The Mueller Report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I knew I wasn't supporting a saint but, I know the candidate I was supporting was the best choice for the America I love. So, shove your only patriots would vote for ABC BS where the sun doesn't shine. Thank you.

Did you know he was this much “not a saint”? Did you hope for better from him? Or do you think this isn’t such a big deal and the corrupt media and dems are making s**t up?

I knew his opponent was "this much not a saint" and so did Democrats. You all put that candidate up anyway! I read Lessig. I heard from Bernie supporters and you still put her up. I supported my America and will continue to do so unapologetically.

Ok. Fine. I get that you made the best decision you feel you could have then. How about now? Hillary is in the rear view mirror. How do you feel about the report and the finding that Trump is more corrupt/corruptible than you presumably imagined when you voted for him? Do you still support him?

DP here: I do support him. I didn't find anything new in the report that I didn't know before the election. I knew he was a businessman and he had prior dealings. If they rise to the level of criminal corruption, he should be prosecuted by DOJ. If DOJ chose not to prosecute him, it is on them. I am more concerned that after spending so much money on this investigation, now we will be spending more money on Congress investigation. It is time to move on.

Np- the entire point of the report is to give Congress the means to pursue. Literally the entire point. You shouldn’t be shrugging that off, and you shouldn’t be hoping congresses just “moves on”. The ball is in congresses court to do their jobs.

So, you believe that Congress can do something that Mueller and his high power attorneys and FBI agents were unable to do?

Are you serious? Yes, Mueller is a special counsel appointed by the executive. Under the US Constitution, the Congress has a duty to uphold the law and specifically as it applies to a sitting President.

Tell us about the high crimes and misdemeanors that were committed to warrant an impeachment.

Read the Mueller report. If you had read it, you wouldn't be asking the question.

If you believe that there is rationale within the Mueller report to head to impeachment, do it. Call your Congress reps. Encourage them to do it. Please.
It will not end well for you.

So you oppose the sworn duty of the Congress to uphold the rule of law. I guess I understand why the corruption in this Administration is thus acceptable to you.

As I said, if you believe there is rationale, go for it. As for corruption - LOL. You must have slept through the Obama years.
Which administration claimed executive privilege when it came to disclosing information? (Fast and Furious, anyone?)
You and I can disagree on what Congress' "duty" is here. Their "duty" is also to maintain confidential information as confidential, but Schiff and company have not seen that as a critical "duty."

Fast and Furious was bad. I thought Holder should have been fired over it and there should have been prosecutions. This is 1000 times worse. Rather than play whataboutism, why not open your eyes?

[Anonymous]

Another good summary

https://medium.com/@jesscoleman/the-trump-presidency-is-over-or-the-rule-of-law-is-8b27f4d65f7

But let's be outraged over Fast and Furious and Obama's inaction over Russian meddling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you believe that there is rationale within the Mueller report to head to impeachment, do it. Call your Congress reps. Encourage them to do it. Please.
It will not end well for you.

From the Mueller Report:

“The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”


It is exactly what Mueller suggests. It is not his call to indict, but it is Congress's call to Impeach. Are you suggesting that Mueller is wrong on this? Over 55% of the American public think Trump is a crook. As the facts have come out, Trump's support has been eroding more. Why do you think this would be damaging to the Democrats in Congress? Or are you counting on Trump's Second Amendment friends to take unilateral action?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not true. In fact Linsey Graham asked this exact same question to AG Barr in his latest hearing. It's puzzling to both the chairman and AG that FBI suspected at the time that Carter Page, George Papadopoulus and Manafort were working with Russians but they chose NOT to tell the Trump campaign about it. AG Barr testified that there were two former US attorneys working in the Trump campaign -- Rudy and Chris Christie. FBI could easily convey the message with those two. Unless FBI's goal all along was to frame American citizens and not stopping Russians.

OK, let's play a logic game here. You are the FBI and our allies abroad have captured first hand sourcing (ie on audio/video) of some of the names listed talking to Russians about the election, or they have captured Russians talking among themselves, citing some of the names above in their conversation. You are suggesting that rather than further the investigation, they should instead notify Trump that some of his people are being talked about by Russians or were talking to Russians?

That isn't how it works.

And Rudy is as dirty as it gets so I don't know why you cite him in some extolling manner. There is a reason Christie didn't join the Administration - he wasn't compromised or dirty enough.

I’m not disagreeing with you but I need to remind you that Trump was warned in June 2016 by the FBI that Russia was attempting to infiltrate his campaign. Did Trump later notify them when Russians set up a meeting at Trump Tower? We already know the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else notice this footnote (the good stuff is always in the footnotes)? It appears there might have been compromising tapes of Trump? What does Michael Cohen say about that & what did Trump tell him?

