• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Politics The Mueller Investigation - report is out

As expected, Victor Davis Hanson gets what everyone else missed about the Mueller testimony:

“The Democrats wanted to prosecute Donald Trump of a thought crime today. That’s what dictatorships do."
 


Ha! That's a new one I hadn't heard. Never knew there was a chance Mueller was interviewing with Trump for the FBI Director's position. This question strikes me as 'out there'. Has there been any such suggestion by anyone prior to this and I just missed it?



Mueller found, and nobody has argued, that the Russians were interfering with the election. They have for decades, as we have in other country gov'ts. Key questions here - is Trump or his team part of it? Definitively NO. So, then what? Mueller makes further comment later to the effect that Russian meddling has been ongoing for awhile and he hopes it doesn't continue but is afraid it will. This statement is made without (from the clips I heard) association to either party or anyone in particular.
 


NADLER: . . . [Y]ou wrote, quote, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment,” close quote. Now does that say there was no obstruction?

MUELLER: No.
DEMINGS: Director Mueller, isn’t it fair to say that the president’s written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn’t answer many of your questions, but where he did his answers showed that he wasn’t always being truthful?

MUELLER: I would say generally

The problem with these statements is the use of the word 'generally'. This vagueary is why this is still ongoing as Mueller didn't explicitly state there was or was not obstruction the way he clearly stated there was not collusion. He worded it in a way that allowed Dems to say 'there is still dirt' and Trump to say 'I am exonerated'.

'...does that say there was no obstruction?' 'No' Because he wouldn't state clearly one way or the other as was his mandate.

A proper followup question to these answers that indicate 'generally' would be "Mr. Mueller, please state specifically the instances that did or did not constitute obstruction.' Nail the fkr down to a yes or no, a clear breaking of the law or not. This continued use of 'generally' leaves us as vague and interpretable as we have been since he first submitted his report. Useless.
 



[/QUOTE]
QUIGLEY: Would it be fair to describe [Wikileaks] as ... a hostile intelligence service?

MUELLER: Yes.

QUIGLEY: If we could put up slide six. “This just came out. WikiLeaks. I love WikiLeaks.'' Donald Trump, Oct. 10, 2016. “This Wikileaks stuff is unbelievable. It tells you the inner heart. You've got to read it.” Donald Trump, Oct. 12, 2016. “This Wikileaks is like a treasure trove.” Donald Trump, October 21, 2016. “Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks.” Donald Trump, Nov. 4, 2016. Would any of those quotes disturb you, Mr. Director?

...

MUELLER: Well, it's probably—problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some, I don't know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.

It is problematic to have a President with an opinion of Wikileaks? Or that the opinion is he likes that Wikileaks provides secure information (because it is harming Trump's opponents)? I can see the angle that having a President who supports someone leaking gov't info is a problem - it is directly against what a gov't official, specifically the President, should want. At the time of the quotes Trump was not President, he was an opponent of Hillary, whom Wikileaks was damaging. Any Rep candidate would appreciate damage to their opponents, but likely not as gleefully as Trump did. IF and WHEN Wikileaks starts pouring out bad things about Trump, I'm sure he'll call them FakeNews as well. But this begs two questions:

1. At the time of Trump's statement, his position (Rep candidate, NOT sitting President) - is his opinion of Wikileaks a problem?

2. What kind of problem does it present? Anything specifically in relation to Russian collusion which was not found? Anything to the obstruction (highly doubtful)?

Where is the problem? Sounds like Mueller's concern is appearances, not facts.
 
I don't follow the specifics of the russian spy thingy, and have no familiarity with the key-persons involved.
Today I took a look at some videos posted here and there. This Mueller guy being questioned, he doesn't seem well.
Maybe it's just me, but these proceedings appear to be really taxing on this mature-aged man. Overly harsh, as though he is on trial for terrible crimes.
Is that really necessary?
 
Mueller is in a catch 22 because he cant accuse someone of a crime unless he indites them. By department of justice protocol they are not allowed to indite a sitting president. He can only lay out the evidence for congress to do with it as they will. He clearly laid out specific instances of times the president "my have obstructed Justice", worded as such because he cant make specific proclamations of guilt without bringing an indictment.

I don't have time to go back through and find all the specific quotes but a lot of you guys obviously didn't watch this, haven't read the report and have no idea as to what is actually going on. This article succinctly goes over the evidence, as per the Mueller report, regarding Trumps involvement in direct obstruction.


“Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?” Buck asked.

“Yes,” Mueller said.

Another article shows more of the carefully chosen words from Mueller, who's hands were essentially tied as to what he could say, laying out the necessary requirements to meet obstruction and why he didn't make formal proclamations of guilt.


The report clearly outlines Trumps involvement in trying to obstruct justice. It is a complicated, 400pg report, that took a whole staff team to compile on top of that Mueller was extremely limited in what he could say. I highly suggest people read the report. I had a highlighted version and the contents were eye opening.

