Mueller indictments (split from Collusion with Russia)

[StringJunky]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Yesterday, nearly 400 former federal prosecutors, across the aisle both Republicans and Democrats, signed a letter asserting that President Trump would have been indicted for obstruction of justice based on the Mueller report and evidence within were he not currently serving as president.

Today, roughly 300 more signed on for a total of 700 thus far;

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/442537-list-of-former-federal-prosecutors-accusing-trump-of-obstruction

 

 

I wonder if the people protecting him will jump ship eventually, spinning on a penny, turning against him.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I wonder if the people protecting him will jump ship eventually, spinning on a penny, turning against him.

We'll see. For now, however, they seem far more willing to ignore subpoenas from congress and appear willing to let themselves be charged with contempt (in essence, disregarding congressional oversight powers and choosing to instead let this all trickle slowly through our court system / run out the clock until the next election cycle arrives and it no longer matters).

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

We'll see. For now, however, they seem far more willing to ignore subpoenas from congress and appear willing to let themselves be charged with contempt (in essence, disregarding congressional oversight powers and choosing to instead let this all trickle slowly through our court system / run out the clock until the next election cycle arrives and it no longer matters).

This was in today's BBC, which could potentially  alter things maybe:

Quote

When Mr Mueller initially handed in his report, a spokesman said he would be leaving the department "within the coming days".

If he does quit, he will become a private citizen and able to testify regardless of the department's wishes.  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48204251

 

[iNow]

Nice little detail, that! Thx for sharing

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nice little detail, that! Thx for sharing

Anything to give us hope.

[iNow]

I was really impressed by this quick summary series on the Mueller Report done by PBS NewsHour.

In 5 short videos about 5 minutes a piece, they give a summary of the nearly 450 page report in a way that’s easily consumable for those who have been paying close attention or even no attention at all. 

Here’s a link to the 5 video playlist:

 

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by iNow

[iNow]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mueller-agrees-testify-house-committees-july/story?id=63948189

Quote

The House Judiciary and House Intelligence committees have subpoenaed former special counsel Robert Mueller for his testimony before Congress, according to a press release issued Tuesday evening.

Importantly, these will be open sessions. They will for many millions of people be the very first time they hear an unbiased version of what’s in his report. 

[iNow]

Mueller testifies tomorrow. Here’s a handy prep video on what to expect.

Relevant portion starts at 22mins into the vid:

 

[Phi for All]

It's got to be frustrating to Mueller, a lifelong Republican, to find his party actively trying to make him look corrupt, incompetent, and biased, rather than dealing with the evidence he's discovered and reported on. 

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's got to be frustrating to Mueller, a lifelong Republican, to find his party actively trying to make him look corrupt, incompetent, and biased, rather than dealing with the evidence he's discovered and reported on. 

OTOH, party loyalty is probably not a huge thing for him. 

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

OTOH, party loyalty is probably not a huge thing for him. 

True. IMO, the tactics being used against him by the Republicans are cheap, TV tricks and fallacious logic. For instance, it seems pretty easy to understand that Mueller can't talk about investigations going on currently in any agency, yet the GOP congresscritters questioning him make it seem like he's just being evasive, and not answering questions the public wants answers to. If they asked the right questions, if they treated this prosecutor like the pro he is, they might be able to help inform the rest of us.

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

True. IMO, the tactics being used against him by the Republicans are cheap, TV tricks and fallacious logic. For instance, it seems pretty easy to understand that Mueller can't talk about investigations going on currently in any agency, yet the GOP congresscritters questioning him make it seem like he's just being evasive, and not answering questions the public wants answers to. If they asked the right questions, if they treated this prosecutor like the pro he is, they might be able to help inform the rest of us.

It's pretty clear the GOP's goal is not to inform the public of the truth in these matters.

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's pretty clear the GOP's goal is not to inform the public of the truth in these matters.

Yet virtually every one of them mentioned the public's need to know, right after they asked a question about an ongoing investigation, or about something outside his purview, or something redacted in the report by DOJ. Create the problem, point out the problem, make out like he's the problem.

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

It's pretty clear the GOP's goal is not to inform the public of the truth in these matters.

Including the genesis of the Steele Dossier.  Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon to provide dirt on Trump.

Funny how they always seem leave that part out.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Hopefully this is near the bottom for the Democrats, they learn from this, and start to focus on the winning the next election by focusing (Yang like, if you'll forgive me for that) on trying to solve the very issues that brought Trump to power rather than effectively supporting him in a manner that the GOP can only dream of.

 

[iNow]

The committee chairman in his closing remarks telegraphed pretty clearly that new investigations were both necessary and appropriate. It seems unlikely what you suggest, as does the implicit suggestion that this is an either/or false dichotomy where they can’t walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. 

EDIT to add: Next primary investigation will almost certainly include looking closer into Trumps finances and tax returns, both of which Mueller was asked about and said he couldn’t comment today bc it was beyond the purview of his investigation.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

41 minutes ago, iNow said:

The committee chairman in his closing remarks telegraphed pretty clearly that new investigations were both necessary and appropriate. It seems unlikely what you suggest, as does the implicit suggestion that this is an either/or false dichotomy where they can’t walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. 

EDIT to add: Next primary investigation will almost certainly include looking closer into Trumps finances and tax returns, both of which Mueller was asked about and said he couldn’t comment today bc it was beyond the purview of his investigation.  

How to lose the next election 101...

You're running against Trump. Is it really that hard?

 

[iNow]

It’s not all about Trump. Most agree he needs to be beaten, but it’ll take more than mere bumper sticker slogans and your personal prognostications to do so. 

Keep in mind... There are also multiple active court cases on items like witnesses ignoring subpoenas and state courts looking into corruption. Those need to get resolved.

You, however, seem to be suggesting they must abandon those, too, and let constitutional powers of congress continue to erode bc you happen to think enforcing the law without allowing anyone to be above it simultaneously requires abandoning all hope of winning in the next election. 

If your political insights are so powerful and profound, I encourage you to become a campaign strategist and get paid well for it. Until then, your opinion here is only as good as anyone else’s and I encourage to avoid sharing it with such pretension and certainty. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by iNow
spelling

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

It’s not all about Trump. Most agree he needs to be beaten, but it’ll take more than mere bumper sticker slogans and your personal prognostications to do so. 

Keep in mind... There are also multiple active court cases on items like witnesses ignoring subpoenas and state courts looking into corruption. Those need to get resolved.

You, however, seem to be suggesting they must abandon those, too, and let constitutional powers of congress to continue eroding bc you happen to think enforcing the law requires abandoning all hope of winning in the next election. 

If your political insights are so powerful and profound, I encourage you to become a campaign strategist. Until then, your opinion is only as good as anyone else’s. 

I can still remember assuring my son Hilary would win mid election night...so I'll take that as a compliment.

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s not all about Trump. Most agree he needs to be beaten, but it’ll take more than mere bumper sticker slogans and your personal prognostications to do so. 

Keep in mind... There are also multiple active court cases on items like witnesses ignoring subpoenas and state courts looking into corruption. Those need to get resolved.

You, however, seem to be suggesting they must abandon those, too, and let constitutional powers of congress to continue eroding bc you happen to think enforcing the law requires abandoning all hope of winning in the next election. 

If your political insights are so powerful and profound, I encourage you to become a campaign strategist. Until then, your opinion is only as good as anyone else’s. 

I agree. You have to follow the correct path, even though it's a longer one and justice  should be the final goal, not the pursuit of near-term power. 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I can still remember assuring my son Hilary would win mid election night...so I'll take that as a compliment.

No compliment was indeed. I would never have said such a thing to my child. At the very least, one needs to caveat their comments with, “It appears that” or “It seems like” when mentioning Hillary was potentially about to win. 

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I agree. You have to follow the correct path, even though it's a longer one and justice  should be the final goal, not the pursuit of near-term power. 

The pursuit of power right now is like a jackboot stepping upon the throat of those who stand steadfastly in dignified support of “mere” ideals and principles. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, iNow said:

No compliment was indeed. I would never have said such a thing to my child. At the very least, one needs to caveat their comments with, “It appears that” or “It seems like” when mentioning Hillary was potentially about to win. 

He wasn't a child (20 at the time), but thanks for the advice.

I should have been listening to him.

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

No compliment was indeed. I would never have said such a thing to my child. At the very least, one needs to caveat their comments with, “It appears that” or “It seems like” when mentioning Hillary was potentially about to win. 

The pursuit of power right now is like a jackboot stepping upon the throat of those who stand steadfastly in dignified support of “mere” ideals and principles. 

Perhaps patience is the required quality at the moment because Trump will not be president one day and can then be held accountable. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Perhaps patience is the required quality at the moment because Trump will not be president one day and can then be held accountable. 

Wouldn't it be better to just win in 2020 (for the right reasons)...and not have to wait for that in 2024? Like how much will it help if he is impeached or indicted? Will it signal that somehow integrity should prevail, the way the Dems are going about it?

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Like how much will it help if he is impeached or indicted? Will it signal that somehow integrity should prevail, the way the Dems are going about it?

Congress impeaches, not the democrats albeit a majority in the House. They'd be remiss to not (at the very least) consider impeachment. Dangling it in Trumps face triggers his lunacy whereas his actually doing it would exacerbate his obstinate defiance and his goose stepping followers into more craziness.

He is (and the Republican's) best own character assassin.

Run out the clock, then the voters will decide.