OK so Muller turned in his report with no new indictments so this means Trump has been vindicated. I said all along this would happen, so many scoffed. I said way back before the election Trump would win, everyone scoffed. My next prediction is that the Democrat party is going to implode and nearly all the current top ranking Democrats today will all be sitting in jail cells by the end of Trumps second term.
Collusion
Posts
Total:
129
-->
@sadolite
Van Jones was right 2 years ago when he was caught on tape admitting it was a big nothingburger.
It doesn't mean he's been vindicated until the report actually says he's been vindicated.
-->
@dustryder
Barr says he is vindicated. With nothing to go on, Southern District of New York is going to spin wheels and only make Trump look good.
newweek "it would stand to reason the cost of the probe might come to between $31 million and $35 million."
politifact "If you add this to the previous total, it reaches $25.7 million. Factoring in the two additional months that have passed —-- October and November 2018 —-- could plausibly get the costs up to $27 million or so."
with that kind of money and resources spent, if you can't find collusion it's because it doesn't exist.
(more money than what would have been needed for the wall)
was that amount worth the few indictments given? not imo.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Is anyone seriously convinced that our country is made more whole by indicting a tax cheat and a perjurer?
What a total waste. These are not the witches they were looking for Obi-Wan.
-->
@Greyparrot
that amount would have gone a long way in prosecuting or investigating violent criminals. Obviously it had nothing to do with justice or law.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Does this cost factor into what was seized from Manafort?
-->
@Greyparrot
It looks like Trump has been vindicated in terms of Russian collusion. However it seems that he has not been vindicated in terms of obstruction of justice, even if Barr has chosen not to prosecute. The report really needs to come out at this pointBarr says he is vindicated. With nothing to go on, Southern District of New York is going to spin wheels and only make Trump look good.
-->
@dustryder
Obstruction of justice requires a crime. There was no crime. Mueller even admitted in his conclusions that he could not find grounds for obstruction of justice because he would have to specifically state what exactly was obstructed. The Firing of Comey didn't pass legal muster as sufficient grounds. And firing Comey certainly was not a crime.The only people of note charged with crimes were Flynn and Cohen, and Trump sure as hell did not interfere in that justice. Those people are going to jail, and there will be no pardons, (even though pardoning is not obstruction of justice anyway.)
Wishing that there is something in the report that somehow contradicts Mueller's final findings is the greatest of wishes. Mueller had every motive for finding the president guilty along with many of his team who were Obama and Clinton supporters and holdovers. Mueller could not have possibly screwed up, unless you believe in tinfoil hat conspiracies where Mueller colluded with Trump.
-->
@Greyparrot
It is evident by reading the legal definition of obstruction of justice that such a charge does not require a crime. Many legal scholars take this view and argue that only intent matters and whether the intent was corrupt. The only issue with this is that intent can be hard to discern. It's clear in Barr's report that Mueller gave all the facts and left determination of whether obstruction of justice occurred to Barr. And Barr has decided against obstruction.
However, it does leave in the air the question as to why Mueller could not conclusively rule out or in obstruction of justice charges and why Barr could make that determination when so many legal scholars have disagreed with his interpretation of obstruction of justice. The only way that these questions will be satisfied is by the release of the report.
-->
@dustryder
I know people are saying Trump doesn't have to have committed a crime to obstruct justice... but SOMEBODY had to have committed a crime. You don't send people to jail in America without charging them with a crime. You don't investigate someone without having probable cause of a crime. That's specifically in the bill of rights.
You should know this if you had basic education.
Do you think Trump colluded with Mueller? Cause many of the CNN spinmasters are taking that route for lack of results.
-->
@Greyparrot
Someone need not necessarily have committed a crime. That's the point of an investigation right? To discover if someone has actually committed a crime or not. Hence, someone need not necessarily have committed a crime for Trump to have been able to obstruct justice. But of course as I said, we can only make that determination with the release of the report.
-->
@dustryder
No but a crime has to be involved. You can't investigate somebody for zero reasons. You have to state a crime that they are investigating.
This is the reason why no indictments from Mueller on the people closest to Trump, especially Donald Jr. are causing CNN to lose their minds, and actually say batshit crazy crap like Mueller was in cahoots with Trump.
-->
@Greyparrot
Sure, if you mean suspected crime. And the resulting investigation of that suspected crime can be obstructed against.
-->
@dustryder
Do you think Trump colluded with Mueller to stop him from indicting his son?
-->
@Greyparrot
Yikes. That seems like a conspiracy theory
-->
@dustryder
I mean..if Jussee Smollet could get off scott free with the help of a former president, couldn't a son get off scott-free with a sitting president?
-->
@Greyparrot
Absolutely. It's possible. On the other-hand, it's also possible the US government manufactured 9/11. There's just no reason to believe that either event actually occurred
-->
@dustryder
Yeah I agree, the people on the left screaming collusion with Mueller are insane. Mueller might be the least swampy person in D.C. atm.
