The Mueller Probe is Complete - Longer OP Edition

[Longweather]

Well, that was a boring summary. It's almost disappointing.

Also, I'd imagine it is fairly accurate since Mueller hasn't called it out for being false.

Would Mueller even be the type to throw himself into that kind of political martyrdom?

His office did it for BuzzFeed, so I figure it's entirely on the table.

[Fahran]

Would Mueller even be the type to throw himself into that kind of political martyrdom?

He doesn't strike me as especially political beyond what one would expect of a prosecutor and lawyer appointed by George H. W. Bush. That said, I'm not certain it would cost him that much to call out incorrect summaries of his report. Several other people have called out Trump. He'll rage at them for a few weeks and then move on to raging against someone or something else.

[Shofercia]

Is that why the majority of Republicans voted to release it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/p ... ublic.html

Quoting you only to provide some background context to the recent development...

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday blocked a resolution calling for special counsel Robert Mueller's report to be released publicly.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked for unanimous consent for the nonbinding resolution, which cleared the House 420-0, to be passed by the Senate following Mueller's submission of his final report on Friday.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/435703-mcconnell-blocks-resolution-calling-for-mueller-report-to-be-released

I wonder if there's something else that they're fighting over... from that very same article:

The New York Democrat’s first attempt came hours after the resolution cleared the House unanimously, but Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, objected to his request. Graham blocked the resolution from passing after Schumer refused to amend it to include a provision calling on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate alleged department misconduct in the handling of the investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's email use and the Carter Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications.

Seems that the Republicans are ok with it being released, as long as the Democrats are not shielded from the investigation. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Cannot think of a name]

Quoting you only to provide some background context to the recent development...

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday blocked a resolution calling for special counsel Robert Mueller's report to be released publicly.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked for unanimous consent for the nonbinding resolution, which cleared the House 420-0, to be passed by the Senate following Mueller's submission of his final report on Friday.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/435703-mcconnell-blocks-resolution-calling-for-mueller-report-to-be-released

I wonder if there's something else that they're fighting over... from that very same article:

The New York Democrat’s first attempt came hours after the resolution cleared the House unanimously, but Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, objected to his request. Graham blocked the resolution from passing after Schumer refused to amend it to include a provision calling on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate alleged department misconduct in the handling of the investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's email use and the Carter Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications.

Seems that the Republicans are ok with it being released, as long as the Democrats are not shielded from the investigation. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The Democrats are shielded how?

[Shofercia]

You want to debate, yet you won't define what terms your bitching about this time? You're the one screaming about it being a crime

No, Shof, I'm not. I want to know what you're talking about. So... what do you think should count as a crime. What is a crime to you?

That's a moronically broad question.

I was saying that you blame Comey. Reading comprehension is an awesome skill, but it tends to get confusing when you try to show off on NSG: It implies Comey sabotaged Clinton.

Yes, Shof, this is what is confusing.

It's not confusing - you said it rather openly, and I quoted you on it. Your Comey quote:

Like, you're not even right about why Clinton lost... the explanation is pretty obviously James Comey and his disregard for usual procedures.

As a result, Mystic Warriors pointed out that you implied that Comey sabotaged Clinton:

It implies Comey sabotaged Clinton.

[Shofercia]

...Seems that the Republicans are ok with it being released, as long as the Democrats are not shielded from the investigation. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The Democrats are shielded how?

The investigation focused on Trump and his team, rather than Fusion GPS and the FISA warrant, tending to ignore the latter. I'd rather not have FISA Court abuse, so it's not bad to investigate it's potential abuse. Obviously, I didn't mean every single Democrat out there.

[Shofercia]

My point, the one that you failed to grasp, while latching onto semantics, was that you were using murder, something rare, as an example when discussing espionage, something that's very common. It has also been explained to you, several times, but I'm actually mature enough to avoid smiley spam.

Yes I know you want to talk about frequency (except when you claim you do not). I cannot understand why this is the case when it has nothing to do with anything...

Also, that's not smiley spam.

Over five smilies in one post that attempts to be serious is the very definition of smiley spam, but I'm sure you'll write an article on that as well, Forsher.

It was relevant to your point about always following the rules, weren't you the one yelling "IT'S A CRIME!"

No, Shofercia, I have not been doing this.

I'm deleting your irrelevant ramblings now.

