Is The Mueller Report Good For Trump? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is The Mueller Report Good For Trump?
in Politics

By joecavalryjoecavalry 404 Pts edited March 27
Do you believe that the Mueller report is good for Trump?


DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
«1


Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1653 Pts
    It should not be, but it is. Unfortunately, the principle of presumption of innocence does not always work beyond the legal system, and very often people assume one's guilt based merely on accusations.

    I have no love for Trump, but this witch hunt based on unfounded assumptions was unacceptable. And the worst part of it was that roughly a half of the US population assumed him to be guilty, despite lack of any solid evidence. The media have a lot of apologies to make for a strongly biased reporting on this.

    I said it on the grim day Trump was elected, and I say it now: we should judge presidents and presidential candidates on merit, not on unfounded claims and scandals. Let the investigation be independent, and focus your attention on what we do know, rather than what *might* be true.
    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  • I honestly think it's a bit early to call it good for anyone. We've gotten a summary, which likely tells us very little about the actual findings of the investigation beyond the very final sentiments. We most definitely have not seen the end of the investigations, which means we also haven't seen the end of these findings, which will likely come back again in further court filings.

    I honestly don't know if it matters, though. Regardless of what comes of this investigation, we're not likely to see any dramatic change to the ways that Trump is perceived, either by the legal system or by the population at large. Part of what I found rather frustrating in this is somewhat similar to what @MayCaesar discusses, though I look at it from a different perspective. People on both sides had already made their decisions about what they would see as a result of this investigation, and everyone will continue to justify their views of what is reality regardless of how much of the investigation is released. If Mueller had sought to indict Trump, you can bet he and every sycophantic talking head behind him would have immediately declared it invalid because Mueller was obviously biased and the whole thing was a witch hunt to begin with. Now that Mueller's vindicated him from charges of collusion, they will declare him completely innocent and view any further investigation into obstruction of justice as already decidedly wrong. Meanwhile, those against Trump will say that there's Mueller found a lot that we haven't heard yet, declare that there's more to find, and presume his guilt. No one really wants to know the facts, they just want their confirmation bias to be validated, and with Republicans in tight control of the Senate, there was never much of a question that this president would be largely unaffected by the result. 

    But to get back to the question, any result of this investigation isn't good or bad for Trump. It makes Trump slightly less adversarial, perhaps, but it's not going to change anything for him. He'll still be subject to multiple investigations, and he'll continue to declare them false, just with some actual support behind that claim. I will say that, though I anticipated it, it's kind of ridiculous to watch the circus of jeers that have followed this outcome. All of a sudden, people who viewed Mueller as a massively biased shill of the Democratic Party are singing the praises of the report he produced. Imagine that. 
  • I don't have an opinion, because I have not reviewed the evidence either way, but I will be pleased if I find out POTUS is innocent, because he is my POTUS whether I agree with him or not, so having hate in my heart wouldn't help the situation.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 208 Pts
    I can't really say until we see it. The "AG's report" is good for Trump, but he seems to have neglected the CON side of the "Mueller Report". Mueller said HE wouldn't make the decision as to whether or not Trump was guilty of anything, or not. He said there was evidence BOTH ways, he wouldn't be the "decider". Apparently, the conservative AG made that decision … quite quickly. I want to see the rest of it.

    Yeshuabought said in another post that she wanted her tax money to go where she wanted it to go. I want MINE to go to an OPEN investigation. I won't be happy until I KNOW what I paid for. The CONS are showing the PROS, I want to SEE the cons. "My tax money, MY choice" to quote.

    I'm having trouble understanding the direction of our "Judicial System" lately. Unbelievable AND, IMO, UNJUST decisions, like, every day, it seems! :-(

    It's SOO much better to be rich and guilty, than poor and innocent!
    YeshuaRedeemed
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    AlofRI said:
    I can't really say until we see it. The "AG's report" is good for Trump, but he seems to have neglected the CON side of the "Mueller Report". Mueller said HE wouldn't make the decision as to whether or not Trump was guilty of anything, or not. He said there was evidence BOTH ways, he wouldn't be the "decider". Apparently, the conservative AG made that decision … quite quickly. I want to see the rest of it.

    What you have stated is incorrect. 

    In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction…

    In other words, it was Mueller, not Barr, who concluded there was no underlying crime, so if the next stage of this madness is haggling over an obstruction charge, that would likely entail calling for a prosecution of Trump for obstructing an investigation into what even Mueller deemed non-crime.

    If anything, what Mueller said was that there was NO evidence of collusion, and that he could find NO evidence of obstruction.
    AlofRIApplesauce
  • what do we really know about it? has anyone even seen it?
    AlofRI
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • there is plenty of evidence of collusion and obstruction if the report doesnt say that the report is a fraud
    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987AlofRIApplesauce
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    what do we really know about it? has anyone even seen it?
    What do we really know about it?  We know it clears the president and his administration of collusion and obstruction.
  • CYDdharta said:
    what do we really know about it? has anyone even seen it?
    What do we really know about it?  We know it clears the president and his administration of collusion and obstruction.
    Actually, what we know is that the administrations behavior did not warrant a charge of criminal conspiracy. It requires a very high burden of proof, particularly if you're going to be charging the president. I'm both unsurprised and relieved that it never reached that bar, but that doesn't mean that there was no collusion whatsoever. It just didn't reach the threshold of criminality. That means he's clear of criminal collusion, not collusion altogether.

    Obstruction is far less clear. Mueller simply deferred on obstruction of justice, he didn't state that there was no guilt there. He didn't even say that it didn't reach a threshold of criminality, simply that his office would hand it off to the Attorney General to assess it. Barr has declared this void, but that seems to be based on how he views the motivations behind it, not based on what actually happened. I'm not saying he's guilty of obstruction, but the report certainly didn't clear him of it.

