Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

[FreeinChrist]

What do you think of this article?

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map

 

[NotreDame]

What do you think of this article?

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map

A fair representation. I think her chart reflects what I said previously, that the evidence is a hybrid between some strong evidence and less than strong evidence, perhaps at times moderate to weak evidence.

I prefer Hoeg's chart.

 

[TLK Valentine]

A fair representation. I think her chart reflects what I said previously, that the evidence is a hybrid between some strong evidence and less than strong evidence, perhaps at times moderate to weak evidence.

Would it be fair to rephrase that as saying that Donald has committed several acts, some of which proving obstruction would be a stretch, others, not as much of a problem?

 

[Aldebaran]

I have always found the most dam*ing evidence against Trump comes from his own unvarnished tweets, his own recorded and unedited "rallies," and the videos showing his callous disregard for his own wife and others.

At least he says what he means rather than having someone else write out what they want him to say and then put a teleprompter in front of him so he can read someone else's script to the TV cameras. That's one of the big reasons people voted for him.

 

[Aldebaran]

I wouldn't know. I don't watch MSNBC.

Then becoming one of their reporters wouldn't take any real training.

 

[Aldebaran]

When I read the headlines the word "blasts" is the only thing I see that would carry a negative tone, but that doesn't necessarily indicate a bias. If Trump is castigating someone for something, then that would be a fairly descriptive term. Moreover bias can also be painting a rosy picture of something that isn't so rosy. I took the time to read each article and saw nothing indicating propaganda or slander against Trump, and these news sites are usually pretty consistent in presenting reliable reporting.

They claim he "blasted" someone when all he did was disagree with them in a very civil way. Are you claiming you don't see that?

Maybe something else you haven't noticed is when the evening news is broadcast, they used to report what the stock market numbers for the day were: The DOW industrial, the NASDAQ, the S&P. Now that Trump is in office and the economy is booming and the stock market is hitting new records, they stopped reporting it altogether. Trump did promise that the economy would grow to new highs, but since it started happening, the news reporting of it just doesn't seem to fit the negative narrative about Trump.

 

[Aldebaran]

No. Can you explain it?

I wasn't talking to you.

 

[Aldebaran]

That’s ironic, didn’t someone request you read at least some of the Mueller report the other day, and you flatly refused because you couldn’t be bothered?

Some of it? I don't remember it being phrased in that way. 448 pages of government legal mumbo jumbo is quite a bit more painful than a few articles that show evidence of what I'm saying.

 

[bhsmte]

Some of it? I don't remember it being phrased in that way. 448 pages of government legal mumbo jumbo is quite a bit more painful than a few articles that show evidence of what I'm saying.

The devil tends to be in the details.

There appears to be enough to build a case of obstruction (for impeachment) and on the other end, a defense of the same could be built.

Right now, what the house decides to do (with current information), is a political question, not a criminal one.

 

[Aldebaran]

The devil tends to be in the details.

There appears to be enough to build a case of obstruction (for impeachment) and on the other end, a defense of the same could be built.

Right now, what the house decides to do (with current information), is a political question, not a criminal one.

That seems to be the case since the democrats there are divided on how to proceed. Some want to impeach, others don't. It obviously isn't as clear cut as some make it out to be.

 

[bhsmte]

That seems to be the case since the democrats there are divided on how to proceed. Some want to impeach, others don't. It obviously isn't as clear cut as some make it out to be.

If trump was not president, there is likely enough evidence to indict him on obstruction. At trial, he may be aquitted, but he could be indicted.

Impeachment brings political questions and risk, but the house has enough to impeach him, if they chose to. The senate would aquit him though and the dems risk ticking people off before the 2020 election.

 

[Aldebaran]

If trump was not president, there is likely enough evidence to indict him on obstruction. At trial, he may be aquitted, but he could be indicted.

Impeachment brings political questions and risk, but the house has enough to impeach him, if they chose to. The senate would aquit him though and the dems risk ticking people off before the 2020 election.

Even if he was acquitted, we'd be hearing, "But that doesn't mean he's innocent!"

 

[bhsmte]

Even if he was acquitted, we'd be hearing, "But that doesn't mean he's innocent!"

Who cares?