I'm fairly certain that you lack the ability to delete the parts of my posts that you fail to grasp, and thus consider irrelevant. What you meant to say is that you'll no longer respond to parts of my posts that you fail to grasp. I see this as an improvement.

There were two main issue covered in the report, for those of us who actually read it, rather than just talking about it to show off. On the first issue, the part about Collusion, Mueller completely exonerated Trump.

Yes, I just said that: "my main main Mueller has cleared Trump of collusion"

Here's the entirety of that sentence:

Barr: "Yo, guyz, my main main Mueller has cleared Trump of collusion but didn't exonerate him.

Let's look at that in more detail: Mueller has cleared Trump of collusion but didn't exonerate him.

So by saying that Mueller didn't exonerate Trump on the charge of Collusion, you're saying that Mueller exonerated Trump on the charge of Collusion. Must be some weird Forsher language that I'm not getting. Let me place this in simpler terms:

Mueller exonerated Trump on the charge of Collusion.
Mueller did not prosecute Trump on the charge of Obstruction, but did not exonerate him on the charge of Obstruction.

On the second issue, the part about Obstruction, Mueller said that there was not enough evidence to either convict, or exonerate. Those are two very different issues Forsher.

And, I just said this too: " Imma say that it's all gud tho, since it don't luk like he did dat obstruction stuff either."

Stop lying.

You're the one who needs to stop lying. You confused the two charges.

Here's what you said: Mueller has cleared Trump of collusion but didn't exonerate him
Here's what you could've said: Mueller has exonerated Trump of collusion but didn't exonerate him on the charge of obstruction

Not sure if you're seeing that, but I cannot make it any clearer.

Once again, my initial point, was that one shouldn't use an example of a rare event, when discussing a common event.

You, again, misunderstand, completely, the example and its function. Actually it's broader than that... you have comprehensively failed to demonstrate any understanding of the argument put before you.

Besides, if this is so important to you, why are you not talking about a frequent example compared to a frequent example?

I compared it to driving, also a common occurrence. I'm sure that argument sounded wonderful in your head Forsher, but on NSG, it just lacked gravitas.

Proof tends to matter in a Court of Law.

Yes, we know. The question was why does this matte to the conversation we're having?

Because you probably said that proof was irrelevant, or something silly like that, so I made that rebuttal.

Because I prefer to focus on the subject of the thread, rather than what's in Forsher's imagination.

See that question above... that's you not talking about the subject of this thread.

Fairly certain I just discussed the Mueller Report in this very post.

Because you're trying to turn a run of the mills spying case into a massive discussion about causality and semantics.

No, Shof, we're trying to show that the nature of causality means that we cannot justify not investigating smoke.

You really are obsessed with the Royal "We" aren't you? Anyways, I'm all for investigating the smoke. I'm against yelling "FOREST FIRE!" if all you see is smoke.

I repeatedly said that there should've been an investigation of the smoke. But it appears your reading comprehension of my posts matches with your reading comprehension of the Mueller Report.

Yes, Shof, I know... I don't understand why you think this means not knowing if Russia actually did something is a relevant point.

Because spying is a run of the mill occurrence; if all Russia did was to spy on the US, then the brewhaha raised by the Clinton Camp sounds idiotic, and that might be a factor in the 2020 Election. When the Republicans fearmongered, the Democrats used that against the Republicans - remember the McCain-Obama Election?

When you think about it for two seconds you'll see the contradiction... if we should investigate smoke, how can it matter that we're not sure what's happened? Our principle of "investigate smoke" means that the proof isn't relevant (in the sense of relevant costs) to deciding to launch an investigation. In fact, to a very large degree, we're launching the investigation because we don't have proof that Russia did, what was it, the hacking.

Again, if all you're doing is investigating smoke, that's fine. Investigate. But if you're throwing out accusations of Russia electing America's President, you better be able to back that up, or you should prepare to be mocked and ridiculed.

[Shofercia]

You want to debate, yet you won't define what terms your bitching about this time? You're the one screaming about it being a crime - so define it. What part of trying to change the outcome of an election is a crime? What's next, a post full of smiley faces?

But isn't trying to change the outcome of an election a crime, or at least should be, by definition?

Again - define "trying to change the outcome of an election" - go for it. If Russia Today tweets about a leaked document to draw attention to it - is that trying to change the outcome of an election? Where do you draw the line? Because otherwise, why not just kick any foreign press out of the country, since any opinion, any tweet, any leak, can be construed as "trying to change the outcome of an election"

[Shofercia]

But isn't trying to change the outcome of an election a crime, or at least should be, by definition?

