Result of Mueller Investigation

[cameronfen]

As a liberal I'm a bit disappointed in the result.  That being said in the US, there has become a stark divide where much of the nation is more concerned with their party winning than the US winning.  I think to automatically attack facts that disagree with your preconceived beliefs is bad for the country and a habit investors should avoid.

IMO, it's highly unlikely that Mueller wasnt thorough/biased even if for example he didnt interview Trump or that Trump did something really bad but the definition of collusion is too narrow.  I think it's also more tribal thinking if you want to persecute Trump for obstructing justice for a crime that the investigation found no evidence of (although obstruction is still on the table for other crimes we have or ultimately find evidence of).  IMO as a liberal, what is good for the country is to accept that it's likely he did not collude and not try to discredit this result.  There are still a lot of things to dislike about the guy including likely some illegal things, but again these offenses are less impeachable than treason (and liberals should recognize that and adjust their actions).  I think the report should be public (and trump supporters probably agree with me) but I think to not make a fuss if its lightly redacted (as long as congress sees the whole thing).  I also think calling for more investigations sound like sour grapes, so I think house investigations should be pared back and focused on more obvious violations Trump has committed (if there are any). Just my thoughts mainly directed at the liberals here, although not critiquing anyone, but just looking at the normal response people often have in this situation. 

[cubsfan]

As a liberal I'm a bit disappointed in the result.  That being said in the US, there has become a stark divide where much of the nation is more concerned with their party winning than the US winning.  I think to automatically attack facts that disagree with your preconceived beliefs is bad for the country and a habit investors should avoid.

IMO, it's highly unlikely that Mueller wasnt thorough/biased even if for example he didnt interview Trump or that Trump did something really bad but the definition of collusion is too narrow.  I think it's also more tribal thinking if you want to persecute Trump for obstructing justice for a crime that the investigation found no evidence of (although obstruction is still on the table for other crimes we have or ultimately find evidence of).  IMO as a liberal, what is good for the country is to accept that it's likely he did not collude and not try to discredit this result.  There are still a lot of things to dislike about the guy including likely some illegal things, but again these offenses are less impeachable than treason (and liberals should recognize that and adjust their actions).  I think the report should be public (and trump supporters probably agree with me) but I think to not make a fuss if its lightly redacted (as long as congress sees the whole thing).  I also think calling for more investigations sound like sour grapes, so I think house investigations should be pared back and focused on more obvious violations Trump has committed (if there are any). Just my thoughts mainly directed at the liberals here, although not critiquing anyone, but just looking at the normal response people often have in this situation.

 

A mature and unemotional view, well expressed. 

 

Personally, I've no issue with Democrats or Liberals - it's the fringe Left that is destroying a once reasonable Democratic Party.

Democrats should be horrified - and take their party back from the Left.

 

When a party looks more interested in hating Jews because the leadership will not condemn or silence their radical fringe, you know there is trouble.

Likewise, Republicans need to continue to condemn Neo-Nazis and white supremacists that try to align against the Democratic Party and not be silent.

 

Incidents like Charlottesville, Kavanaugh hearings, Covington - need to be roundly condemn by BOTH parties even if it alienates the fringe elements.

[SafetyinNumbers]

While the report doesn’t exonerate the President, the conclusion is that he either colluded or him and his team are privileged and unethical morons who lie a lot.

 

I can’t see anyway around that when you examine the behaviour of him and his team. My working theory is that they had all of these meetings with Russians because they either didn’t see anything wrong with doing so or thought they wouldn’t win anyway so there was no risk. Then the FBI came calling so they lied because they were worried they might have done something wrong. Then the President started attacking Mueller which suggests to me that there is something to hide (probably unrelated to Russia) and he wanted to establish cover for that.

 

I recommend everyone watch the Showtime doc “The Family Business: Trump and Taxes”. It’s very credible and outlines he is essentially a con man that came from money. At first he took money from his Dad, illegally, and then from banks. He should be voted out of office for defrauding America.

[cwericb]

Question.

 

There have been suggestions that Trump may have been involved in tax evasion, money laundering, etc prior to his Presidency and to be realistic, there are a lot of "successful" people who have crossed the line over the years.

