Five Things I Learned From the Mueller Report

[CharacterAssassin]

Well, impeach him already, finally lol.

What are they waiting for?

I'm hoping they start the hearings.

They're waiting for the courts to slap down any of the refusals for subpoenas, documents, etc... so that they can demonstrate that they gave Trump and his laughably corrupt admin officials like Mnuchin every last change to comply with their demands and did so legally, since they have no valid legal ground for their objections or suits, according to black letter law.

It gives the Trump legal team plenty of rope to hang themselves with and they're certainly dumb enough to jump at the chance to do so.

 

[Darth Omar]

I'm hoping they start the hearings.

They're waiting for the courts to slap down any of the refusals for subpoenas, documents, etc... so that they can demonstrate that they gave Trump and his laughably corrupt admin officials like Mnuchin every last change to comply with their demands and did so legally, since they have no valid legal ground for their objections or suits, according to black letter law.

It gives the Trump legal team plenty of rope to hang themselves with and they're certainly dumb enough to jump at the chance to do so.

So you think this will be it, finally?

 

[CharacterAssassin]

So you think this will be it, finally?

Hard to say. I think the dem house committee chairs are smart enough to let out enough line to play this fish and only call for hearings, not an impeachment vote itself, necessarily, when all of Trump's legal chicanery has filled exhausted itself, which the courts will happily assist in.

The one thing Trump cannot stand is having his old cronies testify, under oath, in televised hearings, as to his attempts to obstruct and to get them to lie for him in order to disrupt/stop the Mueller investigation.

Trump's entire empire is now at stake, esp. given his laughable lawsuits, with his kids, no less, to stop DB and Capital One from turning over financial docs, which they inevitably will.

 

[Darth Omar]

Hard to say. I think the dem house committee chairs are smart enough to let out enough line to play this fish and only call for hearings, not an impeachment vote itself, necessarily, when all of Trump's legal chicanery has filled exhausted itself, which the courts will happily assist in.

The one thing Trump cannot stand is having his old cronies testify, under oath, in televised hearings, as to his attempts to obstruct and to get them to lie for him in order to disrupt/stop the Mueller investigation.

Trump's entire empire is now at stake, esp. given his laughable lawsuits, with his kids, no less, to stop DB and Capital One from turning over financial docs, which they inevitably will.

They shouldn’t pussy out on impeachment lol.

That’s all we’ve heard from the deranged left since election night 2016. Impeach, impeach the mother F*ker. You claim Mullet threw them a lifeline on obstruction—since he came up empty on collusion, democrats should man up and pull the trigger.

Why don’t they do it?

 

[CharacterAssassin]

They shouldn’t pussy out on impeachment lol.

That’s all we’ve heard from the deranged left since election night 2016. Impeach, impeach the mother F*ker. You claim Mullet threw them a lifeline on obstruction—since he came up empty on collusion, democrats should man up and pull the trigger.

Why don’t they do it?

You ask really stupid questions. It shows you're in waaaaay over your head. One doesn't engage in impeachment hearings unless there's a purpose it would serve, backed up by evidence.

There is now more than enough evidence, allowing dems to drive that train, so to speak, and that train doesn't ever even have to get to the Senate.

All that's needed is a national narrative with wall to wall televised hearings with all the principals testifying under oath.

You live in mortal fear of that, and for very good reasons.

 

[Darth Omar]

You ask really stupid questions. It shows you're in waaaaay over your head. One doesn't engage in impeachment hearings unless there's a purpose it would serve, backed up by evidence.

There is now more than enough evidence, allowing dems to drive that train, so to speak, and that train doesn't ever even have to get to the Senate.

All that's needed is a national narrative with wall to wall televised hearings with all the principals testifying under oath.

You live in mortal fear of that, and for very good reasons.

You forget that Republicans get to ask questions too lol.

And boy can I think of a couple. So basically, it will be a continuation of Mullet’s crime search?

Do you think Trump will call it a Witch Hunt?

 

[CharacterAssassin]

You forget that Republicans get to ask questions too lol.

Of course they do. Never claimed otherwise.

And boy can I think of a couple. So basically, it will be a continuation of Mullet’s crime search?

Do you think Trump will call it a Witch Hunt?

I think once it's confirmed in front of the nation on TV by sworn testimony that Trump lied and ordered others to lie to disrupt/end the legal investigation into him, Trump will shit his pants.

If you recall: “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked”

He's knows the noose is tightening and his stall tactics will not work.

 

[Stretch]

It's all a continuation of sour grapes a la Hillary. Sore losers and spoiled whining brats who never learned how accept a loss and move on.

 

[Darth Omar]

Of course they do. Never claimed otherwise.

I think once it's confirmed in front of the nation on TV by sworn testimony that Trump lied and ordered others to lie to disrupt/end the legal investigation into him, Trump will shit his pants.

If you recall: “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked”

He's knows the noose is tightening and his stall tactics will not work.

You realize that quote means absolutely nothing in terms of the legitimacy of the investigation, right lol?

All it takes is one indictment against one individual involved with any part of the Russian investigation and your dreams go up in smoke.

And since there’s an excellent chance of that—you should prepare yourself. Not that you’re capable of it.

 

[CharacterAssassin]

You realize that quote means absolutely nothing in terms of the legitimacy of the investigation, right lol?

Didn't claim that it did. It showed how worried Trump was that his criminal past would be exposed.

All it takes is one indictment against one individual involved with any part of the Russian investigation and your dreams go up in smoke.

Please pin all your hopes on that. Every last spazdream you have about something magically having been done illegally in the investigations.

And since there’s an excellent chance of that—you should prepare yourself. Not that you’re capable of it.

There's not an icecube's chance in hell of that.

Fun to watch pussies like you desperately claw for something, anything, to hold on to while the Trump ship is sinking, along with the credibility that you've never had.

I'll bookmark this so we can some back and have a good laugh.

 

[Darth Omar]

Didn't claim that it did. It showed how worried Trump was that his criminal past would be exposed.

Please pin all your hopes on that. Every last spazdream you have about something magically having been done illegally in the investigations.

There's not an icecube's chance in hell of that.

Fun to watch pussies like you desperately claw for something, anything, to hold on to while the Trump ship is sinking, along with the credibility that you've never had.

I'll bookmark this so we can some back and have a good laugh.

Be my guest lol.

You contradicted yourself. You claim you didn’t say the Trump quote means Trump is guilty—then you turn right around and say it was because he’s guilty!

I’ll help you out. Trump’s quote can mean at least two things: the first is that he knows he’s guilty and he’s going down.

The second thing it could mean is Trump knows he’s innocent and he could be taken down by an illicitly conceived investigation.

In the second instance Trump is *rightfully* pissed about it. And guess what? Trump was proven innocent of Mullet’s principle mission—Trump didn’t conspire with the Russians before the election. Guess which instance is the more likely of the two?

Democrats [the thinking ones, anyway] know trying to impeach Trump for *technically* obstructing an investigation that produced no crime is a political non-starter. So democrats are taking the only avenue left to them: drag Mullet and Barr in front of Congress to try and find something/anything to build an impeachment narrative to damage Trump with before the election.

Have I said they’re despicable lately?

 

[CharacterAssassin]

Be my guest lol.

You contradicted yourself. You claim you didn’t say the Trump quote means Trump is guilty—then you turn right around and say it was because he’s guilty!

No, I haven't, but I understand your desperate need to pretend otherwise as a self-defense mechanism.

I’ll help you out. Trump’s quote can mean at least two things: the first is that he knows he’s guilty and he’s going down.

The second thing it could mean is Trump knows he’s innocent and he could be taken down by an illicitly conceived investigation.

It could also means that he absolutely hates mustard, but given his past filled w/fraud and being a conman, and his psychological pathologies, that's not very likely.

In the second instance Trump is *rightfully* pissed about it. And guess what? Trump was proven innocent of Mullet’s principle mission—Trump didn’t conspire with the Russians before the election. Guess which instance is the more likely of the two?

Why would an innocent man with a clean past and the means to clear himself have obstructed justice so often and tried to get others to do so? And guess what: he wasn't proven innocent. The was no trial for that to happen, dipshit.

Democrats [the thinking ones, anyway] know trying to impeach Trump for *technically* obstructing an investigation that produced no crime is a political non-starter. So democrats are taking the only avenue left to them: drag Mullet and Barr in front of Congress to try and find something/anything to build an impeachment narrative to damage Trump with before the election.

He didn't 'technicall' obstruct justice. The evidence shows he did so willfully and purposefully numerous times. If the investigation produced no crime is irrelevant to that fact.

Democrats already have things to justify and impeachment inquiry and more is on the way

Have I said they’re despicable lately?

No, but you're confirmed my observation that you're a dishonest whore.

 

[Darth Omar]

No, I haven't, but I understand your desperate need to pretend otherwise as a self-defense mechanism.

It could also means that he absolutely hates mustard, but given his past filled w/fraud and being a conman, and his psychological pathologies, that's not very likely.

Why would an innocent man with a clean past and the means to clear himself have obstructed justice so often and tried to get others to do so? And guess what: he wasn't proven innocent. The was no trial for that to happen, dipshit.

He didn't 'technicall' obstruct justice. The evidence shows he did so willfully and purposefully numerous times. If the investigation produced no crime is irrelevant to that fact.

Democrats already have things to justify and impeachment inquiry and more is on the way

No, but you're confirmed my observation that you're a dishonest whore.

You’re the second goof ball I’ve had to correct on an ‘act of obstruction’ in the last ten minutes.

Congratulations. Learn to use a dictionary:

: the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/obstruction of justice

Please note the verbs. Trump never once *acted* to impede the investigation. Mullet’s investigation was never impeded or obstructed—by anyone, including Trump. What your are hoping and wishing for is that they can nail Trump for being ‘technically’ guilty of obstruction through a narrow interpretation of the statute.

Even though the investigation produced no crime. Good luck with that—and keep in mind impeachment is a political process and millions of voters will call bullshit on it.

Please, go for it.

 

[JPF]

Why do they care are about that lol?

Will Trump believing the KGB do something to keep Russian oil and gas profits from tanking? No. That would take someone like Bernie or Biden signing back on to the Climate Accords.

Good to you know you were guessing though.

Vlad is probably happy that Trump is his puppet.

 

[CharacterAssassin]

You’re the second goof ball I’ve had to correct on an ‘act of obstruction’ in the last ten minutes.

Congratulations. Learn to use a dictionary:

: the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/obstruction of justice

Please note the verbs. Trump never once *acted* to impede the investigation. Mullet’s investigation was never impeded or obstructed—by anyone, including Trump. What your are hoping and wishing for is that they can nail Trump for being ‘technically’ guilty of obstruction through a narrow interpretation of the statute.

Even though the investigation produced no crime. Good luck with that—and keep in mind impeachment is a political process and millions of voters will call bullshit on it.

Please, go for it.

Yes, fucktard, he did act to obstruct the investigation at least 4 times. By the dictionary definition and by the language of the federal statute. All that's necessary is the attempt. The success of that attempt is irrelevant. Those instances meet all three elements of crime of obstruction. There's nothing 'technical' about them.

Obstruction IS a crime, and the investigation produced copious amounts of evidence that it occurred.

The impeachment process begins with hearings. It doesn't have to proceed to an actual vote to expose Trump's actions.

And now even Mueller is saying that Trump's buttboi Barr's depiction of his findings failed to capture ‘context, nature, and substance’ of probe

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-and-substance-of-probe/?_=ddid-1-1556670060

The wheels are beginning to come off the tard bus, and it's going to be fun to watch you trapped underneath it.

 

[JPF]

I'm hoping they start the hearings.

They're waiting for the courts to slap down any of the refusals for subpoenas, documents, etc... so that they can demonstrate that they gave Trump and his laughably corrupt admin officials like Mnuchin every last change to comply with their demands and did so legally, since they have no valid legal ground for their objections or suits, according to black letter law.

It gives the Trump legal team plenty of rope to hang themselves with and they're certainly dumb enough to jump at the chance to do so.

I hope they hold them in prime time. I'm always curious why one side doesn't do that to the other side. If nothing else, it will wreck the ratings of FOX news talking heads while they are on.

 

[CharacterAssassin]

I hope they hold them in prime time. I'm always curious why one side doesn't do that to the other side. If nothing else, it will wreck the ratings of FOX news talking heads while they are on.

I don't know if that would be possible due to scheduling, but given the nature of the news media today with all the news discussion shows on either satellite radio or on TV after the drive, the coverage and commentary on that coverage would be HUGE. Like likely nothing we've seen since Watergate.

The damage it would do to Trump is incalculable.

 

[JPF]

I don't know if that would be possible due to scheduling, but given the nature of the news media today with all the news discussion shows on either satellite radio or on TV after the drive, the coverage and commentary on that coverage would be HUGE. Like likely nothing we've seen since Watergate.

The damage it would do to Trump is incalculable.

Damage to Trump depends on the testimony.

As for Scheduling....I would imagine that these vain and moronic representatives (both D's and R's) would love to appear in prime time. Seems to me like it would be the optimum time to hold hearings such as this. It's "extracurricular" in nature so having it after hours would not affect the business of the House.

Moreover, the more people see our government in action...the more informed they will be. Informed to applaud, informed to resist, but informed none the less.

 

[christiefan915]

I would suggest that any attempt to impeach will almost guarantee a Trump second term.

I don't support impeachment at this point in time. A really strong case would have to be laid out to get me on board.

 

[Micawber]

I didn't learn anything from the Mueller report.I only read the Barr summary.


But Mueller just erased that.