Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[Sestak]

This ought to be interesting.

[Sestak]

Mueller report has DROPPED!


Copy here: https://www.scribd.com/document/402800029/Report-from-the-Special-Counsel-Investigation-into-Russian-Interference-During-and-Before-the-2016-Presidential-Election

[Sestak]

This is just like the Hillary email scandal. Disregard the reality and keep claiming crimes were committed and keep launching more investigations against Trump

Pretty much lol.

[Sestak]

I'm just very confused how it's not considered obstruction when you go on national TV and say that you fired the FBI director to stop the investigation into you. That seems pretty clear cut to me.

Also, this tweet (https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1109906220931080193) .... but Trump Jr. and the Russian with HRC dirt + the Trump Tower meeting also seems to contradict that.

That was Barr’s judgement, though.

[Sestak]

Honestl, I don’t know how much long term impact this will have. It’s certainly happened early enough for candidates to focus on something other than Russia (which, for the most part they already have been doing) and also prevents them from relying on it later in the campaign only for a similar result to blow up in their faces much closer than the election.

[Sestak]

Jesus Christ. Democrats you literally have a wealth of issues to attack him on. His odious economic policies, his trade war, his tax cuts for the rich, his f***ing wall, his obsession with keeping the minimum wage low.

Why do you need to attack him on Russia when you can literally attack him on any of these?

To be fair, most 2020 candidates are attacking him more on those things.

[Sestak]

The full report will be out soon.  Perhaps we can spike the narrative before hand so then if and when it turns out to be something far less than what people are saying, there will be cries of "cover up" and calls for a "new investigation".

There were NO indictments.  Zip, zero, zilch.  The full report will be released soon enough.  Good Lord, people waited longer for the Warren Report, and its release sparked a cottage industry of conspiracy theorists that continues to this day.

Will this report say Trump acted like a yucky poo-poo head?  Probably.  Will what's there justify more investigations, let alone impeachment?  I doubt it, and everyone here doubts it too.  If it does, well, have at it, but what people are trying to do, ultimately, is define Obstruction of Justice in a way that criminalizes Trump's normal and legal use of his Presidential powers, and those powers include the right to fire the FBI Director.

Do I like everything about Donald Trump?  Lord, no!  I would not want my son to have Trump's persona (although I might wish my son to have Trump's work ethic).  He says things and does things at times that, while entertaining (to a point), have me scratching my head.  I'm a "less is more" individual in many walks of life, and I usually restrain the urges I have to fire off at people because I know once I say something I can't take it back.  That's not Trump at all. 

Do I like everything politically about Donald Trump?  Again:  Lord, no!  He's right on immigration and trade, and I appreciate his commitment to social conservatism, even if his heart isn't always in it.  I certainly think he's been too much the Freedom Caucus Republican, and while I see that as an alliance of convenience, those are the folks who do the most to reward the wealthiest and trash the safety net.  While I agree with a good deal of Trump's questioning of many institutions, I don't wish to trash those institutions to the point where they are unsalvagable.

No, I don't like everything about Donald Trump, but I detest "The Resistance".  I consider "The Resistance" to be downright anti-American; they would have America fail if it brings down Trump.  And the events of the post-election period of 2016 has convinced me that there is a coalition of powerful elites who cast their own veto on Trump's election and are bound and determined to undo his election.  When nearly every single newspaper in America comes out to oppose Trump, when the mainstream media abandon any pretense of objectivity toward Trump, and when they do this REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS, we have before us the darkness that democracy will actually die in, if it, indeed, is killed.  When the majority of a House of Congress devotes its entire resources removing a President, and with developing false narratives to justify the extreme step of impeachment and removal, then we have something other than what the Founding Fathers indicated.  Something frightening.  Something more worthy of the failed states from which the people seeking to crash our borders come from than from an advanced and supposedly stable democracy that Trump, by the way, did not destabilize.