 

If Muller found evidence of prior criminal activity during his investigation and turned it over to the FBI, would there be any requirement for him to have included that in his report as it would be peripheral to the mandate of the investigation?

 

After all, this was a pretty intensive investigation and there may be information not made public that would be held until Trump leaves office as there seems to be a reluctance to bring charges against a sitting president?

[SafetyinNumbers]

From what I have read a lot of material has been turned over to other agencies or state prosecutors so those cases will move forward.

 

Any federal cases will have to wait until he is out of office because the DOJ interperates the law as they cannot charge a sitting President.

 

The Mueller report was only on conspiracy with Russia and obstruction. While it did not exonerate, the evidence apparently did not clear the hurdle to charge (which is probably significantly higher for POTUS vs anyone else).

 

All that being said, I am not a lawyer.

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

One of the MANY results of the Mueller Investigation is that President Trump will assuredly be re-elected.

 

The Democrats have shot themselves in the foot over this.  It was not thought through properly by those advancing it.

 

The Democrat supporters are confused/demoralized and the Right/Republicans are enraged and energized.

[LC]

Just like OJ Simpson was suddenly beloved across the nation after his acquittal  :P

 

The point being, we have no idea how the public at-large will react.

 

What would truly be a shame is if the report is not released. The voting public has a right to read the report.

[Gregmal]

OJ was charged. Trump has never been indicted, charged, whatever, by anyone other than the fools on the left who hate him...

 

The public doesn't deserve anything. It's theatrics. Im all for giving people the report if that is the end of this whole circus. But not if these tools are now all of a sudden going to become legal experts who know better than Mueller himself and just continue grasping at straws and using any bit of the report, likely taken out of context, to continue carrying on their witch hunt.

[Guest Schwab711]

 

Any federal cases will have to wait until he is out of office because the DOJ interperates the law as they cannot charge a sitting President.

 

What's weird is Barr said no obstruction without considering this precedent. Maybe I'm over-reading but I'm not sure it's "can't" anymore and this might be used to indictments a future POTUS. I'm not sure it's common for AGs to discuss hypotheticals.

[LC]

The public doesn't deserve anything.

 

Describes this entire administration.

[cwericb]

“Trump has never been indicted, charged, whatever, by anyone other than the fools on the left who hate him...”

 

Aren’t you just cherry picking the facts or just ignoring them?

 

Of course he hasn’t been indicted or charged. Barr does not believe that a sitting president can be indicted or charged. If that is your argument, you have to admit it is pretty weak.

 

“The public doesn't deserve anything.” 

 

And that attitude is the problem. Do you seriously believe that? Isn’t that what any dictator would believe? What ever happened to democracy?

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

Seems to me like the SDNY is asleep at the switch!

 

When Trump was a private citizen and simply "staying in his lane", everything is cool.

 

Now that he is President, he needs to be investigated and prosecuted?

 

Why wasn't this done before hand?  They only figured it out now?  Seems politically motivated.

[SafetyinNumbers]

Hey all:

 

Seems to me like the SDNY is asleep at the switch!

 

When Trump was a private citizen and simply "staying in his lane", everything is cool.

 

Now that he is President, he needs to be investigated and prosecuted?

 

Why wasn't this done before hand?  They only figured it out now?  Seems politically motivated.

 

SDNY would have had to be aware of the crimes in order to investigate. When you decide to become President, you should expect to be transparent with your finances but enough voters didn’t care about that before he was elected. Now people are talking and records are coming forward so they will have to investigate.

 

Has anyone else watched The Family Business: Trump and Taxes? Any voter, after watching that, should want him out of office. It comes across much more credible than POTUS and his team.

[Gregmal]

“Trump has never been indicted, charged, whatever, by anyone other than the fools on the left who hate him...”

 

Aren’t you just cherry picking the facts or just ignoring them?

 

Of course he hasn’t been indicted or charged. Barr does not believe that a sitting president can be indicted or charged. If that is your argument, you have to admit it is pretty weak.

 

“The public doesn't deserve anything.” 

 

And that attitude is the problem. Do you seriously believe that? Isn’t that what any dictator would believe? What ever happened to democracy?

