I scanned Twitter out of curiosity and the results are interesting. The liberal posts are basically nothing but saying "the report should be made public," and the conservative posts are basically nothing but saying "liberals are so sad."
There's no evidence that Barr killed the investigation, but if you do think that it opens the door to all sorts of other conclusions. Why should I possibly believe the same Comey who admitted to leaking information to get revenge on Trump handled her case fairly? We can play this game but it will get us nowhere.
Incidentally, in his report he is required to name any instances in which the investigation was blocked, and there was none.
It's amazing how in the last few days it seems you have unilaterally decided when we will stop talking about something in thread. When it came to the electoral college, you just declare "there is nothing more to discuss, let's drop it, I'm not interested in it anymore". Now here we have "we can keep playing this game, but I don't want to".
To be fair, it was actually @semiticgod who asked it to stop as people were just repeating themselves and weren’t adding anything new to the conversation.
@WarChiefZeke if you go up and read the post above your long one (it’s probably because we were typing it at the same time) I gave my speculation on why I think it was killed early by Barr.
Why are investigators that were part of the mueller team still investigating a Russian connection with Manafort about giving campaign polling data to Russians?
Once again, that may actually turn up nothing, but it doesn’t sound like the team had finished investigating a Russian Trump team connection, so why is Mueller handing in his report now?
Isn’t that a type of question that people should be asking regardless of what’s in the report?
By all means, let's keep this waste of time going for longer. I'm guessing that Mueller could foresee it was going nowhere and decided it was time to let it go. He's been pretty immune to pressure up till now. Why all of a sudden would he succumb? Oh, I know, because he didn't get the expected smoking gun...
There's no evidence that Barr killed the investigation, but if you do think that it opens the door to all sorts of other conclusions. Why should I possibly believe the same Comey who admitted to leaking information to get revenge on Trump handled her case fairly? We can play this game but it will get us nowhere.
Incidentally, in his report he is required to name any instances in which the investigation was blocked, and there was none.
It's amazing how in the last few days it seems you have unilaterally decided when we will stop talking about something in thread. When it came to the electoral college, you just declare "there is nothing more to discuss, let's drop it, I'm not interested in it anymore". Now here we have "we can keep playing this game, but I don't want to".
Not sure what the EC has to do with it, but I did not mean I wasn't open to discussing the idea that the investigation was prematurely killed without anyone raising any red flags about that, i'm only saying it's not a proven claim and thus I can make unproven claims in return and in the end no new information is gained and it doesn't lead us any closer to the truth. It gets us nowhere, as it were.
I scanned Twitter out of curiosity and the results are interesting. The liberal posts are basically nothing but saying "the report should be made public," and the conservative posts are basically nothing but saying "liberals are so sad."
So far Trump is saying he isn't afraid of the report at all, which makes me think there really isn't anything there. Now let's see if we get to see the 'entire' report. If we do and there's no 'collusion' then no matter how many low-level indictments there were, this will be a huge let-down for liberals. Again, reap the hype, sow the vindication for the far-right.
I scanned Twitter out of curiosity and the results are interesting. The liberal posts are basically nothing but saying "the report should be made public," and the conservative posts are basically nothing but saying "liberals are so sad."
So far Trump is saying he isn't afraid of the report at all, which makes me think there really isn't anything there. Now let's see if we get to see the 'entire' report. If we do and there's no 'collusion' then no matter how many low-level indictments there were, this will be a huge let-down for liberals. Again, reap the hype, sow the vindication for the far-right.
The National Security Advisor, his Campaign Chairman and his decade's long political guru are "low-level"?? Two of them are the EXACT same people I said would be charged before this investigation even existed.
I scanned Twitter out of curiosity and the results are interesting. The liberal posts are basically nothing but saying "the report should be made public," and the conservative posts are basically nothing but saying "liberals are so sad."
So far Trump is saying he isn't afraid of the report at all, which makes me think there really isn't anything there. Now let's see if we get to see the 'entire' report. If we do and there's no 'collusion' then no matter how many low-level indictments there were, this will be a huge let-down for liberals. Again, reap the hype, sow the vindication for the far-right.
