Octopus Overlords

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.