 

First, Mueller obviously did not feel strongly enough to indict, so he passed. Second, I agree totally with the argument they made. Trump didn't collude with Russia. He didn't do anything he believed was wrong. So all these bums want to keep interfering with him? Harassing him for info that stems solely from an attack derived from Hillary Clinton and the establishment? Of course I wouldn't cooperate or make their lives easy either. But now, those type of actions are what YOU GUYS want to base an obstruction charge on? Despite the entire basis of the investigation exonerating him and proving he was right from the beginning? Please. Come on...

 

As I said, the American public doesnt deserve anything if releasing the report is just going to be an excuse for people who have 100% already made up their minds to just keep pushing a narrative the has already been declared false. In addition to these, there are disclosure standards and precedent in terms of releasing items like this. For instance, subpoena material is almost always redacted. Yet here, you have a bunch of losers like Nadler and Schiff, already painting the picture that if anything is redacted(whether supported by precedent) that it is some grand scheme and cover up and THAT is treasonous and undermining the president and frankly the entire system.

 

I am hardly a fan of "the system", but what these guys are doing, purely with partisan motives, is absurd.

[LC]

 

As I said, the American public doesnt deserve anything if releasing the report is just going to be an excuse for people who have 100% already made up their minds to just keep pushing a narrative the has already been declared false

 

I see - so now the public doesn't deserve anything if blah blah blah. Way to backtrack.

 

In addition to these, there are disclosure standards and precedent in terms of releasing items like this.

I totally agree. Let's stick with precedent. If you recall, the most recent report of this nature was the Ken Starr report about the one and only Bill Clinton.

 

After the four year investigation of Clinton, the Office of the Independent Counsel delivered its 445-page report to Congress on September 9, 1998.[4]

 

For two days, the report sat unread in the Ford House Office Building as Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives debated what to do with it. On September 11, the House voted 363–63 to release the report to the public.[5]

 

You're crying about a two year investigation about a legitimate issue when Clinton was investigated for FOUR YEARS for screwing an intern. Meanwhile we've got Russians manipulating our elections and a president who has been more fiscally and sexually adventurous than Slick Willy ever was.

 

And yet you cry foul. How sad.

 

There's someone's forum signature which is the only one I ever have remembered, it goes like this:

 

"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."

 

[cwericb]

Gregmal

 

You say “Mueller obviously did not feel strongly enough to indict, so he passed.”

 

That is your interpretation. But ask yourself this. Since his boss, the Attorney General, has already stated that the President cannot be indicted why would Muller take it upon himself to indict? Why not do exactly what he did and kick the can down the road?

 

You speak like you have somehow read a copy of the report.

 

You seem to believe that it completely exonerates Trump. The only person who has made that declaration is Donald Trump himself. I suppose if you believe everything he says than you might agree with him. But most of us know what his word is worth. You also have no idea of what evidence related to other potential crimes  may have been passed on to other agencies. Do you?

 

As far as obstruction goes, I don’t know what your definition of obstruction would be but firing the guy that was investigating yourself would seem to be the very definition of obstruction. If that is not an attempt at obstructing the investigation I don't know what would be. How would you define obstruction?

 

The report was commissioned by the representatives of the US people and they should have a right to see it and make up their own minds. That way no one can cherry pick quotes - it would be there for all for all to see - unless you want to hide something.

[Gregmal]

Gregmal

 

You say “Mueller obviously did not feel strongly enough to indict, so he passed.”

 

That is your interpretation. But ask yourself this. Since his boss, the Attorney General, has already stated that the President cannot be indicted why would Muller take it upon himself to indict? Why not do exactly what he did and kick the can down the road?

 

You speak like you have somehow read a copy of the report.

 

You seem to believe that it completely exonerates Trump. The only person who has made that declaration is Donald Trump himself. I suppose if you believe everything he says than you might agree with him. But most of us know what his word is worth. You also have no idea of what evidence related to other potential crimes  may have been passed on to other agencies. Do you?

 

As far as obstruction goes, I don’t know what your definition of obstruction would be but firing the guy that was investigating yourself would seem to be the very definition of obstruction. If that is not an attempt at obstructing the investigation I don't know what would be. How would you define obstruction?

 

The report was commissioned by the representatives of the US people and they should have a right to see it and make up their own minds. That way no one can cherry pick quotes - it would be there for all for all to see - unless you want to hide something.

