Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lokisnow

U.S. Politics: Impoverished In Squalor

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Works every time.

I've got video evidence that you've been a deep state mole this whole time:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Relic said:

Pedophiles and Pizza!!

Are we suggesting weird band names?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

SDNY aren’t going after him until he is out of office.

Wasn’t Mueller also investigating obstruction? If he couldn’t pin him on the thing he has done openly and often it really calls into question the integrity of the entire project.

Edited by Morpheus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Morpheus said:

Wasn’t Mueller also investigsting obstruction? If he couldn’t pin him on the thing he has done openly and often it really calls into question the integrity of the entire project.

There's a huge distinction between presenting evidence of a crime and trying to indict a president.  There's nothing that suggests his report doesn't include plenty of the former, as of yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, DMC said:

There's a huge distinction between presenting evidence of a crime and trying to indict a president.  There's nothing that suggests his report doesn't include plenty of the former, as of yet.

Yeah I forgot they are taking the DoJ guidelines as law.

I am still surprised Kushner has evidently escaped unscathed, he is knee deep in all of the suspicious foreign entanglements.

Edited by Morpheus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DMC said:

There's a huge distinction between presenting evidence of a crime and trying to indict a president.  There's nothing that suggests his report doesn't include plenty of the former, as of yet.

Exactly. All the leaks will be favorable to the White House early until we learn the contents of the report. For now, the narrative will be all about the lack of indictments for anything additional related to Russia or obstruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Interesting thread.

 

I only read the tweet, but no Seth Abramson is wrong to say it's inaccurate for the media to describe this as Mueller's "final report."  It's plainly a report.  And while it may not be Mueller's "final" one, it's very likely it's the last one that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DMC said:

I only read the tweet, but no Seth Abramson is wrong to say it's inaccurate for the media to describe this as Mueller's "final report."  It's plainly a report.  And while it may not be Mueller's "final" one, it's very likely it's the last one that matters.

Perhaps read a bit more before declaring he's wrong, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Perhaps read a bit more before declaring he's wrong, eh?

Ok I read more.  So now not only do I declare he's wrong about that, but about a ton of more things.  Honestly I couldn't finish all his entirely unsubstantiated bitching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ok I read more.  So now not only do I declare he's wrong about that, but about a ton of more things.  Honestly I couldn't finish all his entirely unsubstantiated bitching.

Well done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Psh. Your glove is small because you have small hands.

I ask you now to judge me not by the size of my hands, but by the rude gestures they make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Morpheus said:

SDNY aren’t going after him until he is out of office.

What makes you think that? If Trump is re-elected, limitation periods might bar action.

I expect that if offences are uncovered, there will be indictments, and then court battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm also worried that Mueller's report is going to be a big disappointment by not finding strong evidence of collusion/conspiracy with Russia to commit an unlawful act.  The lack of further indictments, when so far no one has been charged with collusion with Russia, suggests that Mueller just didn't find the evidence to support such a charge beyond a reasonable doubt.  It's seems extremely unlikely that Mueller could conclude Trump colluded with Russia but not any of his other staff members.

I've always felt that collusion was a long shot, but the obstruction of justice case seemed much stronger.  Some of Trump's public actions have seemed like textbook cases of obstruction.  However, if Mueller doesn't find collusion/conspiracy with Russia, it weakens the case on obstruction.  There has also been no indication that Mueller's two year investigation has been interfered with.  If there is no underlying criminal/unlawful behavior, then what is there to obstruct?  Trump can argue he fired Comey for legitimate reasons, as set forth in Rosenstein's memo, and not because he was trying stop the Russia investigation.  That he allowed Mueller to complete the investigation without interference (as far as we know) supports this position.  

Without the finding of collusion or obstruction, Trump's daily assertion that there isn't any collusion and that this was just a giant witch hunt are going to be validated.  He's going to hammer Democrat's on this nonstop.  He's going to use this to rile up his base.  And Republicans are going to have a lot more cover for continuing to support Trump.  And it's not going to help with Democrat turnout.

Edited by Mudguard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

What makes you think that? If Trump is re-elected, limitation periods might bar action.

I expect that if offences are uncovered, there will be indictments, and then court battles.

Due to it appearing much like a coup for a single state, in particular a blue state, to indict a sitting Republican President. By law they could do it. It's just that it is the kind of event that could set off mass civil unrest or worse. 

They might Indict Trump Jr. or the Kush though.

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mudguard said:

I'm also worried that Mueller's report is going to be a big disappointment by not finding strong evidence of collusion/conspiracy with Russia to commit an unlawful act.  The lack of further indictments, when so far no one has been charged with collusion with Russia, suggests that Mueller just didn't find the evidence to support such a charge beyond a reasonable doubt.  It's seems extremely unlikely that Mueller could conclude Trump colluded with Russia but not any of his other staff members.

Uh, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Stone.  All pretty high-level "staff members," all facing jail time for crimes involved with interacting with Russia.  No one has been charged with "collusion" because that's not a federal crime.

3 hours ago, Mudguard said:

I've always felt that collusion was a long shot, but the obstruction of justice case seemed much stronger.

There is absolutely no indication thus far that Mueller did not make a very strong case for obstruction.  He's not going to indict the president on obstruction, but that has nothing to do with him alleging such in his report.  Like, seriously that's exactly what happened with the Starr report.

3 hours ago, Mudguard said:

However, if Mueller doesn't find collusion/conspiracy with Russia, it weakens the case on obstruction.

No it doesn't.

3 hours ago, Mudguard said:

That he allowed Mueller to complete the investigation without interference (as far as we know) supports this position.  

This does help, I agree there.

3 hours ago, Mudguard said:

Without the finding of collusion or obstruction, Trump's daily assertion that there isn't any collusion and that this was just a giant witch hunt are going to be validated.  He's going to hammer Democrat's on this nonstop.  He's going to use this to rile up his base.  And Republicans are going to have a lot more cover for continuing to support Trump.  And it's not going to help with Democrat turnout.

Except for your last sentence, all of this was going to be true no matter what.  Unless Mueller found that Trump, like, killed children on Putin's orders.  Your last sentence is both irrelevant and an entirely unfounded assumption that lacks any type of credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Stone.  All pretty high-level "staff members," all facing jail time for crimes involved with interacting with Russia.  No one has been charged with "collusion" because that's not a federal crime.

Collusion is not a crime, but conspiracy with Russia to commit a crime is a crime.  Everyone should know by now that "collusion" in this context is just used as a shorthand, and I even spelled it out in my post.  No one has been charged with conspiracy with Russia to commit a crime, and this was Mueller's primary charge.

The rest of your post, like saying "No it doesn't" isn't worth responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

Collusion is not a crime, but conspiracy with Russia to commit a crime [snip]

Name a precedent where a political scandal involved a conspiracy charge that wasn't aimed at getting to the main target.  The reason there aren't any when that target is the president is because no prosecutor wants to take that on, for reasons we both seem to basically agree on.  But using that to pose as if nothing came out of the investigation is a Hodor-sized heap of horseshit.  And certainly not worth responding to.  Sorry I tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DMC said:

Uh, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Stone.  All pretty high-level "staff members," all facing jail time for crimes involved with interacting with Russia.  No one has been charged with "collusion" because that's not a federal crime.

Manafort: Indicted for being an undeclared representative of the Ukrainian Government and associated financial crimes.  No interaction with Russia.

Cohen: Tax evasion, false statements, and improper campaign contribution related to hush money to a porn star.  No Russian interaction

Stone: Indicted for lying about his interactions with WikiLeaks.  No Russian interaction.

Flynn: Indicted for lying about his interaction with the Russian Ambassador, sure.  But there is nothing in the indictment or court filings to suggest that his interaction with the Russian Ambassador itself was illegal.  Also, the interaction was in regards to asking Russia not to retaliate against the US, that is, for Russia to take action that is in favor of the US, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Manafort: Indicted for being an undeclared representative of the Ukrainian Government and associated financial crimes.  No interaction with Russia.

Cohen: Tax evasion, false statements, and improper campaign contribution related to hush money to a porn star.  No Russian interaction

 Stone: Indicted for lying about his interactions with WikiLeaks.  No Russian interaction.

Are these jokes or are you actually that shockingly naive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×