The National Security Advisor, his Campaign Chairman and his decade's long political guru are "low-level"?? Two of them are the EXACT same people I said would be charged before this investigation was even existed.
Low-level as far as government is concerned. Those people had no background in politics and got no loyalty from Trump. I doubt he ever saw them as any more than cogs in his wheel. They may have engaged in shenanigans, but I'm not sure they did it with Trump's knowledge and consent. Trump is the quintessential narcissist from what I can see. I'm not even convinced he knows or cares what the Hell is going on around him that doesn't involve him personally...
I have misgivings about the potential responses to the news, and, yes, I'd rather not have to wait much longer before Trump leaves office, but the news itself is good. The report is finally over, we can start establishing a consensus on the reality of the affair. I have my suspicions about other things, of course, but of the crimes the president has committed, full-blown treason apparently isn't one of them. That's a hell of a lot better than the alternative!
@WarChiefZeke: I think you're mixing up being wrong with being dishonest. It's been pretty clear to me that liberals were genuinely convinced that Trump was working with Russia. There were also no WMD's in Iraq, but that doesn't mean conservatives didn't believe there were.
@Balrog99: Why do you like Beto? He seems amicable enough, but I haven't found him quite as interesting as the others.
On a sort of unrelated topic I've been wondering about something. I've thought since 2016 that Trump didn't think he had any chance to win that election and was shocked when the results came in. In many ways I think that explains the chaos surrounding his first year or so. He didn't have a plan formulated for what was going to happen if he won. Do you think the same thing would have happened to Bob Dole if he'd have beaten Bill Clinton out of nowhere in the last month of that election? I'm just wondering how much preparation goes into planning the transfer of power ahead of time.
I swear i'm done tweet mining, but this is simply true.
It can't be more obvious at this point the media peddles lies as truth and doesn't care. No historical revisionism should be allowed about this.
Incidentally, in history - we are taught that revisionism is a good thing. It means confronting old information with new facts. Most everyone else incorrectly assumes revisionism is a bad thing. For rigorous historians, it's good.
That aside - this is an issue of ideological narrative. As much as our conservative friends pretend, they played the game too.
The left said Trump would be led away in chains
The right said "Unless Mueller leads Trump away in chains, the libs were wrong!"
Neither were realistic, or correct. Mueller follows the DoJ's precedent that they cannot indict a sitting president. We dont know what's in the report. By and large, Mueller's investigation was not prosecutorial (The only people who were charged with anything were done to flip them, aside from maybe the dutch lawyer). If indictments are to be brought, they'll be brought by others.
That said, I dont really expect that to happen.
I think this will play out a lot like Comey's exoneration of Clinton, except it will be filtered through the Trump administration, so they can water down the conclusions.
Except the only thing the media speculated on was obstruction of justice and provided details on why it could be considered obstruction and details on why it could not be considered obstruction. And did so everytime Trump opened his mouth or twitter feed.
Perjury was also floated, and as mentioned many times prior a hard thing to prove. Just because no one is charged does not mean individuals willfully misled investigators.
But reporting that statements made by individuals do not line up with known facts is not peddling an endless conspiracy theory.
I honestly would love a news organization to put this whole ordeal into a timeline because a lot of it gets lost in discussions and both sides tend to cherrypick certain things to help their argument.
I have misgivings about the potential responses to the news, and, yes, I'd rather not have to wait much longer before Trump leaves office, but the news itself is good. The report is finally over, we can start establishing a consensus on the reality of the affair. I have my suspicions about other things, of course, but of the crimes the president has committed, full-blown treason apparently isn't one of them. That's a hell of a lot better than the alternative!
@WarChiefZeke: I think you're mixing up being wrong with being dishonest. It's been pretty clear to me that liberals were genuinely convinced that Trump was working with Russia. There were also no WMD's in Iraq, but that doesn't mean conservatives didn't believe there were.
@Balrog99: Why do you like Beto? He seems amicable enough, but I haven't found him quite as interesting as the others.
He's Irish and likeable. He's also from Texas which leads me to believe he won't lean too far left for my liking. If somebody's going to beat Trump I'd rather it be somebody closer to the center.
I will say that the media misled the public about the report.