Independent here, who is not blinded by political allegiance. I'm actually a registered republican. I can't believe people don't think he colluded with Russia, when at a party rally he called on Russia to basically release Hilary's email information and then it was done. It is Ok if you don't care that he did all this stuff and are just happy that he hasn't been out right caught(yet) but to deny the reality is just plain, wilful ignorance. Even a child could put together the circumstantial evidence but I'll go a head and play along, with a wink and a nod.
 
Last edited:
Really it SHOULD be for congress to get rid of trump. That's the mechanism the constitution provides.

The courts have no real enforcement power here because they're not the ones that are supposed to act against a rouge president.

Which is what trump is. And the sooner we get rid of him the better.

I'd never have thought I'd miss George W Bush. But then I never thought Donald Trump would become president either.
 
Really it SHOULD be for congress to get rid of trump. That's the mechanism the constitution provides.

The courts have no real enforcement power here because they're not the ones that are supposed to act against a rouge president.

Which is what trump is. And the sooner we get rid of him the better.

I'd never have thought I'd miss George W Bush. But then I never thought Donald Trump would become president either.

I voted for Bush.... Twice...lol
 
Well for what it's worth I'd take a bush presidency any day over this.

I shudder to think what might happen if trump were around for a 9/11. We could do a lot worse than Bush.
 
Well for what it's worth I'd take a bush presidency any day over this.

I shudder to think what might happen if trump were around for a 9/11. We could do a lot worse than Bush.
So what exactly dont you like about Trump? (that effects the country as a whole)
 
So what exactly dont you like about Trump? (that effects the country as a whole)

What don't I like about trump that affects the country as a whole?

OK.. I don't like the damage he's doing to the checks and balances and precedents that this countries founded on.

In the past few centuries of America's history, there have been very few presidents that have shown such complete disregard for the constraints the founders intended upon the office of President.

There have been a few others to break the conventions, but even in those cases there were usually understandably unusual circumstances. For instance when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. I don't like it, but I can see the difficult circumstances that prompted his decision.

Bush made questionable decisions too, but again I can see the difficult circumstances he was facing after 9/11 and pressure he was likely under.

Trump is different, because trump disregards the rules and procedures because he's a narcissist. A baby who just can't stand not getting his way.

Take his declaring a border emergency, then saying "I didn't have to do it this way". Fucking great. So what he's saying is he overstepped his authority and damaged the checks and balances of congressional spending oversight, not because he had to but because he's an impatient narcissist.

Or more recently with the census question when he tweeted about outright ignoring the Supreme Courts ruling (throwing his own people under the bus as he always does).

This doesn't just affect today, every presidents actions sets precident for future presidents. And his legacy is shaping up to be turning the presidency into a dictatorship by showing every future president exactly how much you can get away with. Because all this time most of the rules have been conventions. With presidents not breaking them because they know not to and know the harm it would do rather than because anything was stopping them. If trump isn't impeached and never held to account, future presidents on both sides are likely to hold themselves and be held to lower standards because of trump.

And that's just the damage he's doing now to the foundation of the country, the damage he could do is so much worse.

I don't trust trump to behave rationally, or in anyone or anything interest but his own (fortunately he's too unstable to even act in his own interest much of the time).

God help us if there's a real emergency, because our leaders negotiating skills are just terrible, his ability to handle not getting his way is like a spoiled toddlers. Not to mention his pathetic vendetta against people over stupid bs.

Oh and then there's also all the harm he's done to American society. Pitting Americans against each other, encouraging people to be as stubborn as he is, to not even make the slightest attempt at finding common ground and agreement.

He is without question the worst president out of at least a very long time if not ever. I just hope there's no disasters until he's out of office and then when he's gone hopefully much of the damage can start to be repaired.
 
I agree with what Jess said, and on top of that, what he is doing to undermine environmental protections and the public school system are embarrassing and damaging. Also he is undermining our longstanding allies and international partnerships. And let's not forget the quiet dismantling of media antitrust laws which is allowing Sinclair group (Fox's parent company) to buy up the majority of local news networks in the country and force them to repeat their talking points. Say what you will about the media... repealing media anti trust laws is the first step to government-controlled media. The only reason to do that is to make it so there is only one mainstream news outlet. This should be such a big red flag for everyone.
 
Oh and then there's also all the harm he's done to American society. Pitting Americans against each other, encouraging people to be as stubborn as he is, to not even make the slightest attempt at finding common ground and agreement.
definitely.

from his election victory speech:

donald trump said:
Now it's time for America to bind the wounds of division. We have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and Independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people. It's time.
...
I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all Americans. And this is so important to me.
...
does anybody really think he's done anything to 'bind the wounds of division'?

alasdair
 
Top