-->
@Greyparrot
That was the whole point of Jussie getting off scott free. Someone made a phone call after a Trump win, to 1. Get him out of the headlines, 2. prove that people with influence are above the law, or don't have any accountability. This whole thing was manufactured, Jussie knew what the outcome was going to be, that is why he maintained his innocence, even though the investigator laid out all of the evidence he had against him on national news, which right away I thought was going to screw up the whole investigation and get it thrown out anyway. That was the plan.
He basically judged him before Jussie had a chance to defend himself, no investigator comes out with all of the evidence they have before the time in court like he did. He acted outraged, just like the mayor is acting outraged, but I think they are all in it. Very smart way to make a Trump win seem like it doesn't matter because people with influence and power can make things go away.
But there is more to that case as well, and there are double standards. Do you think if Smollet were an average Joe they would have spent that much time and effort in the investigation? Hell no. But then again, when it is a high profile case it has more pull than the normal.... the only thing that is the same is that if an average Joe did this, he would have probably been let go with a slap on the wrist or dropped charges as well, but no one would have known about it because no one would really care.
The whole thing stinks of conspiracy of the left.
-->
@dustryder
The law doesn't vindicate people , it only decides if there is sufficient evidence to indict. You are either charged with a crime and given a trial or you are not. That is all the law does. He does not have to be vindicated of anything, He has not been charged with a crime. Anyone's personal feelings that a person who has not been charged with a crime has to be vindicated is delusional. A trial vindicates accusation off guilt. No trial and no charges require no vindication.
-->
@dustryder
No, actually the law is supposed to demonstrate a crime has been committed to start an investigation. You don't just investigate to look for crime. That would make every person on earth a suspect of a crime. That's what banana republics, socialist and communist countries do. Accuse people of crimes and then look for anything they can find to make it stick no matter how ridiculous. The most common practice is to interrogate people for hours on end and get them to contradict them selves. Which of course 99.9% of all people will do when being threatened with jail. That's how Muller got all of his indictments all be it not one had anything to do with the purpose of the investigation.
-->
@sadolite
The law doesn't vindicate people , it only decides if there is sufficient evidence to indict. You are either charged with a crime and given a trial or you are not. That is all the law does. He does not have to be vindicated of anything, He has not been charged with a crime. Anyone's personal feelings that a person who has not been charged with a crime has to be vindicated is delusional. A trial vindicates accusation off guilt. No trial and no charges require no vindication.
so this means Trump has been vindicated
??????
No, actually the law is supposed to demonstrate a crime has been committed to start an investigation. You don't just investigate to look for crime. That would make every person on earth a suspect of a crime. That's what banana republics, socialist and communist countries do. Accuse people of crimes and then look for anything they can find to make it stick no matter how ridiculous.
Or reasonable suspicion of crime in this case.
That's how Muller got all of his indictments all be it not one had anything to do with the purpose of the investigation.
If this is something you want to assert, I would certainly say to provide your evidence. However personally I think this encroaches on small-scale conspiracy theory territory
-->
@dustryder
No, Trump has no reason to be vindicated of anything. What part of "if you are not charged with a crime do you not get" ? What is there to be vindicated from if you are not charged with a crime? The fact that people still think you are guilty means nothing is not sufficient to start another investigation. What was the point of this last unlawful BS banana republic witch hunt? Michael Flynn and Roger Stone are two perfect examples of this countries Banana Republic judicial system. Michael Flynn was interrogated fort hours on end and eventually ended up contradicting himself under the pressure and threats of imprisonment. He plead guilty to a crime he did not commit. Roger Stone was also interrogated for days but refused to accept some BS plea deal again for a crime he did not commit.
-->
@sadolite
This is your quote from your opening post.so this means Trump has been vindicated
Michael Flynn and Roger Stone are two perfect examples of this countries Banana Republic judicial system. Michael Flynn was interrogated fort hours on end and eventually ended up contradicting himself under the pressure and threats of imprisonment. He plead guilty to a crime he did not commit. Roger Stone was also interrogated for days but refused to accept some BS plea deal again for a crime he did not commit.
If this is something you want to assert, I would certainly say to provide your evidence. However personally I think this encroaches on small-scale conspiracy theory territory
-->
@dustryder
I think this encroaches on small-scale conspiracy theory territory
Small scale? This is 1000 times bigger than Watergate. The FBI the DOJ and the CIA conspired to overthrow a dully elected president.
-->
@sadolite
Yes that's a rather bigger conspiracy theory. However I was referring to your claim that Flynn and Stone were coerced/tricked by Mueller into their convictions. Which is rather smaller in scope.Small scale? This is 1000 times bigger than Watergate. The FBI the DOJ and the CIA conspired to overthrow a dully elected president.
-->
@dustryder
The Fisa warrant investigation needs to happen.
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not too familiar with this one. What exactly do you think was problematic/illegal?The Fisa warrant investigation needs to happen.