This being the question that Shof has refused to answer. I want to know if Shof thinks election meddling should be a crime... and I want to know what of the many things Shof thinks can count election meddling ought to be crimes.

My definition of "crime" or "election meddling" is irrelevant when the question is wholly what Shof thinks.

If all you need for "election meddling" is to write an opinion piece about how much a political candidate sucks, and you happen to work for another country's Government paper, then no, it shouldn't be a crime. What's going on here is a classic case of an ad hominem; if a respected journalist leaked Clinton's emails, there would be massive outrage about the emails, not the messenger.

However, because it was done by Wikileaks who got it from a third party, who could've gotten it from Russia, there are numerous accusations of election meddling. What she did with the emails was wrong, but her team successfully parried that with a well placed ad hominem, where the messenger was attacked, instead of the message.

[Shofercia]

Please show me where I said that there shouldn't be an investigation?

That's a non-sequitur.

I claimed you just tried to equate "there's no evidence the Russians affected the election" and "there's no evidence the Russians acted alone in a hack".

Where did I try to equate them?

The first is a statement about whether or not Russia caused the outcome of a thing to happen. The second is a statement about whether or not Russia actually did something else.

Neither has anything to do whatsoever with whether or not there shouldn't be an investigation.

The question is why you're talking about the second one when it's (a) not what I disagreed with at the start of the conversation and (b) you and I both agree it should be investigated.

You see Shof... I am making an argument that relies on your having never said that there should not be an investigation. I cannot see why you do not understand this.

Why are we talking about a Russian hack?

Again, where did I try to equate those two things that you claimed I tried to equate?

An online forum isn't a Court of Law Forsher. It's just an online forum. If you're using it as a Court of Law, you aren't going to be a very good lawyer.

The point Shof is that if you want to make claims, you have to be able to demonstrate them. You have not done this, at all.

Which claims did I make that I have been unable to demonstrate?

Also, nice skipping of all those terribly tricky questions about why you're discussing frequency. Or is it just cocked up editing? Either way, you brought up frequency first... it's a trivial to substantiate this claim:

I stated that one should not use a rare occurrence as an example when discussing a common event, and you launched into a tirade about frequency. It's something that you're known to do.

The type of shooting your describing is a murder. Most people don't go around committing murders. Most powerful countries do attempt to exert some kind of electoral influence. Bad analogy is bad, and you should feel bad.

That's you.. introducing the idea that the problem with an example/analogy is frequency even though frequency has absolutely Sweet Fanny Adams to do with the analogy.

When discussing whether or not something should be a crime, one of the things that's important, is whether or not you can enforce it. The US has two Amendments to attest to that.

The only one who has introduced a quasi-algebraic equation is you.

Yes, Shof, literally what I just said.

You said "we" - so I was wondering if you were using the Royal We, or if you were referring to something else.

I know what you're trying to do - you want me to argue in your little debate box, and are growing very frustrated that I won't climb there. That's ok. It's entertaining.

No, Shof, you're refusing to participate in a conversation... you've been caught misunderstanding an example and are refusing to engage with its general principles. It's pathetic... but very amusing.

Didn't you just say that we're having a conversation? So if I'm refusing to participate in a conversation, how can we be having a conversation? Forsher logic strikes again!

My point was that Russian influence did not cause the election to be decided in favor of Trump.

Yes, the question is whether or not this fact determines what to do and/or how to judge it afterwards:

It does. If Russia can elect America's next president, then the US needs to conduct desperate reforms of democracy. If Russia cannot elect America's next president, then the US just needs Campaign Finance Reforms, which are unrelated to Russia.

Literally exactly the same point I'm making now. Literally the same burden.

We disagree over whether or not there's a problem just because nothing changed. You appear to be saying that Russia's meddling (whatever you mean by this) is completely okay so long as it doesn't affect the outcome of the election. Forsher and Valrifell disagree saying that Russia's meddling (whatever we each mean by this) is a problem independent of its outcome.

I'm not saying that it's ok. I am saying that if the US was in Russia's position, the US would've done something similar. Ditto for China. Ditto for France. Maybe even India. Just because I'm saying that countries spy on each other all the time, doesn't mean that I agree or disagree with it.

I even made exactly the same points in the Gorsuch thread:

I don't give a fuck about your cross thread posting.

Action outcome is not required for the question of action morality/meaning.

Countries do not always act morally. Attempting to moralize state actors is hilarious.

You mean to tell me that Governments can be immoral? My goodness, you've discovered America!

Another non-sequitur.

You're droning on and on about morality, when discussing state actors, and are shocked when someone points out that Governments can be immoral.

yes, it's a conversation, but not a formal one, not one requiring exchange of ideas and news.

Translation: that uppity Forsher had the nerve to disagree with me therefore I'm going to refuse to engage with his criticisms of my post until he gives up at the end of the evening.

Not at all, I know that you disagree with me all the time, as I prefer to view foreign relations through the prism of a Realist Foreign Policy, whereas you ramble on about morality.

If you disagree with me, I will report you! Go for it. "Waaa, Shof won't debate me how I want him to debate me, waaa!" - the moderator response should be most entertaining.

Yes, Shof, but you just agreed we are having a conversation...

Your point being?

Again, do you understand conditional reasoning or not? No, not even conditional reasoning... conditional statements...

Do you think that posters must display all of their understanding when responding to a ginormous post, on an online forum? Oh wait, you're the guy moralizing about Foreign Policy, of course you think that, duh!

I think it's more of an informal conversation. Once you realize what the Mueller Report actually says, perhaps we can have a formal conversation.

You mean that time where you tried to show how I was wrong by explaining how I was right. Good job. Not that this explains why you haven't explained why you haven't explained what we're talking about. So, the question remains: what are we having an "informal conversation" about Shof? We are agog.

Keep telling yourself that you're right if that's what makes you feel better. Mueller exonerated Trump on the charge of Collusion. You missed that. But in your mind, missing something is being totally right about it.

Let me write this in very simple words:

Reasonable speculation is reasonable
Unreasonable speculation is unreasonable

It's just that simple, Forsher.

So, what was reasonable speculation here, Shof?

Investigating smoke without making idiotic accusations like a three year old... the idiotic accusations that you couldn't tell apart from a normal investigation.

Also observe how my point is that we're disagreeing over what is reasonable speculation... not the existence of the concept.

Fairly certain I agree that the English language exists.

Yes, I can see it now, in front of every post, and NSGer justifying relevance...

Most people try to avoid non sequiturs... you don't. In other words, normally relevance is not an issue in a conversation...

Unless it's a conversation with Forsher...

Because Presidential Impeachment is not something that should occur based on mere guesswork. Also, 2+2=4, sun is hot, bears shit in woods, etc.

People want to impeach Trump because, for example, they think sacking Comey was, in itself, impeachable.

Except it wasn't. If you think that blood is blue, that doesn't change the fact that it's red.

You're presupposing that you have characterised the claims correctly when you have probably not done so...

I quoted the claims earlier. Here's one example:

MARGARET HOOVER: At what point do you draw the line and not accuse the president of the United States without any evidence of being an agent of Russia?
SWALWELL: Yeah. He’s betrayed our country, and I don’t say that lightly. I worked as a prosecutor for 7 years
HOOVER: But betraying the country — by the way, we want evidence before you say that, but you said an agent of Russia.
SWALWELL: Yeah. He works on their behalf
HOOVER: But as a prosecutor that wouldn’t be evidence in court. You know the difference between hard evidence and circumstantial evidence I’m still not hearing evidence that he’s an agent of Russia.
SWALWELL: I think it’s pretty clear. It’s almost hiding in plain sight.

[same as how you have falsely truthfully characterised pretty much everything in our conversation.

Fixed for accuracy

Observe, also, that you have explained why people shouldn't impeach people based on guesswork. The problem is that just before you wrote "screaming about impeachment". Why shouldn't people scream about impeachment before they know the facts?

To avoid acting like idiots.

Because it makes them look silly? What's the problem here? They look silly because impeachment shouldn't be done on guesswork? Because creaming makes people look silly? Because wanting to impeach anyone for any reason is silly?

I can begin to understand why you'd have no issues with that.

You are either exploiting an ambiguous statement or have failed to meet the burden of the question with your answer.

There's a burden to be met because I stated that we shouldn't impeach people based on hysterics rather than facts? Of course there is... but it's just for you Forsher, not for the rest of us.

[The Black Forrest]

Let's look at that in more detail: Mueller has cleared Trump of collusion but didn't exonerate him.

So by saying that Mueller didn't exonerate Trump on the charge of Collusion, you're saying that Mueller exonerated Trump on the charge of Collusion. Must be some weird Forsher language that I'm not getting. Let me place this in simpler terms:

Mueller exonerated Trump on the charge of Collusion.
Mueller did not prosecute Trump on the charge of Obstruction, but did not exonerate him on the charge of Obstruction.

Correct. People are probably using exoneration as donnie has been claiming it. donnie wasn't exonerated. All Muller reported is he couldn't charge donnie with criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. He is not exonerated on collusion nor obstruction. Impeachment will be an issue for congress.

People need to let go that donnie will be impeached. Nixon saw the GOP against him. The GOP isn't around anymore. Nor is the tea party. It's the trump party and they won't go against him. Look at old McC as he declared he won't put anything before the president unless he won't sign it.

[Shofercia]

How many times do I have to say this for it to sink into your mind: the Steele Dossier was NOT all about Clinton; it was not even mostly about Clinton; it was not even primarily about Clinton. If I wanted to target Clinton, I would be talking about investigating the Clinton Foundation.

Who will be investigated then? Some whole of which Clinton cannot be used as a part that represents it?

None of this is relevant. The point is whether or not this is true

If it's irrelevant, why do you respond to it? Do you enjoy responding to things that you deem irrelevant, Forsher? As to who will be investigated - not sure, that's up to the prosecutor. I heard Mueller's free to be hired nowadays.

That is our discussion. It was before, it is now. Here's that reply where I "butt" in

Everywhere?

The point is, we shouldn't let you slide in either situation because something bad is still happening regardless.

It's happening! Call Ron Paul!

Steele Dossier - look it up, because it seems that you're just as clueless about it, as you are about the Mueller Report.

You didn't look up synecdoche did you?

I did. Did you look up the Steele Dossier?

Only for you. For the rest of us, it does.

Prove it.

Prove that irony exists to someone who refuses to believe in it? That's like a Flat Earther demanding proof that the Earth is round. Or like someone who cannot tell the difference between a normal investigation, and impeachment hysterics.

So you don't see the difference between asking for a neutral investigation and impeaching the US President based on smoke. Good to know.

non-sequitur

I disagree, as that goes straight to your inability to discuss the issue presented by the thread.

In the above quote. Normally I can make several points per quote, but when responding to you, it goes slower, usually one at a time.

Obvious joke is obvious and Shof is oblivious to it...

Dammit that's what he does.

That was an obvious joke? Forsher made a joke?! Damn.

When you respond to my post, which in itself is a response to another post, that post is relevant.

Hmm...

It's still relevant.

No, he wasn't.

Yes, I just said that.

Oh, we're pretending rhetorical questions don't exist. My bad.

Are you going to attempt to pretend to be asking a rhetorical question every time you're proven wrong, or was that just a one time occurrence?

I've never seen such ignorance combined with such wordiness.

This is mostly because you do not's read your own posts. To be fair... you don't read anyone's though.

Dude, you've gotten three out of three facts wrong, facts that are relevant to the thread, and you're so ashamed, that you even edited that part out. Don't worry though, I saved it:

You really have no idea, do you? I've never seen anyone be that ignorant about something, and write so many words. This is new. You had no idea that Mueller exonerated Trump of Collusion charges. You had no idea that the Steele Dossier wasn't about Clinton. And you had no idea that Mueller didn't start the calls of impeachment. I've never seen such ignorance combined with such wordiness.

And your response to that was a "NO U" - typical Forsher is typical.

So it's good that you actually grasped my point, for once. Good job!

non-sequitur... So What that the Democrats are immature...

Like, do you actually believe people respect this style of posting?

Now you're attacking my posting style? Is that what happens when you run out of arguments Forsher, you whine about posting styles?

Mueller did not start the investigation. The investigation was started because of the Steele Dossier. Which was not about Clinton.

I don't even see how you can think I've said that the Steele Dossier was a Dossier about Clinton...

Yeah, about that: You want to investigate the Steele Dossier even though Clinton didn't win?

Also, in response to my post that the Steele Dossier wasn't all about Clinton, your response was: Synecdoche. Look it up.

Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole. Is this where you claim that you were just attempting to ask a rhetorical question?

They were. Do you think they invited Cohen to testify for shits and giggles?

So... now we're talking about a completely different investigation to Mueller's and also one different to the one you want into the Steele Dossier... Oh, because I'd expect you to say so...

Nope, the Democratic investigation was about the same topic as Mueller's, just a bit less mature.

You've demonstrated that you had no idea that the Mueller Report exonerated Trump regarding Collusion

Demonstrably wrong. Demonstrated wrong.

Your very own quote said that he wasn't exonerated regarding Collusion.

that the investigation was started, partially due to the Steele Dossier,

This mattering because?

If you want to wiretap American citizens, you should probably do it legally. Have you heard of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine? Judging by your posts about the Eggshell stuff, probably not.

which predated Mueller, that the Steele Dossier had practically nothing to do with Hilary Clinton...

And now it's like you think I think the Steele Dossier's existence should involve an investigation into the Democrats for collusion.l Now, why might I have that impression?

You do realize that there are more Democrats than just Hillary Clinton. Please tell me that you at least understand that much, Forsher.

There should've been a split investigation, one into Trump's alleged Collusion, and another into the Steele Dossier.

Hmm... you don't explain why you want it investigated... except insofar as you want a split investigation where one arm is looking at Trump's alleged collusion, implying the other is also about Collusion. Now, let's remind ourselves what the Steele Dossier is:

In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide general opposition research on Trump Republican party collusion? and other Republican presidential candidates. In April 2016, attorney Marc Elias separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump on behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC Clinton/Democrat Campaign collusion?.

So your link is that Clinton's campaign manager hired a research company, previously hired by the Republicans, in order to dig up dirt on Trump, and that said company hired Steele, which is somehow a straight path to Clinton? Damn, that's quite a vivid imagination you got there, Forsher. Considering that the Clinton Campaign's tactic was throw everything at wall and see what sticks, the odds of her orchestrating all of this are practically nonexistent. If I wanted to investigate Clinton, I'd call for an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, which links directly back to her, rather than investigating the Steele Dossier, which doesn't.

Yep, it's self evident that Shof is not talking about investigating Clinton for Collusion.

Correct. I understand that you're quite good at copy pasting from wikipedia, but did you even read that?

Clinton campaign officials were reportedly unaware that Fusion GPS had subcontracted Steele... he was not told that the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research... Following Trump's election as president, funding from Clinton and the DNC ceased but Steele continued his research and was reportedly paid directly by Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson

Again, if I wanted to investigate Clinton, I'd go for the Clinton Foundation.

And you're a liar who was never taught that lying makes people look silly. Or you don't care. Which is fine because, as I have been saying for a while now, silliness is not something we should really be worried about, as a consequence.

It's amusing how desperate you were to edit out the substance of my quote, only to make a "NO U" response, and now you sank all the way to kindergarten insults. "Ms. Jones, he took the eraser that I ate, he lied about not taking it!" Come back when you can debate without idiotic name calling, Forsher, because when I say that if I wanted to investigate Clinton, I'd go for the Clinton Foundation, not the Steele Dossier, that's a fact. But it might not be in your deluded reality, where those who dare disagree with you are branded as liars, but only in your mind.

[Fahran]

Correct. People are probably using exoneration as donnie has been claiming it. donnie wasn't exonerated. All Muller reported is he couldn't charge donnie with criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. He is not exonerated on collusion nor obstruction. Impeachment will be an issue for congress.

Generally, exoneration occurs when a guilty verdict is reversed due to a concrete demonstration of evidence, the introduction of a shred of reasonable doubt, or a flaw in the process that led to conviction. Trump hasn't been convicted, in court of law or public opinion, of anything. We have no reason to impeach him because we have no substantial evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors at the moment. Unless we're going to drop all charades of concern for truth and the current makeup of the Senate to impeach a president on frivolous grounds.

People need to let go that donnie will be impeached. Nixon saw the GOP against him. The GOP isn't around anymore. Nor is the tea party. It's the trump party and they won't go against him. Look at old McC as he declared he won't put anything before the president unless he won't sign it.

Or the Democrats are grasping at straws as they have been for about two years instead of getting their own house in order to challenge the incumbent in 2020.

[Shofercia]

Let's look at that in more detail: Mueller has cleared Trump of collusion but didn't exonerate him.

So by saying that Mueller didn't exonerate Trump on the charge of Collusion, you're saying that Mueller exonerated Trump on the charge of Collusion. Must be some weird Forsher language that I'm not getting. Let me place this in simpler terms:

Mueller exonerated Trump on the charge of Collusion.
Mueller did not prosecute Trump on the charge of Obstruction, but did not exonerate him on the charge of Obstruction.