From the beginning they should have mentioned this report is suppose to be confidential. Their neglect to announce this has allowed this rabid response of the public thinking they have the right to access it.
He's Irish and likeable. He's also from Texas which leads me to believe he won't lean too far left for my liking. If somebody's going to beat Trump I'd rather it be somebody closer to the center.
Calling a spade a spade, you've been saying you'd like to vote for someone other than trump as long as it's a not a terrible democrat choice. That pool of acceptable candidates keeps narrowing, despite the candidates not really saying or doing anything different.
Feels to me like you're trying to get to yes on Trump.
I swear i'm done tweet mining, but this is simply true.
It can't be more obvious at this point the media peddles lies as truth and doesn't care. No historical revisionism should be allowed about this.
Incidentally, in history - we are taught that revisionism is a good thing. It means confronting old information with new facts. Most everyone else incorrectly assumes revisionism is a bad thing. For rigorous historians, it's good.
That aside - this is an issue of ideological narrative. As much as our conservative friends pretend, they played the game too.
The left said Trump would be led away in chains
The right said "Unless Mueller leads Trump away in chains, the libs were wrong!"
Neither were realistic, or correct. Mueller follows the DoJ's precedent that they cannot indict a sitting president. We dont know what's in the report. By and large, Mueller's investigation was not prosecutorial (The only people who were charged with anything were done to flip them, aside from maybe the dutch lawyer). If indictments are to be brought, they'll be brought by others.
That said, I dont really expect that to happen.
I think this will play out a lot like Comey's exoneration of Clinton, except it will be filtered through the Trump administration, so they can water down the conclusions.
I agree that this is about narratives. Nearly all of the establishment media pushes the left wing narrative regardless of the facts, as we see over and over on every imaginable issue whether it is the sitting President or 16 year old smiling children.
Over and over these narratives are proven wrong, yet no accountability or damage to their credibility ever happens.
When is it fair to say that they are pushing a narrative, and to be skeptical of them because of that?
But I disagree that this wasn't prosecutorial, it clearly was, as evidenced by the fact that people were prosecuted, and that Mueller's team sometimes recommended massive sentences for normal crimes when everything was said and done.
He's Irish and likeable. He's also from Texas which leads me to believe he won't lean too far left for my liking. If somebody's going to beat Trump I'd rather it be somebody closer to the center.
Calling a spade a spade, you've been saying you'd like to vote for someone other than trump as long as it's a not a terrible democrat choice. That pool of acceptable candidates keeps narrowing, despite the candidates not really saying or doing anything different.
Feels to me like you're trying to get to yes on Trump.
Well I don't like Biden, never have. I also don't like Harris or Warren. I have no clue about most of the rest of them so I'm not going to get too excited unless one of them wins the nomination. There's also the chance that Trump won't run next time for some reason or other (he is pretty old and a lot can happen in two years). There are plenty of Republicans I like more than Trump.
I agree that this is about narratives. Nearly all of the establishment media pushes the left wing narrative regardless of the facts, as we see over and over on every imaginable issue whether it is the sitting President or 16 year old smiling children.
Over and over these narratives are proven wrong, yet no accountability or damage to their credibility ever happens.
When is it fair to say that they are pushing a narrative, and to be skeptical of them because of that?
But I disagree that this wasn't prosecutorial, it clearly was, as evidenced by the fact that people were prosecuted, and that Mueller's team sometimes recommended massive sentences for normal crimes when everything was said and done.
I addressed that. He never had anyone prosecuted that he didnt also attempt to make a deal with (except, I think for a few fringe cases early on, like the dutch lawyer).
Can you think of one? Seriously. I'll wait. Manafort was conditional on his working with Mueller. Once he stopped, Mueller recommended a larger sentence. (Your mischarterization of his sentence being massive is just more political spin. If you dont like narrative, you should stop pushing them yourself.)
There's Flynn. He hasnt even been sentenced, and it was clear Mueller was dealing with him. Rick Gates as well. The list goes on.
I do think it will damage their credibility. Of course, since conservative sources engaged in the same kind of false rhetoric, their credibility is damaged too, and it all washes out.