    Like I said before, until we see a greater portion of the report, we can't know precisely what it tells us about Trump, his campaign or his administration. It's good for him in that it does not immediately warrant any litigation against him or those surrounding him, but it is not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be.
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartaZombieguy1987AlofRI
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    edited March 26

    Actually, what we know is that the administrations behavior did not warrant a charge of criminal conspiracy. It requires a very high burden of proof, particularly if you're going to be charging the president. I'm both unsurprised and relieved that it never reached that bar, but that doesn't mean that there was no collusion whatsoever. It just didn't reach the threshold of criminality. That means he's clear of criminal collusion, not collusion altogether.

    Obstruction is far less clear. Mueller simply deferred on obstruction of justice, he didn't state that there was no guilt there. He didn't even say that it didn't reach a threshold of criminality, simply that his office would hand it off to the Attorney General to assess it. Barr has declared this void, but that seems to be based on how he views the motivations behind it, not based on what actually happened. I'm not saying he's guilty of obstruction, but the report certainly didn't clear him of it.

    Like I said before, until we see a greater portion of the report, we can't know precisely what it tells us about Trump, his campaign or his administration. It's good for him in that it does not immediately warrant any litigation against him or those surrounding him, but it is not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be.

    If you want to define "collusion" with the Russians as any sort of contact with any Russian or anyone of Russian descent, then perhaps you have a point.

    I'm not sure how you'd even begin to make a case for obstruction, as both McCabe and Comey have testified that there was no obstruction.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 657 Pts
    edited March 26
    CYDdharta said:

    Actually, what we know is that the administrations behavior did not warrant a charge of criminal conspiracy. It requires a very high burden of proof, particularly if you're going to be charging the president. I'm both unsurprised and relieved that it never reached that bar, but that doesn't mean that there was no collusion whatsoever. It just didn't reach the threshold of criminality. That means he's clear of criminal collusion, not collusion altogether.

    Obstruction is far less clear. Mueller simply deferred on obstruction of justice, he didn't state that there was no guilt there. He didn't even say that it didn't reach a threshold of criminality, simply that his office would hand it off to the Attorney General to assess it. Barr has declared this void, but that seems to be based on how he views the motivations behind it, not based on what actually happened. I'm not saying he's guilty of obstruction, but the report certainly didn't clear him of it.

    Like I said before, until we see a greater portion of the report, we can't know precisely what it tells us about Trump, his campaign or his administration. It's good for him in that it does not immediately warrant any litigation against him or those surrounding him, but it is not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be.

    If you want to define "collusion" with the Russians as any sort of contact with any Russian or anyone of Russian descent, then perhaps you have a point.

    I'm not sure how you'd even begin to make a case for obstruction, as both McCabe and Comey have testified that there was no obstruction.
    Not sure why you chose to label my post as fallacious. None of what I said has anything to do with my personal views on collusion between Trump or his associates with the Russians, nor does it assume there was collusion of any sort. None of what I said assumes that there was obstruction of justice. I simply said that the report itself doesn't confirm or deny either of them. You asserted that it denies both. Truth be told, I'm not up for speculating about whether Trump did or did not do these things, though I will say that neither of those links proves that there was no obstruction, just that he didn't obstruct in a specific way. I'm simply stating that we can't jump to the conclusions you asserted on the basis of what little we know from the Mueller report.
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 452 Pts
    edited March 27
    I think the US population at large loses with this. Both sides are focused on the part of the investigation having to do with Trump. What no one seems to care about is the undisputable Russian election meddling that this probe uncovered. Going so far that the supreme Court just ruled that a company (almost certainly run by and filled with Russian Nationals) to cooperate with the investigation that was brought against it through the Mueller probe.

     Russia interfered in the election. They did it in 2018. They will do it in the future. They made fake posts all over the internet claiming to be black lives matter or alt right supporters to widen the partisan gap and sow animosity between Americans. Exactly what the Russian book "Foundations of Geopolitics" released in 97, calls for in it's playbook to make Russia the dominant superpower. It explicitly states that the way to take down America is from creating divisions within and specifically about race.

    Why are we ignoring this? Why are Democrats still talking about Trump collusion, if the report didn't find enough evidence to charge him with it then just give it up and focus on Russian actions that were found. Why are Republicans running victory laps instead of addressing Russia's, I would go as far as to say attacks, on America?

    If you read Foundations of Geopolitics this is all so painfully obvious. It's worked extremely well too. Look at how the right feels about Black lives matter, they can disagree but the extreme dislike they have is heavily influenced by many groups started by Russians that blew things out and convinced some Americans to join in. The same is true of the left view on the alt right, they saw extremely inflammatory posts by Russians and assumed they were by Americans and then people on the right that were starting to lean further right saw these posts and thought this was the trend in America and went with it.

    America is under attack. No one cares and we aren't fighting back. We are being played like the violin. All it will take for the Russians to send out their bot army to support a Democrat is to have one that angers the right more than Trump angers the left, so maybe a Burnie or AOC.

    Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationisr tendencies in American politics" from foundations of Geopolitics. Need anymore really be said?
    AlofRI
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts

    Not sure why you chose to label my post as fallacious. None of what I said has anything to do with my personal views on collusion between Trump or his associates with the Russians, nor does it assume there was collusion of any sort. None of what I said assumes that there was obstruction of justice. I simply said that the report itself doesn't confirm or deny either of them. You asserted that it denies both. Truth be told, I'm not up for speculating about whether Trump did or did not do these things, though I will say that neither of those links proves that there was no obstruction, just that he didn't obstruct in a specific way. I'm simply stating that we can't jump to the conclusions you asserted on the basis of what little we know from the Mueller report.

