Mueller says Trump was not exonerated but Trump declares victory

[mogandave]

Not exonerated... a non event, a non entity, in the world of law in the USA. It's simply the rhetoric of a desperate group of people attacking a man who lawfully won an election. They simply refuse to accept the fact Ms. Clinton played under the same rules as Mr. Trump, and was bested. Hanging on to this imaginary, unfair result will fail them in 15 months time; they better find something based in reality to challenge the incumbent.

What’s really telling is that we’re already hearing how Trump is again conspiring with the Russians to secure the next election, so on the event he wins, it will be because he cheated again.

So why if Trump is guilty, why are none of our fearless leaders holding Mueller up as an incompetent? Assuming he can neither convict nor exonerate Trump, what was he doing?

I guess one could argue Mueller could not convict because of Trump’s obstruction, but (according to the report) none of Trump’s attempts to obstruct were successful.

[Tug]

33 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

What’s really telling is that we’re already hearing how Trump is again conspiring with the Russians to secure the next election, so on the event he wins, it will be because he cheated again.

So why if Trump is guilty, why are none of our fearless leaders holding Mueller up as an incompetent? Assuming he can neither convict nor exonerate Trump, what was he doing?

I guess one could argue Mueller could not convict because of Trump’s obstruction, but (according to the report) none of Trump’s attempts to obstruct were successful.
 

 

Hey you forgot his side kick Moscow Mitch lol and I know you believe Donald the show man over all the intelligence agency’s in the USA cause Donald knows better lol you also forgot they can’t indite a sitting potus and btw muller doesent convict congress does in an impeachment 

[Tug]

42 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

All the intelligence agencies were wrong about Iraq having WMDs, yes?

In any event, I didn’t forget about the left demonizing Mitch, I just thought this thread was about Trump and Mueller, not about Mitch and the press.

Notice how convenient the timing for the Mitch attacks were? As soon as the Mueller debacle was over it was: Hey, nothing to see here, look over there!

 

You are a funney guy lol we all see what he does try watching something other than trump tv lol common 2020!!!

[Credo]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

What’s really telling is that we’re already hearing how Trump is again conspiring with the Russians to secure the next election, so on the event he wins, it will be because he cheated again.

So why if Trump is guilty, why are none of our fearless leaders holding Mueller up as an incompetent? Assuming he can neither convict nor exonerate Trump, what was he doing?

I guess one could argue Mueller could not convict because of Trump’s obstruction, but (according to the report) none of Trump’s attempts to obstruct were successful.
 

 

I'd be interested in knowing where you heard that Trump is conspiring with the Russians.   All I've red is about Russian interference in the elections, nothing about Trump trying to conspire with the Russians.  

[rabas]

52 minutes ago, Tug said:

Hey you forgot his side kick Moscow Mitch lol and I know you believe Donald the show man over all the intelligence agency’s in the USA cause Donald knows better lol you also forgot they can’t indite a sitting potus and btw muller doesent convict congress does in an impeachment 

Russia, Russia, Russia.

 

Russia has interfered in US elections for a long time¹, even Reagan's. When Obama's ratings were so low that he could loose the 2012 election² he was caught open mike and video³ telling Medvedev he would be more flexible (on missile defence) after his election. Medvedev says "I'll convey this to Vladimir" and they pat each other and try to look innocent. Watch the body language. Preserving the missile treaty was dear to Putin.

 

(back to Trump)

1. https://www.csis.org/analysis/russian-meddling-united-states-historical-context-mueller-report
2. https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/qz-production-atlas-assets/charts/atlas_r1w3hhRUe.png
3.

 

 

 

 

[mogandave]

I'd be interested in knowing where you heard that Trump is conspiring with the Russians.   All I've red is about Russian interference in the elections, nothing about Trump trying to conspire with the Russians.  

Really? As I understand it, the Mueller report proved that but for Trump obstruction he would have been convicted of treason.

[mogandave]

You are a funney guy lol we all see what he does try watching something other than trump tv lol common 2020!!!

By “we all” I assume you mean leftists, yes? lol

I don’t watch tv lol

common 2020!!! lol

[Ramen087]

12 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

What’s really telling is that we’re already hearing how Trump is again conspiring with the Russians to secure the next election, so on the event he wins, it will be because he cheated again.

