Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The consensus on MSNBC is that Mueller couldn't find anything to declare Trump innocent, and was intending to leave it up to Congress whether or not to prosecute Trump because he believes that he himself doesn't have the power to indict a sitting president. And what happened was Barr trying to declare Trump as close to innocent as possible. (I think it says something that even Barr's original memo says "doesn't exonerate".)
Honestly, was anybody ever thinking that there was even a fraction of a chance that Trump would be charged, let alone removed from office? Once in office, a president is basically above the law and thus untouchable.
Even Nixon didn't face any charges after resigning.
Edited by Forenperser on Apr 18th 2019 at 8:39:03 PM
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% ScandinavianWhat we can read is basically a big yes on obstruction and leans very collusion-adjacent.
The problem is... I'd like to see under the black, please. And, even then, collusion is up to the definition Congress chooses to give it.
If not actively, directly colluding in bold italic, we've certainly got the use of other people's dodgy as hell, independent collusions... and sticking to self-contradictory denial.
Edited by Euodiachloris on Apr 18th 2019 at 7:41:58 PM
![]()
The biggest one was the Trump Tower meeting, which Mueller declined to prosecute Trump Jr. and Kushner:
Aside from that, the collusion conclusion was effectively "We can't prove collusion ties, but we also can't disprove them either" - which is far from saying "We found no evidence".
It also doesn't help that, as noted in the public version (using The Guardian's article for reference
): Mueller said his investigation was hindered by some witnesses lying to them. Some Trump allies invoked their fifth amendment right to not incriminate themselves, he wrote, and some deleted electronic messages that could have been helpful. Donald Trump Jr declined to be interviewed voluntarily by Mueller’s team.
So yeah, destruction of evidence is inarguably obstruction of justice. Problem is, it can be rather hard to prove - hence "no-knock" raids on drug dealers because they might flush the worst of the stuff down the toilet.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
![]()
To be clear, I meant collusion as "active coordination", which would likely fall under conspiracy charges. Problem is, you can't (reasonably) be charged for passive coordination in a situation like that, since you may legitimately have had no idea about it. And the US court system operates on making the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable - which in this case, is an unfortunately high bar to cross.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"I’ve not been able to read it yet, but from what I’ve heard, a lot of the redacted stuff seems to be about ongoing investigations, such as Julian Assange and Wikileaks or the Internet Research Agency etc. (remember, the investigation wasn’t just a criminal one.)
Congress should get to see the unredacted (or at least minimally redacted, if there’s anything really sensitive) report though.
Edited by megaeliz on Apr 18th 2019 at 3:40:32 PM
That is indeed the case, from what I've seen posted here.
![]()
Yeah, Trump relies heavily on Could Say It, But... tactics
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"But Cohen made it clear in his own testimony that that's how Trump operates.
Edited by sgamer82 on Apr 18th 2019 at 2:17:58 AM
If so, this may be extremely relevant.
This strikes me as very disconnected from the electoral reality on the ground. If the folks on the ground aren't given HOPE that there will be CHANGE, they won't show up to the polls in sufficient numbers.
They don't need a good argument. An argument is enough.
Edited by Oruka on Apr 18th 2019 at 1:38:54 AM
That seems to be the sticking point. If the President ordered illegal acts, but no illegal acts were in fact committed, then there is no actual crime, as long as ordering illegal acts is not a crime in and of itself.
That said, it is entirely possible to be convicted for attempting to commit a crime. Just because you didn't succeed doesn't change the fact that you tried.
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 18th 2019 at 5:02:23 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That’s not how it works. I’ll find a good explanation when I get home; for now, I would like to point out, that it is very, very important, that Mueller started from an assumption that he could not indict a president.
The entire report is premised on the fact that he basically punted to Congress. Please keep that in mind.
I think a large part of it is that Muller is a Republican and so it Donald Trump, a Republican bringing down their Republican President doesn't sit right with him,punting it to congress means he doesn't make the decision that would (in the eyes other Republicans at least) make him a traitor,that's party politics for you
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverThe idea that Mueller has some party loyalty influencing his views is a weird accusation given that if he did then he wouldn't have investigated Donald Trump to begin with or spent millions of dollars under heavy pressure to drop events.
I'm also confused at the "punting to Congress" as that is the law.
And he is a traitor to his fellow Republicans and has been for a year.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 18th 2019 at 2:08:57 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

I mean, page 30 is one big redaction box.
Edit: I like this pagetopper, [Harm to Ongoing Matter] out of 10.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Apr 18th 2019 at 2:35:24 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer