The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:33 pm

so the fact they just delivered it and not went out and arrested him indicates he isn't guilty? That's my assumption, even though that sucks.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:37 pm

Holman wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:14 pmThe reporting now is that Mueller's report calls for no further indictments.

There's a whole pile of sealed indictments that are currently outstanding, if I understand things correctly. IANAL but I suppose it's possible that the paperwork delivered today might have included recommendations for Barr to pursue those sealed indictments if he felt it was appropriate, based on findings of the report.

so the fact they just delivered it and not went out and arrested him indicates he isn't guilty? That's my assumption, even though that sucks.

Mueller was tasked with performing the investigation and delivering the report to the AG. It's Barr that will decide what to do based on what Mueller's report details.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:52 pm

naednek wrote:so the fact they just delivered it and not went out and arrested him indicates he isn't guilty? That's my assumption, even though that sucks.

No matter what they found, that was never happening.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:11 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:37 pm
Holman wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:14 pmThe reporting now is that Mueller's report calls for no further indictments.
There's a whole pile of sealed indictments that are currently outstanding, if I understand things correctly. IANAL but I suppose it's possible that the paperwork delivered today might have included recommendations for Barr to pursue those sealed indictments if he felt it was appropriate, based on findings of the report.

According to reporting tonight there aren't any further indictments. No marshal of the Supreme Court. Nothing will happen is right.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:13 pm

Right...there aren't any more coming. But there's still a bunch (allegedly) that are sealed and waiting to be...unsealed. I dunno. I have to trust the process until Mr. Fed tells me to burn it all to the ground.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:41 pm

Mueller and the Justice Department both adhere to the principle that a sitting president can't be indicted. Just because there is no indictment doesn't mean there are no criminal or impeachable offenses.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:48 pm

This afternoon my radio told me that Mueller's report would not include any information about persons who would not be indicted. What an anticlimax, if that's true.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:24 pm

Damn y'all are some negative Nancys. We don't know anything about it yet.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:32 pm

Kraken wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:48 pm This afternoon my radio told me that Mueller's report would not include any information about persons who would not be indicted. What an anticlimax, if that's true.

That makes no sense. If no one was worthy of indictment the report would never have existed?

Even a report on an investigation that uncovered nothing contains all the ways nothing was uncovered during the investigation.

I'm not holding my breath on the report. I think the possibility of action against the President was always minuscule, and there is nothing to imply that that has changed. There won't ever be a smoking gun (more by luck than any effort on drumpf's part. Man did he make so many mistakes) and even with a smoking gun it was going to mean war between the parties. With no smoking gun, it'll just be partisanship as usual.

If ever there was an example of white privilege, it will be drumpf walking out of this unscathed in any meaningful way. Americans might be opposed to royalty, but your president seems to be an untouchable god while in office. Canada, Australia and the UK all have means to remove a PM from office during their term, and it even happens, occasionally.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:02 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:32 pm Canada, Australia and the UK all have means to remove a PM from office during their term, and it even happens, occasionally.

Those mechanisms are only as good as the people entrusted with enforcing them.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:46 pm

Hell, we're far enough into his run that I don't think even a smoking gun would shave much time off Trump's presidency. Not after you factor in the GOP delays.

/edit - and if that were the case, we might even be better off keeping the widely-hated Trump for the extra few months than have Pence (or whoever) come in as a Conservative white knight and make the next election more competitive.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:11 am

Kraken wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:02 pm
GreenGoo wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:32 pm Canada, Australia and the UK all have means to remove a PM from office during their term, and it even happens, occasionally.
Those mechanisms are only as good as the people entrusted with enforcing them.

It seems to me that Americans/american politicians just aren't willing to take that step, even if there was an easier mechanism in place. Because the president is it's own branch of government, it requires extraordinary effort to remove him, but even if that weren't the case, it feels like civil war would break out if it happened based on a no confidence vote or something to that effect.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:42 am

GreenGoo wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:11 am
Kraken wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:02 pm
GreenGoo wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:32 pm Canada, Australia and the UK all have means to remove a PM from office during their term, and it even happens, occasionally.
Those mechanisms are only as good as the people entrusted with enforcing them.
It seems to me that Americans/american politicians just aren't willing to take that step, even if there was an easier mechanism in place. Because the president is it's own branch of government, it requires extraordinary effort to remove him, but even if that weren't the case, it feels like civil war would break out if it happened based on a no confidence vote or something to that effect.

