Mueller investigation

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And America is really starting to get tired of it.

Which America are you referring to?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This isn't that party, they have become hyper partisan and will stop at nothing to obstruct impeachment, regardless how much Trump has earned it.

Irrelevant. We know that no matter what. They are irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is doggedly going after the truth, regardless of what anyone tries to do to stop us.

It's a given that a criminal is going to try to slander, denigrate, lie and obstruct. So what? That doesn't stop you from prosecuting to the best of your ability.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And America is really starting to get tired of it.

Which America are you referring to?

The part that will believe that they are when the GOP says they are tired of it.

What good is half an impeachment?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And America is really starting to get tired of it.

Which America are you referring to?

The part that will believe that they are when the GOP says they are tired of it.

What good is half an impeachment?

It's one half more than no impeachment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This isn't that party, they have become hyper partisan and will stop at nothing to obstruct impeachment, regardless how much Trump has earned it.

Irrelevant. We know that no matter what. They are irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is doggedly going after the truth, regardless of what anyone tries to do to stop us.

It's a given that a criminal is going to try to slander, denigrate, lie and obstruct. So what? That doesn't stop you from prosecuting to the best of your ability.

We already have the truth. Trump obstructed justice. The GOP doesn't give a fuck.

McConnell is suffering from OJ Simpson disease. He got away with unprecedented obstruction with Obama and then out rightly stole a SCOTUS seat... and there was no consequence for it. He isn't going to reverse course. He feels, and unless the Dems regains the Senate he is, invincible.

 

[Angry Floof]

And America is really starting to get tired of it.

Which America are you referring to?

The part that will believe that they are when the GOP says they are tired of it.

What good is half an impeachment?

Exactly what I said before. The house will spend months methodically, publicly laying out the evidence and testimony not filtered through talking heads and crazypants lawyers and AGs.

It's also a message from congress that it does have teeth after all and will bite. As of right now, the message is that corruption can run on unchecked.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think one of the biggest problems with impeachment is that millions of Americans have simply not been exposed to much in the way of facts. As I posted earlier, now that Fox is saying maybe he's not so innocent, their viewers are surprised. Two years of Trump publicly committing crimes, two years of coverage of the investigation, and they are surprised that Fox is now saying maybe it turns out the Mueller report looks bad for Trump after all. Impeachment will mean months of laying out the evidence and testimony publicly, where all Americans can see and hear it.

Exactly. Getting the facts on television could change a lot of minds. No hearings, no coverage.

 

[PyramidHead]

The part that will believe that they are when the GOP says they are tired of it.

What good is half an impeachment?

Exactly what I said before. The house will spend months methodically, publicly laying out the evidence and testimony not filtered through talking heads and crazypants lawyers and AGs.

It's also a message from congress that it does have teeth after all and will bite. As of right now, the message is that corruption can run on unchecked.

Yes, and the other part is that impeachment proceedings will make Trump lose his shit both figuratively and literally every day for the rest of his term, distracting him from getting anything else done and hopefully shortening his life

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This isn't that party, they have become hyper partisan and will stop at nothing to obstruct impeachment, regardless how much Trump has earned it.

Irrelevant. We know that no matter what. They are irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is doggedly going after the truth, regardless of what anyone tries to do to stop us.

It's a given that a criminal is going to try to slander, denigrate, lie and obstruct. So what? That doesn't stop you from prosecuting to the best of your ability.

We already have the truth. Trump obstructed justice. The GOP doesn't give a fuck.

Irrelevant. You keep thinking in binary terms; like if there isn't a lightning bolt from heaven smiting them all, then we have somehow lost and they won. The point is and always will be to reveal their crimes again and again and again and again and again.

There are no other options, other than not revealing their crimes, which absolutely means they win. It's not a matter of what happens to them today; it's how history judges them tomorrow and if the only version of events is theirs, then that's what history will record.

And, of course, it's about swaying voters that are on the fence, not moving entire mountains.

Plus, there are things that come out in any investigations, like the fact that Nixon had a secret tape recording of all of his conversations in the Oval office. The more you get criminals to tell their stories, the more the discrepancies come out and the better chance you have of catching them.

It's a process and it takes time regardless of who is out to try to stop that process.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We already have the truth. Trump obstructed justice. The GOP doesn't give a fuck.

Irrelevant. You keep thinking in binary terms; like if there isn't a lightning bolt from heaven smiting them all, then we have somehow lost and they won. The point is and always will be to reveal their crimes again and again and again and again and again.

