America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,762 comments
- 1,793,959 views
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Trump will never be exonerated by those who so fervently hate him. He is despicable simply since he is a loudmouth asshole New York billionaire. But in the eyes of the law, the general population and history, he is exonerated. Much, much more importantly, he has been handed the initiative and the upper hand by his political opponents who failed in their attack to kill him off. Although he should be above it now, he will ruthlessly pursue his fleeing enemies with the fullest extent of his resources, which, as a sitting President, obviously are considerable. this is political warfare in which the tide of battle has shifted, and there will clearly be more blood in the water. When you play with fire....
Chump change and chickenfeed. When you try to topple the President of the US and fail, the underlings you crush in the process are like collateral damage in a strategic bombing attack that fails to connect with the strategic target.
- 2,980
- The Ramapo Mountains
- jjaisli
Yeah, using a fake dossier to launch investigations and destroy the lives of 34 people cause of an absurd hatred for Trump clearly isn't a which hunt...
@ryzno, why don't you do some research on the trial of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Find out for yourself what they were actually accused of, what they were actually CONVICTED of, and then come back and tell us it was all a witch hunt. By all accounts, they got off lightly.
Last edited:
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Several things to note here, for you and @Dotini and anyone else professing such confidence here:
1. You're basing your entire opinion here on the words of AG Barr, a man who a year ago, while still a private citizen, submitted an unsolicited memo to the DoJ blasting the Mueller investigation. Such a glaring lack of objectivity would have you all howling about bias if this were a report about, say, Benghazi or Hillary's emails.
2. Saying that Trump has been completely "exonerated" on the collusion question is a pretty broad interpretation of what Barr actually said:
Barr's letter
You can be sure that Barr chose his words carefully here, so why did he specify that there was no collusion only as it pertains to Russian government officials? Did the report say there was still illegal cooperation with private citizens, but Barr just left that part out?
Did Trump, or members of his campaign, collude with anyone other than members of the Russian government? Such as Russian hackers who attempted to break into Hillary's server the day after Trump publicly asked them to? Such as Wikileaks?
What about the Trump Tower meeting, involving Trump Jr., Manafort, Kushner, and several private Russian citizens? What happened there? If it wasn't collusion, why did Trump Jr. lie about what was discussed?
3. If the Mueller report does indeed clear Trump of any and all wrongdoing whatsoever, then why not just release the whole thing? It makes zero sense to sit on a report that proves you're completely innocent. But what's happening instead is a promise that, in a few weeks, Barr will release "a version" of the report to Congress. What is being altered in this "version," and why? Again, this would be more than enough for you all to cry foul if the target of this report were Democrat, and your willingness to just toss all skepticism out the door now is pretty telling.
There is one thing, and one thing only, that should leave Americans satisfied that there was no wrongdoing - reading the report for themselves, in its original, unmodified entirety.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
No, at worst, they were investigated because of a false premise. By the way, can you provide a source that unequivocally establishes that the Steele Dossier was untrue? Last I remember reading about it, parts of it had been corroborated, others remained unverified, but none of it had been shown to be untrue. Not a shred.
They were charged based on evidence. Their guilty pleas suggest the evidence was pretty strong, at that.
As others have said, that's not a good thing. Why do you think it is?
- 311
- virginia
- minimoto2011
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
You simply don't get it. If Mueller had the goods on Trump for Russian collusion, he would have indicted. That was his prime directive, his mandate, his job. Trump is 100% exonerated on the question of Russian collusion. That is a fact, that is the truth.
Now if you want to talk about obstruction, fine. But you need evidence. Evidence which Mueller couldn't stand upon.
Those who so fervently persecuted and abused Trump on the issue of Russian collusion are now going to have to live the rest of their lives with the shame, stigma and mockery that comes with utter failure. Not only that, but he may be coming after you to exact vengeance. You shot your arrow at the King, but hit a spearman. Now you are running for the rest of your days.
- 30,007
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
It's conjecture based on the analysis of Mueller's findings by a demonstrably biased Trump appointee (The Department of Redundancy Department approves of this description) being accepted as Mueller's actual findings. I find it particularly humorous that the opinion piece features a tweet from the token Trump, Eric.
- 2,980
- The Ramapo Mountains
- jjaisli
No, the lack of actual evidence makes it false.
Come on Dotini. It was not Muller's job to indict the President. It was his job to report his findings. Although I'm sure many were hoping that he would drag him away from the White House (or Mar-a-lago) in chains. Imaging the chaos that would have ensued had he actually done so. If nothing else, Muller is a patriot. And I'm sure he's well aware of what would have ensued. So he passed the responsibility on to the Attorney General. Although I admit, if he had evidence that was overwhelming, Barr's reaction would almost certainly have been different. And I'm guessing from his guarded comments, there is evidence of wrong doing which may have been difficult to prove. [Edit: Or beyond the scope of the investigation]
Like her emails, the story isn't over yet.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,045
- Mile High City
Ok but what if... hear me out here.... what if Mueller's job was to investigate and determine the truth? And the investigation was warranted based on the appearance of the facts, and his investigation uncovered the truth, and I dunno, what if we're all happy about that?