 

How exactly do you reconcile calling it obstruction of justice when there was no justice to be brought given the premise of the investigation was basically a hoax and a partisan witch hunt?

 

If one of my employees decided to spend DD time investigating something that was unclear, fine. If he continued, even though it was obvious the issue was a hoax and waste of time, I'd give a warning. If he continued to waste time and money on the issue I'd fire him...

[LC]

How exactly do you reconcile calling it obstruction of justice when there was no justice to be brought given the premise of the investigation was basically a hoax and a partisan witch hunt?

 

Why do you keep repeating this bogus point when there have been 37 indictments:

 

1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence.

 

2) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018 (though Mueller’s team said in November that he breached that agreement by lying to them). He was sentenced to a combined seven and a half years in prison.

 

 

3) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.

 

4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.

 

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

 

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018.

 

22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.

 

23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year.

 

24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.

 

36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations — related to hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York (that Mueller had handed off). But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

 

37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign, and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story.

 

[cwericb]

I think you will find that the way the law works is that it doesn’t matter if a person is innocent or guilty, the fact that they attempted to interfere or obstruct an investigation is the crime. It is sort of like if you decide to burn down your building and the fire goes out before it burns down, you are still guilty of arson.

 

You sound like a reasonably intelligent guy, but why do you parrot Trumps catch phrases like “hoax” and “witch hunt”. There were serious questions raised about the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump even added to the questions by his own behavior. Therefore it was in everyone’s best interest to have the matter settled. However, until the full report is released there will still be unanswered questions.

 

If there is nothing to hide why doesn’t Trump demand the report be released?

[Gregmal]

I think you will find that the way the law works is that it doesn’t matter if a person is innocent or guilty, the fact that they attempted to interfere or obstruct an investigation is the crime. It is sort of like if you decide to burn down your building and the fire goes out before it burns down, you are still guilty of arson.

 

You sound like a reasonably intelligent guy, but why do you parrot Trumps catch phrases like “hoax” and “witch hunt”. There were serious questions raised about the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump even added to the questions by his own behavior. Therefore it was in everyone’s best interest to have the matter settled. However, until the full report is released there will still be unanswered questions.

 

If there is nothing to hide why doesn’t Trump demand the report be released?

 

Because there really isn't even any evidence that he tried to burn the building down and it went out. The entire investigation(also called hoax/witch hunt) stemmed from a biased report, that was paid for by the Clinton camp, and put together by a foreign agent!

 

LC keeps going on about indictments, but again, as even federal judges have said, none of this has anything to do with Russian collusion. Zero. Its like making an investment and having your entire thesis be wrong but still making a few bucks. Yea you got lucky but the thesis was dead wrong. I'm not debating that Trump, Manafort, Stone etc aren't probably guilty of other things... What I'm saying is that this entire thing was clearly a partisan crock very early on, carried on way too long, was perpetuated by the liberal media, and as a result, finding some mouse fart of an infraction that has nothing to do with any of it, and then whining about THAT, is just grasping at straws.

 

Essentially the spend all this time making up all these obvious infractions and crimes that they claimed they KNEW Trump committed. And ultimately found NONE. And now all that's left is to harp on borderline "obstruction"... come on...

 

I mean when Pelosi, AOC, and friends are now pivoting from impeachment, it's not because they had a change of heart; its because they know there is no longer any case, even in the slightest bit. There just have to put a spin on it. Its like when the fraudsters in a pump and dump unload their stock. It's over. Yet there are still always bag holders who are behind the 8 ball and slow to react, like LC, and thats why there's still a story to some folks.

[SafetyinNumbers]

I think you will find that the way the law works is that it doesn’t matter if a person is innocent or guilty, the fact that they attempted to interfere or obstruct an investigation is the crime. It is sort of like if you decide to burn down your building and the fire goes out before it burns down, you are still guilty of arson.

 

You sound like a reasonably intelligent guy, but why do you parrot Trumps catch phrases like “hoax” and “witch hunt”. There were serious questions raised about the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump even added to the questions by his own behavior. Therefore it was in everyone’s best interest to have the matter settled. However, until the full report is released there will still be unanswered questions.

 

If there is nothing to hide why doesn’t Trump demand the report be released?