It is better to remove a rogue with a new election than by overturning the last one. If Trump wins a second term...well, then we voted our republic out of existence. Yay democracy!

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:43 am

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:30 am

I'm deep in Trump country at a hotel this morning and of course, the Fox News celebration about the Russian Investigation is on every tv here. The talk is mostly about how the Mueller report obviously is good for Trump. No talk about how Russians attacked our election or how our President hasn't once condemned it.

They literally had panels of experts saying that Mueller got a council of anti-Trump lawyers and couldn't find anything on President. That sounds like a reasonable interpretation. Still I shouldn't have expected more. I hadn't seen Fox News in awhile and this was probably the worst morning to get some exposure. I literally groaned as soon as I saw the screen as I approached and now I need a 2nd shower now to get this filth off. Sad!

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:18 am

So is it no longer a witch hunt?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:55 am

Did we link to the opinion piece in the NYT by James Comey?

I am rooting for a demonstration to the world — and maybe most of all to our president and his enablers — that the United States has a justice system that works because there are people who believe in it and rise above personal interest and tribalism. That system may reach conclusions they like or it may not, but the apolitical administration of justice is the beating heart of this country. I hope we all get to see that.

...

I do have one hope that I should confess. I hope that Mr. Trump is not impeached and removed from office before the end of his term. I don’t mean that Congress shouldn’t move ahead with the process of impeachment governed by our Constitution, if Congress thinks the provable facts are there. I just hope it doesn’t. Because if Mr. Trump were removed from office by Congress, a significant portion of this country would see this as a coup, and it would drive those people farther from the common center of American life, more deeply fracturing our country.

Critics of Mr. Trump should hope for something much harder to distort, or to nurse as a grievance, than an impeachment. We need a resounding election result in 2020, where Americans of all stripes, divided as they may be about important policy issues — immigration, guns, abortion, climate change, regulation, taxes — take a moment from their busy lives to show that they are united by something even more important: the belief that the president of the United States cannot be a chronic liar who repeatedly attacks the rule of law. Then we can get back to policy disagreements.

It's pretty unfortunate that we need to consider the "Too big to fail" mentality that suggests removal of Trump because he's a criminal would just be too damaging to the fabric of our nation.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:31 am

Where is the outcry against this false bill of goods that you've been sold? I'd think you'd want justice against the perpetrators for squashing all your hopes and dreams?

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:33 am

GreenGoo wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:32 pm
If ever there was an example of white privilege, it will be drumpf walking out of this unscathed in any meaningful way. Americans might be opposed to royalty, but your president seems to be an untouchable god while in office. Canada, Australia and the UK all have means to remove a PM from office during their term, and it even happens, occasionally.

That’s ridiculous. If there’s no evidence, there’s no evidence. If a dedicated investigator with the resources of the Justice Department and the FBI behind him can spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars and yet can find no evidence of illegal acts by the president, then we have to be prepared to accept that, even if we can’t stand him. Calling it “white privilege” is wronging just makes no sense. Rxactly how do you think Trump’s race played a role in the investigation? Do you think Mueller gave Trump a break because he is white? Seriously? If anything this makes you look biased and prejudiced against justice.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:05 am

Kraken wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:48 pm This afternoon my radio told me that Mueller's report would not include any information about persons who would not be indicted. What an anticlimax, if that's true.

I'm not sure that's quite right. Mueller's report is required to include information on why he charged and didn't charge various people.

I think the speculation is that Barr might decline to release information about anyone not charged.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:13 am

Its interesting to note that that, to conservatives, the fact that Trump wasn’t immediately frogmarched off to jail the second the report was submitted means that everyone in the administration is completely exonerated from any of their poor behavior (whether or not it relates to this specific investigation) until the end of time. The spiking of the ball over this when the actual contents of the report remain to be seen is rather fascinating to watch

Also, I thought Mueller was “corrupt” and “conflicted” and a “liar”? I mean, we’ve been hearing that for literally months now from all corners of conservative media. Did that instantly change because you received a result that you think might be favorable?