Correct. People are probably using exoneration as donnie has been claiming it. donnie wasn't exonerated. All Muller reported is he couldn't charge donnie with criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. He is not exonerated on collusion nor obstruction. Impeachment will be an issue for congress.

People need to let go that donnie will be impeached. Nixon saw the GOP against him. The GOP isn't around anymore. Nor is the tea party. It's the trump party and they won't go against him. Look at old McC as he declared he won't put anything before the president unless he won't sign it.

Actually, he was exonerated on Collusion, and there will be no impeachment.

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." ...as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple. offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

That's complete exoneration on the issue of Collusion. Now comes the issue of Obstruction, note the difference in language:

...the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved...

After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, 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.

Also, note how Rod Rosenstein had to decide on the issue of Obstruction, but not on the issue of Collusion, as Mueller already decided on that issue. Furthermore, here is a video of famed Attonery Alan Dershowicz, where he accepts Mueller's decision exonerating Trump on the issue of Collusion, but chastises him for failing to reach a conclusion on the issue of Obstruction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS16gUkTvoU

[San Montalbano]

Imagine being so dense and desperate that the media

(whom everyone was calling fake news/ whom has repeatedly shown to GRIEVOUSLY mishandle information(Kavanaugh/2016 election/covington/CNN threatening a child for memes? etc etc)

imagine it...so desperate and insane that when your own little "probe" reveals that you have been lied to your face for 2 years straight, just shoveled right into your eyes, that you go....

" Welp, fuck that I was lied to by the entire MSM, there HAS TO BE SOMETHING HERE!!!!"

[The Black Forrest]

Imagine being so dense and desperate that the media

(whom everyone was calling fake news/ whom has repeatedly shown to GRIEVOUSLY mishandle information(Kavanaugh/2016 election/covington/CNN threatening a child for memes? etc etc)

imagine it...so desperate and insane that when your own little "probe" reveals that you have been lied to your face for 2 years straight, just shoveled right into your eyes, that you go....

" Welp, fuck that I was lied to my the entire MSM, there HAS TO BE SOMETHING HERE!!!!"

I imagine a day for sensible arguments.

[Shofercia]

Imagine being so dense and desperate that the media

(whom everyone was calling fake news/ whom has repeatedly shown to GRIEVOUSLY mishandle information(Kavanaugh/2016 election/covington/CNN threatening a child for memes? etc etc)

imagine it...so desperate and insane that when your own little "probe" reveals that you have been lied to your face for 2 years straight, just shoveled right into your eyes, that you go....

" Welp, fuck that I was lied to my the entire MSM, there HAS TO BE SOMETHING HERE!!!!"

The probe was thankfully not run by CNN. If it was, they'd find:

[The Black Forrest]

Actually, he was exonerated on Collusion, and there will be no impeachment.

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." ...as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple. offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

That's complete exoneration on the issue of Collusion. Now comes the issue of Obstruction, note the difference in language:

...the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved...

After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, 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.

Also, note how Rod Rosenstein had to decide on the issue of Obstruction, but not on the issue of Collusion, as Mueller already decided on that issue. Furthermore, here is a video of famed Attonery Alan Dershowicz, where he accepts Mueller's decision exonerating Trump on the issue of Collusion, but chastises him for failing to reach a conclusion on the issue of Obstruction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS16gUkTvoU

The operative word is conspiracy. That is a crime. Collusion is not a crime. The only thing I found was good in the memo is Barr mentioned there were no closed indictments. There is conspiracy talk they exist and will be released when donnie is out of office.

Still I will wait for the report before I really take a stance on it. The memo is nice however I take notice when I see statements with ellipsis in front of them.

[Shofercia]

Actually, he was exonerated on Collusion, and there will be no impeachment.



That's complete exoneration on the issue of Collusion. Now comes the issue of Obstruction, note the difference in language:



Also, note how Rod Rosenstein had to decide on the issue of Obstruction, but not on the issue of Collusion, as Mueller already decided on that issue. Furthermore, here is a video of famed Attonery Alan Dershowicz, where he accepts Mueller's decision exonerating Trump on the issue of Collusion, but chastises him for failing to reach a conclusion on the issue of Obstruction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS16gUkTvoU

The operative word is conspiracy. That is a crime. Collusion is not a crime. The only thing I found was good in the memo is Barr mentioned there were no closed indictments. There is conspiracy talk they exist and will be released when donnie is out of office.

