Discussion of the Mueller Report

[Tom]

And, everyone knew going in what Trump was.
Just like we knew what Hillary was.
Calling Trump a criminal is pathetically liberal of Ely.
And shows his true agenda.

No one is as transparent as Ely is.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

It is a complete double standard if you are accusing the DOJ of effectively ending the possibility of indicting Clinton as being corrupt but buying wholesale the current DOJ/AG stifling the possible impeachment/indictment of Donald Trump.

He is?

What did/is the current DOJ/AG doing to stifle the impeachment/indictment of Donald Trump? Was Mueller interfered with? Has his report (with redactions worked in unison with the Mueller team) not been released, and a full release of the report going to be made available to certain members of Congress on both sides of the table?

Nearly every recognizable member of Congress that is a Democrat has come out after the release of the Mueller report to say impeachment is their plan. Swalwell, Maxine, Warren, AOC, Tlaib, Omar, Cummings, Blumenthal, etc..

I'll hang up now and wait for your answer.

Besides...

YouTube

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Stop right there ely.
Trump may be an unethical narcissistic asshole businessman, but you are going too far to call him a "criminal" unless you have evidence that warrants that.

Nonsense... I didn't call him a criminal and furthermore... ummm... "Lock her up"?

[reckless]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Nonsense... I didn't call him a criminal and furthermore... ummm... "Lock her up"?

Well Trump isn't a criminal, first and foremost. He's been the most well-known businessman in the country for over 35 years and he's never been accused nor charged with criminal conduct. But then how would anyone know otherwise since 98 per cent of the media reports on Trump have been negative since being elected.

As for ...lock her up... This bothers you?

Do you think Hillary's not worthy of being 'locked' up?

Is destroying 30,000+ emails not a crime? Is having an illegal home brewed server where she stored most of the destroyed emails and other classified material --as Secretary of State, remember-- not a crime?

How about -- after being subpoenaed, for god sakes -- Hillary and her staff destroyed laptops, cell phones, etc.? Do you not think that was a crime?

I'll ask again in closing: what's wrong with 'Lock her Up'? and do you believe Hillary is guilty or innocent of the situations I mentioned above?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by reckless

Well Trump isn't a criminal, first and foremost. He's been the most well-known businessman in the country for over 35 years and he's never been accused nor charged with criminal conduct. But then how would anyone know otherwise since 98 per cent of the media reports on Trump have been negative since being elected.

As for ...lock her up... This bothers you?

Do you think Hillary's not worthy of being 'locked' up?

Is destroying 30,000+ emails not a crime? Is having an illegal home brewed server where she stored most of the destroyed emails and other classified material --as Secretary of State, remember-- not a crime?

How about -- after being subpoenaed, for god sakes -- Hillary and her staff destroyed laptops, cell phones, etc.? Do you not think that was a crime?

I'll ask again in closing: what's wrong with 'Lock her Up'? and do you believe Hillary is guilty or innocent of the situations I mentioned above?

In sweeps reckless to make my point Greyfox.

Thanks buddy.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

In sweeps reckless to make my point Greyfox.

Thanks buddy.

Anytime.

You still haven't answered the questions I asked you.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by reckless

Anytime.

You still haven't answered the questions I asked you.

Hillary has her own thread.

My original point was the constant deflection to Hillary among Trump supporters as if that's somehow a justification for his actions.

His actions we can discuss the criminality of because at most favorable interpretation for him they are borderline illegal... Mueller said so.

[Tom]

And it is not Mueller's call.
And if it was, why didn't he indict?

[mostpost]

I have not read the entire report, but I have read a substantial portion.
Since you have read it, perhaps you can confirm a few things.
1. On page two of volume two does not Mueller explain the reasoning behind not charging Trump?
2. Does not that reasoning have everything to do with DOJ policy to no indict a sitting president and nothing to do with the amount of evidence accumulated.
3. In the early pages of volume two does not Mueller not specifically state that if he could clear Trump he would do so; but he cannot.
4. Also in the early pages of volume two does not Mueller that he has refrained from making a judgement on Trumps guilt or innocence solely because doing so would be unfair to Trump who has no venue for defending himself.
5. Are there not ten specific instances of obstruction by Trump detailed in this report, any one of which would be sufficient to indict save for DOJ policy.

Also, I have seen on TV, but have been unable to confirm, a passage in the report suggesting that it is the duty of Congress to investigate the findings of this report with the possibility of impeachment. Again, I saw this briefly and may be misinterpreting.

[OntheRail]

Mueller did not say so...


Most favorable my ass... Something is either LEGAL or NOT.


MoPo... Prosecutors do not CLEAR people... they will and do knowingly convict innocent people. Just ask Mueller.

Demo's been talking Impeach from day 1.... firing or asking people under his command to go bye bye is within his powers.

Did he stop Mueller or any investigation... NO

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Nonsense... I didn't call him a criminal and furthermore... ummm... "Lock her up"?

Excuse me, you said-

"But yelling "Emails," "Tarmac," "Whatever" is merely trying to change the subject of the conversation from the criminality of Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton."

Now you are saying you didn't call him a criminal?
That is exactly what you labeled him as with that comment.
If you can't see that, I can't help you and have nothing more to say on the matter other than you are off the pier with that comment.

[Tom]

5. Are there not ten specific instances of obstruction by Trump detailed in this report, any one of which would be sufficient to indict save for DOJ policy.

This the equivalent of the piling on of the me too" liars for Kavanaugh.

10 things that amount to nothing but people like you will come along and say "WOW! 10 things!"

Bobby thanks you.

btw, what was obstructed?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I have not read the entire report, but I have read a substantial portion.
Since you have read it, perhaps you can confirm a few things.
1. On page two of volume two does not Mueller explain the reasoning behind not charging Trump? YES
2. Does not that reasoning have everything to do with DOJ policy to no indict a sitting president and nothing to do with the amount of evidence accumulated. YES
3. In the early pages of volume two does not Mueller not specifically state that if he could clear Trump he would do so; but he cannot. YES
4. Also in the early pages of volume two does not Mueller that he has refrained from making a judgement on Trumps guilt or innocence solely because doing so would be unfair to Trump who has no venue for defending himself. YES
5. Are there not ten specific instances of obstruction by Trump detailed in this report, any one of which would be sufficient to indict save for DOJ policy. YES

Also, I have seen on TV, but have been unable to confirm, a passage in the report suggesting that it is the duty of Congress to investigate the findings of this report with the possibility of impeachment. Again, I saw this briefly and may be misinterpreting.

Bolded above.

Mueller presented a case an punted. Barr then inserted himself into the discussion with his letter and interpretation.

Mueller makes it clear that DOJ guidelines limit his ability to adequately make a call and that due to separation of powers there is a body tasked with handling the matter.

Its astounding to me that 3 weeks ago Mueller was fine with everyone here. Was a Honorable man. Etc. Etc.

Today the report is biased, unfair, and written by angry democrats.

Trump supporters are automatons.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Excuse me, you said-

"But yelling "Emails," "Tarmac," "Whatever" is merely trying to change the subject of the conversation from the criminality of Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton."

Now you are saying you didn't call him a criminal?
That is exactly what you labeled him as with that comment.
If you can't see that, I can't help you and have nothing more to say on the matter other than you are off the pier with that comment.

Discussing the criminality of Hillary Clinton (also not a criminal by the standards Trump is getting) is a deflection away from discussing the criminality of Donald Trump.

I may have worded it poorly but that was the intent. Certainly given the blowback it's gotten though has demonstrated the double standard at judging Hillary versus Trump around these parts.

PS) I've never once said Hillary isn't a criminal on here. I give zero shots about investigating her again. I'm just not optimistic hence why I've even joked she may be a better one than the president.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Tom

This the equivalent of the piling on of the me too" liars for Kavanaugh.

10 things that amount to nothing but people like you will come along and say "WOW! 10 things!"

Bobby thanks you.

btw, what was obstructed?

Mueller in his report outlined the charge and then cited 10 examples of possible obstruction.

He then weighed each action against the charge.

Read it and see if they made the legal argument on them.