The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[Holman]

Barr's letter to Congress:

[Holman]

A quick read suggests:

1) Mueller did not establish that Trump or associates actively conspired with Russians.

2) There is a case for obstruction of justice, which Mueller is punting to Barr.

3) Other investigations are ongoing.

4) (WRT obstruction:) "The Special Counsel states that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'"

There are LOTS of unaddressed loose ends in this report on the report, but the takeaway will be "NO COLLUSION!!"

[GungHo]

A quick read suggests:

1) Mueller did not establish that Trump or associates actively conspired with Russians.

2) There is a case for obstruction of justice, which Mueller is punting to Barr.

3) Other investigations are ongoing.

4) (WRT obstruction:) "The Special Counsel states that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'"

There are LOTS of unaddressed loose ends in this report on the report, but the takeaway will be "NO COLLUSION!!"

Yeah that report is WAYYYY too nuanced for this day and age. Hell the 4 page summary is tl;dr for 90% of America.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

What the summary tells me is that a Trump appointee decided not to charge Trump with a crime. It will be hard to know what Mueller found without seeing the actual report. Especially when reports like this are going around:

[YellowKing]

And still begs the question - if Trump and his associates did nothing wrong, why did they bend over backwards, lie, fire Comey, and do everything in their power to stop the investigation? In short, why obstruct justice when there was nothing to obstruct?

I think the obvious reason is that Trump is tied into some really shady business shit with Russia and was terrified Mueller would go down that path (Trump's infamous red line). Mueller stayed on target, and that's what the report shows.

Above assuming we don't have some bombshell in the ACTUAL Mueller report that Barr is skirting around.

[Holman]

Something doesn't add up.

If the Trump campaign rejected Russian overtures of help, why did they lie about *every* contact with the Russians? This, when going to the FBI (as they were warned by the FBI to do) would have prevented any appearance of wrongdoing in the first place?

We definitely do not have the whole story.

[Jaymann]

Something doesn't add up.

If the Trump campaign rejected Russian overtures of help, why did they lie about *every* contact with the Russians? This, when going to the FBI (as they were warned by the FBI to do) would have prevented any appearance of wrongdoing in the first place?

We definitely do not have the whole story.

Possibly because Trump did not want to risk the light of day on his business dealings with Russia.

So, no impeachment, but hopefully the Dems will now be motivated to vote like there's no tomorrow.

[Holman]

Meanwhile, we're about to see Trump unchained. Now he believes he can get away with anything.

[Skinypupy]

Meanwhile, we're about to see Trump unchained. Now he believes he can get away with anything.

Sadly, I have yet to see anything that proves that notion wrong.

[GreenGoo]

And still begs the question - if Trump and his associates did nothing wrong, why did they bend over backwards, lie, fire Comey, and do everything in their power to stop the investigation? In short, why obstruct justice when there was nothing to obstruct?

Thank you.

I don't convict people based on "if not guilty, why did he...?" questions, but if ever there was a man guilty of something(s), it is drumpf, just based on his behaviour alone. Maybe he's just guilty of being a moron. Well, he is guilty of that, but maybe he's *just* guilty of that.

When I speak of guilt, I'm not talking about letter of the law/enough to convict him guilt, I'm talking about actual guilt. I mean, everyone knows OJ is a murderer, but was not convicted. That's the guilt I'm talking about.

I mean, he's literally publicly reaping financial benefit from being president. We know this for a fact. That's verboten, if not by law (which it is, but what "emoluments" means is still being defined. Great work, original author) then by convention. Convention exists for a reason, and it's not so that some donkey's ass can come along and reap the benefit of decades or centuries of convention by ignoring it.

Whatever the report shows, drumpf is clearly a man with a guilty conscience. And he should be.

[Holman]

Yeah, here we go...

[LawBeefaroni]

Hopefully this makes [keeps] him and his sloppy. Nothing like that sense of invincibility to lead to a big fall.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

The other thing I’m wondering about: if I’m reading it correctly, one of the main reason Barr says he and Rosenstein didn’t charge Trump with obstruction because Mueller found no evidence that Trump coordinated with Russia. Is that how obstruction works? Can you only be charged if the crime you’re trying to obstruct actually happened? I didn’t think that was the case.

[Holman]

JUST IN: Rep. Jerry Nadler tweets that "in light of the very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department following the Special Counsel report," the House Judiciary Committee will be calling AG William Barr to testify.