Still I will wait for the report before I really take a stance on it. The memo is nice however I take notice when I see statements with ellipsis in front of them.

From NBC news, aka Democrat Central: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... rr-n986611

Special counsel Robert Mueller found no proof that President Donald Trump criminally colluded with Russia and reached no conclusion about whether Trump obstructed justice, Attorney General William Barr told Congress on Sunday, while also announcing that he found insufficient evidence to pursue the matter further.

If collusion is not a crime, how can he criminally collude? If he cannot, why did Mueller investigate that?

[Forsher]

That's a moronically broad question.

I've had it with your completely dishonest style of posting. Either that or you are actively incapable of carrying a conversation.

It's not confusing - you said it rather openly, and I quoted you on it. Your Comey quote:



As a result, Mystic Warriors pointed out that you implied that Comey sabotaged Clinton:

So, why do you say, "IT does to most of NSG: not to Forsher"?

We're done here. I don't have time for people who are unwilling or unable to not lie, ignore and denigrate other people.

[Blargoblarg]

House Democrats are requesting that Barr release the full report to Congress by April 2.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... -2-n987241

I definitely want to see the full report released. I don't trust Barr's summary at all.

[Gormwood]

House Democrats are requesting that Barr release the full report to Congress by April 2.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... -2-n987241

I definitely want to see the full report released. I don't trust Barr's summary at all.

If it really does say what Barr claims it does then there would only be suspicion if it was blocked from public viewing. Like how Comey's investigation would likely have reached the same conclusion as the Mueller Probe if not for Trump's impatience and/or panic in firing Comey. And even if it was released there would still be suspicion if there were 15 Minute Gaps all over it.

[The Grims]

House Democrats are requesting that Barr release the full report to Congress by April 2.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... -2-n987241

I definitely want to see the full report released. I don't trust Barr's summary at all.

If it really does say what Barr claims it does then there would only be suspicion if it was blocked from public viewing. Like how Comey's investigation would likely have reached the same conclusion as the Mueller Probe if not for Trump's impatience and/or panic in firing Comey. And even if it was released there would still be suspicion if there were 15 Minute Gaps all over it.

The summary already indicates that Trump did in fact do some things that might be illegal, just not things involving obeying Putin. So I understand the reluctance.
Also, it is rather standard to not share details of the Investigation if one is deemed innocent of the charges.

[Gormwood]

If it really does say what Barr claims it does then there would only be suspicion if it was blocked from public viewing. Like how Comey's investigation would likely have reached the same conclusion as the Mueller Probe if not for Trump's impatience and/or panic in firing Comey. And even if it was released there would still be suspicion if there were 15 Minute Gaps all over it.

The summary already indicates that Trump did in fact do some things that might be illegal, just not things involving obeying Putin. So I understand the reluctance.
Also, it is rather standard to not share details of the Investigation if one is deemed innocent of the charges.

Trump also seems to have a mobster habit of keeping his own hands clean while associates get arrested and/or convicted of numerous crimes while carrying out things on his behalf. Which would explain the possibility of SDNY pursuing a RICO investigation against his organization.

[Gravlen]

The operative word is conspiracy. That is a crime. Collusion is not a crime. The only thing I found was good in the memo is Barr mentioned there were no closed indictments. There is conspiracy talk they exist and will be released when donnie is out of office.

Still I will wait for the report before I really take a stance on it. The memo is nice however I take notice when I see statements with ellipsis in front of them.

From NBC news, aka Democrat Central: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... rr-n986611

Special counsel Robert Mueller found no proof that President Donald Trump criminally colluded with Russia and reached no conclusion about whether Trump obstructed justice, Attorney General William Barr told Congress on Sunday, while also announcing that he found insufficient evidence to pursue the matter further.

If collusion is not a crime, how can he criminally collude? If he cannot, why did Mueller investigate that?

Here's an explanation:

The word collusion appears nowhere in the order authorizing Mueller’s investigation. There is not even a relevant crime called “collusion.” What Mueller is tasked with is investigating “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with” the Trump campaign.

If “links and/or coordination” also don’t sound like crimes, that’s because they aren’t. While Mueller is directed to charge and prosecute crimes he discovers, his is primarily a counterintelligence investigation — not a criminal one — the purpose of which is to identify threats to our national security, potentially including the President of the United States and his associates.

http://time.com/5540879/trump-mueller-report-investigation-collusion/