The reality is, some who are aquitted were guilty of a crime, there just wasnt enough evidence, to convince a jury.

Do you think OJ was innocent?

 

[Aldebaran]

Who cares?

The reality is, some who are aquitted were guilty of a crime, there just wasnt enough evidence, to convince a jury.

And the people who trust so much in investigations and trials aren't satisfied with the results unless they match with their own opinions. That's why we end up having to hear about it so much afterwards, just like now after the Mueller investigation has ended.

Do you think OJ was innocent?

I really have no idea. I know what it's like to be accused of something that I didn't do, and have someone put together a list of things that make it appear as if I did it. I'm glad there is a system of "innocent unless proven guilty". If you think too many innocent people are convicted already, then imagine what it would be like if people were presumed guilty simply because they were accused.

 

[whatbogsends]

At least he says what he means rather than having someone else write out what they want him to say and then put a teleprompter in front of him so he can read someone else's script to the TV cameras. That's one of the big reasons people voted for him.

Trump does say what he means.

Here's a few examples:

Trump:"Russia if you're listening, I hope you can find the 30,000 emails"

"Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office" - p49 Mueller Report.

Or when he says things like this...

"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off. ... I'm not under investigation."


Question: Was he saying what he meant the 150+ times he referred to Wikileaks ( i.e."I love Wikileaks", "Wikileaks is a treasure trove of information") or was he saying what he meant when he said "I know nothing about Wikileaks. It's not my thing."

 

[bhsmte]

And the people who trust so much in investigations and trials aren't satisfied with the results unless they match with their own opinions. That's why we end up having to hear about it so much afterwards, just like now after the Mueller investigation has ended.



I really have no idea. I know what it's like to be accused of something that I didn't do, and have someone put together a list of things that make it appear as if I did it. I'm glad there is a system of "innocent unless proven guilty". If you think too many innocent people are convicted already, then imagine what it would be like if people were presumed guilty simply because they were accused.

When it comes to politics, most people are simply choose sides and that side will be whatever fits their personal ideology. This thread is a perfect example of that.

You really have no opinion on whether OJ was guilty of murder? I fully believe in innocent until proven guilty, but do you really think, every person who is aquitted, is actually innocent of the charges?

 

[Aldebaran]

Trump does say what he means.

Here's a few examples:

Trump:"Russia if you're listening, I hope you can find the 30,000 emails"

"Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office" - p49 Mueller Report.

It's amusing when people believe Trump communicated with Russia through campaign rallies.

Or when he says things like this...

"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off. ... I'm not under investigation."

Probably. What he meant could be open to interpretation though, especially when part of the statement were left out, as evidenced by the "...."

Question: Was he saying what he meant the 150+ times he referred to Wikileaks ( i.e."I love Wikileaks", "Wikileaks is a treasure trove of information") or was he saying what he meant when he said "I know nothing about Wikileaks. It's not my thing."

You got a good point with this one. He's not perfect, but without risking a "whataboutism" for pointing out plenty of people who aren't perfect but still acceptable to the opposition, suffice it to say that nobody is perfect.

 

[Aldebaran]

When it comes to politics, most people are simply choose sides and that side will be whatever fits their personal ideology. This thread is a perfect example of that.

That's because the individual person running for office doesn't vary all that much from the political side they are identifying with. It's also the reason why so many votes in congress are along party lines.

You really have no opinion on whether OJ was guilty of murder?

Like I said, I have no idea. It's possible, but there was plenty of reasons to doubt the evidence presented as well.

I fully believe in innocent until proven guilty, but do you really think, every person who is aquitted, is actually innocent of the charges?

No, and I didn't say that.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It's amusing when people believe Trump communicated with Russia through campaign rallies.

I don't think that anyone believes that it was intentional communication via campaign rally. Most likely, the Russians saw the statement and said "Hey, that sounds like a great idea!"

Regardless of intent though, you can't deny that it looks REALLY suspicious when you make a suggestion and that suggestion is carried out mere hours later.

 

[TLK Valentine]

At least he says what he means rather than having someone else write out what they want him to say and then put a teleprompter in front of him so he can read someone else's script to the TV cameras. That's one of the big reasons people voted for him.

Well, if he meant everything he said, it's going to come back to haunt him when it's read into evidence.