    Your personal views of Barr are certainly unfounded. 

    You assume there's a considerable amount of criminality from the Trump administration.  The findings of the investigation don't support your assumptions. 
    [T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government 
    in its election interference activities.
    Considering the primary purpose of the investigation was to establish such a connection, the fact that they didn't seems a pretty clear denial that such activities could have occurred.  Likewise,
    There has been no effort to impede our investigation
    and

    BURR: Did the president, at any time, ask you to stop the FBI investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election?
    COMEY: Not to my understanding, no.
    BURR: Did anyone working for this administration, including the Justice Department, ask you to stop the investigation?
    COMEY: No.
    is quite clear and concise.  There is no hedging in those answers, no "specific way".  For these reasons I view your previous reply to be fallacious.

  • whiteflamewhiteflame 657 Pts
    edited March 27
    CYDdharta said:

    Not sure why you chose to label my post as fallacious. None of what I said has anything to do with my personal views on collusion between Trump or his associates with the Russians, nor does it assume there was collusion of any sort. None of what I said assumes that there was obstruction of justice. I simply said that the report itself doesn't confirm or deny either of them. You asserted that it denies both. Truth be told, I'm not up for speculating about whether Trump did or did not do these things, though I will say that neither of those links proves that there was no obstruction, just that he didn't obstruct in a specific way. I'm simply stating that we can't jump to the conclusions you asserted on the basis of what little we know from the Mueller report.

    Your personal views of Barr are certainly unfounded. 

    You assume there's a considerable amount of criminality from the Trump administration.  The findings of the investigation don't support your assumptions. 
    [T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government 
    in its election interference activities.
    Considering the primary purpose of the investigation was to establish such a connection, the fact that they didn't seems a pretty clear denial that such activities could have occurred.  Likewise,
    There has been no effort to impede our investigation
    and

    BURR: Did the president, at any time, ask you to stop the FBI investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election?
    COMEY: Not to my understanding, no.
    BURR: Did anyone working for this administration, including the Justice Department, ask you to stop the investigation?
    COMEY: No.
    is quite clear and concise.  There is no hedging in those answers, no "specific way".  For these reasons I view your previous reply to be fallacious.

    Here are the exact words I used to describe Burr's sentiments:

    "Barr has declared this void, but that seems to be based on how he views the motivations behind it, not based on what actually happened."

    That's not a view on Barr. That's a statement of objective fact. What Barr has said so far about the obstruction of justice charge is exactly this:

    "In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction."

    Again, this is not an assumption. It's one of the key quotes that Burr gives from Mueller, and he builds from that into an argument that the individuals in question would have to act with corrupt intent, meaning in this context that they were actually hiding something. Barr argues that, since the president was clearly not hiding something, he cannot be guilty of obstruction, i.e. that he lacked intent/motivation to do so. I will note that, within the bounds of a summary, it's impossible to point to available evidence and show that there is no pattern of obstruction, meaning that pretty much any summary would be incapable of portraying what happened and why.

    The rest of this is you adding in more information regarding possible means of obstruction that have been disproved (and yes, considering that Comey is just one person and asking him to stop the investigation is one way of impeding this investigation, it is specific way of impeding the investigation - it is not the sole means by which this investigation could have been impeded). Again, not disputing any of this. Apparently, though, you're denying that Barr's own choice of words. To be clear, though, I'm not saying he's wrong that a lack of intent is problematic for any claim of obstruction. I'm just saying that that lack of intent is the basis for his argument that the president and those around him did not obstruct justice. Also, nowhere in this post have I argued that Trump himself or those around him who have not been indicted are criminal, though those indictments certainly speak to at least some criminality in the administration over time.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    edited March 27

    Here are the exact words I used to describe Burr's sentiments:

    "Barr has declared this void, but that seems to be based on how he views the motivations behind it, not based on what actually happened."

    That's not a view on Barr. That's a statement of objective fact. What Barr has said so far about the obstruction of justice charge is exactly this:

    "In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction."

    Again, this is not an assumption. It's one of the key quotes that Burr gives from Mueller, and he builds from that into an argument that the individuals in question would have to act with corrupt intent, meaning in this context that they were actually hiding something. Barr argues that, since the president was clearly not hiding something, he cannot be guilty of obstruction, i.e. that he lacked intent/motivation to do so. I will note that, within the bounds of a summary, it's impossible to point to available evidence and show that there is no pattern of obstruction, meaning that pretty much any summary would be incapable of portraying what happened and why.

    The rest of this is you adding in more information regarding possible means of obstruction that have been disproved (and yes, considering that Comey is just one person and asking him to stop the investigation is one way of impeding this investigation, it is specific way of impeding the investigation - it is not the sole means by which this investigation could have been impeded). Again, not disputing any of this. Apparently, though, you're denying that Barr's own choice of words. To be clear, though, I'm not saying he's wrong that a lack of intent is problematic for any claim of obstruction. I'm just saying that that lack of intent is the basis for his argument that the president and those around him did not obstruct justice. Also, nowhere in this post have I argued that Trump himself or those around him who have not been indicted are criminal, though those indictments certainly speak to at least some criminality in the administration over time.

    No, you're still not getting it.  You make too many faulty assumptions and are listening to too many bad sources.  There was no obstruction.  Comey said it, McCabe said it, and now Barr and Rosenstein have said it;
    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's
    investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

    Merely asking that an illegitimate investigation be stopped is NOT obstruction, it doesn't even impede that investigation.  Regardless, it doesn't matter since Trump NEVER asked Comey to stop the investigation.  According to Comey, Trump merely asked Comey to let go of the Flynn lying charges that even Comey said were unwarranted.

    Intent is an integral part of obstruction of justice. 

    Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

    Lack of intent is problematic because without intent NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

  • @CYDdharta

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: I have not claimed that there was any obstruction of justice. You're the only one who is stating an absolute, saying that you know the contents of the Mueller report, which only professed uncertainty regarding this charge, are certain and unequivocal in their vindication of the president. Barr is not exactly an unbiased observer in this - he was placed into this role by the President, and has previously stated his opposition to Mueller's efforts. 

    As for intent, I actually spent the last post partly explaining why it's a valid concern. For some reason, you feel the need to re-emphasize that, though we apparently don't disagree about the importance of intent.

    What bad sources am I listening to, again? I'm solely reading the materials from Barr's summary. I'm not presenting anything else. Yet, for some reason, you assume it's because my mind's been poisoned by something I've read. You know, despite the fact that I haven't stated that anyone is guilty and haven't argued that anyone's done a poor job (the worst I've had to say is that Barr should have released more of the details behind his interpretation), you seem to assume I've done both those things. I don't know why you always have to treat points that disagree with you as pure bias even when all I'm doing is presenting sources of uncertainty.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: I have not claimed that there was any obstruction of justice. You're the only one who is stating an absolute, saying that you know the contents of the Mueller report, which only professed uncertainty regarding this charge, are certain and unequivocal in their vindication of the president. Barr is not exactly an unbiased observer in this - he was placed into this role by the President, and has previously stated his opposition to Mueller's efforts. 

    As for intent, I actually spent the last post partly explaining why it's a valid concern. For some reason, you feel the need to re-emphasize that, though we apparently don't disagree about the importance of intent.

    What bad sources am I listening to, again? I'm solely reading the materials from Barr's summary. I'm not presenting anything else. Yet, for some reason, you assume it's because my mind's been poisoned by something I've read. You know, despite the fact that I haven't stated that anyone is guilty and haven't argued that anyone's done a poor job (the worst I've had to say is that Barr should have released more of the details behind his interpretation), you seem to assume I've done both those things. I don't know why you always have to treat points that disagree with you as pure bias even when all I'm doing is presenting sources of uncertainty.

    This is a significantly different position from where you started, which was that the Trump administration committed collusion and obstruction but the Mueller investigation just couldn't prove it.  Let's parse your original comment, the one I marked as a fallacy, once again;
    Actually, what we know is that the administrations behavior did not warrant a charge of criminal conspiracy. It requires a very high burden of proof, particularly if you're going to be charging the president. I'm both unsurprised and relieved that it never reached that bar, but that doesn't mean that there was no collusion whatsoever. It just didn't reach the threshold of criminality. That means he's clear of criminal collusion, not collusion altogether.
    The reason the Mueller investigation was started was to probe collusion.  If they couldn't establish a case for "criminal collusion" there was no collusion, there was just a former administration official shaking the hand of a Russian ambassador at an official function.

    [T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government 
    in its election interference activities.



    Obstruction is far less clear. Mueller simply deferred on obstruction of justice, he didn't state that there was no guilt there. He didn't even say that it didn't reach a threshold of criminality, simply that his office would hand it off to the Attorney General to assess it. Barr has declared this void, but that seems to be based on how he views the motivations behind it, not based on what actually happened. I'm not saying he's guilty of obstruction, but the report certainly didn't clear him of it.

    Like I said before, until we see a greater portion of the report, we can't know precisely what it tells us about Trump, his campaign or his administration. It's good for him in that it does not immediately warrant any litigation against him or those surrounding him, but it is not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be.
    Intent is an essential element of obstruction of justice.  Obstruction was another issue the special council probed deeply.  They found no evidence of criminal intent.  Without intent, there was no obstruction of justice, which is the reason Barr and Rosenstein determined there was no obstruction.

    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's
    investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

    As for questioning Barr's motivation, Mueller's is much much more dubious.  Mueller has a very shady past and he had been passed over for Comey's job by Wray.

  • @CYDdharta

    I don’t know where you’re seeing that I have argued any certainty with regards to the charge of collusion, yet you’ve done exactly that, stating multiple times now that the conclusions stated by Barr are 1:1 absolutely equivalent to everything that came out of the Mueller investigation. However, I will point out that even if there is absolutely no difference, your point is that collusion was absolutely proven to have never happened, and that obstruction was similarly proven. The most you can say from what Barr summarized is that anything that did occur did not meet the threshold for criminality - he does not use nearly the level of absolutism you claim.
    AlofRI
  • AlofRIAlofRI 208 Pts
    It's amazing that so many people see this not so clearly "elected official"  trash democracy every day, trash our experts trying to DEFEND America from our enemies, and accept him siding WITH them. Whether he has been somewhat cleared of collusion criminally, whether he has somewhat been cleared of criminal obstruction, he HAS BEEN guilty of BOTH before our own eyes. He has given Putin everything he hoped for, and MORE. By cancelling treaties he has allowed Putin to once again enter the nuclear race, openly. He has NOT stopped, never did, North Korea's nuclear production, he has NOT improved our economy, outside of the Stock Market … and he HAS helped the 1% IMMENSLY! Employment?? How many do you know that NEED two jobs to make ends meet?? That includes families in which two (or more) HAVE to work. How many can afford the health care that lets them feel "safe"?? How many feel those jobs they have are "safe"?? How many feel WE are safe??