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:22 am

Skinypupy wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:13 am Its interesting to note that that, to conservatives, the fact that Trump wasn’t immediately frogmarched off to jail the second the report was submitted means that everyone in the administration is completely exonerated from any of their poor behavior (whether or not it relates to this specific investigation) until the end of time. The spiking of the ball over this when the actual contents of the report remain to be seen is rather fascinating to watch

Also, I thought Mueller was “corrupt” and “conflicted” and a “liar”? I mean, we’ve been hearing that for literally months now from all corners of conservative media. Did that instantly change because you received a result that you think might be favorable?

It's just like the election - up until the point that Trump was elected, all I would hear from my Trump friends was that the election was "rigged". Afterwards, all was well with the world. Hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance runs strong with this group. Self awareness seems to be lacking.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:24 am

Grifman wrote:
GreenGoo wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:32 pm
If ever there was an example of white privilege, it will be drumpf walking out of this unscathed in any meaningful way. Americans might be opposed to royalty, but your president seems to be an untouchable god while in office. Canada, Australia and the UK all have means to remove a PM from office during their term, and it even happens, occasionally.
That’s ridiculous. If there’s no evidence, there’s no evidence. If a dedicated investigator with the resources of the Justice Department and the FBI behind him can spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars and yet can find no evidence of illegal acts by the president, then we have to be prepared to accept that, even if we can’t stand him. Calling it “white privilege” is wronging just makes no sense. Rxactly how do you think Trump’s race played a role in the investigation? Do you think Mueller gave Trump a break because he is white? Seriously? If anything this makes you look biased and prejudiced against justice.

While I agree with your comments on the racial aspect or lack thereof of Mueller's investigation, Trump has broken dozens of laws in broad daylight on a myriad of occasions. The only reason he hasn't already been impeached at minimum, or thrown in jail is Republican political machinations.

As to the white priviledge, Dude is the walking talking poster child of white priviledge.
Daddy's money
Bonespurs
Boarding school
Multiple bailouts
Zero business accountability
Central Park five fiasco
Buying supermodel wives
Assaulting said wife/ other women with no action
International / celebrity connection based on social circles/wealth unrelated to actual success
Automatic credit with half the country for being white (not having his citizen ship or family legality status broadly questioned, despite real suspect evidence)
Etc.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:25 am

One of the biggest things (other than anything directly related to Trump himself) coming out of this is that it appears DTJ won't be indicted for perjury.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:25 am

Skinypupy wrote:Its interesting to note that that, to conservatives, the fact that Trump wasn’t immediately frogmarched off to jail the second the report was submitted means that everyone in the administration is completely exonerated from any of their poor behavior (whether or not it relates to this specific investigation) until the end of time. The spiking of the ball over this when the actual contents of the report remain to be seen is rather fascinating to watch

Also, I thought Mueller was “corrupt” and “conflicted” and a “liar”? I mean, we’ve been hearing that for literally months now from all corners of conservative media. Did that instantly change because you received a result that you think might be favorable?

Yes.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:09 am

I found this pretty interesting, when we hear the inevitable whinging about the cost of the investigation.

Special Prosecutor costs in 2017 dollars:

Nixon, $47,094,590.10
Reagan, $81,098,533.51
Clinton, $83,358,502.05
Trump, $6,759,695 (137 days into it)

Source

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:15 am

Grifman wrote:One of the biggest things (other than anything directly related to Trump himself) coming out of this is that it appears DTJ won't be indicted for perjury.

Though there are still sealed indictments and investigations that have been turned over to the NY attorney general office, right? So it’s at least still possible that he’ll be charged with something.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:05 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:15 am
Grifman wrote:One of the biggest things (other than anything directly related to Trump himself) coming out of this is that it appears DTJ won't be indicted for perjury.
Though there are still sealed indictments and investigations that have been turned over to the NY attorney general office, right? So it’s at least still possible that he’ll be charged with something.

No.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/special ... news.html

It is possible that leads uncovered during the special counsel's inquiry and handed off could lead to charges brought by state prosecutors or other parts of the Department of Justice. But Mueller has no more indictments waiting under seal, and he will not recommend any further indictments, multiple outlets reported.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:07 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:15 am
Grifman wrote:One of the biggest things (other than anything directly related to Trump himself) coming out of this is that it appears DTJ won't be indicted for perjury.
Though there are still sealed indictments and investigations that have been turned over to the NY attorney general office, right? So it’s at least still possible that he’ll be charged with something.

According to something I read and can't find, there are at least 7 known investigations to which Mueller has sent evidence and witnesses.

