Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[Frodo]

Good thing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to rein in her fellow Democrats earlier on impeaching Trump...  

[Frodo]

I wrote a long, depressed diatribe about this in the "Indictment-o-rama" thread, so if you care what I think go read that there. The Cliffnotes version of it is that I now think that Trump firing Mueller and creating a constitutional crisis for the country would have been a better result and that I was wise to temper my expectations of the report. That still didn't help that much though. I'm feeling really down right now. This may not 100% guarantee Trump's re-election but it undeniably helps him. The guy is practically invincible.

Since you apparently know what's in the report already, how about sharing it with the rest of us?

The lack of any new indictments plus my already pessimistic expectations are enough to make me think that the report will vindicate Trump.

We already know more than enough to impeach Trump. He has violated his Oath of Office and the Emoluments Clause. He actively solicited and recieved help from the Russian government to win election. And he, his family, business and campaign, sought a quid pro quo of Trump Tower Moscow for sanctions relief. These aren't things we were waiting on the Mueller report to prove, they're matters of public record. But as Pelosi has acknowledged, the GOP isn't going to do their damned job and impeach Trump while they have any alternative.

What I'm hoping is that the Mueller report will be damning enough to make continuing to enable Trump prohibitively damaging to the GOP. This has never been super-likely, but given what we already know, hoping that Mueller's investigation would produce such info is reasonable. There was never going to be an indictment of Trump from Mueller. Justice Dept procedure was very clear on that, and a by the book guy like Mueller was unlikely to violate precedent like that. I was expecting more indictments of criminals in Trump's circle, but as far as I know, there are still sealed indictments and Muller has demonstrated a pattern of handing off prosecutions not directly related to his directive.

For now, I'll wait and see. But let's be clear - the public evidence of Trump's malfeasance is already damning. There is no vindication, at most, he will not be driven from office. (The cult may claim that as a vindication, but they're deplorable to begin with.)

I'm more worried about undecideds or Trump's soft-support becoming more solidified behind him if the report doesn't detail any wrongdoing. Those are the dumbest, and most dangerous people in this country, as I see it. They're Trump's truest enablers.

I always knew that Trump's base would interpret this in the most self-validating way possible whether that interpretation is "vindication" or "witch hunt-conspiracy." But with the high profile that this investigation has had over the past two years, being equated to Watergate and everything, any sort of positive development for Trump and his cohorts within it may endanger future investigations by the Democratic House committees or even the Southern District of New York investigation. They're going to have to tread carefully now because such a result from the Mueller report may end up backing up Trump's claims of a "partisan witch hunt," even in spite of several Russian conspirators and Trump subordinates getting indicted. Americans' attention spans and capability for rationally seeing the big picture don't bode well for the republic if we don't get any revelations that aren't particularly damaging. All other aspects of Trump's corruption that are already well-known or may become known in the name of transparency or ethics, may just cease to matter. That's why I've been so nervous these past two days.

You're not the only one here with those concerns.

[Frodo]

You know, the worst part of the whole Trump/Mueller/Barr/Russia kabuki play is that a discussion about possible rapprochement with Russia would be one well worth having if this were a sane political environment domestically. I wouldn't necessarily support such a rapprochement, but it's a legitimate issue with serious implications for the United States and our alliances either way. But it can't be discussed, because neither party can touch it without being seen to be covering for a grotesque con man who's surrounded himself with loathsome sycophants.

How on earth can we even begin to consider rapprochment with Russia after it was just confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that their government had interfered in the 2016 election, and tried to do so again last year?  You don't reward such behavior by reaching out to them.  If relations between Russia and the United States are the worst they have been since the darkest days of the Cold War, they have themselves to blame. 

[Frodo]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

The specific crime is the hacking of a Presidential campaign and political party. The 21st century version of the Watergate break-in. That was a major crime with huge impacts, unlike whatever happened with Hillary's e-mails which literally had zero impact.

Well, yes, and those individuals (most of the Russian Nationals) have been charged.

And it’s still illegal to cover up other people’s crimes.

And there's no probable cause to believe that Trump, or anyone on his campaign staff or current staff did so.  That's why there's no indictments; there's no probable cause.  No indictments.  No unindicted co-conspirators.  

Donald Trump is not, and should not. be above the law.  But he shouldn't be below the law, either.  The latter is something you and folks like you here seem to think is OK.  It's not, and his being Trump doesn't make it so.

And while I feel for the American people and the American taxpayers that have had to endure this, I am, quite frankly, celebrating the intense, wrenching angst that the intellectually dishonest Echo Chamber Posse are going through now.  Not everyone here, mind you.  Just the Echo Chamber Posse.  You know who you are. 

Did you have similar emotions with the endless Benghazi investigations that ultimately found nothing to incriminate Hillary Clinton? 

Of course, the Russia and Benghazi investigations are not exactly the same -even if Mueller ultimately found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy by Trump or his campaign with the Russian government, he found enough instances of corruption and underhanded dealings to warrant further investigations.  Consider the indictments and prison sentences already handed down.  And you cannot blame us for believing that there was something there.  Trump acted like he was guilty of something.  It looked like a duck, acted like a duck, and quacked like a duck. Surely you can forgive us for thinking it was a duck. 

[Frodo]

What does 'below the law' even mean?

[Frodo]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

The specific crime is the hacking of a Presidential campaign and political party. The 21st century version of the Watergate break-in. That was a major crime with huge impacts, unlike whatever happened with Hillary's e-mails which literally had zero impact.

Well, yes, and those individuals (most of the Russian Nationals) have been charged.

And it’s still illegal to cover up other people’s crimes.

And there's no probable cause to believe that Trump, or anyone on his campaign staff or current staff did so.  That's why there's no indictments; there's no probable cause.  No indictments.  No unindicted co-conspirators.  

Donald Trump is not, and should not. be above the law.  But he shouldn't be below the law, either.  The latter is something you and folks like you here seem to think is OK.  It's not, and his being Trump doesn't make it so.

And while I feel for the American people and the American taxpayers that have had to endure this, I am, quite frankly, celebrating the intense, wrenching angst that the intellectually dishonest Echo Chamber Posse are going through now.  Not everyone here, mind you.  Just the Echo Chamber Posse.  You know who you are.  

Did you have similar emotions with the endless Benghazi investigations that ultimately found nothing to incriminate Hillary Clinton?  

Of course, the Russia and Benghazi investigations are not exactly the same -even if Mueller ultimately found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy by Trump or his campaign with the Russian government, he found enough instances of corruption and underhanded dealings to warrant further investigations.  Consider the indictments and prison sentences already handed down.  And you cannot blame us for believing that there was something there.  Trump acted like he was guilty of something.  It looked like a duck, acted like a duck, and quacked like a duck. Surely you can forgive us for thinking it was a duck.  

I don't believe that the Echo Chamber was interested in the facts, no.  I believe the Echo Chamber just wants to drive Trump from office by any means.  Primaries and GEs exist for that purpose; to get rid of an incumbent people no longer want, regardless of the reason.

I was never a big fan of the Congressional investigation of Hillary Clinton on Benghazi.  It was a politicized spectacle that deserved the criticism it got.  It was designed to achieve a politically negative result for Ms. Clinton, and it achieved its purpose.  The investigation stunk of rank politics, but it DID bring to light confirmation that the Obama Administration, with HRC at the top of the State Department, attempted to blame an attack on our Embassy in Benghazi on spontaneous anger over the showing of a movie Fundamentalist Muslims found offensive and not the work of organized Islamist Terrorist groups that the Obama Administration was claiming that they were controlling.  The upshot of all of that was that Hillary Clinton made a series of decisions that, basically, left people at that Embassy to die.  She could have taken steps to get them out, and she did not.  I personally believe that her inaction was to preserve the "movie" narrative as insurance of (A) Obama's re-election and (B) her viability for 2016.  (I don't believe Hillary made a single decision as SoS without taking 2016 into account.)

I DO think that "Government Oversight" of the Executive Branch by Congress has progressed to the point where every matter is unfairly politicized and checks and balances are upset.  We have gone too far, IMO, in the direction of "Oversight" to where everything is politicized.  The Army-McCarthy Hearings have become the norm.  There is something wrong with this in general.  If good people are less willing than ever to serve in government, perhaps this factor should be looked at.

Do you believe the President should be an elected monarch who can only be held accountable by the electorate, and by no one else?  Is that what you're effectively saying?  Yes, congressional oversight has become overly politicized, especially by Republicans egged on by conservative propagandists media especially when a Democrat occupies the Oval Office, but that's not a reason to jettison it.

[Frodo]

Had to share this with you all:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1098364052047306754

[Frodo]

Nearly 400 pages, eh?  Of that, how much is unredacted? 

[Frodo]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-report-latest-donald-trump-participants-treason-spying-turn-tables-a8878761.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Trump is calling participants in the investigation treasonous and vows to turn the tables on them.

This is scary and should outrage everyone, even his supporters.

The Democrats accused the President of committing treason without any concrete evidence.  That wasn't scary? You had a former CIA director call the President treasonous, but this wasn't scary?  Who are you trying to fool?  Everyone else or yourself?

Eh, the reason it's scarier is because as president he can actually do something to these people instead of just running his mouth. Even Congressional Democrats can only churn out subpoenas and hold hearings, which is far less power than the executive branch.

^^^

In an age of the imperial presidency, and with someone in office who has the proclivities of a dictator with no respect for democratic norms, and with even less of a moral compass than Richard Nixon, it is downright terrifying to hear him calling for retaliation against his political enemies. 

[Frodo]

Checks and balances feels like such a foreign concept now. The Constitution's Framers f***ed up so bad. The American experiment was worth a try, but it is clearly a failure.

Not creating a separate process, free from meddling, for investigating the executive branch (including POTUS), is proving to be an incredibly dumb mistake that should have been obvious even back then.

What we're left with is basically a president that could, in theory, be totally immune from the law so long as they have enough allies in Congress and an Attorney General who won't appoint a special counsel. And even if one is appointed, just make sure the DoJ's policy on not prosecuting POTUS is still in effect. How simple!

This alone is enough to justify a constitutional convention, though there are other issues that can also be addressed.  

[Frodo]

Even if Mueller (as he said earlier) doesn't add to what has already been written down in his report, it is still worth it to have him testify under oath in an open hearing, effectively verbalizing the report for a television audience.  Considering it is highly doubtful most Americans (or congressmen, for that matter) have actually read the report, a different medium might be more effective in educating a broader audience.

[Frodo]

Mueller's got a credibility crisis brewing, and not just among the usual suspects:

Poll: Democrats becoming increasingly skeptical of fairness of Russia probe

[Frodo]

Democrats really should have taken that advice to leave the questioning to the legal experts. We would be getting a lot more out of this than more political theater.