He's Irish and likeable. He's also from Texas which leads me to believe he won't lean too far left for my liking. If somebody's going to beat Trump I'd rather it be somebody closer to the center.
Calling a spade a spade, you've been saying you'd like to vote for someone other than trump as long as it's a not a terrible democrat choice. That pool of acceptable candidates keeps narrowing, despite the candidates not really saying or doing anything different.
Feels to me like you're trying to get to yes on Trump.
Well I don't like Biden, never have. I also don't like Harris or Warren. I have no clue about most of the rest of them so I'm not going to get too excited unless one of them wins the nomination. There's also the chance that Trump won't run next time for some reason or other (he is pretty old and a lot can happen in two years). There are plenty of Republicans I like more than Trump.
Edit: I also have the option of pissing away my vote on a Libertarian. I'd probably do that In a Trump vs. Biden scenario. I'd vote for Trump over Warren and I'm unsure what I'd do if he ran against Harris, that'd be a game-time decision.
Well I don't like Biden, never have. I also don't like Harris or Warren. I have no clue about most of the rest of them so I'm not going to get too excited unless one of them wins the nomination. There's also the chance that Trump won't run next time for some reason or other (he is pretty old and a lot can happen in two years). There are plenty of Republicans I like more than Trump.
Are any of them as bad as Clinton? I doubt they could ever be even remotely as bad as Clinton to... anyone.
So if the narrative was always "If only it wasnt Clinton who the Democrats nominated!", this shouldnt be a hard bar to clear.
Edit: I also have the option of pissing away my vote on a Libertarian. I'd probably do that In a Trump vs. Biden scenario. I'd vote for Trump over Warren and I'm unsure what I'd do if he ran against Harris, that'd be a game-time decision.
Okay. I get you. So you're not saying this will push you to vote FOR Trump as long as it's not Beto. I know you object to Warren. I didnt know where you stood on the rest.
Well I don't like Biden, never have. I also don't like Harris or Warren. I have no clue about most of the rest of them so I'm not going to get too excited unless one of them wins the nomination. There's also the chance that Trump won't run next time for some reason or other (he is pretty old and a lot can happen in two years). There are plenty of Republicans I like more than Trump.
Are any of them as bad as Clinton? I doubt they could ever be even remotely as bad as Clinton to... anyone.
So if the narrative was always "If only it wasnt Clinton who the Democrats nominated!", this shouldnt be a hard bar to clear.
Edit: I also have the option of pissing away my vote on a Libertarian. I'd probably do that In a Trump vs. Biden scenario. I'd vote for Trump over Warren and I'm unsure what I'd do if he ran against Harris, that'd be a game-time decision.
Okay. I get you. So you're not saying this will push you to vote FOR Trump as long as it's not Beto. I know you object to Warren. I didnt know where you stood on the rest.
I am a conservative so it takes a lot for me to vote for an actual Democrat. I do vote for them sometimes though, especially if the Republican is an asshole. I voted for Jennifer Granholm for Michigan Governor over 'Amway Boy' - Dick DeVoss for example...
He's Irish and likeable. He's also from Texas which leads me to believe he won't lean too far left for my liking. If somebody's going to beat Trump I'd rather it be somebody closer to the center.
Calling a spade a spade, you've been saying you'd like to vote for someone other than trump as long as it's a not a terrible democrat choice. That pool of acceptable candidates keeps narrowing, despite the candidates not really saying or doing anything different.
Feels to me like you're trying to get to yes on Trump.
Well I don't like Biden, never have. I also don't like Harris or Warren. I have no clue about most of the rest of them so I'm not going to get too excited unless one of them wins the nomination. There's also the chance that Trump won't run next time for some reason or other (he is pretty old and a lot can happen in two years). There are plenty of Republicans I like more than Trump.
I've said it before but I am probably supporting Andrew Yang in the Democrat primaries since i'm still registered in that party. Yang is pro free speech and reaches out to the other side, he's a uniting figure where very few exist, he wants a UBI and seems to have a reasonable plan for it, is against tech company control of political dialogue, has the best plan to date on colleges and student loans, he's pro electoral college, he wants policies in place to make family formation easier...
now that I think about it there is very little I disagree with Andrew Yang on.