So why if Trump is guilty, why are none of our fearless leaders holding Mueller up as an incompetent? Assuming he can neither convict nor exonerate Trump, what was he doing?

I guess one could argue Mueller could not convict because of Trump’s obstruction, but (according to the report) none of Trump’s attempts to obstruct were successful.
 

 

you could argue that, but you would never win such an argument... and so it goes... two years and not any evidence worthy to indicate a crime? that's a tough row to hoe in light of the paltry returns invested in the inquiry

[mogandave]

Not but but but. Just showing your argument was not valid. The U.S. intelligence service found no proof of WMD before the war, the French intelligence service knew there was none, the Israeli too, and the UK intelligence service probably also knew. 
So they are not as unreliable as you claim.

Yes we know, “Bush lied people died”

[Credo]

12 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Really? As I understand it, the Mueller report proved that but for Trump obstruction he would have been convicted of treason.

 

Really, two separate issues.   The investigation was about past activity.   There is nothing that would point to 'is conspiring' in the present tense.   

 

[Orton Rd]

On 7/25/2019 at 5:57 AM, simple1 said:

Keep on lying and misinforming trump, but for the majority your credibility is gone forever.

Rubbish he will be re elected, why? because he's doing a good job as President that's why.

[mogandave]

14 minutes ago, Credo said:

Really, two separate issues.   The investigation was about past activity.   There is nothing that would point to 'is conspiring' in the present tense.   

 

The investigation was about Trump colluding with Russia to undermine the democratic election process. Again, as Mueller pointed out, Trump obstructed the investigation. The only reason Trump was not indicted was because he interfered with the investigation, and Mueller couldn't do anything about it. Because a sitting President can not be indicted, Mueller's hands were tied and Trump go away with it.

[Morch]

On 8/4/2019 at 12:45 AM, Ramen087 said:

Not exonerated... a non event, a non entity, in the world of law in the USA. It's simply the rhetoric of a desperate group of people attacking a man who lawfully won an election. They simply refuse to accept the fact Ms. Clinton played under the same rules as Mr. Trump, and was bested. Hanging on to this imaginary, unfair result will fail them in 15 months time; they better find something based in reality to challenge the incumbent.

 

Conveniently skipping the part where Trump made a big deal (if a false one) about being "exonerated". Same goes for Trump supporters on this forum. Apparently when it serves whatever current nonsense narrative is pushed, this too can be minimized.

[Morch]

On 8/4/2019 at 7:58 PM, Ramen087 said:

you could argue that, but you would never win such an argument... and so it goes... two years and not any evidence worthy to indicate a crime? that's a tough row to hoe in light of the paltry returns invested in the inquiry

 

Don't recall you having any similar issues with longer investigations involving Democrat politicians - and that came to naught. Other than in your narrative, the investigation wasn't actually about Trump committing a crime or not. As for "paltry returns" - the investigation saw quite a few people face charges, some ended in prison, and a whole lot of money fined.

[Morch]

On 8/4/2019 at 11:00 PM, mogandave said:

The investigation was about Trump colluding with Russia to undermine the democratic election process. Again, as Mueller pointed out, Trump obstructed the investigation. The only reason Trump was not indicted was because he interfered with the investigation, and Mueller couldn't do anything about it. Because a sitting President can not be indicted, Mueller's hands were tied and Trump go away with it.

 

The investigation wasn't about Trump colluding with Russia to undermine the democratic elections process. That's a false narrative, and considering the amount of posts you make on related topics, it's impossible you're not aware of this. So just the usual misleading bit, with trolling on the side.

[mogandave]

 
The investigation wasn't about Trump colluding with Russia to undermine the democratic elections process. That's a false narrative, and considering the amount of posts you make on related topics, it's impossible you're not aware of this. So just the usual misleading bit, with trolling on the side.

Sorry, your right. It was about Trump not colluding with Russia to undermine the democratic process.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Sorry, your right. It was about Trump not colluding with Russia to undermine the democratic process.
 

