Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

[GoldenBoy89]

Wow.

Silly Trump thinking anything could ever possibly get his base to break away from him.

 

[Aldebaran]

Silly Trump thinking anything could ever possibly get his base to break away from him.

Well, when he tells me to do something, I do it! I need the paycheck.

 

[JosephZ]

Even if it didn't end in 2020, I'm sure it wouldn't last more than 4 years beyond that. That's kind of the nature of presidencies.

It looks like we will be waiting until 2020 to find out the answer as to whether or not this will end the president's career based on recent comments by top Democrats.

“Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point... Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgement.” -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer

"Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

This is a very wise move on their part.

 

[whatbogsends]

I'm going to be glad this Mueller investigation is done, the report was put out like the dems kept insisting, and that they are finally going to quit whining about Barr's interpretation of the report because they--and everyone else in the world--can finally see it for themselves.
Wait! They are going to quit whining, aren't they?

People were rightly questioning Barr's interpretation of the report, and from the looks of it, that questioning was well founded.

What they will do is show that while Trump was not part of a criminal conspiracy with Russia, Trump and his campaign officials did, indeed, lie with fervor about their relationship with Russia and had some ethically questionable activity.

Moreover, with regards to collusion, Trump's false claim of "total exoneration" has been shown for what it is.

Those who have supported Trump through this won't be swayed by the contents of this report. It's been obvious for a long time who Trump is, and this report doesn't actually change that, it just reinforces what we've all known. I still can't tell if people support Trump in spite of or because of who he is, but they have shown, time and again, that there is no bar so low that they will cease their support.

Those who have been against Trump through this won't be swayed by the contents of this report. While it doesn't charge Trump with criminal conspiracy, it does highlight plenty of questionable behavior with Russia (much of which we already knew about). Moreover, it shows plenty of questionable and clearly unethical behavior with regard to obstruction and the rule of law. It lends support to those who questioned Trump in those regards.

It may be enough for house Democrats to push for impeachment proceedings, but I don't think there's any chance the Senate pushes him out the door, regardless of what the house does. Trump will be the Republican candidate in 2020.

Whether the Dems have a chance against him in 2020 will be dependent on who they select to represent them. I don't think Bernie or Biden have much of a chance against Trump. They desperately need fresh blood.

I remain concerned about Trump's willing to cede the office gracefully if he does lose in 2020. His "2nd Amendment solutions" remarks in 2016 and his "police, military and bikers getting tough" remarks more recently are just some of those which hint at his being unwilling to accept election results that don't go his way. I would expect Trump's rhetoric in that regard to increase as we get closer to the actual election.

 

[The Faceless]

Even if it didn't end in 2020, I'm sure it wouldn't last more than 4 years beyond that. That's kind of the nature of presidencies.

 

[mark46]

NO COLLUSION, FULL STOP
=============
This is important. For more than 2 years, many have said that the Trump campaign couldn't cooperate with a conspiracy, even if they wanted to. They were incompetent, and woefully disorganized. Sure they communicate with the Russians, lots and lots of times. In itself, talking to the Russians or wanting to make hotel deals isn't illegal.

So, there were no Americans that were guilty of collusion, not Kushner, not Jr, not anyone.

Let's be clear with regard the president. Mueller said that he could NOT indict, even if there was enough evidence. That was DOJ policy. However, Mueller could exonerate Trump if there was not enough evidence. Mueller exonerated the president with regard to collusion.
===
AS AN ASIDE
There was lots and lots of lying. After all, according the WH, there weren't even any contacts with Russians. There was lots of unethical behavior. There was lots of benefiting from Russian actions.

I found it interesting that Trump openly asked the Russian to find the 30,000 emails. THAT NIGHT, the Russians started securing them. Also, Trump ordered Flynn to find the emails. Flynn formed a new company to do so. Trump pushed Flynn. In the end, this was all unnecessary. Russian did the work. But no illegal collusion happened.
=======

 

[Aldebaran]

Hey! Stop scaring me like that!

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It looks like we will be waiting until 2020 to find out the answer as to whether or not this will end the president's career or not based on recent comments by top Democrats.

“Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point... Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgement.” -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer

"Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

This is a very wise move on their part.

The worst thing Democrats can do is to feed into Trump's victimisation complex. Starting impeachment proceedings without any guarantee that Senate Republicans would vote to convict if the evidence points to it would only serve to make Dems look worse in the eyes of the public. This is why Nancy Pelosi won't entertain the idea of an impeachment. She's too shrewd to fall into that trap. Leave it to the American People to decide if Trump is fit to be re-elected that way when he loses, he has no one but himself to blame for it.

 

[Ringo84]

NO COLLUSION, FULL STOP
=============
This is important. For more than 2 years, many have said that the Trump campaign couldn't cooperate with a conspiracy, even if they wanted to. They were incompetent, and woefully disorganized. Sure they communicate with the Russians, lots and lots of times. In itself, talking to the Russians or wanting to make hotel deals isn't illegal.

So, there were no Americans that were guilty of collusion, not Kushner, not Jr, not anyone.

Let's be clear with regard the president. Mueller said that he could NOT indict, even if there was enough evidence. That was DOJ policy. However, Mueller could exonerate Trump if there was not enough evidence. Mueller exonerated the president with regard to collusion.
=======

That's not exactly true. The report said that they would have exonerated Donny of charges if they were able to do so. They declined. From what I've been reading, that is lawyerese for "we think something suspicious happened here, but we can't necessarily prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt or get a conviction. That's not the same as "exoneration".