Trump will only get my vote if it's a Kamala Harris or some other establishment type because he's broken far too many important promises for me to support his candidacy again.
Can you think of one? Seriously. I'll wait.
I can't, but I also imagine all plea deals were ultimately to make a prosecution case against Trump, who was the target of the investigations.
He's Irish and likeable. He's also from Texas which leads me to believe he won't lean too far left for my liking. If somebody's going to beat Trump I'd rather it be somebody closer to the center.
Calling a spade a spade, you've been saying you'd like to vote for someone other than trump as long as it's a not a terrible democrat choice. That pool of acceptable candidates keeps narrowing, despite the candidates not really saying or doing anything different.
Feels to me like you're trying to get to yes on Trump.
Well I don't like Biden, never have. I also don't like Harris or Warren. I have no clue about most of the rest of them so I'm not going to get too excited unless one of them wins the nomination. There's also the chance that Trump won't run next time for some reason or other (he is pretty old and a lot can happen in two years). There are plenty of Republicans I like more than Trump.
I've said it before but I am probably supporting Andrew Yang in the Democrat primaries since i'm still registered in that party. Yang is pro free speech and reaches out to the other side, he's a uniting figure where very few exist, he wants a UBI and seems to have a reasonable plan for it, is against tech company control of political dialogue, has the best plan to date on colleges and student loans, he's pro electoral college, he wants policies in place to make family formation easier...
now that I think about it there is very little I disagree with Andrew Yang on.
Trump will only get my vote if it's a Kamala Harris or some other type because he's broken far too many important promises for me to support his candidacy again.
Can you think of one? Seriously. I'll wait.
I can't, but I also imagine all plea deals were ultimately to make a prosecution case against Trump, who was the target of the investigations.
I know nothing about Yang except his last name sounds Asian. I trust your opinion of him but probably won't look into it too much unless he becomes a serious contender.
Edit: We don't have to be a party member to vote in primaries in Michigan so if there's no contender to Trump I can vote for a Democrat. I'll look into Yang if he's still in contention at that point.
are we ready to call the Russian Collusion conspiracy, the whole cause of the investigation and a myth peddled from all corners of the left wing and even parts of the anti trump right wing establishment, a conspiracy yet?
What are you even talking about?
- A foreign regime committed crimes against Americans in an effort to get Trump elected
- Trump encouraged such crimes
- Trump excused and defended the regime, disrespecting the work of American intelligence officials
- Trump's family and campaign officials met with envoys of that regime to discuss working together during the election
- Trump and his representatives lied about his business dealings with that regime
- Trump's representatives and campaign officials and members of his administration lied under oath on numerous occasions about their dealings with that regime
- Trump did crazy shit like have closed-door meetings with members of that regime, without advisors and without so much as an American translator
- Trump has repeatedly sucked up to hostile tyrants and damaged relationships with loyal allies, going so far as to physically shove the prime minister of a country that Putin dislikes
- Trump has repeatedly attacked the rights and traditions that distinguish America from pathetic despotic regimes like Russia
- Trump's business dealings and sources of income have been shrouded in mystery, notwithstanding we know Russian money was funneled through various real eastate dealings of his and of his campaign manager
Those are all undisputed facts. It's outrageous and shameful thst the leader of my country is do pathetic and gutless. And the actions of several of his advisors and family members have crossed the line into the realm if criminal conduct on several occasions. Thus the investigation to determine the full extent of such conduct.
Again: undisputed facts. So... where exactly is this "conspiracy" you mentioned??
Trump had most of these connections before he ran for president. He was interested in Russia as a possible investment opportunity. It doesn't mean that he had nefarious intentions. He's not a politician, so he's not squeaky clean like the people who groom themselves for politics. You know, like Hillary having Senator of New York handed to her on a silver platter...
@Balrog99: Andrew Yang's website is here and has a lot of rather bold policies, even aside from the universal basic income proposal. I hope he does become a serious contender; he sounds extremely promising as a candidate.
