POTUS Donald Trump

[Badsmerf]

This Israel policy is as backwards as his Russia policy. Trump is aligning himself with two of the least liked leaders inn the world. Great company to keep.

[PseudoSABR]

 

NPR: Robert Mueller Submits Report On Russia Investigation to Attorney General Barr

 

[Badsmerf]

O snap.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The next few months are either going to be super-interesting or super-boring.

 

I suspect it's the former.

[PseudoSABR]

 

The next few months are either going to be super-interesting or super-boring.

 

I suspect it's the former.

It's been about 30 hours since Trump last tweeted.  Word is he's seen the report.   If the report exonerated him, he'd be....

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It's been about 30 hours since Trump last tweeted.  Word is he's seen the report.   If the report exonerated him, he'd be....

Eh, I remember similar reports months about about a big Mueller release and nothing came of it. Trump was happily tweeting a few hours later.

 

If he goes two days without tweeting, let me know.

 

Also, I don't give a **** about his tweets, nor should anyone else.

[Badsmerf]

It's been about 30 hours since Trump last tweeted. Word is he's seen the report. If the report exonerated him, he'd be....

He'd be tweeting like a mofo. I'm sure he's seen it, this is Trump we're talking about. Anything that has to do with him he will go through hell to know. I'm guessing there wasn't enough evidence to indict him on treason or conspiracy, or Mueller didn't believe in indicting a sitting president.

 

I'm guessing they are coming up with a strategy of how to deal with it right now. Unfortunately for them, it can't be burnt and made to disappear. This is going to come out. I just wonder if any democrats know what's in it or have seen it. I'll be interested to see how hard they pursue the report.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Eh, I remember similar reports months about about a big Mueller release and nothing came of it. Trump was happily tweeting a few hours later.

 

If he goes two days without tweeting, let me know.

 

Also, I don't give a **** about his tweets, nor should anyone else.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.  But I think the non-tweets are significant.  

 

The non-indictments were supposedly a victory for Trump, why isn't he celebrating that???

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about.  But I think the non-tweets are significant.  

 

The non-indictments were supposedly a victory for Trump, why isn't he celebrating that???

I saw the 12 hours of non-tweets talked about rather extensively after some indictment or another.

 

Then he started tweeting again. My point is that we should just sit, wait, and then decide. That's all.

[Vanimal46]

I saw the 12 hours of non-tweets talked about rather extensively after some indictment or another.

 

Then he started tweeting again. My point is that we should just sit, wait, and then decide. That's all.

Now he's tweeting again. I'm happy to sit and wait for them to decide if they'll release the report to the public.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Now he's tweeting again. I'm happy to sit and wait for them to decide if they'll release the report to the public.

 

So now he's innocent?  Right?  Is that how I'm supposed to interpret this clown's tweeting hobby?

 

[Vanimal46]

So now he's innocent? Right? Is that how I'm supposed to interpret this clown's tweeting hobby?

Not at all. I'm just saying it's hard to infer anything from his tweeting habits.

[NumberThree]

 

Not at all. I'm just saying it's hard to infer anything from his tweeting habits.

Heh, well ... I'd say most of this tweets, thus his habit, fall into the 'Liar, liar, pants on fire' category. He tweets to paint himself in the best light possible, or those who oppose him in the worst light possible, or those who have fact and truth on their said as fabricators ... regardless of truth or reality. That's his style. If he were to suddently become a coherent tweeter, I'd still be skeptical given his track record up to this point. Why anyone even follows his tweets is beyond me. I don't, but I see posts and hear comments all over the place regarding his tweets.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Not at all. I'm just saying it's hard to infer anything from his tweeting habits.

 

Sorry, forgot my sarcasm font,

[ewen21]

The Mueller Report is out and yet it doesn't seem like Trump feels threatened.

[Badsmerf]

The Mueller Report is out and yet it doesn't seem like Trump feels threatened.

I'm not sure I'd go that far. If he looked squeaky clean, Barr would have already provided a report or copies to Congress. Since it is still secret, I think there is something damming in it about Trump or his family.

 

On the other hand, it could completely vindicate him. Then, his attacks on the investigation would be more bizarre than they already were. No matter what it ends up saying, Trump has behaved like someone that is guilty the entire time.

[ewen21]

 

I'm not sure I'd go that far. If he looked squeaky clean, Barr would have already provided a report or copies to Congress. Since it is still secret, I think there is something damming in it about Trump or his family.

On the other hand, it could completely vindicate him. Then, his attacks on the investigation would be more bizarre than they already were. No matter what it ends up saying, Trump has behaved like someone that is guilty the entire time.

If they had something truly damning why would it have taken so long?  Mueller was obligated to do this and now that it's done all the talk about it seems totally anti-climactic

[PseudoSABR]

 

If they had something truly damning why would it have taken so long?  Mueller was obligated to do this and now that it's done all the talk about it seems totally anti-climactic

Or more, logically, if there was nothing there, why did it take so long? 

 

Remember that Mueller is only an investigator, and he used indictments as an investigative tool; once he had all the information he needed, even if they were crimes, it wasn't his place to indict, that will be up to the new AG.  The Justice Department also has a policy of not indicting a sitting president. 

 

It may be anticlimactic, but don't forget Mueller handed down 37 indictments, multiple plea bargains, and convicted Trump's campaign manager at trial.  That by itself is historical, even if we are a bit numb to it all, by the drip-drip nature of the process. 

[ewen21]

 

Or more, logically, if there was nothing there, why did it take so long? 

 

Remember that Mueller is only an investigator, and he used indictments as an investigative tool; once he had all the information he needed, even if they were crimes, it wasn't his place to indict, that will be up to the new AG.  The Justice Department also has a policy of not indicting a sitting president. 