Plus, there are plenty of shady activities that Congress could probably still investigate:
John Harwood on Twitter
Jennifer Jacobs on Twitter
Hunter Walker on Twitter

The report makes it crystal clear that Donny was Putin's choice, and when he won, (quoting the report) "Putin won".
Ringo

 

[mark46]

NO OBSTRUCTION - WRONG

Mueller specifically said that if he could exonerate Trump, he would have, as he did with regard to collusion. Mueller said that it was unfair to indict the president, even if there was enough evidence to do so. Since he couldn't indict (because of DOJ policy), it would be unfair to the president to suggest that he was guilty, since the president would have eno way to defend himself.

Also, Mueller said that a determination that there was an indictable offense would get in the way of Congress. THEREFORE, Mueller chose to set out all the points on both sides, including lots and lots of ways in which Trump obstructed justice. For example, he ordered McGann to fire Mueller.

BY THE WAY, being guilty of obstruction does NOT require that the attempt succeed. That just isn't the law. An analogy wouldn't be saying that someone was innocent of attempted murder because the hit man missed or the individual himself missed the target.

CONCLUSION
Mueller said that this is now a political issue. But there was no question. Trump obstructed justice. Mueller did not find that Trump should be indicted. Barr concurred. Of course, Trump can be indicted after he leaves office.

 

[mark46]

You are correct. My point was that there was not enough evidence to convict Trump of collusion. If there were enough information, then Mueller would have been unable to make a determination as was the case with regard to obstruction.

That's not exactly true. The report said that they would have exonerated Donny of charges if they were able to do so. They declined. From what I've been reading, that is lawyerese for "we think something suspicious happened here, but we can't necessarily prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt or get a conviction. That's not the same as "exoneration".

Plus, there are plenty of shady activities that Congress could probably still investigate:
John Harwood on Twitter
Jennifer Jacobs on Twitter
Hunter Walker on Twitter

The report makes it crystal clear that Donny was Putin's choice, and when he won, (quoting the report) "Putin won".
Ringo

 

[mark46]

The biggest revelations in the Mueller report

 

[bhsmte]

Are you happy to have a President that is corrupt, but not quite corrupt enough to go to jail...?

Not happy about it, but trump is not the first president to fit this category, nor will he be the last. That bothers me more.

 

[Allandavid]

Not happy about it, but trump is not the first president to fit this category, nor will he be the last. That bothers me more.

And, if we’re talking about people like Nixon, you guys have taken action...

 

[mark46]

Barr's implication is incorrect. Trump did indeed "endeavor to obstruct justice". That is the crime. However, Mueller chose NOT to make a determination because under DOJ rules he could not indict. Giving a conclusion that there was probable cause to believe that Trump obstructed justice would leave Trump in the position of not being able to defend himself on this charge. So, when there was not enough evidence (collusion), Mueller said so. When there was enough (obstruction), Mueller made no determination, except to say that if he could exonerate Trump because there wasn't enough evidence, he would have done so. All he could do was to lay out the facts, so that Congress or a future court could act (after Trump is out of office).

As folks have suggested, Trump needs to win re-election. Otherwise, he may face prosecution for many things including obstruction and paying off the ladies.

And because it turns out the Russians aren't so foolish as to depend on Donald Trump to do their dirty work.

 

[AllButNone]

Mueller very clearly believes there is some evidence of obstruction but not enough.

Not interested in debating this one, but can I trouble you to reference a point in the document that indicates such or can you expound on your thinking a bit? I haven't read all of Volume 2 yet, but the Volume 2 Executive Summary conclusion on page 8 seems pretty explicit about Mueller's intent to avoid the type of determination that you've stated:

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.​

 

[mark46]

WHY TRUMP WANTED TO CLOSE DOWN MUELLER

We have wonder this for two years, haven't we? Democrats assumed that Trump was hiding collusion with the Russians, and therefore lied and would do almost anything to close down Mueller.

It turns out that there was no collusion. Trump was afraid that Mueller and the FBI would find out about the shady activities of Trump, of his family, of his company, and those in his campaign.

Trump was right. Many have pled guilty or are facing trial. There are still 12 continuing cases that came out of Mueller's investigations, and many others that have started in VA and NY even without Mueller. For example, Trump's sister retired from the bench when they started to investigate her financial dealings.

These investigations will continue for many years.

 

[Pommer]

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

Well what does that mean to you?

My reading is that if this evidence was about anyone other than the Chief Executive, there’d be indictments pending.

Only because, as POTUS, the holder of the office cannot be treated by the Standard Operating Procedures used against anyone other than POTUS.

We already have a Constitutional remedy: impeachment, trial and conviction to remove the holder of the office, from the office.

Only then can any possible “charges” be filed.

 

[Allandavid]

Nope. Not seeing that there either.

‘None so blind....’

 

[AllButNone]

My reading is that if this evidence was about anyone other than the Chief Executive, there’d be indictments pending.

That's what it means to me too. Which is why I asked NotreDame why he thinks Mueller believes there isn't enough evidence. The way I'm reading it, Mueller clearly does think there's enough evidence.