    Too many are counting on an economy that is shaky, at best. Most top economists are cautioning that we are close to a dangerous correction. 99+% of scientists say we are heading for a climate disaster, Europe is having BIG problems, China is nearly up to U.S. militarily, Conservatives want to take away what your mothers, fathers, grandparents depend on. Polluters are again getting carte blanche on our water and air and our Nat'l Parks …. and all some can see is what "certain quarters" say is a "great economy". If that "Trumps all", we are in trouble! The guy is a SHAM, a salesman that is selling U.S. a bill of goods, and getting away with illegalities you or I would be imprisoned for! "Not quite enough to convict a sitting President" does NOT give me much confidence!
    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    I don’t know where you’re seeing that I have argued any certainty with regards to the charge of collusion, yet you’ve done exactly that, stating multiple times now that the conclusions stated by Barr are 1:1 absolutely equivalent to everything that came out of the Mueller investigation. However, I will point out that even if there is absolutely no difference, your point is that collusion was absolutely proven to have never happened, and that obstruction was similarly proven. The most you can say from what Barr summarized is that anything that did occur did not meet the threshold for criminality - he does not use nearly the level of absolutism you claim.
    "did not meet the threshold for criminality"; in other words, no crime was committed.  Thank you, that was my point all along.
  • CYDdharta said:
    @CYDdharta

    I don’t know where you’re seeing that I have argued any certainty with regards to the charge of collusion, yet you’ve done exactly that, stating multiple times now that the conclusions stated by Barr are 1:1 absolutely equivalent to everything that came out of the Mueller investigation. However, I will point out that even if there is absolutely no difference, your point is that collusion was absolutely proven to have never happened, and that obstruction was similarly proven. The most you can say from what Barr summarized is that anything that did occur did not meet the threshold for criminality - he does not use nearly the level of absolutism you claim.
    "did not meet the threshold for criminality"; in other words, no crime was committed.  Thank you, that was my point all along.
    First off, my statement was that that was the most you could say, and only if you declared the Barr summary to encompass literally everything that the Mueller investigation produced, with absolutely no interpretation beyond the words Mueller and his associates put to paper. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption, meaning that there is still some uncertainty as to whether the obstruction of justice charge does meet the threshold of criminality, but if you are absolutely certain that Barr's words are a perfect and all-encompassing summary, I guess that's your prerogative.

    Second, this is basically what I've been saying from the start: that no criminal charges are being brought based on the information from the Mueller investigation, and that therefore nothing in that investigation so obviously rises to the level of criminality that it will immediately lead to further indictments. For some reason, you've been arguing against this perception the whole time, yet now you find that it was your "point all along"? I find that distinctly odd.

    Third, this was objectively not your point all along. Your very first point was absolutely unequivocal and much further reaching than the statement you've quoted from me and apparently agree with. Here's what you said:

    "If anything, what Mueller said was that there was NO evidence of collusion, and that he could find NO evidence of obstruction."

    Note that you didn't include the adjective of "criminal" before collusion, nor before obstruction. That's an important distinction because a) your claim goes well beyond the bounds of the summary presented by Barr, which does not discuss individual pieces of evidence, nor does he argue that absolutely no collusion or obstruction occurred, and b) even if it doesn't rise to the high bar established for criminality, collusion and obstruction are still possible without seeking any indictments. This means it’s still entirely possible that evidence exists for collusion and/or obstruction. I’m not saying that that evidence does exist, I’m saying that it’s inaccurate to proclaim it doesn’t.
    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfen
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts

    First off, my statement was that that was the most you could say, and only if you declared the Barr summary to encompass literally everything that the Mueller investigation produced, with absolutely no interpretation beyond the words Mueller and his associates put to paper. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption, meaning that there is still some uncertainty as to whether the obstruction of justice charge does meet the threshold of criminality, but if you are absolutely certain that Barr's words are a perfect and all-encompassing summary, I guess that's your prerogative.

    Second, this is basically what I've been saying from the start: that no criminal charges are being brought based on the information from the Mueller investigation, and that therefore nothing in that investigation so obviously rises to the level of criminality that it will immediately lead to further indictments. For some reason, you've been arguing against this perception the whole time, yet now you find that it was your "point all along"? I find that distinctly odd.

    Third, this was objectively not your point all along. Your very first point was absolutely unequivocal and much further reaching than the statement you've quoted from me and apparently agree with. Here's what you said:

    "If anything, what Mueller said was that there was NO evidence of collusion, and that he could find NO evidence of obstruction."

    Note that you didn't include the adjective of "criminal" before collusion, nor before obstruction. That's an important distinction because a) your claim goes well beyond the bounds of the summary presented by Barr, which does not discuss individual pieces of evidence, nor does he argue that absolutely no collusion or obstruction occurred, and b) even if it doesn't rise to the high bar established for criminality, collusion and obstruction are still possible without seeking any indictments. This means it’s still entirely possible that evidence exists for collusion and/or obstruction. I’m not saying that that evidence does exist, I’m saying that it’s inaccurate to proclaim it doesn’t.
    First off, it wasn't just Barr, that was also the conclusion of Rosenstein, the person who was instrumental in obtaining the initial FISA warrants, set up the independent council and was the most informed person in the world about Mueller's findings and intentions outside of the special council.  That's what "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded" means. 

    Second, then you need to work on your communications skills.  I don't know of anyone who would interpret;
    It just didn't reach the threshold of criminality. That means he's clear of criminal collusion, not collusion altogether.
    or
    Obstruction is far less clear. Mueller simply deferred on obstruction of justice, he didn't state that there was no guilt there. He didn't even say that it didn't reach a threshold of criminality, simply that his office would hand it off to the Attorney General to assess it. Barr has declared this void, but that seems to be based on how he views the motivations behind it, not based on what actually happened. I'm not saying he's guilty of obstruction, but the report certainly didn't clear him of it.
    to mean no crime was committed.

    Third; yes, my point all along has been that the Trump administration didn't commit collusion or obstruction of justice. 

