Postmortem on Mueller

[Berzerker]

that dont matter, she was secy of state and Bill was cashing in too

 

[Estebonrober]

He only tried to obstruct injustice. The Mueller probe was a which-hunt. It's amazing that there are people still clinging to that assortment of lies about Russians under Trump's (metaphorical) bed. The allegation of hacking on the DNC: claimed without proof, and the FBI deliberately refused to even attempt to take custody of evidence or investigate. The proof presented for the allegations repeated by Mueller is nil. The allegation about a russian company somehow linked to the government attempting to do political propaganda: is is being fought over in courts and the prosecution (started by Mueller) has been so incapable of presenting evidence that they were forbidden by the judge on that case from continuing to publish unsubstantiated claims.



The one no one ever in the history of your country obeyed? The one that Clinton, Obama, etc shamelessly violated also? That's stick, keep hoping... I mean, Obama taking his very much undeserved Nobel Prize is one violation right there, taking swedish money given in an attempt to influence foreign policy of the US.



It would be nice if you had leaders who were not out to enrich themselves. When was the last time you had one such? You actually think any member of the Washington political class is going to try to impeach Trump on those grounds?

Stop living in la-la-land. Trump broke on laws as they are currently in force in the US. There is no way he's going to be touched over allegations of lawbreaking. Doing politics based on that phony idea has doomed his opposition from day one.

I'm pretty sure lala land is the place where people defend law breaking openly because they like the law breaker more than the law and expect me to respect that opinion. If you have proof the others broke laws I suggest you call the FBI.

On a more philosophical level about la la land. The appearance of law is as important as the actual order the law supposedly imposes. When leadership becomes so corrupt it openly flaunts the law with impunity we are not far from the dissolution of the order that law supposedly imposes. Maybe you all are right about the Clinton's and they are part of the downfall of the semblance of law and order we all pretend to live by, but Trump is taking it more than a level up in that process and you all are actively defending that. By doing so you not only completely dissolve your moral standing regarding the Clinton's you dissolve your moral stand at the future actions of your political rivals. It is disgusting.

 

[rah]

I have no problems with them investigating the Clinton foundation. Just like I have no problem with them investigating Trumps antics.

 

[innonimatu]

I'm pretty sure lala land is the place where people defend law breaking openly because they like the law breaker more than the law and expect me to respect that opinion. If you have proof the others broke laws I suggest you call the FBI.

On a more philosophical level about la la land. The appearance of law is as important as the actual order the law supposedly imposes. When leadership becomes so corrupt it openly flaunts the law with impunity we are not far from the dissolution of the order that law supposedly imposes. Maybe you all are right about the Clinton's and they are part of the downfall of the semblance of law and order we all pretend to live by, but Trump is taking it more than a level up in that process and you all are actively defending that. By doing so you not only completely dissolve your moral standing regarding the Clinton's you dissolve your moral stand at the future actions of your political rivals. It is disgusting.

I was not defending someone taking advantage of public office for personal enrichment. What I was saying, and you seem to miss because you are offended to start with, is that within the current status quo it is utterly impossible for Trump to be impeached over that. It is even impossible for much noise to be made over it, despite the fact that this is one thing his critics can point out with evidence. Why? Because too many people there (and elsewhere around the world, the example was not lost) are doing it, have been doing it for a long time. They'd be exposing themselves to similar action ("bad precedent"... for them!) if they moved to overthrow someone over issues of profiting from public office, so they won't.
Hopefully they won't, because you know what would happen if they did despite that? Do you want the politics of your country to descend to the level of farce that Brazil is living with, where the group happens to control the judiciary imprisons the other's candidate before elections, despite the blatant hypocrisy of themselves being utterly corrupt? Do you feel that will be an improvement? It won't, down that path is waiting the death of democracy, of any credibility it has.

Cleanse the parties from below. Then when there are enough credible representatives capable of prosecuting those who abuse power, you have someone worth supporting.

 

[Estebonrober]

I was not defending someone taking advantage of public office for personal enrichment. What I was saying, and you seem to miss because you are offended to start with, is that within the current status quo it is utterly impossible for Trump to be impeached over that. It is even impossible for much noise to be made over it, despite the fact that this is one thing his critics can point out with evidence. Why? Because too many people there (and elsewhere around the world, the example was not lost) are doing it, have been doing it for a long time. They'd be exposing themselves to similar action ("bad precedent"... for them!) if they moved to overthrow someone over issues of profiting from public office, so they won't.
Hopefully they won't, because you know what would happen if they did despite that? Do you want the politics of your country to descend to the level of farce that Brazil is living with, where the group happens to control the judiciary imprisons the other's candidate before elections, despite the blatant hypocrisy of themselves being utterly corrupt? Do you feel that will be an improvement? It won't, down that path is waiting the death of democracy, of any credibility it has.