 

Because there really isn't even any evidence that he tried to burn the building down and it went out. The entire investigation(also called hoax/witch hunt) stemmed from a biased report, that was paid for by the Clinton camp, and put together by a foreign agent!

 

LC keeps going on about indictments, but again, as even federal judges have said, none of this has anything to do with Russian collusion. Zero. Its like making an investment and having your entire thesis be wrong but still making a few bucks. Yea you got lucky but the thesis was dead wrong. I'm not debating that Trump, Manafort, Stone etc aren't probably guilty of other things... What I'm saying is that this entire thing was clearly a partisan crock very early on, carried on way too long, was perpetuated by the liberal media, and as a result, finding some mouse fart of an infraction that has nothing to do with any of it, and then whining about THAT, is just grasping at straws.

 

Essentially the spend all this time making up all these obvious infractions and crimes that they claimed they KNEW Trump committed. And ultimately found NONE. And now all that's left is to harp on borderline "obstruction"... come on...

 

I mean when Pelosi, AOC, and friends are now pivoting from impeachment, it's not because they had a change of heart; its because they know there is no longer any case, even in the slightest bit. There just have to put a spin on it. Its like when the fraudsters in a pump and dump unload their stock. It's over. Yet there are still always bag holders who are behind the 8 ball and slow to react, like LC, and thats why there's still a story to some folks.

 

Why did they lie about it? Why did they keep talking and sharing information with Russians after they were asked about it? Why do they keep lying now about the content of the report?

 

I think a lot of us can see that, the President, based on the content of his character is dangerous. All of the lying supports that claim.

[cwericb]

"I think a lot of us can see that, the President, based on the content of his character is dangerous."

 

And that, is the bottom line. 

 

[cubsfan]

Trump did not interfere with the Mueller investigation, that was under an independent counsel under the DOJ.

Comey worked for the FBI - the DOJ, under Rod Rosenstein recommended that Comey be fired because Comey had damaged

the reputation and credibility of the FBI - and that Comey had totally faked the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Rosenstein then recommended to Trump - and Trump used his constitutional authority to remove a corrupt FBI director.

 

There is no obstruction of Justice - since the Mueller probe was unaffected - and Trump was acting with the

Presidential powers given to him under the constitution.

 

James Comey said himself "I serve at the pleasure of the President" - everyone in Washington knows this.

The FBI director lost the confidence of the President and was replaced. Ask any constitutional lawyer - it's real simple.

 

But - Comey is a criminal, and has not yet been indicted. We will see what happens. He illegally leaked FBI information to the press

and admitted this under oath. He then lied to Congress multiple times.

 

There is no defensible position for Comey.

 

 

[cwericb]

Donald Trump stated in his own words in the Lester Holt interview, that he fired Comey because of "the Russia thing".

 

You can't change the facts to suit what you would like them to be.

 

It doesn't matter how you try to obscure it - that is what he said. 

 

So:

1) You are being investigated for a potential crime

2) Then you fire the guy that is investigating you.

3) Then you go on national TV and admit that you did it because he was investigating you.

4) That is an attempt to obstruct the investigation.

 

[cubsfan]

Donald Trump stated in his own words in the Lester Holt interview, that he fired Comey because of "the Russia thing".

 

You can't change the facts to suit what you would like them to be.

 

It doesn't matter how you try to obscure it - that is what he said. 

 

So:

1) You are being investigated for a potential crime

2) Then you fire the guy that is investigating you.

3) Then you go on national TV and admit that you did it because he was investigating you.

4) That is an attempt to obstruct the investigation.

 

You have it totally wrong. The Special Counsel was conducting an investigation of the 2016 Election

to uncover candidate Trump's collusion with Russia to influence the election. This was under the DOJ.

James Comey was not part of the investigation. James Comey was the FBI Director and lost the

confidence of the DOJ and US President. The President had the constitutional authority to fire Comey

for any reason. The DOJ told Trump, in writing,  to fire Comey. Don't try and change the facts.

 

You have your facts all wrong - and you don't get to change them to suit your narrative.

 

The Special Counsel's investigation was not obstructed as Mueller told you.

 

James Comey told you in his own words "I serve at the pleasure of the President".

 

He is a criminal trying to control the narrative so he is not indicted for lying to Congress multiple times.