    I didn't put "criminal" before collusion or obstruction of justice because that would be completely useless.  There is no federal crime of "collusion" anywhere to be found in this country. Obstruction of justice, OTOH, is a specific crime with a specific meaning.  Prefacing it with "criminal" as in "criminal obstruction of justice" is redundant and unnecessary.  "Criminal murder" doesn't mean something different than "murder".  If intent is an essential element of collusion (or what ever actual statutes would be cited) and/or obstruction of justice, and no intent could be proven, then no crime was committed.  And no, there is no evidence of collusion or obstruction.  The whole reason for the council was to investigate those charges.  If they had found such evidence, they would have indicted the perpetrators.


  • how do we know that if no one has seen it?@CYDdharta
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    how do we know that if no one has seen it?@CYDdharta
    Barr and Rosenstein have seen it.
  • @CYDdharta

    So, let me get this straight. Because it was 2 people who made the summary, the summary is absolutely accurate in its portrayal of the investigation results, missing nothing of importance from what Mueller sent to them? Whether it’s Rosenstein or Barr, they had 48 hours to read through what was likely a great deal of material and summarize it in 4 pages. If you’re certain that what they presented is not only accurate but also all-encompassing of both the evidence and conclusions of the Mueller report, I guess that’s you’re prerogative, though I find that somewhat suspect.

    It’s interesting that you both argue that there was no evidence of collusion and then state that there is no such thing as criminal collusion. To some degree, I agree with that, but that would mean that what conclusions Barr made about the report based solely on criminality are, by definition, not going to cover all instances of collusion. As for obstruction, as I said, there’s a threshold that the criminal justice system has to meet in order to prove that someone is criminally responsible for this. That doesn’t mean that there is no evidence, just that it doesn’t meet the threshold. Again, you said there is no evidence. That was your point. And all this assumes that Barr and Rosenstein accurately assessed the evidence regarding obstruction to come to their conclusion that it doesn’t warrant indictment. You know what their interpretation is, not what the evidence is.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @whiteflame In support of your argument, the Mueller report was over 300 pages in length. Even if the full report was released something tells me a lot of people would still rely on a 4 page max summary from Fox or Breitbart
    PlaffelvohfenwhiteflameAlofRI
  • AlofRIAlofRI 208 Pts
    @CYDdharta: Barr and Rosenstein are Trump appointees. Many were not satisfied with Obama appointees investigating or judging Hillary Clinton, why should WE be satisfied with Trumps?? Obama was at least 90% more trustworthy than Trump. Most of what were called Obama "lies" were "intentions" not allowed by the do nothing Congress of his years. A FAR cry from the 10,000 proven lies of this administration. 

    We NEED the "transparency" promised as "the most transparent administration EVER!" All I see are dark clouds and fog. Open the report, if there's nothing to hide, it can only help the Trumplicans. ;-)
    Plaffelvohfen
  • the report is good for the country which is the most important thing. Spending 30 million, probably more on this and I love those who think they know more about it than the professional lawyers and everyone involved with the investigation LOL They should have spoke up sooner and saved us tax payers 30+ million.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • Also important to note that Mueller did not come to the conclusion that there was no obstruction of Justice. Mueller found that charges of obstruction were right on the edge of being prosecuted or not. The proper protocol is such a situation is to bump that dilemma up to your boss to make the call. That's what he did and his boss decided not to pursue charges. This means there is evidence of obstruction, just not enough evidence in Barr's opinion to say it occurred beyond a reasonable doubt.

    When it comes to legal action there was no obstruction. However we don't view people, especially politicians, or cast votes only on information that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Hillary's emails resulted in no charges, however Republicans are still perfectly reasonable to have a negative opinion of her because of the private server. In the same vein if some of the evidence in favor of obstruction comes out then it's perfectly reasonable for people to have a more negative view of Trump
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdharta
  • the report is good for the country which is the most important thing. Spending 30 million, probably more on this and I love those who think they know more about it than the professional lawyers and everyone involved with the investigation LOL They should have spoke up sooner and saved us tax payers 30+ million.

    Well, to be fair, the Muller investigation costs are at 25.5 millions, but it was able to seize 28.6 millions total so in fact, it made profits, 3.1 millions to be exact, yeah peanuts but still...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    So, let me get this straight. Because it was 2 people who made the summary, the summary is absolutely accurate in its portrayal of the investigation results, missing nothing of importance from what Mueller sent to them? Whether it’s Rosenstein or Barr, they had 48 hours to read through what was likely a great deal of material and summarize it in 4 pages. If you’re certain that what they presented is not only accurate but also all-encompassing of both the evidence and conclusions of the Mueller report, I guess that’s you’re prerogative, though I find that somewhat suspect.

    Rosenstein was kept apprised of the investigation since the beginning, the whole special council was his doing.  Rosenstein briefed Barr as to the status and findings of the Mueller investigation, that was a primary reason he stayed on despite announcing he'll be resigning.  They didn't have to speed-read Mueller's report, they already knew what was there.  If they missed anything that mattered, we'd have heard from Mueller by now.

    It’s interesting that you both argue that there was no evidence of collusion and then state that there is no such thing as criminal collusion. To some degree, I agree with that, but that would mean that what conclusions Barr made about the report based solely on criminality are, by definition, not going to cover all instances of collusion. As for obstruction, as I said, there’s a threshold that the criminal justice system has to meet in order to prove that someone is criminally responsible for this. That doesn’t mean that there is no evidence, just that it doesn’t meet the threshold. Again, you said there is no evidence. That was your point. And all this assumes that Barr and Rosenstein accurately assessed the evidence regarding obstruction to come to their conclusion that it doesn’t warrant indictment. You know what their interpretation is, not what the evidence is.