[Brian]

Keep this handy for when the report is published.

[Smoove_B]

Context as you read: am told Special Counsel Robert Mueller was not consulted on this letter. This was the product of the Attorney General Bill Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, per DOJ official.

[GreenGoo]

JUST IN: Rep. Jerry Nadler tweets that "in light of the very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department following the Special Counsel report," the House Judiciary Committee will be calling AG William Barr to testify.

This was going to be done by someone, whatever the report contained/didn't contain.

[Holman]

JUST IN: Rep. Jerry Nadler tweets that "in light of the very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department following the Special Counsel report," the House Judiciary Committee will be calling AG William Barr to testify.

This was going to be done by someone, whatever the report contained/didn't contain.

Not many other people have the authority to do it. Nadler is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

[GreenGoo]

Not many other people have the authority to do it. Nadler is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

Would have been another committee, or a special commission, or some other imaginary board. Hell, Fox would have done it if necessary. Not sure how they would be able to compel whoever (Mueller most likely) they wanted to testify, but it would have happened.

[Holman]

Not many other people have the authority to do it. Nadler is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

Would have been another committee, or a special commission, or some other imaginary board. Hell, Fox would have done it if necessary. Not sure how they would be able to compel whoever (Mueller most likely) they wanted to testify, but it would have happened.

Had the Dems not won back the House last year, the story and the facts would go silent tonight forever.

[GreenGoo]

Well, not forever.

[Holman]

Well, not forever.

Disagree. I think if the GOP still held the House then we would be on a trajectory towards authoritarianism in the USA that would make criticism of right-wing government cosmetic at best.

Being Canadian probably wouldn't save you in the long run, either.

[GreenGoo]

You believe that if the GOP retain power it's over for democracy in America, is that right? Am I'm understanding you correctly?

Only one party is right for America, and the other party is the enemy of democracy, is that correct? I think I've heard that somewhere before.

[Holman]

You believe that if the GOP retain power it's over for democracy in America, is that right? Am I'm understanding you correctly?

Only one party is right for America, and the other party is the enemy of democracy, is that correct? I think I've heard that somewhere before.

I do believe that two terms of Trump and GOP control of both houses of Congress would spell the end of American democracy. They've worked hard at it, and their base seems willing to ask for more than anything we've seen yet.

Thanks for the false equivalence, though. You sound like you think you can afford it.

[GungHo]

And still begs the question - if Trump and his associates did nothing wrong, why did they bend over backwards, lie, fire Comey, and do everything in their power to stop the investigation? In short, why obstruct justice when there was nothing to obstruct?

I think the obvious reason is that Trump is tied into some really shady business shit with Russia and was terrified Mueller would go down that path (Trump's infamous red line). Mueller stayed on target, and that's what the report shows.

Above assuming we don't have some bombshell in the ACTUAL Mueller report that Barr is skirting around.

I listen to Chris Cuomo on Sirius some and this is one of his favorite subjects: he's of the opinion that trump didn't intentionally collude/conspire with Russia. However, his campaign had meetings and exchanges with Russians that 'look bad' out of sheer incompetence and ignorance. And once investigations began trump, 1) because he's a liar 2) because of the optics and 3) because his base would allow it, lied about everything.


I'm no lawyer so I don't know what it takes to prove conspiracy but I'm guessing there has to be intent. And if Cuomo's theory is right, trump isn't guilty of conspiracy he's just stupid. Which of course gives me warm fuzzies since he has the nuclear codes.

I do think it's weird how the DoJ's policy is not to indicte a sitting president saying that impeachment is the process for removing a president. But impeachment has always, and always will be, a political question. If you could get enough congress critters to go along with it, you could remove the president for their hair style and call it 'a high crime'. Seems to me if a crime was committed you arrest someone and charge them...

[Holman]

I listen to Chris Cuomo on Sirius some and this is one of his favorite subjects: he's of the opinion that trump didn't intentionally collude/conspire with Russia. However, his campaign had meetings and exchanges with Russians that 'look bad' out of sheer incompetence and ignorance. And once investigations began trump, 1) because he's a liar 2) because of the optics and 3) because his base would allow it, lied about everything.

But even with the most generous interpretation of this, at a certain point you have Trump not simply not-colluding but actively opposing the idea that Russians interfered at all. (E.g. "It could have been some 400-pound hacker; I believe Putin; Democrats were the real colluders;" etc)

Given that Trump was warned from the beginning and many times along the way that Russians were interfering, at some point denying that interference--and not just denying his own collusion--becomes an impediment to national security. Barr's summary has nothing at all to say to this. I have some trouble believing that Mueller said nothing about it in his report.

Maybe the main point is that Barr seems to have followed his proposed standard of revealing nothing about anyone not yet indicted. If Mueller's report is comprehensive on Russian interference, it's going to have a LOT to say about people not yet indicted. And we're going to need that to understand what happened and is happening.

[milo]

The other thing I’m wondering about: if I’m reading it correctly, one of the main reason Barr says he and Rosenstein didn’t charge Trump with obstruction because Mueller found no evidence that Trump coordinated with Russia. Is that how obstruction works? Can you only be charged if the crime you’re trying to obstruct actually happened? I didn’t think that was the case.

IANAL, but...

Obstruction of justice requires intent. Misleading police or federal investigators without intentionally trying to cover up a crime (e.g. because you don't even know that an investigation is ongoing) is not obstruction of justice, but it may still be a different crime of making false statements. If under oath, it might be perjury. Or subornation of perjury if you asked someone else to lie about facts under oath. Most of the people indicted by the investigation fall into one of these other categories.

It's much harder to prove to a jury that the president intentionally obstructed justice if no actual crime was committed. Why would someone intentionally cover up something that didn't even happen?

Now, it seems to me that an argument could be made that the president might intend to obstruct an investigation into his close associates or advisors just because the discovery of their guilt and subsequent punishment would make him look bad. But that's why I'm not the Attorney General of the USA, I suppose.

[Grifman]

I listen to Chris Cuomo on Sirius some and this is one of his favorite subjects: he's of the opinion that trump didn't intentionally collude/conspire with Russia. However, his campaign had meetings and exchanges with Russians that 'look bad' out of sheer incompetence and ignorance. And once investigations began trump, 1) because he's a liar 2) because of the optics and 3) because his base would allow it, lied about everything.

But even with the most generous interpretation of this, at a certain point you have Trump not simply not-colluding but actively opposing the idea that Russians interfered at all. (E.g. "It could have been some 400-pound hacker; I believe Putin; Democrats were the real colluders;" etc)

Given that Trump was warned from the beginning and many times along the way that Russians were interfering, at some point denying that interference--and not just denying his own collusion--becomes an impediment to national security. Barr's summary has nothing at all to say to this. I have some trouble believing that Mueller said nothing about it in his report.

It most definitely an impediment to national security - but that's not what Mueller was charged to investigate. Trump refusing to believe, or choosing to lie about Russian interference is not collusion unless you can establish a quid pro quo. They have to be working together - that's what collusion/conspiracy is. The president can be as stupid as he wants or lie as much as he wants to the public - that's not illegal. If it was, Obama would be in jail for saying, "If you like your insurance, you can keep it."

[Grifman]

I listen to Chris Cuomo on Sirius some and this is one of his favorite subjects: he's of the opinion that trump didn't intentionally collude/conspire with Russia. However, his campaign had meetings and exchanges with Russians that 'look bad' out of sheer incompetence and ignorance. And once investigations began trump, 1) because he's a liar 2) because of the optics and 3) because his base would allow it, lied about everything.

This is what I have always believed. I would also add that another factor in Trump's attitude towards the investigation was his narcissism - he did not/could not admit that the Russians assisted him in any way. He could not accept any version of history that said he did not win the election on his own, without assistance from anyone. His enormous pride could not admit to this. I also think he was worried about what other things this investigation might turn up in unrelated areas such as the payments to his lovers and his continued attempts to build a tower in Moscow after he had said such efforts had ended (and I am certain there are others we do not yet know about).

[GreenGoo]

Thanks for the false equivalence, though. You sound like you think you can afford it.

There's no false to it. It's equivalent.

[Holman]

Thanks for the false equivalence, though. You sound like you think you can afford it.

There's no false to it. It's equivalent.

You believe that claiming that Trump and his GOP have authoritarian intentions is authoritarian.

Am I understanding you correctly?

[Smoove_B]

All I know is that until someone that isn't part of the Trump administration reads and communicates the contents of that report, this isn't finished by any means.