SDNY is probably handling the money-laundering and other crimes that make Trump (and Junior, etc) sweat the most.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:52 pm

Grifman wrote:
Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:15 am
Grifman wrote:One of the biggest things (other than anything directly related to Trump himself) coming out of this is that it appears DTJ won't be indicted for perjury.
Though there are still sealed indictments and investigations that have been turned over to the NY attorney general office, right? So it’s at least still possible that he’ll be charged with something.
No.

Seems like there’s at least some potentially conflicting reporting on that subject:

Spoiler:

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:16 pm

Grifman wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:33 am That’s ridiculous. If there’s no evidence, there’s no evidence.

No evidence of what? Collusion? There *is* evidence. We've already seen it. That he is not being charged is not meaningful, as we already knew he was never going to be charged.

You can't possibly believe this exonerates him? Even if there is nothing in the report at all (which we are still waiting to find out) we know that he worked with the Russians to help procure the presidency. There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that has been in the public view for going on 3 years now.

Maybe there's no smoking gun, but there sure are a lot of powder burns, finger prints and tweets.

But so what?

I hate the fucking guy with every fibre of my being, but that doesn't mean I don't give him a fair shake when he deserves it. This isn't one of those times, because he's done everything in his power to be undeserving of the benefit of the doubt in this context.

The white privilege comment was pure "the president is above all". He's a poster child for white privilege, and the office is titanium plated armor for even the most heinous of individuals. I don't think many people thought different. I certainly didn't. I'm just commenting on that fact.

Hell, Nixon had the good sense to step down. Drumpf doesn't even have that going for him. To be fair, I'm not sure Nixon would feel the need to step down today either. The GOP and their supporters have shown that they just aren't that interested in ethical governance.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:47 pm

There is zero chance Trump's defenders would extend the same Executive Privilege to Obama. They fought him tooth and nail on everything -- down to his clothing. The hypocrisy alone is appalling, but then it's this blatant corruption in " God Emperor" clothing. There is enough evidence to impeach, but no amount of evidence to flip Republicans to vote to remove Trump. It's a cancer.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:39 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:16 pm No evidence of what? Collusion? There *is* evidence. We've already seen it. That he is not being charged is not meaningful, as we already knew he was never going to be charged.

You can't possibly believe this exonerates him? Even if there is nothing in the report at all (which we are still waiting to find out) we know that he worked with the Russians to help procure the presidency. There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that has been in the public view for going on 3 years now.

What evidence do you have that Trump worked with the Russians to procure the presidency, that he had direct knowledge of anything that was done?

Are there emails between him and/or his campaign officials and Russian operatives about such assistance? Is there evidence of such assistance given in response to those emails? Is there evidence that Cambridge Analytica coordinated with the Russians by supplying them with data that they could use for Facebook and other social media buys? Is there evidence that Trump was informed of the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians ahead of time? Is there evidence that anything other than adoptions was actually discussed at that meeting (regardless of the ostensible original purpose of that meeting)?

So far all I've seen is the Trump campaign nibbling around the edges of cooperation and collusion (which is bad enough), but nothing definitive, no smoking gun. And frankly, I've always seriously doubted that they did more than this. The campaign was too uncoordinated and amateurish to have pulled something like this off. And if they had tried, because of said amateurs, a chain of evidence would be abundant. I think the Trump campaign took advantage of Russian interference but that is not the same as criminally conspiring with them. The only evidence of conspiracy I've seen are:

1) The Trump Tower meeting, but in the end, apparently nothing came of that, as nothing was provided by the Russians - it was all about the adoption issue. The bait appeared to be damaging info about Clinton but none was provided as far as we know.

2) Roger Stone was apparently in contact with Wikileaks (which again is bad enough) but as the NY Times has noted, at this point, none of his activity actual looks illegal:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/us/p ... sion.html

The question is whether Mr. Mueller’s team will find evidence that the Trump campaign agreed to work with WikiLeaks or the Russian government, or both, in a conspiracy to violate some statute — such as laws that make it illegal to hack private information or that bar foreigners and foreign entities from expending resources to influence American elections.

Even if Trump campaign aides knew that the Russian government had funneled the stolen documents to WikiLeaks, the campaign would not be criminally culpable, they said. Knowing about someone’s else crime is a far cry from committing one.

