The damning Mueller Report is out - but Trump thinks he’s exonerated (Trump thread 93)

[TheClaws]

... not only that, he’s threatening treason charges on those who investigated him.

Previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3540624-Mueller-time-for-Trump-and-his-friends-will-they-all-meet-in-a-courtyard-surrounded-by-a-big-beautiful-wall-Trump-thread-92

It has been posted all over social media though.

Smoking gun and McGahn.

www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/04/19/the-mueller-reports-smoking-gun-on-obstruction-of-justice/

Having worked in government, this has been a witch-hunt from the start and mostly driven by the fact that certain people never wanted Trump in there because of what he was threatening to do that would disrupt the status quo. Unfortunately, he has done nothing of the sort and I think quickly realised that the president is just a figurehead and is at the mercy of those who do pull the strings. As the MSM news media they lie and lie and lie and are owned by people who themselves have an agenda to push lies if it fits the agenda. This is 2019, please do your own research and take the news media with a huge pinch of salt.

Maybe you could recommend some alternative news sources JQ or places to start with all that independent 'research.'

But Germany is not even at a downfall...

Meanwhile, George Conway about deranged people.

He did get the #DerangedDonald to trend.

Well, when WJ Clinton was investigated and found guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice AND contempt of court for providing false testimony, the Democrats said its only minor crimes and the President shouldn't be removed for those.
So why now are Dems changing their tune as there is no definitive guilt and if there was its "only" obstruction of justice regarding an investigation that was bases on false information provided by Dems?
By the By my quibble is just with why Dems keep changing the rules for their agenda and when the same is done regarding them they shout "foul"

Thanks for that Maddow clip above which talks about HRC's OpEd piece, cozie.

That's interesting that HRC suggests Congress should hold substantive hearings to build on the Mueller report and fill in the gaps, rather than move straight to calls for impeachment. As she says, to follow the precedent of Watergate, rather than precedent of her husband's impeachment.

HRC: "Watergate offers a better precedent. Then, as now, there was an investigation that found evidence of corruption and a coverup. It was complemented by public hearings conducted by a Senate select committee, which insisted that executive privilege could not be used to shield criminal conduct and compelled White House aides to testify."

And yes, McGahn's testimony may be interesting!

Perhaps you're right, Cozie and it's a sort of protest... but he is popular, I worry that he'll get the nomination. Why not throw your support behind someone younger and different - that would've been powerful. Because of course Obama, who is probably one of the most influential democrats, will certainly support Joe Biden as they clearly have a lot of respect and history with each other. I just find it very troubling and another example of how the Dems seem a bit disorganised and less likely to capitalise on people's unhappiness with the current state of play.

And I dislike being told to educate myself on a long-standing series of thread which are quite clearly for a certain point of view. By all means, give me something credible to read, find me alternative viewpoints, help me understand your opinion but it's always slightly frustrating to regularly be told "you're wrong, you're stupid, God - don't believe the MSM, fake news!" and then nothing further. Yes, people here hate Scrotus and want to see him relinquish his presidency and there have probably been some sharing of very partisan stuff.. but I'm certainly interested to know what drives the other side.

That said, we quickly pounce on opposite viewpoints so perhaps people don't post for fear of getting shot down? I do wonder why no threads from this differing view are ever started (or are there some and they just don't get much traction?)

I'm not sure we've had anyone who is pro-Trump and has come willing to debate. We've had some insults, some rants but nothing designed to initiate an informed discussion.

Why should Trump be held to a standard different than Bill Clinton, especially when the genesis of the whole investigation that Trump might have obstructed was bullshit to start with whereas Clinton was found guilty of obstruction in a court of law? Shouldn't standards be the same?

If Trump were held to the same standard we wouldn't still be waiting on a decision on the impeachment process.

I agree.
Clinton was found guilty in the report, Trump wasn't. Clinton committed crimes before the investigation, if Trump committed crimes it was because of an investigation based on knowingly false information and a clear witch hunt.
So no impeachment should even be considered, job done lets move on.

Did I miss something THEsonofaBITCH? Bill Clinton was impeached...
Anyhoos - Trump hasn't actually been exonerated in the Mueller report - RM says quite categorically he cannot fully exonerate DT. So further explanations should be sought.
But Russia-Schmussia - there's a lot more wrong with Trump and his administration than conspiracy and obstruction. Quite frankly those almost pale into insignificance when compared to his assaults on human rights, women's rights, immigrants' and refugees' rights, voters' rights, healthcare, judicial matters etc and oh yes - that little thing called planet earth!

Trump indeed tried to obstruct justice. It's just he was too inept and stupid to manage it and by his staff not carrying out his orders, they saved him from himself to some degree.

Having said that, there's this little gem... Trump on the WH lawn "nobody disobeys my orders"
If that's not the height of stupidity I'm not sure what is...

www.indy100.com/article/trump-staff-disobey-white-house-fbi-james-comey-kristjen-nielsen-cabinet-8881921

We are in agreement. Clinton committed the crimes that were the subject of the investigation and before the report came out Dems said 'if he committed the crimes then he should be impeached, found guilty and removed'. After the report those Dems voted not to find him guilty though the evidence was clear and unequivocal saying they weren't serious enough crimes to remove a sitting President as they were merely obstruction and perjury about sex and done to spare his family.
Trump told people to hinder an investigation about things he knew were false and made up by opposition to his Presidency and even that wasn't to the standard of a clear and unequivocal crime as per the report - regarding an investigation that NEVER should have gotten started so there wouldn't have been a need to do anything.
I disagree with the take on politics of what Trump is doing but those differences will be settled in the next election.
This whole thing is a farce and driven solely because people don't like the guy and sour grapes he was elected just like the sour grapes over Brexit.

Clinton was impeached but not found guilty because Dems refused to observe the law - so much so that a separate court of law was forced to rule on the same charges and Clinton was found guilty. Clinton was then forced to resign from the Supreme Court Bar in disgrace as well as make additional penance!
Trump wasn't proven guilty and likely couldn't be found guilty according to those who have seen literally all of the evidence that the rest of us can only make guesses at.

More in that Maddow report about another likely witness in front of the House Intelligence Committee, one Giorgi Rtskhiladze.

Rtshkiladze is complaining that the Mueller Report published only an excerpt of his evidence and feels the lack of context reflects badly on him. So he had his lawyer write a letter showing more of his texts with Michael Cohen in Oct 2016, days before the election.

I’m not sure Rtskhiladze’s evidence is having quite the effect he intended...

Georgian Businessman Offers More Texts With Cohen to Rebut Mueller Footnote
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-24/rtskhiladze-cohen-trump-russia-tapes

The footnote disclosed part of a text from Rtskhiladze to Cohen on Oct. 30, 2016, and, after Mueller’s report was released, prompted more questions than answers.
[…]
Rtskhiladze said the full exchange of his texts with Cohen shows he was only communicating a rumor a friend had overheard at a Moscow party. He said his friend, whom he declined to identify, called to alert him about the rumor because of Rtskhiladze’s business dealings with Trump. Rtskhiladze said he passed along the identity of his friend to Mueller.

According to the Mueller Report, footnote 112, pp27-28, “Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen.”

So Trump was told just before the election that Russian actors had something he might consider leverage over him.

Here's the text exchange of 30 Oct 2016.

Rtskhiladze “Stopped flow of some tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so u know…”

Cohen: “Tapes of what?”

Rtskhiladze: “Not sure of the content but person in Moscow was bragging had tapes from Russia trip.”

Rtskhiladze: “Will try to dial you tomorrow but wanted to be aware.”

Rtskhiladze: “I’m sure it’s not a big deal but there are lots of stupid people.”

Trump told people to hinder an investigation about things he knew were false and made up by opposition to his Presidency

See, now you're spoiling your argument.

The Mueller Report stated in detail, with evidence, how Russia attempted to interfere with the 2016 US election, and how it attempted to involve the Trump campaign.

It wouldn't be possible for Trump, or anyone else, to know definitely that some other person in the campaign was not conspiring with Russia. The only way to know this is to have an investigation.

So no, Trump didn't know Russian interference in his election didn't involve anyone in his campaign conspiring with the Russian state.

(And because it's hard to prove a negative, and because so many people involved in Trump's campaign were prepared to go to jail for lying rather than reveal the truth to the investigation, we still don't know everything that happened.)

Ahh, I see, so now this thread is no longer about Trump but about the entire campaign - my mistake, Dems go back to your hypocrisy.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stymied-by-aides-trump-sought-out-loyalist-to-curtail-special-counsel--and-drew-muellers-glare/2019/04/25/d58c79de-66ad-11e9-8985-4cf30147bdca_story.html?utm_term=.3920e25fbe52

Barr's interpretation of the report versus the report itself,

www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/mueller-report-william-barr-excerpts.html

Eh?

In your own words, "Trump told people to hinder an investigation". An investigation about the security of the whole country and its democratic process.

That's on Trump.

If he'd said, "OMG, our democracy has been attacked. Come investigate and find out who did it; even if it was people around me, I want them caught and there to be a full account of what went on here," then he wouldn't be in shit for attempting to hinder the investigation.

@thesonofabitch, thank you for providing insights into the thought processes of those who are loyal to trump