 

 

Yes, I am right. And you're just trolling again. The investigation was about Russian interference with the USA elections. Your willingness to emulate the president's style regarding facts is dully noted.

[meand]

Trump needs to be taken down anyway. It would be like a sports contest being won by a forfeit if he was impeached. Screw that, take him down and then let the country heal. 

[mogandave]

 
Yes, I am right. And you're just trolling again. The investigation was about Russian interference with the USA elections. Your willingness to emulate the president's style regarding facts is dully noted.

So if it wasn’t about Trump, why does he need to be exonerated?

Do you think that had Trump lost there would have been a special prosecutor and a huge investigation?

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So if it wasn’t about Trump, why does he need to be exonerated?

Do you think that had Trump lost there would have been a special prosecutor and a huge investigation?

 

 

More inane trolling. More pretense of ignorance.

 

The one who started this "exonerate" bit was Trump himself. Later comments were to the effect that this is not the case. Trump's actions were reviewed under the investigation, that doesn't make the investigation in its entirety about Trump.

 

As for your "what if" deflection - I think there would have been an investigation anyway. Not as high profile, and probably with less nonsense out of the White House or Republicans.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

So if it wasn’t about Trump, why does he need to be exonerated?

Do you think that had Trump lost there would have been a special prosecutor and a huge investigation?

 

Mueller said he wasn't exonerated of obstructing justice.

[mogandave]

Mueller said he wasn't exonerated of obstructing justice.

Really?

[mogandave]

 
More inane trolling. More pretense of ignorance.
 
The one who started this "exonerate" bit was Trump himself. Later comments were to the effect that this is not the case. Trump's actions were reviewed under the investigation, that doesn't make the investigation in its entirety about Trump.
 
As for your "what if" deflection - I think there would have been an investigation anyway. Not as high profile, and probably with less nonsense out of the White House or Republicans.

You’re right of course.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

There does not seem to be a quote in the these where he actually says that, do you have a transcript?

 

I know he later testified that he had never actually exonerated anyone. Did you miss that?

enough with the trolling. What's the name of this post?

[marcusarelus]

On 8/4/2019 at 5:00 PM, mogandave said:

Yes, I saw it. A "professor", a couple of disgruntled employees and a few journalists that are disappointed they're no longer the only election influencing game in town. 

 

They were happy when Facebook data was exploited to help elect President Obama, not so much when it helped Trump.

 

That about sum it up?

Nope.  Trump was not running against Obama and the media said Cambridge Analytica was genius under Obama and treason under Trump.  You gotta figure everything Obama was good and everything Trump does is bad.  

[mogandave]

Nope.  Trump was not running against Obama and the media said Cambridge Analytica was genius under Obama and treason under Trump.  You gotta figure everything Obama was good and everything Trump does is bad.  

That didn’t make the movie, I wonder why?

[marcusarelus]

10 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

That didn’t make the movie, I wonder why?

 

????????

[CharlieH]

reported posts and post with oversized txt removed.

[bristolboy]

Judge questions Barr's handling of Mueller findings

 

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Monday pressed Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers on why the public shouldn’t be allowed to see redacted portions of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, suggesting that he may be willing to consider releasing at least some of the restricted document...

...Walton in particular raised concerns about Attorney General William Barr’s initial handling of Mueller’s report, indicating that he believed there were discrepancies in how Barr characterized the report and the former special counsel’s actual findings.

“I do have some concerns because it seems to me difficult to reconcile the contents of the Mueller report and statements made by the attorney general” about the report, Walton said.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/456236-judge-questions-barrs-handling-of-mueller-findings

 

[atyclb]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Judge questions Barr's handling of Mueller findings

 

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Monday pressed Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers on why the public shouldn’t be allowed to see redacted portions of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, suggesting that he may be willing to consider releasing at least some of the restricted document...

...Walton in particular raised concerns about Attorney General William Barr’s initial handling of Mueller’s report, indicating that he believed there were discrepancies in how Barr characterized the report and the former special counsel’s actual findings.

“I do have some concerns because it seems to me difficult to reconcile the contents of the Mueller report and statements made by the attorney general” about the report, Walton said.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/456236-judge-questions-barrs-handling-of-mueller-findings