The name is Chinese (the Americanized version might be yayng; the original Chinese is yong; I don't know which he uses), but he doesn't have any PRC origins that I personally would find extremely suspicious. Yang's parents immigrated from the Republic of China before it was taken over by the Communists that established the People's Republic of China; neither he nor his family have any ties to the PRC (I don't know if that matters to you, but it does to me).
@WarChiefZeke: I find it interesting that Andrew Yang has found popularity among the alt-right, and it reminds me of several conservative forumites' respect for Bernie Sanders. It seems to me like the Democratic politicians that conservatives prefer are actually the ones farthest to the left, rather than the centrist ones like Clinton or Obama.
I foresee conservative media jumping on this as a means of exonerating Trump, and the idea bothers me. I'm guessing that the exact same people who so thoroughly castigated the law enforcement community for merely doing its job are now going to immediately turn around on the subject and cite it as if they hadn't spent the past 2 years trying to destroy its credibility.
I would actually be very surprised if law enforcement genuinely didn't consider the firing of Comey to be obstruction of justice. Trump admitted that the firing was done specifically to weaken the investigation.
The whole reason this is a 'nothingberder' is because of the way it was portrayed in the press. They can reap what they sow as far as I'm concerned. I personally won't vote for Trump next time if the Dems nominate somebody halfway decent. So far Beto is the only one I like (that I know much about anyway). This Mueller Report debacle will definitely solidify the rest of my family in Trump's corner though. I have no chance in any argument with them now, not even with my sister who I almost had convinced about Trump...
Not colluding doesn't make him a good guy. Still a criminal conman many times over.
Shocking though if Trump Jr, can meet with Russian agents specifically to get dirt and probably more since he's lied about it and get away scot free.
Just goes to show, again, that there is no justice in America for the rich can do anything even collude with foreign governments and get away with it. Sane crap with the buy your way into college scandal. Same crap for Manaforts four year sentence for stealing hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby for dictators and pay no taxes and there is another guy who steaks $1.2 millions in fajita meat and got 30 years.
No justice in America unless obvious criminal conman faces justice for his life of crime.
There's one thing I'm not sure about. The Mueller report apparently doesn't contain any new indictments. But as others have pointed out, the president can't be indicted. The absence of new indictments isn't that... informative, in light of that fact. It wouldn't contain that particular indictment regardless.
Well, we'll hear clarification on that soon enough. I very much doubt the report is going to stay confidential. It shouldn't be much longer.
I'll take a stab at explaining the apparent mystery of why the alt-right (or less further right people like me) prefer people like Bernie Sanders or Andrew Yang. They're genuine. I personally can't help liking Bernie Sanders because he's not trying to deceive me or treat me like I'm an idiot who can't understand why he's better than me and I'm a troglodyte. I may be sceptical about how we're going to pay for all of his ideas, but I respect where he's coming from. Contrast that with Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton's preaching guilt and how crappy our Country is and maybe you'll understand why I don't like their philosophy any more than the "You're going to Hell" religion I grew up with.
Comments
To be fair, it was actually @semiticgod who asked it to stop as people were just repeating themselves and weren’t adding anything new to the conversation.
By all means, let's keep this waste of time going for longer. I'm guessing that Mueller could foresee it was going nowhere and decided it was time to let it go. He's been pretty immune to pressure up till now. Why all of a sudden would he succumb? Oh, I know, because he didn't get the expected smoking gun...
Not sure what the EC has to do with it, but I did not mean I wasn't open to discussing the idea that the investigation was prematurely killed without anyone raising any red flags about that, i'm only saying it's not a proven claim and thus I can make unproven claims in return and in the end no new information is gained and it doesn't lead us any closer to the truth. It gets us nowhere, as it were.
It can't be more obvious at this point the media peddles lies as truth and doesn't care. No historical revisionism should be allowed about this.
So far Trump is saying he isn't afraid of the report at all, which makes me think there really isn't anything there. Now let's see if we get to see the 'entire' report. If we do and there's no 'collusion' then no matter how many low-level indictments there were, this will be a huge let-down for liberals. Again, reap the hype, sow the vindication for the far-right.
The National Security Advisor, his Campaign Chairman and his decade's long political guru are "low-level"?? Two of them are the EXACT same people I said would be charged before this investigation even existed.