Also, the 4 page summary that Barr published today seems rather underwhelming for being about a guy that was surrounded by convicted criminals.

[YellowKing]

Let's not forget this is the same Barr that wrote a memo last year ruling out obstruction of justice.

The real truth of Mueller's findings will come out; unfortunately Trump is probably going to have weeks to sell Barr's "truth" to the American people.

[GreenGoo]

edit: Too flippant.

Here's where I'm going with this.

Disagree. I think if the GOP still held the House then we would be on a trajectory towards authoritarianism in the USA that would make criticism of right-wing government cosmetic at best.

Being Canadian probably wouldn't save you in the long run, either.

Here you say that the GOP will result in authoritarianism and Canada will will follow.
I read this as the GOP are the enemy of America in the same way that I hear commie socialist liberals are the enemy of America. It also strongly implies that only Democrats can save America from authoritarianism that is the GOP.

I do believe that two terms of Trump and GOP control of both houses of Congress would spell the end of American democracy. They've worked hard at it, and their base seems willing to ask for more than anything we've seen yet.

Thanks for the false equivalence, though. You sound like you think you can afford it.

Here you clarify it so that I don't have to interpret. Drumpf and GOP will end American democracy(and from your earlier statement, also Canadian democracy). You know who else thinks the other guys' party is the end of America? Hardline right wingers.

"only my party can save America from the other party which will end America" is something I hear from the states a lot. Mostly from crazy people.

That kind of thinking is not how a democracy thrives. That kind of thinking leads to civil war and a breakdown of democracy. Whether through authoritarianism or simply a breakdown of and undermining of the confidence in the systems that support democracy.

That's the equivalency I'm referring to here. Every right wing talking head from Limbaugh to Carson scream this red faced into their mics on a daily basis.

[GreenGoo]

In an environment where the President is claiming complete exoneration and the basic tone coming from most sources is that drumpf isn't a corrupt, colluding moron (i.e. a net positive for the administration) Fox has decided to publish an opinion piece by Dershowitz heavily critical of Mueller.

That seems like a wise decision.

[Combustible Lemur]

Robert Mueller's Probe Was an Unmitigated Success

Good read

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[tjg_marantz]

And still begs the question - if Trump

Wrong use. Sorry. Continue with more important stuff.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk

[GreenGoo]

And still begs the question - if Trump

Wrong use. Sorry. Continue with more important stuff.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk

By the end of the next generation, that *is* what it will mean though, so why fight it.

[YellowKing]

According to Merriam-Webster:

Liberman recommends that people avoid it altogether (but also "cultivate an attitude of serene detachment in the face of its use by others").

Serenely detach, damn you!

[El Guapo]

edit: Too flippant.

Here's where I'm going with this.

Disagree. I think if the GOP still held the House then we would be on a trajectory towards authoritarianism in the USA that would make criticism of right-wing government cosmetic at best.

Being Canadian probably wouldn't save you in the long run, either.

Here you say that the GOP will result in authoritarianism and Canada will will follow.
I read this as the GOP are the enemy of America in the same way that I hear commie socialist liberals are the enemy of America. It also strongly implies that only Democrats can save America from authoritarianism that is the GOP.

I do believe that two terms of Trump and GOP control of both houses of Congress would spell the end of American democracy. They've worked hard at it, and their base seems willing to ask for more than anything we've seen yet.

Thanks for the false equivalence, though. You sound like you think you can afford it.

Here you clarify it so that I don't have to interpret. Drumpf and GOP will end American democracy(and from your earlier statement, also Canadian democracy). You know who else thinks the other guys' party is the end of America? Hardline right wingers.

"only my party can save America from the other party which will end America" is something I hear from the states a lot. Mostly from crazy people.

That kind of thinking is not how a democracy thrives. That kind of thinking leads to civil war and a breakdown of democracy. Whether through authoritarianism or simply a breakdown of and undermining of the confidence in the systems that support democracy.

That's the equivalency I'm referring to here. Every right wing talking head from Limbaugh to Carson scream this red faced into their mics on a daily basis.

I'm confused. What if it's *true* that one party is a threat to American democracy right now while the other, while flawed in many respects, does not? Say, for example, that the former party is trying to restrict voting as much as they can, while the other is pushing back and fighting for expanded voting rights. Are we supposed to refrain from describing a political party as a unique threat to democracy, because crazy people have irrationally said that in the past?