    I'm not sure where you're trying to go.  If you want to define collusion so broadly that it includes Trump making a joke that may have been heard by some Russians that's fine, but it's also meaningless.  That's not a reason to convene a special council.  There has never been a legitimate justification for the Mueller investigation.  Mueller set out to investigate a crime that wasn't a crime and ended up creating more criminals than he caught.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    edited March 28
    AlofRI said:
    @CYDdharta: Barr and Rosenstein are Trump appointees. Many were not satisfied with Obama appointees investigating or judging Hillary Clinton, why should WE be satisfied with Trumps?? Obama was at least 90% more trustworthy than Trump. Most of what were called Obama "lies" were "intentions" not allowed by the do nothing Congress of his years. A FAR cry from the 10,000 proven lies of this administration. 

    We NEED the "transparency" promised as "the most transparent administration EVER!" All I see are dark clouds and fog. Open the report, if there's nothing to hide, it can only help the Trumplicans. ;-)
    Rosenstein was no Trump appointee, Trump wanted to get rid of him. He signed the last Page FISA warrant, none of which were ever justified. 


    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, 0bama was trustworthy; 0bama was likely the most nefarious figure ever to darken the halls of the White House.  As soon as he took office he set about corruption governmental agencies by appointing his henchmen.  0bama's intentions were as debased as his actions.
    Applesauce
  • @CYDdharta you know how insane you find never trumpers when they talk about Trump? That's how you sound when you talk about Obama. He wasn't great, he wasn't transparent but he wasn't there anti Christ like you want to imagine
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    Also important to note that Mueller did not come to the conclusion that there was no obstruction of Justice. Mueller found that charges of obstruction were right on the edge of being prosecuted or not. The proper protocol is such a situation is to bump that dilemma up to your boss to make the call. That's what he did and his boss decided not to pursue charges. This means there is evidence of obstruction, just not enough evidence in Barr's opinion to say it occurred beyond a reasonable doubt.

    When it comes to legal action there was no obstruction. However we don't view people, especially politicians, or cast votes only on information that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Hillary's emails resulted in no charges, however Republicans are still perfectly reasonable to have a negative opinion of her because of the private server. In the same vein if some of the evidence in favor of obstruction comes out then it's perfectly reasonable for people to have a more negative view of Trump

    Hillary's emails resulted in no charges because Lynch decided they wouldn't prosecute her regardless of the evidence.

    Early in the Hillary Clinton email case, the Department of Justice reached a decision that would have far-reaching implications for the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server.

    The Justice Department (DOJ), under then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, decided to set an unusually high threshold for prosecuting Clinton, effectively ensuring from the outset that she would not be charged. In order for Clinton to be prosecuted, the DOJ required the FBI to establish evidence of intent—even though the gross negligence statute explicitly does not require this.



    Applesauce
  • @CYDdharta and Barr decided not to pursue charges against Trump despite there being evidence. These are perfect equivalents. Evidence against Clinton, but not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Same with Trump
    CYDdharta
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    @CYDdharta you know how insane you find never trumpers when they talk about Trump? That's how you sound when you talk about Obama. He wasn't great, he wasn't transparent but he wasn't there anti Christ like you want to imagine
    I never said 0bama was the anti-Christ, I never even thought it.  Why would I, I'm agnostic.  What I said is that 0bama was easily the most corrupt POS in the White House im my lifetime and probably in our nation's relatively short history.
    @CYDdharta and Barr decided not to pursue charges against Trump despite there being evidence. These are perfect equivalents. Evidence against Clinton, but not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Same with Trump
    No one told Mueller (or Rosenstein, or Barr, or anyone else) not to pursue charges, there just wasn't any evidence.  Lynch told FBI investigators not to indict Hillary in spite of the evidence.  See the difference now?
  • @CYDdharta it's called a figure of speech. You think Obama was terrible and hurt the country and did nothing good. No one told Lynch to say not to pursue charges in spite of evidence. No one told Barr not to pursue charges in spite of evidence. Both cases had evidence, neither case had enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you see your cognitive dissonance here? Do you see yourself moving goalposts here? No charge = absolutely no evidence against Trump. Some evidence against Hillary = absolutely guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Try to apply the same standards in both cases.
    CYDdharta
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    @CYDdharta it's called a figure of speech. You think Obama was terrible and hurt the country and did nothing good. No one told Lynch to say not to pursue charges in spite of evidence. No one told Barr not to pursue charges in spite of evidence. Both cases had evidence, neither case had enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you see your cognitive dissonance here? Do you see yourself moving goalposts here? No charge = absolutely no evidence against Trump. Some evidence against Hillary = absolutely guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Try to apply the same standards in both cases.

    No, the situations are not the same.  They are not in any way comparable.  No one stopped the Mueller investigation, in fact Rosenstein lowered the bar by widened its scope.  Despite that fact, there was no reason to pursue charges.  OTOH, Lynch raised the bar on the Clinton investigation by adding requirements that are not part of the crime and make no sense being part of the crime.
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 452 Pts
    edited March 29
    @CYDdharta yeah you're right Lynch absolutely stopped Comey from not only reopening the investigation but also going against protocol and announcing that reopening to the public a week before the election.

    I swear you are the most polarized person on this site
    Plaffelvohfen
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    @CYDdharta yeah you're right Lynch absolutely stopped Comey from not only reopening the investigation but also going against protocol and announcing that reopening to the public a week before the election.

    I swear you are the most polarized person on this site

    Comey didn't have a choice, he had to reopen the email investigation because the press was already reporting that Hillary's classified emails were found on Wiener's laptop.  He was trying to help Hillary by taking it off the table before the election.  Why do you think Comey would reopen the investigation into Hillary when he'd already decided half a year before that, while the investigation was still in full swing, that he would exonerate her?