I think he just considered it to be someone else's determination. Not that he didn't believe the evidence existed. He simply thought it was more suitable to someone better able to make a just determination.
Ok, Trump is not a King. I get that you were going for metaphor, but this one is a little too close to recent events. Secondly, why does it have to be a shot at anyone? Hear me out here... what if we just want the truth?
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
What I get is that it's long been DoJ policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Also, there were reports a year ago or more that Mueller personally agreed with that notion, and felt that his duty extended only as far as issuing a report to the AG, and therefore leave it to the DoJ itself to decide how to proceed.
No, it wasn't. Regarding Trump, finding evidence was his job, nothing more. Acting on that evidence was always gong to fall to the DoJ, or to Congress if they so desired.
(Underlined part was edited in to clarify that Mueller had a narrower scope concerning Trump than he did concerning others, due to the aforementioned DoJ policy regarding sitting presidents.)
Again, I'll wait until I can read the entire report before accepting that. Biased internetters yelling at me that I'm just too dumb to get it, on the other hand, don't sway me all that much.
You'd think that the same folks who holler so damn much about "the swamp," and "the deep state" (
), and "the establishment," wouldn't be so quick to put all of their trust in the assurances of anybody in power, let alone a man so obviously biased as Barr, and would prefer to read the report for themselves. But what do I know? As you said, I simply don't get it.
Last edited:
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Its a good thing Trump didnt collude. I really hope the left (and right) will focus more on the future now.
That said I really hoped Trump wouldnt be impeached, so that he can be thrown in jail after he retires for all his financial crimes. Because unlike reservations about the mueller report I do believe Cohen was telling the truth and Trump is guilty for illegal business deals, that he has always gotten away with his whole life. Remember Cohen was truthfull (in hindsight) about the russian collusion.
That said I really hoped Trump wouldnt be impeached, so that he can be thrown in jail after he retires for all his financial crimes. Because unlike reservations about the mueller report I do believe Cohen was telling the truth and Trump is guilty for illegal business deals, that he has always gotten away with his whole life. Remember Cohen was truthfull (in hindsight) about the russian collusion.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,517
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Russian collusion during the election. He could easily be colluding with Russia (or anyone else for that matter) now that he's president. I don't want to get all McCarty here, but the way Trump buddies up to Russia is a bit concerning.
Wealthy people don't go to jail for the most part, especially high profile wealthy people. I mean just earlier this week Jussie Smollett had all of his charges dropped (16 felony counts I believe) because he agreed to forfeit $10,000 in bond money and do some community service.
- 6,074
- Simcoeace
I guess the direction was set when Ken Starr (a lifelong Republican) was appointed to investigate Whitewater & the Clintons & deviated into investigating Bill Clinton's sex life, eventually luring him into perjuring himself regarding his "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. I suspect Mueller (also a lifelong Republican), by all accounts a principled & by-the-book guy, avoided delving into the more sordid details of Trump's past & his report - as far as we can tell - reflects that. The "dossier" has nothing to do with the charges levelled against Manafort & others.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,517
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
If we can take a break for just a minute, can we appreciate the ridiculousness of Mike Lee? During the vote yesterday about the Green New Deal, he brought some rather humorous images with him:
Yes, that's Ronald Reagan riding a velociraptor (an incorrect raptor, but still) holding an American flag while shooting a gun.
This my friends is Utah's finest.
Yes, that's Ronald Reagan riding a velociraptor (an incorrect raptor, but still) holding an American flag while shooting a gun.
This my friends is Utah's finest.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,045
- Mile High City
If we can take a break for just a minute, can we appreciate the ridiculousness of Mike Lee? During the vote yesterday about the Green New Deal, he brought some rather humorous images with him:
Yes, that's Ronald Reagan riding a velociraptor (an incorrect raptor, but still) holding an American flag while shooting a gun.
This my friends is Utah's finest.
With an RPG strapped on his back.
- 30,007
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
If we can take a break for just a minute, can we appreciate the ridiculousness of Mike Lee? During the vote yesterday about the Green New Deal, he brought some rather humorous images with him:
Yes, that's Ronald Reagan riding a velociraptor (an incorrect raptor, but still) holding an American flag while shooting a gun.
This my friends is Utah's finest.
So...what was the apparent point?
Joey D
Premium
- 47,517
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
So...what was the apparent point?
Poking fun at the Green New Deal is the best I can figure. It ended in the most Mormon way possible by telling people to fight climate change you need to fall in love, get married, and have babies.
He also included Aquaman, Tauntaun, and other completely off the wall things. While I don't agree with his stance on climate change, I do enjoy his approach to calling out how bad the Green New Deal is. We can fight climate change and not spend trillions replacing every building in the US.