Cleanse the parties from below. Then when there are enough credible representatives capable of prosecuting those who abuse power, you have someone worth supporting.

An interesting idea.

I didn't misinterpret this. . .

He only tried to obstruct injustice. The Mueller probe was a which-hunt. It's amazing that there are people still clinging to that assortment of lies about Russians under Trump's (metaphorical) bed.

No shortage of evidence he was negotiating with Russians on all sorts of things including a Hotel through the election.

 

[brennan]

The Mueller probe was a which-hunt.

A remarkably successful one, that found numerous instances of the Russians interfering in a US election - the thing it was set up to investigate. If Trump knew it wouldn't find evidence of collusion then why did he expend so much effort in trying to block it?

Obvious answer: because while there was apparently no real collusion it is obvious to everyone that he was quite happy to have a foreign power pissing about in US politics so long as it favoured him, and because he knew that numerous instances of dodgy behaviour would come to light.

 

[Tristan_C]

good lord, this incoherent display by Mueller is unwatchable

I— what? T- the, the, uh,

-"I would have to examine the statute."
-"I just read you the statute."

Could you repeat the question?

Can't you see how omitting all these common knowledge facts and lines of inquiry from your investigation of the Trump Tower meeting makes your report incomplete and one sided?
"That's outside my purview."

 

[Arakhor]

I dunno. "I did not exonerate Trump" seems clear enough to me.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

A republican just asked if he thought the president could be prosecuted for obstruction after leaving office.

"Yes"

 

[Old Hippy]

A republican just asked if he thought the president could be prosecuted for obstruction after leaving office.

"Yes"

does not look good for OBAMA...

 

[Arakhor]

Is that really the best you can manage?

 

[Old Hippy]

Is that really the best you can manage?

just waiting for Barr to release the declassified documents... so no

 

[Arakhor]

This is the Mueller thread, not the "wishful thinking about Obama" thread. Feel free to start one of those if it ever happens.

 

[Old Hippy]

This is the Mueller thread, not the "wishful thinking about Obama" thread. Feel free to start one of those if it ever happens.

Mueller has just established you can prosecute a President after he leaves office....
this thread has repeatedly established no one is above the law...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Some wires got crossed or something - the hearings were supposed to start at 1130am Eastern, which put them at 830am Pacific. Yet I got up at 7 and they were already going on...

 

[Berzerker]

Mueller said the President could fire both the FBI director and special counsel

 

[Estebonrober]

Mueller said the President could fire both the FBI director and special counsel

And then be impeached for obstruction of justice. Those points are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Berzerker]

I believe it was Lexicus who said the President cant fire the special counsel

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There is a theory among the Democrats that 'people don't read the book, they watch the movie'. This means that they think having Mueller on TV generating soundbites will move public opinion in a way that his report did not. Unfortunately, the way they set up this hearing makes that pretty much impossible, in addition to the self-censoring that Mueller is engaging in based on the Nixon-era memo that presidents can't be prosecuted.

They have given every member on the panel 5 minutes to ask questions which for the most part has meant half of every line of questioning is taken up by the members of Congress just setting up their actual questions. They give long-winded preambles that take up all their time just to ask a simple yes or no question, many of which Mueller won't even answer.

Mueller was steadfast in refusing to talk about anything outside of what was previously written. It's gotten silly - right now a congresswoman asked if impeachment was one of the 'constitutional remedies' that Mueller wrote in his report as a way of dealing with the President's crimes. He wouldn't answer, which is dumb. One thing that has worked in the Democrat's favor is that Mueller won't talk about the Steele dossier or the counter-intelligence investigation against Trump which was the primary slander route for Republicans.

But otherwise, I don't think there will be many soundbites or revelations that will change public opinion either way.

 

[Estebonrober]

There is a theory among the Democrats that 'people don't read the book, they watch the movie'. This means that they think having Mueller on TV generating soundbites will move public opinion in a way that his report did not. Unfortunately, the way they set up this hearing makes that pretty much impossible, in addition to the self-censoring that Mueller is engaging in based on the Nixon-era memo that presidents can't be prosecuted.

They have given every member on the panel 5 minutes to ask questions which for the most part has meant half of every line of questioning is taken up by the members of Congress just setting up their actual questions. They give long-winded preambles that take up all their time just to ask a simple yes or no question, many of which Mueller won't even answer.

Mueller was steadfast in refusing to talk about anything outside of what was previously written. It's gotten silly - right now a congresswoman asked if impeachment was one of the 'constitutional remedies' that Mueller wrote in his report as a way of dealing with the President's crimes. He wouldn't answer, which is dumb. One thing that has worked in the Democrat's favor is that Mueller won't talk about the Steele dossier or the counter-intelligence investigation against Trump which was the primary slander route for Republicans.

But otherwise, I don't think there will be many soundbites or revelations that will change public opinion either way.

I hope you and I are wrong about this, but I hope we are wrong about so much these days.