If Trump's that bad, then make the case for it in an election.  Convince people you're right and vote him out of office.  I'm all for that.  Let the Congress work on legislation, and not on political investigations disguised as "oversight".  But let's stop the insanity.  Because it IS possible for the GOP to be even more of a "resistance" if the Democrats are voted in.  Would THAT be good for America?  Somehow, I think not.

The GOP was doing those sorts of “political investigations” times thirty throughout Obama’s presidency, and it won them the White House in 2016 despite finding nothing, so...

[Sestak]

Huh, it seems there was actually a good bit more in there than I was expecting after Barr’s statement.

[Sestak]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate. 

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

Oh, I understand full well what the term means.  It is a standard of proof needed to charge someone with a crime where there is reason to believe that (A) a particular act was committed by someone that rises to the level of a criminal offense, and (B) that a particular person (or particular persons) committed that particular act as specified.  It's as simple as that.

"Probable cause" is the standard for an indictment.  It's the standard to name someone an unindicted co-conspirator.  It is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt: standard of proving guilt.  It is not the standard of "Clear and Convincing Evidence".  It is not even the standard of a "Preponderance of Evidence" which indicates that more evidence (as low as 51%) shows that a person committed an act than does the evidence indicating that the person may not have.  "Probable Cause" is a low standard.  And, indeed, when a Prosecutor seeks an indictment, or files an Information (in Florida) saying that they are going to bring forth charges, they are stating at that time that the Prosecution WILL be able to prove their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at Jury Trial (if the case comes to that).  Again:  They can't just indict or charge someone with a weak case and then hope to get enough so that enough sticks at jury trial.  A Prosecutor that does this is subject to discipline for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

I know what it means.  Quite frankly, you do to, and are resorting to the cheap trick of a personal attack to insinuate that I don't.  That's YOUR character on display, friend.

Probable cause is the standard that law enforcement must meet for searches and arrests. You don’t need probable cause to start an investigation, so to say that “ an investigation wasn’t supported by probable cause” is a nonsense statement that has no basis in the law.

But clearly there was ample probable cause to investigate Trump’s role in the Russian scheme to interfere in the election. If a cop pulls over a car of four people and smells marijuana, he has probable cause to search each passenger to see which ones are actually in possession of illegal substances. Here, Mueller clearly uncovered proof that various crimes had been committed and he indeed indicted various Russian nationals. You can keep calling that a witch hunt, but the evidence indisputably shows that Russian operatives were committing witchcraft. Under the circumstances, there was ample reason to investigate Trump’s inner circle to see whether or not anyone associated in the campaign was conspiring with those Russian operatives. Mueller’s investigation found no evidence that could prove such involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, and I accept that conclusion. None of that changes the fact that the investigation was in the best interest of our national security. It’s important to keep pointing out that Trump didn’t even want the Russians to be investigated, period.

On the obstruction of justice question, what basis do you have for saying that the evidence doesn’t amount to probable cause that a crime was committed. Mueller has identified the specific actions that he believes the evidence shows Trump took. In fact, there’s not much disagreement about the fact that Trump took most of those actions. Mueller has laid out the legal theory arguing that those actions are covered by the federal obstruction statutes. However, Mueller has acknowledged that the facts of the case are unique enough that any potential prosecution of Trump’s actions would be bogged down in legal battles for years, so he believes it would be better for the country for congress to take action instead. But to say that the investigation found no evidence of obstruction is flat out wrong.

There was not Probable Cause.  There MAY have been "Reasonable Suspicion", and investigations can begin on the basis of Reasonable Suspicion (which is a higher standard than MERE Suspicion), but much of that Reasonable Suspicion hinged on a Dossier that has been thoroughly discredited.

Here's a towelette.  Wipe the egg off your face and get down to the hard work of convincing them why they should not vote for Trump in 2020, if seeing him out of office is that important to you.  I suspect that America is tiring of False Narratives that seem ever so real, only to implode under close inspection.

Lmao. We've already known this before, and the report has only made this eve more clear - the reasons for starting the investigation did not rely on the dossier.