If there were tapes, we would have seen them already.
They don't exist.

Regardless, Trump thought they did. Which means he must have done something compromising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else notice this footnote (the good stuff is always in the footnotes)? It appears there might have been compromising tapes of Trump? What does Michael Cohen say about that & what did Trump tell him?

If there were tapes, we would have seen them already.
They don't exist.

The existence of any tapes is actually immaterial. That Trump thought there were tapes is enough for his presidency to be compromised. No one cares of the 'pee pee' tapes are real. What the public does care about is if a president is compromised by a foreign adversary. It is clear, regardless of whether tapes exist or not, that Trump is. That, in and of itself, is impeachable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else notice this footnote (the good stuff is always in the footnotes)? It appears there might have been compromising tapes of Trump? What does Michael Cohen say about that & what did Trump tell him?

If there were tapes, we would have seen them already.
They don't exist.

Regardless, Trump thought they did. Which means he must have done something compromising.

Exactly. Just what did he think they were tapes of? Innocent people don't worry about tapes of their behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else notice this footnote (the good stuff is always in the footnotes)? It appears there might have been compromising tapes of Trump? What does Michael Cohen say about that & what did Trump tell him?

If there were tapes, we would have seen them already.
They don't exist.

Regardless, Trump thought they did. Which means he must have done something compromising.

Exactly. Just what did he think they were tapes of? Innocent people don't worry about tapes of their behavior.

If someone told me they tapes of me in compromising situations, I'd laugh in their face. I wouldn't send my 'fixer' to hunt them down. And if congress subpoened my taxes, I'd say "have at it!", because I have nothing to hide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I knew I wasn't supporting a saint but, I know the candidate I was supporting was the best choice for the America I love. So, shove your only patriots would vote for ABC BS where the sun doesn't shine. Thank you.

Did you know he was this much “not a saint”? Did you hope for better from him? Or do you think this isn’t such a big deal and the corrupt media and dems are making s**t up?

I knew his opponent was "this much not a saint" and so did Democrats. You all put that candidate up anyway! I read Lessig. I heard from Bernie supporters and you still put her up. I supported my America and will continue to do so unapologetically.

Ok. Fine. I get that you made the best decision you feel you could have then. How about now? Hillary is in the rear view mirror. How do you feel about the report and the finding that Trump is more corrupt/corruptible than you presumably imagined when you voted for him? Do you still support him?

DP here: I do support him. I didn't find anything new in the report that I didn't know before the election. I knew he was a businessman and he had prior dealings. If they rise to the level of criminal corruption, he should be prosecuted by DOJ. If DOJ chose not to prosecute him, it is on them. I am more concerned that after spending so much money on this investigation, now we will be spending more money on Congress investigation. It is time to move on.

Np- the entire point of the report is to give Congress the means to pursue. Literally the entire point. You shouldn’t be shrugging that off, and you shouldn’t be hoping congresses just “moves on”. The ball is in congresses court to do their jobs.

So, you believe that Congress can do something that Mueller and his high power attorneys and FBI agents were unable to do?

Are you serious? Yes, Mueller is a special counsel appointed by the executive. Under the US Constitution, the Congress has a duty to uphold the law and specifically as it applies to a sitting President.

And DOJ no longer have a duty to uphold the law? I am totally puzzled.

[Anonymous]

There were tapes

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/mueller-report-donald-trump-controversial-tape-moscow/index.html

Cohen was charged with "fixing" it.

[Anonymous]

This piece describes exactly how I, and many other Americans, view the past two years......

The Mueller report concludes it was not needed

How would you like to spend two years and $30 million assembling a report that concludes you were not needed in the first place? Voila: the Mueller report. Nice work if you can get it.

The report is appropriately thick, D.C. thick. It takes more than 400 pages to state the obvious: there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to swing the 2016 election. Zip, nada, nothing to see here.

It goes on to tee up a question about obstruction of justice that the special counsel was not asked to investigate — and then doesn’t answer it. Wait, what?

These are some of the most elite prosecutors in the country and they went full Hamlet on a legal determination a third-year law student would knock down between Budweisers. This is what we get for $30 million? Make a call; that’s your job as prosecutors.

It doesn’t seem the special counsel team is fooling anyone. They showed that they would indict a ham sandwich if they could. The obvious answer is that they had no confidence in a criminal obstruction case.

Instead, they punted to the Trump-appointed attorney general. One gets the sense this may have been by design.

Well, what about all the Russians who were indicted by Mueller’s team for trying to interfere with the election? Those were chip shot FBI counterintelligence investigations, well in flow, when the special counsel took them over. They didn’t need special counsel magic.