    We'll see a lot more of where this all came from as more information about the investigation, the FISA warrants, etc is declassified.
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/26/mueller-investigation-cost/
    If the final statement tracks with that, total spending from the investigation would reach about $34 million.
    Some news outlets reported that the combined value of the real estate properties could be an estimated $22 million.)


     the Mueller probe’s final total is likely to be $32 million to $35 million.
    http://money.com/money/5639569/mueller-report-cost-waste-of-money-fines/

    if they sell the properties for more than they are currently worth I guess they could make peanuts on it as you said, but this is the government after all, I'm sure it will somehow turn into negative cash flow.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @Applesauce

    Even if it costed 5-10 millions, for a 3 year investigation of that level, it still is cheap all things considered... Clinton's email investigation was a net loss of about 30-35M...  And I'm not saying anything about either investigation beside their costs...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    don't know about cheap lol  I find most things the government gets involved in or runs is terribly inefficient and way too expensive.  but all that set aside.  I did hear an interview as to why the report shouldn't be release which actually made a lot of sense.  It's no different than the details not being released when someone is found not guilty.  There's still things that can potentially make the person look bad and people love to be 'arm chair quarterbacks' so really there's no benefit generally to opening up that can of worms.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @Applesauce

    Well, cheap is relative right? 10 millions are just a few bricks in his multi-billion wall...  ;) 

    As for the release of the report, it must be made public and as un-redacted as possible...  We're not talking about an average Joe here but important public offices, so while there seems to be no criminal behavior (I'm quite fine with those conclusions), the ethical considerations matter a lot in regards to those public offices... Unethical does not equate criminal mind you, but it still says a lot about character... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Applesauce

    As for the release of the report, it must be made public and as un-redacted as possible...  We're not talking about an average Joe here but important public offices, so while there seems to be no criminal behavior (I'm quite fine with those conclusions), the ethical considerations matter a lot in regards to those public offices... Unethical does not equate criminal mind you, but it still says a lot about character... 
    there were details about the Russians offering to help Trump, but they were turned down.  While what you say sounds right, do you think whatever is or is not in that report is going to change very many people's minds?  The supporters won't care, his detractors will just be more inflamed and continue to drag this all out.  In this particular instance I see little to no value for releasing it.  If it is released unredacted as possible it would only be because some democrats could or would be implicated in something.

     the ethical considerations matter a lot in regards to those public offices... Unethical does not equate criminal mind you, but it still says a lot about character... 

    not that I disagree but the hypocrisy on both sides makes it meaningless and pointless I'm afraid, judging by those running in 2020, and those who have ran in the past.
    WordsMatter
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @Applesauce "not that I disagree but the hypocrisy on both sides makes it meaningless and pointless I'm afraid, judging by those running in 2020, and those who have ran in the past."

    I agree but I would like to shamelessly plug my endorsement for Buttigieg for the 2020 Democratic nomination. The man is absolutely ethical and of sound character unlike any of the other potential candidates. Plus he doesn't obsess over the Trump Russia thing, he even said he just wants to take Trump down by having more attractive policies. He also echoed your sentiment that no evidence of bad behavior will ever effect his supporters, they understand he has at least some bad behavior but they don't care, because that's what they wanted in Washington.
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdharta
  • @WordsMatter

    there's on other, a woman can't remember her name, but those 2 sound promising, though I don't know much about either one which doesn't matter because they won't receive much of any coverage or interest.  We live in a time of extremism, which they are not imo.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 445 Pts
    edited March 29
    @WordsMatter

    I watched many Buttigieg interviews this week and the more I see him the more I like him (althought I still see jimmy Fallon when I see him... ;) ).

    He's the first democrat to appear on FoxNews in a long time, and if you look at the comments on Fox's youtube channel, they are overwhelmingly positive which really surprised me, usually it's just a litany of ad hominems and nonsensical rants... 

    He's by far, the best candidate yet, no question about it... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 158 Pts
    @billbatard

    What the Mueller Report, is based on:

    https://www-nationalreview-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/steele-dossier-hillary-clinton-campaign-trump-russia-investigation/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/steele-dossier-hillary-clinton-campaign-trump-russia-investigation/

    "The Steele Dossier, Hillary Clinton’s Malignant Gift to America"


    "The ‘salacious and unverified’ documents invaded the body politic like a cancer.

    The Mueller investigation has concluded, and Mueller’s declaration has now entered the public record: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” But it’s worth reflecting on how the contrary view — the firm conviction that Trump did coordinate with Russia — became so deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans. And it’s worth reflecting on why another set of Americans could look at actual, troubling evidence of Russian contacts and simply not care at all."

    I think that both of the conversations that some of the liberal news media outlets, have been harvesting for their own opinion oriented news fodder, to entertain their news media outlet followers, and fan bases with?

    The Steele Dossier product, is conversation number one, and the Mueller Report product, is conversation number two.

    Maybe if Hillary Clinton, hadn't messed things up with Bernie Sanders, with her fiddling behind the political scenes ways, she might have won the last Election outright, but because she messed things up with her own actions, and activities, it would appear that the current POTUS, became President, because of her very actions? 


    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 158 Pts
    edited March 30
    @joecavalry

    The Mueller Report product, is good for everyone.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/25/hysterical-cable-news-anchors-meltdown-mueller-report-findings/

    It's fascinating, to watch how some of the liberal news media anchors reacted.

    Because a lot of their, for 2 years plus (talking points,) now have to replace now, with other "entertainment worthy" liberal talking points to entertain their follower fanbases with?

    That's how I see it.

    Now we get to see:
    What Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, AOC, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Juan Williams, Chuck Todd, Joe Biden, Chris Matthews, Bill Maher, Wolf Blitzer, Rachel Maddow, along with some of the Democrats, and Socialists Democrats, will say about the Mueller Report product now? 

    So some, may want to get their popcorn ready, because I'm sure that some of the above individuals, will come up with all sorts of talking points, or sound bites, to entertain some of their liberal popcorn eating follower fanbases with? 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch