Mueller Report Next Week?

[Mountain Man]

Funny thing is, shouldn't liberals be happy about this? Because it would mean that our president was elected fair and square, and that Russia didn't meddle with our election process. Isn't that ultimately a victory for America?

Of course this whole charade was never about finding the truth, it was always overturning the election.

[carpedm9587]

It should be noted that those indicted were indicted for things unrelated to Trump's campaign.

IIRC, several indictments were about lying when questioned about things related to the 2016 campaign. In any event - as noted now (twice before), I respect Mueller, his service, and his track record. I have no reason to question his competence or decision making. I hope we have a lot like him in service to our country.

So if Mueller says "no need to question" and "investigation complete," I take him at his word until I have cause not to.

Meanwhile, I am not impressed with Mr. Trump's selection of leadership. When that many people you put in positions of power and decision making are shown to be liars and law breakers, it raises, for me, significant questions about the caliber of people Mr. Trump is willing to engage with and surround himself with. So much for "drain the swamp."

[carpedm9587]

[QUOTE=rogue06;622003]But you seemed to forget that even if arrested they can still refuse to answer any questions whether they have a lawyer or not.
I believe I actually said that very thing several times.

Really, guys - I have no idea why you feel a need to argue with points in which I have agreed with you - or accuse me of not saying them. Read the posts - then respond to what I have ACTUALLY said.

What seems to have occurred here is that Carpe wandered into a little conservative mutual stimulation festival and had the audacity to make an observation about questioning - producing the inevitable pig pile. Chill guys, I'll head out and you guys can get back to the party.

[Mountain Man]

IIRC, several indictments were about lying when questioned about things related to the 2016 campaign.

Yes, but the things they lied about were not crimes. And the "lies" were mostly innocuous, such as getting a date wrong about when a meeting took place.

There is not a single indictment related to any campaign crimes that were committed by members of the Trump campaign. Some people have floated the theory that Mueller is simply honoring a long-standing DOJ rule that a sitting president can't be indicted, but that of course would not have stopped him from indicting other members of the administration.

A lot of Democrats are now whining that their collusion delusion may have backfired and handed a major victory to Trump. What are they going to be able to campaign on in 2020? Mueller was given unlimited scope and resources to find all the dirt he could, and it was a nothing-burger! Trump is now the most thoroughly vetted president in US history.

[Cow Poke]

I believe I actually said that very thing several times.

Really, guys - I have no idea why you feel a need to argue with points in which I have agreed with you - or accuse me of not saying them. Read the posts - then respond to what I have ACTUALLY said.

What seems to have occurred here is that Carpe wandered into a little conservative mutual stimulation festival and had the audacity to make an observation about questioning - producing the inevitable pig pile. Chill guys, I'll head out and you guys can get back to the party.

"a little conservative mutual stimulation festival"? Now THAT warrants a "wow".

Carpe - I wasn't even addressing you - I have been pretty much staying out of your business, because dialogue with you can be so exasperating.

I had said:

Absolutely - there has to be a compelling reason to force somebody to submit to questioning. (Unless you can dupe them into it because they don't know better)

And you felt obligated to share your vast knowledge of law enforcement processes:

I am fairly sure that law enforcement can question anyone to gather information, and if they have cause to be suspicious, as part of an investigation. That is why we call it an "investigation." Questioning is part of the process.

Ever since, you've been trying to convince yourself that you knew all along this was a goofy response.

But, that's ok -- do your "I'm running away thing". (only to come back again later)

[carpedm9587]

Yes, but the things they lied about were not crimes. And the "lies" were mostly innocuous, such as getting a date wrong about when a meeting took place.

Obstructing an investigation, last I checked, was a crime. Lying to Congress is a crime. Innocuous is your opinion. I'm not going to waste time running down a list of what was plead guilty to. History suggests every one of them will be dismissed in favor of the "witch hunt" narrative.

There is not a single indictment related to any campaign crimes that were committed by members of the Trump campaign. Some people have floated the theory that Mueller is simply honoring a long-standing DOJ rule that a sitting president can't be indicted, but that of course would not have stopped him from indicting other members of the administration.

I would say six members of the campaign team, transitional team, and executive staff are "other members of the administration."

A lot of Democrats are now whining that their collusion delusion may have backfired and handed a major victory to Trump. What are they going to be able to campaign on in 2020? Mueller was given unlimited scope and resources to find all the dirt he could, and it was a nothing-burger! Trump is now the most thoroughly vetted president in US history.

I have no clue what Democrats are whining about - and if all they can do is whine about collusion, they deserve to lose. If they want to run a winning campaign, they will focus on the things that demonstrably matter to so many of us: healthcare, meaningful border security, the debt and budget, actually draining the swamp, the ecology and climate situation, establishing stronger ethical oversight in government, and actually doing something for those who have been negatively impacted by globalism and the inevitable changes in the energy sector. If they don't focus on the issues - they're as useless as Trump has turned out to be.

[carpedm9587]

"a little conservative mutual stimulation festival"? Now THAT warrants a "wow".

Carpe - I wasn't even addressing you - I have been pretty much staying out of your business, because dialogue with you can be so exasperating.

I had said:



And you felt obligated to share your vast knowledge of law enforcement processes:



Ever since, you've been trying to convince yourself that you knew all along this was a goofy response.

But, that's ok -- do your "I'm running away thing". (only to come back again later)

Noted, CP. If you post - I should refrain from responding. You apparently find it upsetting when I express a POV. I'll make a note.

Or, alternatively, you could just grow a spine.


(Sorry, that last part was a bit of a dig - even with the wink. But this entire exchange is just amazingly preposterous to me, now that I've had a night's sleep and am not as cranky as I was last night).

[Charles]

Funny thing is, shouldn't liberals be happy about this? Because it would mean that our president was elected fair and square, and that Russia didn't meddle with our election process. Isn't that ultimately a victory for America?

Of course this whole charade was never about finding the truth, it was always overturning the election.

Tragic thing is, no matter the content of the report we already know without a doubt that Russia meddled in the election and thus your president was not elected fair and square. Whether he knew about it or conspired with them in order to make it happen or not cannot change that fact that it actually did happen.

[Mountain Man]

I'm not going to waste time running down a list of what was plead guilty to.

Yes, but only because you know I'm right that there was not a single indictment for a crime committed as part of the camaign.

[carpedm9587]

Tragic thing is, no matter the content of the report we already know without a doubt that Russia meddled in the election and thus your president was not elected fair and square. Whether he knew about it or conspired with them in order to make it happen or not cannot change that fact that it actually did happen.

Personally, I separate "Russia meddled" from "fair and square." If Mueller has found inadequate evidence to support the assertion, "the Trump campaign colluded with Russia," when so be it and lets move on. Like you said, Russia meddled with the election, and there is no question about it. But I do not question Trump's election, and complain it was not "fair and square." We are in the age of globalism. The Internet is a great leveler. What we have been doing in other countries for decades (if not centuries) can now much more easily be done to us. It's the new normal. We should regularly uncover it - make it public - and protect from it as much as possible. But we will never stop it completely and it's not going to change. If the American people cannot see through the kind of "influence" Russia exerted, and are so ready to swallow the amazingly stupid claims made - then we deserve what we get. Ultimately - I think we deserve Trump. He should be an object lesson to all of us to pay greater attention, not be so gullible, and set our sights higher.

If we do not, then we deserve what we get.

ETA: note that my comments are about the type of interfering I know about: influence through stories and bots. If our actual election infrastructure, including registrations and actual votes, are interfered with - that is a different animal. I don't know of any instance of that occurring.

[Mountain Man]

...we already know without a doubt that Russia meddled in the election...

Fake news

[carpedm9587]

Yes, but only because you know I'm right that there was not a single indictment for a crime committed as part of the camaign.

I don't believe I ever claimed there was. I was speaking to a candidate for the presidency of the United States surrounding themselves with so many indictable human beings, while boldly proclaiming he would "drain the swamp."

[Mountain Man]

I don't believe I ever claimed there was. I was speaking to a candidate for the presidency of the United States surrounding themselves with so many indictable human beings, while boldly proclaiming he would "drain the swamp."

Of course that's what you were referring to.

[Cow Poke]

Noted, CP. If you post - I should refrain from responding.

Awwwwwww, your widdle feewins got huut?

You apparently find it upsetting when I express a POV. I'll make a note.

There ya go again doing that mindreading thing you pretend to hate so much.

Or, alternatively, you could just grow a spine.

Sure

(Sorry, that last part was a bit of a dig - even with the wink. But this entire exchange is just amazingly preposterous to me, now that I've had a night's sleep and am not as cranky as I was last night).

Carry on!

[Mountain Man]

Rep. Nadler of California is now suggesting that Mueller's scope was too narrow!

"His job was limited in scope and limited to crimes. What Congress has to do is look at a broader picture."

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019...oader-picture/