Low-level as far as government is concerned. Those people had no background in politics and got no loyalty from Trump. I doubt he ever saw them as any more than cogs in his wheel. They may have engaged in shenanigans, but I'm not sure they did it with Trump's knowledge and consent. Trump is the quintessential narcissist from what I can see. I'm not even convinced he knows or cares what the Hell is going on around him that doesn't involve him personally...
@WarChiefZeke: I think you're mixing up being wrong with being dishonest. It's been pretty clear to me that liberals were genuinely convinced that Trump was working with Russia. There were also no WMD's in Iraq, but that doesn't mean conservatives didn't believe there were.
@Balrog99: Why do you like Beto? He seems amicable enough, but I haven't found him quite as interesting as the others.
Incidentally, in history - we are taught that revisionism is a good thing. It means confronting old information with new facts. Most everyone else incorrectly assumes revisionism is a bad thing. For rigorous historians, it's good.
That aside - this is an issue of ideological narrative. As much as our conservative friends pretend, they played the game too.
The left said Trump would be led away in chains
The right said "Unless Mueller leads Trump away in chains, the libs were wrong!"
Neither were realistic, or correct. Mueller follows the DoJ's precedent that they cannot indict a sitting president. We dont know what's in the report. By and large, Mueller's investigation was not prosecutorial (The only people who were charged with anything were done to flip them, aside from maybe the dutch lawyer). If indictments are to be brought, they'll be brought by others.
That said, I dont really expect that to happen.
I think this will play out a lot like Comey's exoneration of Clinton, except it will be filtered through the Trump administration, so they can water down the conclusions.
Except the only thing the media speculated on was obstruction of justice and provided details on why it could be considered obstruction and details on why it could not be considered obstruction. And did so everytime Trump opened his mouth or twitter feed.
Perjury was also floated, and as mentioned many times prior a hard thing to prove. Just because no one is charged does not mean individuals willfully misled investigators.
But reporting that statements made by individuals do not line up with known facts is not peddling an endless conspiracy theory.
I honestly would love a news organization to put this whole ordeal into a timeline because a lot of it gets lost in discussions and both sides tend to cherrypick certain things to help their argument.
He's Irish and likeable. He's also from Texas which leads me to believe he won't lean too far left for my liking. If somebody's going to beat Trump I'd rather it be somebody closer to the center.
From the beginning they should have mentioned this report is suppose to be confidential. Their neglect to announce this has allowed this rabid response of the public thinking they have the right to access it.
Calling a spade a spade, you've been saying you'd like to vote for someone other than trump as long as it's a not a terrible democrat choice. That pool of acceptable candidates keeps narrowing, despite the candidates not really saying or doing anything different.
Feels to me like you're trying to get to yes on Trump.
I agree that this is about narratives. Nearly all of the establishment media pushes the left wing narrative regardless of the facts, as we see over and over on every imaginable issue whether it is the sitting President or 16 year old smiling children.
Over and over these narratives are proven wrong, yet no accountability or damage to their credibility ever happens.
When is it fair to say that they are pushing a narrative, and to be skeptical of them because of that?
But I disagree that this wasn't prosecutorial, it clearly was, as evidenced by the fact that people were prosecuted, and that Mueller's team sometimes recommended massive sentences for normal crimes when everything was said and done.
Well I don't like Biden, never have. I also don't like Harris or Warren. I have no clue about most of the rest of them so I'm not going to get too excited unless one of them wins the nomination. There's also the chance that Trump won't run next time for some reason or other (he is pretty old and a lot can happen in two years). There are plenty of Republicans I like more than Trump.
I addressed that. He never had anyone prosecuted that he didnt also attempt to make a deal with (except, I think for a few fringe cases early on, like the dutch lawyer).
Can you think of one? Seriously. I'll wait. Manafort was conditional on his working with Mueller. Once he stopped, Mueller recommended a larger sentence. (Your mischarterization of his sentence being massive is just more political spin. If you dont like narrative, you should stop pushing them yourself.)
There's Flynn. He hasnt even been sentenced, and it was clear Mueller was dealing with him. Rick Gates as well. The list goes on.
I do think it will damage their credibility. Of course, since conservative sources engaged in the same kind of false rhetoric, their credibility is damaged too, and it all washes out.
Edit: I also have the option of pissing away my vote on a Libertarian. I'd probably do that In a Trump vs. Biden scenario. I'd vote for Trump over Warren and I'm unsure what I'd do if he ran against Harris, that'd be a game-time decision.
Are any of them as bad as Clinton? I doubt they could ever be even remotely as bad as Clinton to... anyone.
So if the narrative was always "If only it wasnt Clinton who the Democrats nominated!", this shouldnt be a hard bar to clear.
Okay. I get you. So you're not saying this will push you to vote FOR Trump as long as it's not Beto. I know you object to Warren. I didnt know where you stood on the rest.
I am a conservative so it takes a lot for me to vote for an actual Democrat. I do vote for them sometimes though, especially if the Republican is an asshole. I voted for Jennifer Granholm for Michigan Governor over 'Amway Boy' - Dick DeVoss for example...
I've said it before but I am probably supporting Andrew Yang in the Democrat primaries since i'm still registered in that party. Yang is pro free speech and reaches out to the other side, he's a uniting figure where very few exist, he wants a UBI and seems to have a reasonable plan for it, is against tech company control of political dialogue, has the best plan to date on colleges and student loans, he's pro electoral college, he wants policies in place to make family formation easier...
now that I think about it there is very little I disagree with Andrew Yang on.
Trump will only get my vote if it's a Kamala Harris or some other establishment type because he's broken far too many important promises for me to support his candidacy again.
I can't, but I also imagine all plea deals were ultimately to make a prosecution case against Trump, who was the target of the investigations.
I know nothing about Yang except his last name sounds Asian. I trust your opinion of him but probably won't look into it too much unless he becomes a serious contender.
Edit: We don't have to be a party member to vote in primaries in Michigan so if there's no contender to Trump I can vote for a Democrat. I'll look into Yang if he's still in contention at that point.
Trump had most of these connections before he ran for president. He was interested in Russia as a possible investment opportunity. It doesn't mean that he had nefarious intentions. He's not a politician, so he's not squeaky clean like the people who groom themselves for politics. You know, like Hillary having Senator of New York handed to her on a silver platter...
The name is Chinese (the Americanized version might be yayng; the original Chinese is yong; I don't know which he uses), but he doesn't have any PRC origins that I personally would find extremely suspicious. Yang's parents immigrated from the Republic of China before it was taken over by the Communists that established the People's Republic of China; neither he nor his family have any ties to the PRC (I don't know if that matters to you, but it does to me).
@WarChiefZeke: I find it interesting that Andrew Yang has found popularity among the alt-right, and it reminds me of several conservative forumites' respect for Bernie Sanders. It seems to me like the Democratic politicians that conservatives prefer are actually the ones farthest to the left, rather than the centrist ones like Clinton or Obama.
Not colluding doesn't make him a good guy. Still a criminal conman many times over.
Shocking though if Trump Jr, can meet with Russian agents specifically to get dirt and probably more since he's lied about it and get away scot free.
Just goes to show, again, that there is no justice in America for the rich can do anything even collude with foreign governments and get away with it. Sane crap with the buy your way into college scandal. Same crap for Manaforts four year sentence for stealing hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby for dictators and pay no taxes and there is another guy who steaks $1.2 millions in fajita meat and got 30 years.
No justice in America unless obvious criminal conman faces justice for his life of crime.
Well, we'll hear clarification on that soon enough. I very much doubt the report is going to stay confidential. It shouldn't be much longer.
I'll take a stab at explaining the apparent mystery of why the alt-right (or less further right people like me) prefer people like Bernie Sanders or Andrew Yang. They're genuine. I personally can't help liking Bernie Sanders because he's not trying to deceive me or treat me like I'm an idiot who can't understand why he's better than me and I'm a troglodyte. I may be sceptical about how we're going to pay for all of his ideas, but I respect where he's coming from. Contrast that with Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton's preaching guilt and how crappy our Country is and maybe you'll understand why I don't like their philosophy any more than the "You're going to Hell" religion I grew up with.