

We can explain all day why we want guns. Why do you think the cops show up when a mass shooter kills a bunch of people? What do they have guns for? You do realize we want to see the mass shootings stop as much as you do, right?

Do you think normal everyday people can stand for that? You realize that we go through lot's of training before we are legally able to obtain a gun. We have to earn the right to carry it. 

I have only one question that I want somebody to answer. We all know the parkland security gaurd had a gun, right? Well he sucked bad and didn't go in and shoot the guy, right? 

Question: what if Aaron Feis had that gun? Do you think he would pull the trigger?

The media will never cover anything negative about Democrats. Ever. Harvey Weinstein isn't a rapist, Al Franken didn't take a photo of himself touching a sleeping woman's breast on a plane, Bill Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman.

That's all conspiracy theory. Hillary Clinton deleted 33,000 emails of wedding material, Beto O'Rourke is mexican and didn't write creepy fiction about mowing down kids in the street, Elizabeth Warren is an Indian....

Democrats own Hollywood. Hollywood owns media.

Us stupid people see that, and thus we don't trust the media. We're not racist's or terrorists. And contrary to popular belief, we don't hate gays or lesbians or furries.

We just want the right to not have to accept it if we don't want to.
Our country is supposed to be politically neutral so we can decide for ourselves what we believe, and not have to adhere to Republican or Democrat.

I'm not republican. I'm Christian. I believe in sky fairy. My Bible has no doubt about it, I am supposed to love the unbelievers, gays and transgenders like myself because it's what Jesus would do. I want to love everybody and not live in hatred, because Cosmic Sugar Daddy told me this. He also tells me that people of color are worth just as much as any other person. He loves blacks, asians and mexicans.

Yet, Democrats ban the Bible out of school. They say Too discriminatory. It hurts Muslims and Gays.

You shall not lie, you shall not kill, you shall not be sexually immoral (rape anyone), or you go to hell.
That's too offensive now.

You don't want to make cake for gay couple? You will be sued to death until you die in jail cause you don't agree.

We'll take your voting rights away because the NEWS says that your a rapist racist bigot. You can't have free speech because your stupid and according to us you don't deserve it.

Dude. Don't be decieved. If half of America really was all this then America would be gone. If Europe really is a Utopia, then why are all the Christians dead in Iran? Why is it that Russia is still around? Why can't Paris protesters protest without the police attacking them? Why is it that in China, if your a Christian they lock you up in jail or kill you?

And why won't the media cover any of that?

Incredulous, Josshy, I like both of you guys. I've messaged you and you were kind to me. I got in an argument with Josshy and we were able to resolve it very cordially, he opened up to me and I trust him.

Incredulous was very real with me as well. He wasn't some piece of crap and neither was Josshy.

We don't agree! At all! But why are you spreading all this hate about us? You've never even been in our shoes! You don't know what it's like to be Conservative and get smeared all day! Or blamed for every mass shooting, or blamed for every time a nutjob acts up, or have laws passed to stifle your voice.

Donald Trump is irrelevant.Don't let him make you hate all of us! Don't let him control your mind!
Have love for us despite Trump!

Please guys! Please! Your reasonable people! Don't let the rich control your every idea and thought! Let MORALITY guide your heart! NOT POLITICIANS!

Please? I'm not angry with either of you. We want the same things, just have different ways of going about it. Screw politics.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 8, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I will continue to call it a false conspiracy theory. The points you lay out is just not convincing. There's other ways to identify if it was a false conspiracy theory or not by looking at a wide range of things, and not just the points you listed, which I have listed before. Trump was smart not answering questions probably on lawyers advice not because of guilt but because people twist words and might set up Trump and catch him off guard, thats what Mueller did a few times. It usually what happens when you get a lawyer even if your innocent, they tell you to shut up and let them do the talking, on advice. That's the advice that was given in the Vic Mignogna case. Being quiet does not mean automatic guilt or cover up. It's so they wont take advantage and twist things to set you up.
> 
> Trump says I welcome Russia maybe as a joke. But he actually didn't team up with Russia and thats the more important thing. Actions over words.
> 
> ...


Interesting post. I certainly don't agree with most of it, but I often rather read posts where I don't agree with the logic than incoherent ramblings (rather unfortunate timing there, @Josshy0125  ). 

There's certainly something to be said about "action over words". There are certainly a few parts where his action counts loudest (trade war with China and the tax breaks for the upper class), but granted: most of his controversies are indeed about his words.
My counterargument, however, is that if we're going with this, then thwarted actions also count as actions (and not words). As you probably know, Trump has made quite some attempts at illegal behavior (like firing Mueller) that had to be stopped by his own people. His involvement in constructing a Russian building is a breach of the rules of the candidacy, no matter how non-involved Russians were (the fact that Russians were involved just makes innocence more unlikely).

It's equally true that jut being in possession of a stolen candy bar doesn't mean you're guilty, but it certainly means you're a suspect. And as a suspect, you have to co-operate with justice. Trump did exactly the opposite. The very least you can say is that he brought that narrative on him himself. This would've been bad enough if he were an individual, but as a president you've got to give the good example. Flat out lying to the population about being "exonerated", well knowing that it's not true (and not a legal term either) only deepens that suspicion.

But hey...guess who's still president? Trump is. So this "assumption of guilty" didn't do that much. Of course a lot of democrats would rather have something akin to the voice tapes of Nixon(1) than having to point out that Trump actively worked against the investigation rather than co-operate as he should.


Those tidbits of crazy democrats are interesting. The thing is: those rarely (if ever) make it to headlines on our side of the ocean. But as with republicans: there are some nutcases on both sides. I'm well aware that a good chunk (most likely a majority, even) of republicans just want to preserve "the American way". Democrats generally go for "more equality", but due to the current polarisation both define themselves more with "what the other party isn't". Which gets out of hand if the interpretation of the other party's identity is a caricature (in this case: gun nuts vs socialists).




> Except this article is a lie because Trump did give evidence, he quoted a google engineer Kevin Cernekee. And a leaked email published by Project Veritas shows that there is evidence that google is biased against conservatives. There was no point in saying no evidence, in court witness testimony is evidence


Sorry, but I disagree on this one. Google as a company is indeed biased against conservatives, but they've always maintained the stance that the algorithms they use are politic-neutral. So if googling Trump adds "is Trump a sociopath" as suggested terms, it is because more people in the world have searched for that piece than for "is Trump a benefactor". This part was never disproven. Sure: Trump probably interpreted Kevin's memo as an excuse for his google results(2), but that's in no way evidence. So the article stands.



(1): myself included. The thing is that this sort of "gotcha" evidence rarely happens in real life. Police can attest that things like circumstantial evidence and witnesses make up most cases
(2): which is kind of obvious: Trump never managed a 50% popularity rating within the US, and his popularity outside the border isn't exactly better (especially in China). Like you said earlier: he's accounted on actions on that front


----------



## SG854 (Aug 8, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Interesting post. I certainly don't agree with most of it, but I often rather read posts where I don't agree with the logic than incoherent ramblings (rather unfortunate timing there, @Josshy0125  ).
> 
> There's certainly something to be said about "action over words". There are certainly a few parts where his action counts loudest (trade war with China and the tax breaks for the upper class), but granted: most of his controversies are indeed about his words.
> My counterargument, however, is that if we're going with this, then thwarted actions also count as actions (and not words). As you probably know, Trump has made quite some attempts at illegal behavior (like firing Mueller) that had to be stopped by his own people. His involvement in constructing a Russian building is a breach of the rules of the candidacy, no matter how non-involved Russians were (the fact that Russians were involved just makes innocence more unlikely).
> ...


I do agree that Trump probably brought it on to himself because he's a bumbling idiot who runs his mouth and says the most ridiculous things. It's probably why he avoided to speak under oath and rather let the documents they gave to Mueller speak for themselves.


The Tax breaks can be debated whether or not it will add to debt. But an argument put forth is Tax Cuts only benefits the upper class. Which is not true, it benefit's everyone. You can argue that upper class gets a bigger cut or that it will add more to debt, but first start off with the correct thing that everyone gets a cut.

And the Trade War i'm waiting to see how things play out. There are things that seem like a bad idea on the surface early on but are actually not.


I think it's within Trumps right to fire Mueller if he found him to be biased against him. But even if he couldn't do that, it didn't happen. Think of it this way, I say "i'm so embarrassed I just wanna die." It doesn't mean I actually want to die, i'm just expressing my extreme uncomfortableness of a really embarrassing situation and using Hyperbole and the word die as an extreme way of expressing that. The word die gives it that extra oomph to express my feelings. Since there was no established connection Trump saying he wants Mueller fired is often written off as him being frustrated with a case he feels is false and investigated by someone that is biased against him. It's just him talking to express his frustration but didn't actually go through with it which is the most important thing. If they established a connection then it would've been a different story.


Trump saying complete exoneration you can say he lied, but can argue it was lie out of ignorance and was not malicious. People say he is an idiot and this is just him being an idiot. Lots of Democrats also used the Exonerated argument so it doesn't look good on them either. But since the investigation is about Trump and not them I guess most focus is on him. Being president should Trump no how the legal system works, yes. Should our Democratic representatives also know how our legal system works, yes. It really shows the type of people that are suppose to represent us. But I and many people didn't know the Exoneration thing till it was pointed out to use by legal experts who are much more knowledgeable than us.


The construction of the Russian Building is a breech as far as I know for now. But the main focus is on Russia Collusion. And Progressives have been telling people to stop pushing it because it makes their party look bad. It makes it harder for them to get a Bernie Sanders, Yang or other Democratic candidates if they make themselves look like a bunch of crazies. Them pointing out that the investigation is false is them trying to protect their party. Trump may have low ratings, but most presidents generally have it low. And in relation to him compared to his past polls last I checked which was after the Mueller testimony it was the highest its ever been. This is why they say stop.



I do agree that the algorithms probably isn't biased. So I do agree with the article that you got your information from and its why I added evidence is not proof.  The main thing I was getting at was not to find out whether it's true that the algorithms are programed to be biased, its to point out the headlines and the intent behind the headlines. Theres no point to say no evidence, when a leaked email is evidence. Whether or not it reflects the company as a whole and if their bias is enough to program and affect the algorithms can be debated. The the point of the headline is to make Trump a malicious liar, when it's just him quoting a google person.


That's fine that you don't agree with everything I say, and it would be weird if you did. I don't know everything and probably missing a detail I haven't found yet. This is why I don't like people to mindlessly agree with everything I say and be like yes men. It'll be an emperors new clothes type situation. But I also don't like when people mindlessly disagree just for the sake of disagreeing without any thought, that basically makes them NPC's. Usually when I complain about people that disagree it's more to do with how they present it and how they say it, and not that they are simply disagreeing which i'm fine with.


----------