 

It may be anticlimactic, but don't forget Mueller handed down 37 indictments, multiple plea bargains, and convicted Trump's campaign manager at trial.  That by itself is historical, even if we are a bit numb to it all, by the drip-drip nature of the process. 

Is it more logical to assume this?

 

It could be he was hoping for certain things to turn up that never really did.

 

In any event, I am not going to predict anything (or even comment any further unless the report becomes available to the public).

[PseudoSABR]

 

Is it more logical to assume this?

 

It could be he was hoping for certain things to turn up that never really did.

That's not how investigation works.  That they've followed threads for two-years suggests there was evidence that kept them busy.  

 

I would agree that perhaps they had hoped to flip Stone, and without flipping him (and to some extent Manafort), they lacked the smoking gun to connect a conspiracy to Trump personally.   

 

I think there will be damaging information about Trump, but he'll claim victory all the same.  The question will be why weren't indictments handed out. Is it because Mueller is limited to investigation? Is it because DOJ policy not to indict the president? Is it because there is evidence of wrong doing but not crimes? Is it because there is evidence of crimes, but they can't prove them beyond a reasonable doubt?  I seriously doubt it will be a nothing-burger, but you may right it will be anticlimatic as it fall into a gray area I describe above.  

 

I'll add this link: https://www.lawfareblog.com/very-quick-thoughts-end-mueller-investigation  which provides a lot of context for my take, from someone more qualified than me to speak on these matters.

[ewen21]

 

That's not how investigation works.    

With investigations you either can or cannot obtain the evidence to convict  

 

No amount of bloviating from CNN or FOX (or on message boards) is going to change what is in the report and we haven't seen it soo....respectfully, I am out on this one

[PseudoSABR]

 

With investigations you either can or cannot obtain the evidence to convict  

There's a whole lot of gray area of potentially valuable information of wrongdoing which may very well amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors" enabling Congress to impeach.  

 

(And just because you can't convict doesn't mean the person is innocent...)

[PseudoSABR]

Here's Barr's summary.  

[TheLeviathan]

It's significant that he found no evidence of collusion.  Like it or not, the left thought he was going to find that and he did not.  For Trump, that's a win.

 

I don't like it either.

[ashbury]

It's significant that he found no evidence of collusion. 

No evidence, or insufficient evidence to bring any indictments?

 

Comey's 2016 summary on Hillary Clinton was much more "but on the other hand" when stating that there would be no indictments after that investigation. I don't think we know for certain what is in this report, to be able to make quite such a blanket statement.

 

Certainly those on the "Impeach the MF" train need to disembark now, and perhaps wait on the platform in the cold for the next one if that's their thing.

[Badsmerf]

It's significant that he found no evidence of collusion. Like it or not, the left thought he was going to find that and he did not. For Trump, that's a win.

 

I don't like it either.

Like Ashbury said... no evidence is a lot different than not enough evidence.

 

After reading the report I had some takeaways.

 

1. There was evidence of conspiracy, but not enough evidence to bring a case against Trump or the campaign. This is a big win for Trump and Republicans.... and it will always cloud Trump's presidency.

 

2. He obstructed justice. Convenient that Barr was against obstruction of justice before he became AG, and decides not to pursue the charge.

 

3. Trump and the Russians got away with the shenanigans revolving around the election.

 

4. Democrats need to tread carefully on how they respond. Continue to push for the report to be made public so the public can see the actual evidence that was found. Continue pushing for tax returns.

 

5. Without the full report being released, I don't trust Barr's summary to be an accurate representation. It might be, but without reading it I am skeptical.

[TheLeviathan]

No evidence, or insufficient evidence to bring any indictments?

 

Comey's 2016 summary on Hillary Clinton was much more "but on the other hand" when stating that there would be no indictments after that investigation. I don't think we know for certain what is in this report, to be able to make quite such a blanket statement.

 

Certainly those on the "Impeach the MF" train need to disembark now, and perhaps wait on the platform in the cold for the next one if that's their thing.

Fair distinction. Either way it falls well short of what many thought was inevitable.

 

How long before Mueller's hero/villain distinction gets flipped for both sides?

[PseudoSABR]

 

No evidence, or insufficient evidence to bring any indictments?

 

Comey's 2016 summary on Hillary Clinton was much more "but on the other hand" when stating that there would be no indictments after that investigation. I don't think we know for certain what is in this report, to be able to make quite such a blanket statement.

 

Certainly those on the "Impeach the MF" train need to disembark now, and perhaps wait on the platform in the cold for the next one if that's their thing.

Right.  Here's the quote that Barr uses from the report: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

 

The use of word "establish" is a bit unusual in terms of a legal document, when I see it used in terms of a criminal proceeding it is often in the form of "establish beyond a reasonable doubt."  If there was language that indicated there was "no evidence" of collusion, you better believe Barr would have used that language.

 

Conspiracy was always going to be difficult to prove in that there needs to be an affirmative agreement, and then steps taken in concert with that agreement.  Parallel conduct is insufficient, even if it looks like quid-pro-quo. 

 

All that said, we need to see the report to see if there is evidence that warrants consideration as "high crimes and misdemeanors."

[Vanimal46]

Barr's letter can't be considered an executive summary. It's more or less, like, his opinion, man. Hard to draw any conclusions until the full report is released.

[Mike Sixel]

While there might be pluses to their being guilt, or whatever, our democracy is probably better off not testing that right now. In the 70s the GOP was willing to indict their president, and to do what it thought was best for the democracy. I don't hold that same hope right now, had their been sufficient evidence to consider impeachment. 

 

As for the overall investigation, it's like the world has somehow forgotten all the others that have been jailed so far.....