Special Council Investigation Complete - results are ....

[jdshock]

It seems to me that everyone who continuously referred to this as a witch hunt should be feeling pretty foolish right now.

For some reason, I suspect many of you won't see it that way.

[ShockingButTrue]

Well said, mi amigo.

Let me guess: The mueller report didn't -ahem- EXONERATE the President. That's the buzzword we'll be hearing for the next several months, if it goes that far, which is very doubtful. More likely, just the next several days.

#CantTrustIt

[C0|dB|00ded]

It seems to me that everyone who continuously referred to this as a witch hunt should be feeling pretty foolish right now.

For some reason, I suspect many of you won't see it that way.

T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

Now Trump needs to pardon every single individual that was indicted because of this illegal, political, WITCH HUNT. Everyone of course except for that dirty little rat Cohen. That boy needs some prison shower time.

While all charged may indeed be guilty of a crime, the process employed to uncover their misdeeds violates the spirit of the unreasonable search and seizure act.


T


...:cool:

[ShockingButTrue]

It seems to me that everyone who continuously referred to this as a witch hunt should be feeling pretty foolish right now.

For some reason, I suspect many of you won't see it that way.

Say what? Of course we see it that way:

[ShockingButTrue]

Mueller saw the proverbial writing on the wall when Barr stepped in. Common sense took hold and he decided to shut it down and move on to better things (I honestly believe that) :

[C0|dB|00ded]

Reading the Trump news feed is better than sex right now.

AHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!


T


...:cool:

[ShockingButTrue]

Reading the Trump news feed is better than sex right now.

AHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!


T


...:cool:

It's almost as thrilling as the night we beat the Chickens.

[C0|dB|00ded]

It's almost as thrilling as the night we beat the Chickens.

People say it feels like 2016 all over again. I wouldn't go that far as I didn't think he was guilty and of course couldn't be impeached with a senate majority, but it is shocking how "clean" the report was. The Dims are doing everything but waving the white flag at this point. Shifty Schiff is just making an ass out of himself at this point.

I think it's about time for this one again...

T


...:cool:

[jdshock]

T


...:cool:

I've said for 18 months that it's totally crazy to call it a "witch hunt." For as much as the folks on here pretend to hate big government, many of you were susceptible to Trump's propaganda surrounding the authority and intention of the Mueller investigation.

Let's compare witch hunts for a moment, shall we?

Mueller (a republican) is appointed by the republican DOJ to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." Source. Ken Starr (a republican), on the other hand, was appointed by an independent three-judge US Court of Appeals panel to investigate "whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law, other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction, relating in any way to James B. McDougal's, President William Jefferson Clinton's, or Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton's relationships with Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Assn., Whitewater Development Corp., or Capital Management Services Inc." Source.

Mueller submitted his report, privately to the attorney general, less than two years after being appointed. The Starr Report was released to Congress more than four years after his appointment, and it was released to the public two days after delivery to Congress.

The Mueller report, as far as we can tell, simply said Trump and his campaign did not coordinate with Russia. It does not take a position on obstruction of justice (side note: we just don't know enough here. It could be that Mueller actually says "we found no evidence of obstruction of justice in our investigations, but that was not the purpose of our investigation, and we therefore refrain from taking a position." alternatively, the report could say "we found significant evidence to suggest a charge for obstruction of justice could be brought, but that was not he purpose of our investigation, and we therefore refrain from recommending charges."). That's it. The Starr report focused almost exclusively on Monica Lewinsky. Source. The word "Whitewater" appears literally four times in the report. Can you imagine if Mueller's report were 230 pages long and "Russia" appeared only four times?

Whitewater got its 14 convictions (source) but then kept going on the Lewinsky stuff. By all accounts, Mueller issued its 34 indictments and has ended the investigation.

If you don't think the Whitewater investigation was a witch hunt, then there is zero reason to believe the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt. Mueller is a professional, and calling him biased Mueller and the "13 angry democrats" is just an affront to the process. It's an attempt to brainwash you into not accepting whatever the results were going to be. And for all of your general distrust of the government, for some reason, you totally bought in on this ploy.

[jdshock]

I think this post has aged well in some ways:

Based on the new information that Trump attempted to fire Mueller last summer, and Mueller has known about this for months, I decided to put together my predictions of likely outcomes:

- Mueller recommends obstruction of justice charges be brought against Trump, but no direct tie between Trump and Russia - 40% chance
Republicans argue the investigation was completely corrupt (this has already started). They completely forget the background behind the Clinton investigation (i.e., starting in one spot and morphing to a completely separate topic years later) and cannot get behind an impeachment. They totally forget that Mueller was basically a bipartisan choice, and he has been highly commended for years and years as an incredibly professional individual. If 2018 results in a House shift (I'd say not that likely), you may get an impeachment, but no conviction.

- Mueller recommends everything ("collusion," Russia, obstruction of justice, etc.) - 10% chance
I think all but the most devout Trump supporters probably support impeachment. Some probably still say the investigation was corrupt, but if there's strong evidence, I'd be cautiously optimistic that many Republicans come around.

- Mueller recommends nothing for Trump/gets lots of accomplices - 25% chance
This is a bad situation for the country, I think. Liberals are going to go on and on about pointing to various evidence that Trump was involved. Conservatives are going to go on and on about how the corrupt investigation still couldn't get anything.

- Everything else - 25% chance
Who the heck knows what else could happen. Mueller attempts to charge him without an impeachment occurring, and we get a really crazy Supreme Court case about whether that can even happen. Maybe Mueller recommends charges for something other than obstruction of justice. Maybe Trump actually fires Mueller. Maybe Congress tries to end the investigation.

Until we know what the report actually says about obstruction of justice, we won't know where this particular report lands between 1 and 3. Trump literally tweeted out "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION." Which is hysterical given that his own AG's summary of the report included the quote that the report "does not exonerate him" on obstruction of justice. As said above, if Mueller said "we found no evidence of obstruction, but it wasn't the purpose of the investigation, therefore we are not exonerating him," that is very similar to option number three. If Mueller said "we found significant evidence and leave it to someone else to bring charges," that's very similar to number one.

Either way, it could be an interesting week. There was bipartisan support to release the report publicly. Now, republicans have kind of lost the incentive to fight to make it public, so we'll see if it is released through an act of Congress or if it gets leaked. And maybe we get an "official" version that is heavily redacted.

[abdullah_sharif]

i wish these coxsuckers would do the nations business instead of distracting and witch-hunting.

[ShockingButTrue]

I think this post has aged well in some ways:



Until we know what the report actually says about obstruction of justice, we won't know where this particular report lands between 1 and 3. Trump literally tweeted out "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION." Which is hysterical given that his own AG's summary of the report included the quote that the report "does not exonerate him" on obstruction of justice. As said above, if Mueller said "we found no evidence of obstruction, but it wasn't the purpose of the investigation, therefore we are not exonerating him," that is very similar to option number three. If Mueller said "we found significant evidence and leave it to someone else to bring charges," that's very similar to number one.

Either way, it could be an interesting week. There was bipartisan support to release the report publicly. Now, republicans have kind of lost the incentive to fight to make it public, so we'll see if it is released through an act of Congress or if it gets leaked. And maybe we get an "official" version that is heavily redacted.

The President is-not-going-to-get-impeached-for-anything-least-of-all-obstruction. "He did something."

Blame FoxNews my ass.

obstruction.jpg
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (hint hint)

... It's a hoot that people still wonder how that succubus lost in '16.

Keep it alive, dummies! It'll surely help the Republicans in '20. I'm liking their chances better e-v-e-r-y day!

[ShockerPrez]

This could be good for democrats. If they were smart, they can have this brushed under the rug by election day.

Something tells me they will do the opposite and continue with the lies.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I've said for 18 months that it's totally crazy to call it a "witch hunt." For as much as the folks on here pretend to hate big government, many of you were susceptible to Trump's propaganda surrounding the authority and intention of the Mueller investigation.

Let's compare witch hunts for a moment, shall we?

Mueller (a republican) is appointed by the republican DOJ to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." Source. Ken Starr (a republican), on the other hand, was appointed by an independent three-judge US Court of Appeals panel to investigate "whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law, other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction, relating in any way to James B. McDougal's, President William Jefferson Clinton's, or Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton's relationships with Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Assn., Whitewater Development Corp., or Capital Management Services Inc." Source.

Mueller submitted his report, privately to the attorney general, less than two years after being appointed. The Starr Report was released to Congress more than four years after his appointment, and it was released to the public two days after delivery to Congress.

The Mueller report, as far as we can tell, simply said Trump and his campaign did not coordinate with Russia. It does not take a position on obstruction of justice (side note: we just don't know enough here. It could be that Mueller actually says "we found no evidence of obstruction of justice in our investigations, but that was not the purpose of our investigation, and we therefore refrain from taking a position." alternatively, the report could say "we found significant evidence to suggest a charge for obstruction of justice could be brought, but that was not he purpose of our investigation, and we therefore refrain from recommending charges."). That's it. The Starr report focused almost exclusively on Monica Lewinsky. Source. The word "Whitewater" appears literally four times in the report. Can you imagine if Mueller's report were 230 pages long and "Russia" appeared only four times?

Whitewater got its 14 convictions (source) but then kept going on the Lewinsky stuff. By all accounts, Mueller issued its 34 indictments and has ended the investigation.

If you don't think the Whitewater investigation was a witch hunt, then there is zero reason to believe the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt. Mueller is a professional, and calling him biased Mueller and the "13 angry democrats" is just an affront to the process. It's an attempt to brainwash you into not accepting whatever the results were going to be. And for all of your general distrust of the government, for some reason, you totally bought in on this ploy.

Both the Russia Collusion and Monica Lewinsky blowjob investigations went off the rails for sure. I don't remember the veracity of the claims regarding the Clinton illegalities back in the day but several were quite serious. They went with the lying under oath because I think it was the easiest to prove. Same thing with Mueller. Squeeze 'em until they lie. Weaksauce but effective.

I truly believe Donald looks dirtier than he really is and the Clintons are dirtier than they look.


T


...:cool:

[jdshock]

They went with the lying under oath because I think it was the easiest to prove. Same thing with Mueller.

What do you mean? This is exactly my point. Mueller didn't go with "the easiest to prove." As far as we know, Mueller did not make a formal recommendation with regard to obstruction of justice. If it were truly a witch hunt or an attempt to come up with something, Mueller would've never just said "All clear on the Russia front; no opinion on the obstruction front."

How could it possibly be the "same thing" with Mueller?

[C0|dB|00ded]

Same thing in regards to legal strategy. Try to get people to lie then indict. As I said, I believe the Clinton's were quite dirty; people in Washington knew that and the Repub's jumped all over it. People in Washington also believed the Trump's to be quite dirty so the Dim's jumped all over it.

I don't think Mueller is a friend of the Republican party - definitely not the "Trump Party". He drug this fiasco out for TWENTY-TWO months. He knew Trump was innocent of collusion a year ago. He just wanted some notches in his belt and started taking down marks with process crimes. I think his whole plan all along was to get Trump to testify so he could Bill Clinton him. Thankfully Trump's ego deferred to his lawyer's counsel. I think Giuliana said something to the effect of, "No effing way will Donald testify!"


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

Obstruction was far from a sure thing as Trump received the "recommendation" from his attorney general to fire Comey. How do you get Trump on obstruction when you have that established paper trail? Trump did it by the book regardless of what everybody thought.


T


...:cool: