The real question for Mueller is

[70boiler]

If the DOJ did not have a policy that you could not indict a sitting President would you have?
Or in other words, had you found the same evidence relating to someone other than a President, would you charge them?

 

[BoilerJS]

If the DOJ did not have a policy that you could not indict a sitting President would you have?
Or in other words, had you found the same evidence relating to someone other than a President, would you charge them?

Precedent says no. They let HRC off the hook. Did the public and the GOP demand a full copy of Muellers report on her?

 

[70boiler]

Precedent says no. They let HRC off the hook. Did the public and the GOP demand a full copy of Muellers report on her?

Hardly the same imho, but certainly not precedential in any way.

 

[indy35]

Precedent says no. They let HRC off the hook. Did the public and the GOP demand a full copy of Muellers report on her?

Saying “but Clinton” really isn’t any kind of legitimate argument.

 

[ecouch]

If the DOJ did not have a policy that you could not indict a sitting President would you have?
Or in other words, had you found the same evidence relating to someone other than a President, would you charge them?

What are you talking about?

Charge with what?
.
Don't you claim to to be an attorney?

 

[PurdueFan1]

Precedent says no. They let HRC off the hook. Did the public and the GOP demand a full copy of Muellers report on her?

Saying “but Clinton” really isn’t any kind of legitimate argument.

That’s all they have. But Hillary but obama but Hillary but Obama. But here’s JS weighing about Hillary even though she’s not the president. I realize it’s just deflecting but it’s so pathetic.

 

[BoilerJS]

That’s all they have. But Hillary but obama but Hillary but Obama. But here’s JS weighing about Hillary even though she’s not the president. I realize it’s just deflecting but it’s so pathetic.

Yea HRC wasn't a sitting president when Comey set the Precedent not to charge a high ranking public official with a crime. I was responding to a post inquiring whether or not the Justice Dept had a policy not to indict a sitting POTUS. How is this a deflection?

 

[PurdueFan1]

That’s all they have. But Hillary but obama but Hillary but Obama. But here’s JS weighing about Hillary even though she’s not the president. I realize it’s just deflecting but it’s so pathetic.

Yea HRC wasn't a sitting president when Comey set the Precedent not to charge a high ranking public official with a crime. I was responding to a post inquiring whether or not the Justice Dept had a policy not to indict a sitting POTUS. How is this a deflection?

Because it’s all you ever respond with. Well, that and a litany of other dumb shit.

 

[BoilerJS]

Because it’s all you ever respond with. Well, that and a litany of other dumb shit.

Here is some really dumb shit and a completely ridiculous ideology.
You are innocent until proven guilty.
After two years of being investigated by one of the most thorough agencies in the world, Trump is found to have committed no crimes.
Yet the liberals want more investigations and want to impeach Trump.
He MAY have said some things that suggested he MAY have thought about POSSIBLY firing persons conducting an investigation, COLLUSION.
I will deflect to this. You want collusion, follow the money. The real investigation on collusion is just starting, lets have the argument in 3 to 4 months.
These rebuttals, to my posts, are reminiscent of rebuttals to my posts claiming Trump was right about being wired. He was not only being wired he was being spied on by an agent planted in his campaign.
Trump won a fair election by winning a vast majority of the electoral votes.
You, and your liberal snowflake lost the election.
It is time to MAN up and accept the results.

 

[PurdueFan1]

Because it’s all you ever respond with. Well, that and a litany of other dumb shit.

Here is some really dumb shit and a completely ridiculous ideology.
You are innocent until proven guilty.
After two years of being investigated by one of the most thorough agencies in the world, Trump is found to have committed no crimes.
Yet the liberals want more investigations and want to impeach Trump.
He MAY have said some things that suggested he MAY have thought about POSSIBLY firing persons conducting an investigation, COLLUSION.
I will deflect to this. You want collusion, follow the money. The real investigation on collusion is just starting, lets have the argument in 3 to 4 months.
These rebuttals, to my posts, are reminiscent of rebuttals to my posts claiming Trump was right about being wired. He was not only being wired he was being spied on by an agent planted in his campaign.
Trump won a fair election by winning a vast majority of the electoral votes.
You, and your liberal snowflake lost the election.
It is time to MAN up and accept the results.

Yeah you lost me with the spy and agent stuff. You’re just batshit nuts dude.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Yea HRC wasn't a sitting president when Comey set the Precedent not to charge a high ranking public official with a crime. I was responding to a post inquiring whether or not the Justice Dept had a policy not to indict a sitting POTUS. How is this a deflection?

prec·e·dent

noun
noun: precedent; plural noun: precedents
/ˈpresəd(ə)nt/
1.
an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

 

[roadblock19]

If the DOJ did not have a policy that you could not indict a sitting President would you have?
Or in other words, had you found the same evidence relating to someone other than a President, would you charge them?

we are really still rolling with this "collusion" hoax, eh? Schiif going from "ample evidence" to "fruitless" should be a sign for you. give it up and try to regroup for 2024

prec·e·dent

noun
noun: precedent; plural noun: precedents
/ˈpresəd(ə)nt/
1.
an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

how are you still posting after your embarrassing showing on tMB. Get a new hobby, otherwise you may not make it through the next 6 years.

 

[70boiler]

we are really still rolling with this "collusion" hoax, eh? Schiif going from "ample evidence" to "fruitless" should be a sign for you. give it up and try to regroup for 2024


how are you still posting after your embarrassing showing on tMB. Get a new hobby, otherwise you may not make it through the next 6 years.

Perhaps, you could paraphrase yourself in English sentences, please.

 

[roadblock19]

Perhaps, you could paraphrase yourself in English sentences, please.

“In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russia government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances the Campaign was receptive to the offers, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”

 

[BuilderBob6]

we are really still rolling with this "collusion" hoax, eh? Schiif going from "ample evidence" to "fruitless" should be a sign for you. give it up and try to regroup for 2024


how are you still posting after your embarrassing showing on tMB. Get a new hobby, otherwise you may not make it through the next 6 years.

You fit right in over there with those racist, homophobic, children who can only communicate with memes or insults and can't read more than a paragraph without getting confused. I am PROUD to be attacked on that sh1thole. Go back to your circle jerk with the illiterates.
I don't go there often......I'm afraid the stupid might wear off.

 

[roadblock19]

You fit right in over there with those racist, homophobic, children who can only communicate with memes or insults and can't read more than a paragraph without getting confused. I am PROUD to be attacked on that sh1thole. Go back to your circle jerk with the illiterates.
I don't go there often......I'm afraid the stupid might wear off.

ironic...

and you have proof of your outrageous accusations of me being a racist or homophobe ? I would tread lightly, Bob.

 

[BuilderBob6]

ironic...

and you have proof of your outrageous accusations of me being a racist or homophobe ? I would tread lightly, Bob.

Did I call you one? Comprehension young man.

The only thing I'm embarrassed about is I have the same university affiliation as you.

 

[roadblock19]

Did I call you one? Comprehension young man.

The only thing I'm embarrassed about is I have the same university affiliation as you.

Well I am ashamed to have the same degree as you.

I also think you might be projecting a little too much with the racist/homophobic comments.

 

[70boiler]

“In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russia government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances the Campaign was receptive to the offers, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”

I don't have a clue what you are either trying to ask or trying to express, apart from that, I am surmising, you have some disagreement with me for initiating this thread.

 

[roadblock19]

I don't have a clue what you are either trying to ask or trying to express, apart from that, I am surmising, you have some disagreement with me for initiating this thread.

my bad...

That was a direct quote from the Muller report, "the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities."

I then asked if you are still pushing the collusion narrative. After two years, Muller officially concluded there was no collusion (he knew well before this month).

On to the new talking point: obstruction... Despite all the all the dems, media and political opponents pushing the "collusion" narrative 24/7 for two years, Trump and the White House cooperated 100%. He was pissed off they were trying to de-legitimize and undermine his administration. I think you would be too, or anyone for that matter.

At the end of the day, Trump is innocent and I think you should count your losses and put this one to bed.

 

[70boiler]

not surprising.

That was a direct quote from the Muller report, "the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities."

I then asked if you are still pushing the collusion narrative. After two years, Muller officially concluded there was no collusion (he knew before this month).

On to the new talking point: obstruction... Despite all the all the dems, media and political opponents pushing the "collusion" narrative 24/7 for two years, Trump and the White House cooperated 100%. He was pissed off they were trying to de-legitimize and undermine his administration. I think you would be too, or anyone for that matter.

At the end of the day, Trump is innocent and I think you should count your losses and put this one to bed.

Uhhh, I think his name is Mueller.
He specifically never addressed the existence of "collusion" and specifically commented on the term. Your post indicates to me that you haven't bothered to either read the report itself or even read a reasonably full and accurate review of its actual contents, assessments or thoughts.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions based upon whatever you may choose, but please, make some moderately less lazy effort in articulating them.

 

[roadblock19]

Uhhh, I think his name is Mueller.
He specifically never addressed the existence of "collusion" and specifically commented on the term. Your post indicates to me that you haven't bothered to either read the report itself or even read a reasonably full and accurate review of its actual contents, assessments or thoughts.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions based upon whatever you may choose, but please, make some moderately less lazy effort in articulating them.

alright, last post. Admitting I am not doing the best job articulating my point (it is late and I was up at 5 am). I am also fully aware no one posting in this thread is going to change anyone's mind, but here is my point:
* Schiff, and many others, are on record saying there is "significant evidence of collusion". That is a direct quote (I say, let's see it)
*Mueller's report stated this today "the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." (so we no Schiff has 0 credibility left). He even said it would be "fruitless" to go after impeachment today. Why the change in tune?
*The media, dems and the clappers/comeys/brennans were all over TV saying trump colluded w/ Russia and they all pushed this "collusion" narrative for 2 years.NYT/WaPo/CNN/MSNBC and the usual were all part of it. Hell fusion GPS paid reporters to post about the piss dossier.
*Meanwhile, Trump knows the whole investigation is BS/illegal, goes to twitter and such and calls it out. I think anyone who knows they are innocent would do the same to try and protect their name.
* The new talking point is obstruction. they want to "get' trump on obstruction of an investigation that should have never happened in the first place.

My advice is to drop the whole collusion myth and focus on an actual platform. You will not beat trump in 2020, so you should have plenty of time for the 2024 election to try and fix your party

 

[BuilderBob6]

Well I am ashamed to have the same degree as you.

I also think you might be projecting a little too much with the racist/homophobic comments.

lol. Shall I scan tMB for a quote from you calling someone a Ph******?

That's the cool thing over there, I'm sure you try and fit in. Do you purposefully misspell words too?
So many intellectually challenging threads by the Trumpers like "How many times did you take a crap today?"

 

[SDBoiler1]

Uhhh, I think his name is Mueller.
He specifically never addressed the existence of "collusion" and specifically commented on the term. Your post indicates to me that you haven't bothered to either read the report itself or even read a reasonably full and accurate review of its actual contents, assessments or thoughts.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions based upon whatever you may choose, but please, make some moderately less lazy effort in articulating them.

Maybe you should do some research. Read this, for instance.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18...ssia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

 

[roadblock19]

lol. Shall I scan tMB for a quote from you calling someone a Ph******?

That's the cool thing over there, I'm sure you try and fit in. Do you purposefully misspell words too?
So many intellectually challenging threads by the Trumpers like "How many times did you take a crap today?"

 

[70boiler]

alright, last post. Admitting I am not doing the best job articulating my point (it is late and I was up at 5 am). I am also fully aware no one posting in this thread is going to change anyone's mind, but here is my point:
* Schiff, and many others, are on record saying there is "significant evidence of collusion". That is a direct quote (I say, let's see it)
*Mueller's report stated this today "the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." (so we no Schiff has 0 credibility left). He even said it would be "fruitless" to go after impeachment today. Why the change in tune?
*The media, dems and the clappers/comeys/brennans were all over TV saying trump colluded w/ Russia and they all pushed this "collusion" narrative for 2 years.NYT/WaPo/CNN/MSNBC and the usual were all part of it. Hell fusion GPS paid reporters to post about the piss dossier.
*Meanwhile, Trump knows the whole investigation is BS/illegal, goes to twitter and such and calls it out. I think anyone who knows they are innocent would do the same to try and protect their name.
* The new talking point is obstruction. they want to "get' trump on obstruction of an investigation that should have never happened in the first place.

My advice is to drop the whole collusion myth and focus on an actual platform. You will not beat trump in 2020, so you should have plenty of time for the 2024 election to try and fix your party

I, too, was up at 5:00 a.m. and likewise do not believe that anyone posting here is very likely to have a change of mind on the relevant issues... but my thought is go to sleep, read the report or a reasonably full review of it, reread this thread and take it up tomorrow with more clarity.

 

[70boiler]

Maybe you should do some research. Read this, for instance.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18...ssia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

Thanks for the link. I read it and disagree with its assertions as to what Mueller said/meant. The Greenwaid opinion, in my opinion, seems to be premised upon the Mueller determination that "did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation." However that does does not negate the use of cut outs to removes direct IRA interface. Further it does nothing to negate the clear Mueller view that articulates that both "Russia" and the Trump campaign had mutual interests in Trump's election, interest in assistance, overtures, discussions and essentially disregards Mueller saying “the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away.”
Anyone who suggests that Mueller's report is in any way a complete exoneration of the President and his campaign is either based upon a failure to have read much of the actual findings and simply opting to parrot the President's position, a disregard of what it actually states, wishful thinking, or simple disingenuousness.
If someone opts to believe that Mueller misrepresented what happened, or to believe that he mistook the circumstances, or to believe that he is misrepresenting what was uncovered, then so be it. But it is simply silly to suggest that his report is supportive of the President.

 

[mk_peters]

READ THE REPORT. Don’t rely on your favorite news service to tell what’s in it. Read the report for yourselves.

 

[cinboiler]

You can spin this report however you want. It was a 2 year waste of 30 million dollars. Trump was not in collusion with Russia in regards to the election. The fact that he was pissed off about the investigation and said and did emotional responses was not illegal. This investigation was about collusion. Trump has faced an unfavorable stacked deck since he started. He won.

 

[indy35]

You can spin this report however you want. It was a 2 year waste of 30 million dollars. Trump was not in collusion with Russia in regards to the election. The fact that he was pissed off about the investigation and said and did emotional responses was not illegal. This investigation was about collusion. Trump has faced an unfavorable stacked deck since he started. He won.

You should read the actual report, not just take Hannity’s untruthful spin at face value.
And being upset doesn’t mean you’re allowed to commit obstruction of justice. Are you serious? Lol.
Sorry judge, I was angry and that’s why I committed those crimes. Judge: “oh you were upset, that’s ok then, you’re free to go.”

 

[Bill4411]

You should read the actual report, not just take Hannity’s untruthful spin at face value.
And being upset doesn’t mean you’re allowed to commit obstruction of justice. Are you serious? Lol.
Sorry judge, I was angry and that’s why I committed those crimes. Judge: “oh you were upset, that’s ok then, you’re free to go.”

I have not read the entire report yet but from what I have read so far, it in no way makes Trump look good. Just because you can’t prove something doesn’t mean you innocent. The report states unequivocally that the Russians interfered in our elections and yet nothing is being done to safeguard them for the future, which is truly odd imo. If nothing else the investigation has made clear that Russia is not a friendly adversary and should not be trusted.

 

[miksta]

Pretty good summary from Ezra Klein.

"The story the report tells is that a foreign government illegally interfered in America’s presidential election on Trump’s behalf, and rather than treating that incursion as an attack on America’s political institutions, Trump treated it transactionally, as a gift to him personally."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...port-trump-barr-defense-collusion-obstruction

 

[SDBoiler1]

I have not read the entire report yet but from what I have read so far, it in no way makes Trump look good. Just because you can’t prove something doesn’t mean you innocent. The report states unequivocally that the Russians interfered in our elections and yet nothing is being done to safeguard them for the future, which is truly odd imo. If nothing else the investigation has made clear that Russia is not a friendly adversary and should not be trusted.

So it's Trump's fault that Russia offered to assist the Trump campaign? Mueller says that he, his campaign, and his family did NOT collude with the Russians.

I agree that things should be done to help prevent the Russians (or Chinese or North Koreans or Iranians or anyone else) from interfering in our elections. That is easier said than done, but is a worthy goal. Also, there is zero evidence that the Russians actually were successful in changing 2016 election results. They didn't hack into machines and change tallies, for instance. The Russians played both sides of the fence and tried to sow discord and a lack of trust. On that count they were successful.

 

[Bill4411]

So it's Trump's fault that Russia offered to assist the Trump campaign? Mueller says that he, his campaign, and his family did NOT collude with the Russians.

I agree that things should be done to help prevent the Russians (or Chinese or North Koreans or Iranians or anyone else) from interfering in our elections. That is easier said than done, but is a worthy goal. Also, there is zero evidence that the Russians actually were successful in changing 2016 election results. They didn't hack into machines and change tallies, for instance. The Russians played both sides of the fence and tried to sow discord and a lack of trust. On that count they were successful.

Where does Mueller say Trump did not collude? BTW Mueller says that collusion is not a legal term and they investigated as conspiracy, which is legally described by US code-they did not find evidence of conspiracy, but it’s not saying he is innocent of that either.

Prosecutors do not use the language of innocence, they investigate for enough evidence to make a case, which in this case would have been for conspiracy. Mueller did not find sufficient evidence for conspiracy but the report sure cites a number of suspicious actions to make you feel uncomfortable with the Trump campaign staff like: Paul Manafort and Carter Page.

No doubt you will continue to feel Trump is innocent and I will continue to have major doubts. I would challenge you to read the report.

 

[70boiler]

So it's Trump's fault that Russia offered to assist the Trump campaign? Mueller says that he, his campaign, and his family did NOT collude with the Russians...

I'm sure it will be suggested that it is merely semantics but the Mueller report specifically addresses the inaccuracy of your comment when in its opening pages it stated -

...A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

 

[Purdue4Life]

McConnell and another prominent GOP senator also have similar takes, but can't find them again in the Twittersphere.

 

[BuilderBob6]

I see you couldn't wait to run over and post my comments from this board. Are you really old enough to have a college degree? Did you the the requisite number of likes?

 

[70boiler]

Pretty good summary from Ezra Klein.

"The story the report tells is that a foreign government illegally interfered in America’s presidential election on Trump’s behalf, and rather than treating that incursion as an attack on America’s political institutions, Trump treated it transactionally, as a gift to him personally."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...port-trump-barr-defense-collusion-obstruction

Another summary addressing Russian-Trump Campaign interactions described in Mueller's report is by NBC's Ken Dilanian at
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...-camp-were-friends-benefits-collusion-n996101

 

[mk_peters]

You can spin this report however you want. It was a 2 year waste of 30 million dollars. Trump was not in collusion with Russia in regards to the election. The fact that he was pissed off about the investigation and said and did emotional responses was not illegal. This investigation was about collusion. Trump has faced an unfavorable stacked deck since he started. He won.

Read the report.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I'm sure it will be suggested that it is merely semantics but the Mueller report specifically addresses the inaccuracy of your comment when in its opening pages it stated -

...A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

And the campaign was not found to have conspired with the Russians by Mueller.

The collusion term was the initial phraseology used by the Acting AG at the time and by the media. That's what they tried to tar and feather Trump with for almost 3 years now. That's what helped precipitate this entire farce. I said from the beginning that collusion was NOT a legal construct and neither was "coordination" when the phraseology morphed into that for awhile.

One would think the Ds would be happy that evidence of conspiracy was not found. Yet they lambaste Barr for following the law. They rip Mueller for being soft on Trump.

If the Ds want to continue running on impeaching Trump and further investigations of him and his family, they will lose. People are sick of this "witch hunt". Ds still can't get over the fact that their anointed heir apparent to Obama lost to the "orange Cheeto". That they couldn't take him down with a well-orchestrated coup attempt begun with flimsy, questionable "evidence" in an attempt to undermine a duly-elected President of the US.