It is illegal for campaigns to accept foreign contributions, including services, which are considered in-kind donations. WikiLeaks is considered a foreign organization. So hypothetically, if the Trump campaign were actively involved in a scheme with WikiLeaks to bolster its own campaign, that might be a violation of the Federal Election Commission rules against foreign contributions.

But at a minimum, that would require evidence that the Trump campaign knew that WikiLeaks was trying to damage Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, agreed with that objective and engaged in overt acts to further the scheme.
3) Manafort gave polling data to the Russians. That's doesn't look good but is that criminal? Manafort wasn't indicted on that so it appears not.

I think those are the main items I am aware but correct me if I've missed something important.

I think Andrew McCarthy correctly sums everything up:

Connections between Trump’s world and the Kremlin may be unsavory and disturbing, he said. “But when you are doing a criminal investigation, the only collusion that counts is a conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States.” McCarthy said. “If you don’t have that, you don’t have anything.”
So yeah, the Trump campaign obviously did some unsavory and bad stuff. They obviously took advantage of the disruptive work done by the Russians. And it is pathetic that Republican voters tolerate in Trump what they would damn a Democrat for, but it doesn't appear any of it was criminal. So that's where we are in the end and why there are no further indictments.

The white privilege comment was pure "the president is above all". He's a poster child for white privilege, and the office is titanium plated armor for even the most heinous of individuals. I don't think many people thought different. I certainly didn't. I'm just commenting on that fact.
Sure, Trump has privilege, white or otherwise, but that's not what you said. You're moving the goalposts. You said that Trump was avoiding charges because of such privilege, which is just false. While privilege didn't help Manafort, there's no reason to believe it's helping Trump.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:49 pm

I'm not going into 2+ years of publicly available evidence.

Either you've been paying attention or you haven't.

I didn't move anything, you're taking my comments far more seriously than they were intended, which I clarified for you.

I'm still waiting to hear what's in the report. Presumably so are most people.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:40 pm

Holman wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:07 pm
Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:15 am
Grifman wrote:One of the biggest things (other than anything directly related to Trump himself) coming out of this is that it appears DTJ won't be indicted for perjury.
Though there are still sealed indictments and investigations that have been turned over to the NY attorney general office, right? So it’s at least still possible that he’ll be charged with something.
According to something I read and can't find, there are at least 7 known investigations to which Mueller has sent evidence and witnesses.

SDNY is probably handling the money-laundering and other crimes that make Trump (and Junior, etc) sweat the most.

Yup. NYT had an article today about how [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/us/t ... e=Homepage]SDNY is the new locus of the Trump investigations.

The big questions now are:

(1) how many of the active farmed out investigations relate to Trump and close Trump associates?
(2) are there any relevant sealed indictments? (seems unlikely, but who knows)
(3) does the Mueller report have any interesting info on who wasn't charged (in particular, any statement that Trump wasn't charged b/c he's president).

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:32 am

Honestly I'm still at the point I was 1, 2, 6, 12 months ago. Waiting for the report to come out. That the media giants have their talking heads spewing at full volume doesn't mean anything to me. It's not like I'm holding out hope or anything. I don't know what I don't know. I'd like to have that rectified.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:05 am

Nothing has been released yet and yet everyone has already drawn conclusions. It's so odd to me. I think there certainly could be damning things in the report and I never thought a swat team was going to roll in and grab Trump.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:12 pm

I'm sure a squad of marine MP's would suffice.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:33 pm

Whatever the report contains and no matter the outcome, your nation owes Mueller their thanks. What an incredibly difficult job. Everyone wants the report to support their preconceived notions, so there was enormous pressure from all sides. The lack of leaks was amazing in and of itself.

Mueller is a damn hero, the likes of which we rarely see. I wonder what comes next for the man.

Of course he couldn't do what he did without his team, so they better come out of this in a positive way as well. Nations have a way of punishing those who act selflessly in the nation's interest. I hope that won't be the case here.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:18 pm

Yeah, I think we're all disappointed that the report didn't trigger an immediate FBI raid on the Oval Office, but that was never in the cards. It will take days or weeks to tease out its meaning while every faction spins it wildly in the meantime (as is already happening, with almost zero hard information).

I've said from the start that I would respect Mueller's conclusions, even if they explicitly exonerate Trump of being a foreign puppet, and I still stand by that. There are plenty of other investigations into his myriad crimes, and he may yet wind up in prison orange.