Had they remained FBI-controlled cases, the indictments would have been sealed and the subjects arrested when they likely returned to the United States for more mischief in 2020. We can forget about that now.

Attorney General William Barr during his press conference early Thursday said that the “bottom line” is that no American coordinated, conspired or colluded with the Russian government to interfere in the presidential election. America should be grateful, he added.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/439840-the-mueller-report-concludes-it-was-not-needed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There were tapes

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/mueller-report-donald-trump-controversial-tape-moscow/index.html

Cohen was charged with "fixing" it.

Did you even read the piece you posted?
From YOUR link:

"There is no indication that such a tape exists and Trump has vehemently denied it. Rtskhiladze also told prosecutors that he was told the tapes were fake, but that he didn't convey that to Cohen."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I knew I wasn't supporting a saint but, I know the candidate I was supporting was the best choice for the America I love. So, shove your only patriots would vote for ABC BS where the sun doesn't shine. Thank you.

Did you know he was this much “not a saint”? Did you hope for better from him? Or do you think this isn’t such a big deal and the corrupt media and dems are making s**t up?

I knew his opponent was "this much not a saint" and so did Democrats. You all put that candidate up anyway! I read Lessig. I heard from Bernie supporters and you still put her up. I supported my America and will continue to do so unapologetically.

Ok. Fine. I get that you made the best decision you feel you could have then. How about now? Hillary is in the rear view mirror. How do you feel about the report and the finding that Trump is more corrupt/corruptible than you presumably imagined when you voted for him? Do you still support him?

DP here: I do support him. I didn't find anything new in the report that I didn't know before the election. I knew he was a businessman and he had prior dealings. If they rise to the level of criminal corruption, he should be prosecuted by DOJ. If DOJ chose not to prosecute him, it is on them. I am more concerned that after spending so much money on this investigation, now we will be spending more money on Congress investigation. It is time to move on.

Np- the entire point of the report is to give Congress the means to pursue. Literally the entire point. You shouldn’t be shrugging that off, and you shouldn’t be hoping congresses just “moves on”. The ball is in congresses court to do their jobs.

So, you believe that Congress can do something that Mueller and his high power attorneys and FBI agents were unable to do?

Are you serious? Yes, Mueller is a special counsel appointed by the executive. Under the US Constitution, the Congress has a duty to uphold the law and specifically as it applies to a sitting President.

And DOJ no longer have a duty to uphold the law? I am totally puzzled.

The DOJ did their job. Now it’s congresses job. You’re puzzled because you are intentionally obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I knew I wasn't supporting a saint but, I know the candidate I was supporting was the best choice for the America I love. So, shove your only patriots would vote for ABC BS where the sun doesn't shine. Thank you.

Did you know he was this much “not a saint”? Did you hope for better from him? Or do you think this isn’t such a big deal and the corrupt media and dems are making s**t up?

I knew his opponent was "this much not a saint" and so did Democrats. You all put that candidate up anyway! I read Lessig. I heard from Bernie supporters and you still put her up. I supported my America and will continue to do so unapologetically.

Ok. Fine. I get that you made the best decision you feel you could have then. How about now? Hillary is in the rear view mirror. How do you feel about the report and the finding that Trump is more corrupt/corruptible than you presumably imagined when you voted for him? Do you still support him?

DP here: I do support him. I didn't find anything new in the report that I didn't know before the election. I knew he was a businessman and he had prior dealings. If they rise to the level of criminal corruption, he should be prosecuted by DOJ. If DOJ chose not to prosecute him, it is on them. I am more concerned that after spending so much money on this investigation, now we will be spending more money on Congress investigation. It is time to move on.

Np- the entire point of the report is to give Congress the means to pursue. Literally the entire point. You shouldn’t be shrugging that off, and you shouldn’t be hoping congresses just “moves on”. The ball is in congresses court to do their jobs.

So, you believe that Congress can do something that Mueller and his high power attorneys and FBI agents were unable to do?

Are you serious? Yes, Mueller is a special counsel appointed by the executive. Under the US Constitution, the Congress has a duty to uphold the law and specifically as it applies to a sitting President.

And DOJ no longer have a duty to uphold the law? I am totally puzzled.

No surprise there. You obviously haven't read the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were tapes

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/mueller-report-donald-trump-controversial-tape-moscow/index.html

Cohen was charged with "fixing" it.

Did you even read the piece you posted?
From YOUR link:

"There is no indication that such a tape exists and Trump has vehemently denied it. Rtskhiladze also told prosecutors that he was told the tapes were fake, but that he didn't convey that to Cohen."

So there were fake tapes that Trump told Cohen to fix. See the problem? He was and is, compromised. Why do you support that?