The problem is, unlike Watergate, we don't have an exposed underlying crime that was explicitly covered up. That is the major difference here. We know Trump is guilty of obstruction, but the argument will be there was no crime to obstruct.

There are no other options, other than not revealing their crimes, which absolutely means they win. It's not a matter of what happens to them today; it's how history judges them tomorrow and if the only version of events is theirs, then that's what history will record.

What matters is that if we lose in 2020, we can say goodbye to SCOTUS.

And, of course, it's about swaying voters that are on the fence, not moving entire mountains.

And Pelosi gets this and she has done the calculus on it. Pelosi thinks that investigating is the path to continue on. Which it likely is. Impeachment, without an underlying crime (other than obstruction) is heavily problematic.

Plus, there are things that come out in any investigations, like the fact that Nixon had a secret tape recording of all of his conversations in the Oval office. The more you get criminals to tell their stories, the more the discrepancies come out and the better chance you have of catching them.

It's a process and it takes time regardless of who is out to try to stop that process.

We have avenues already that are Constitutionally binding and don't require Impeachment.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The problem is, unlike Watergate, we don't have an exposed underlying crime that was explicitly covered up.

Again, that's not a problem. Obstruction is a crime in and of itself.

There are no other options, other than not revealing their crimes, which absolutely means they win. It's not a matter of what happens to them today; it's how history judges them tomorrow and if the only version of events is theirs, then that's what history will record.

What matters is that if we lose in 2020, we can say goodbye to SCOTUS.

Then we need to do everything possible to swing as many right-leaning Independents and Republicans. They are not all a hive mind. Trump's core is, but that's never the focus. Ever. Lunatic fringes don't matter, only the swing matters as was abundantly proved in 2016.

Trump isn't in office because of his core nazi youth; he's in office because a teeny tiny sliver of fence sitters at the and of the election and in certain counties went with him.

40,000 voters, to be precise. That is statistically non-existent, but because of the circumstances, it nevertheless did the trick.

Those were NOT core Trump voters in Red states; those were swing voters in Blue states, who have since swung definitively back in at least two of those states.

Revealing more of Trump's crimes and the details behind them through impeachment proceedings will only swing more against him, not more toward him.

And, of course, it's about swaying voters that are on the fence, not moving entire mountains.

And Pelosi gets this and she has done the calculus on it. Pelosi thinks that investigating is the path to continue on. Which it likely is. Impeachment, without an underlying crime (other than obstruction) is heavily problematic.

It's ALL the same path. Again, it's not binary.

Plus, there are things that come out in any investigations, like the fact that Nixon had a secret tape recording of all of his conversations in the Oval office. The more you get criminals to tell their stories, the more the discrepancies come out and the better chance you have of catching them.

It's a process and it takes time regardless of who is out to try to stop that process.

We have avenues already that are Constitutionally binding and don't require Impeachment.

Well, if you're arguing to stall impeachment in favor of those other options, it's patato/patato because any investigations are necessary as a prelim to impeach, so we're arguing at cross purposes.

Impeachment is inevitable. Mueller's report evidences that conclusively.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Again, that's not a problem. Obstruction is a crime in and of itself.

In general, you need to show an intent to obstruct an investigation. If there is no exposed crime, what is there to obstruct? The argument is literally that simple for the GOP to make. They vote not to convict, we have wasted time and political capital.

Then we need to do everything possible to swing as many right-leaning Independents and Republicans. They are not all a hive mind. Trump's core is, but that's never the focus. Ever. Lunative fringes don't matter, only the swing matters as was abundantly proved in 2016.

Turnout matters just as much if not more. Which is why we should be investigating Trump, not impeaching him (yet).

Trump isn't in office because of his core nazi youth; he's in office because a teeny tiny sliver of fence sitters at the and of the election and in certain counties went with him.

40,000 voters, to be precise. That is statistically non-existent, but because of the circumstances, it nevertheless did the trick.

80,000 voters across three states. Your position however is ignoring that Trump had Trump University and Pussygate... and he still won. This man talked about himself as a third person on the radio, talked about enjoying watching half nude teens at a beauty competition he was hosting, a couple highly controversial divorces, bankruptcies, etc...

None of it mattered enough in the electoral college. So the only real way to get him out, would seemingly be to maximize turnout, not trying to sway idiots that still support his tariffs despite it personally harming their bottom line.

Revealing more of Trump's crimes and the details behind them through impeachment proceedings will only swing more against him, not more toward him.

We don't need Impeachment for that. Congress has investigatory powers outside of impeachment.

Impeachment is inevitable. Mueller's report evidences that conclusively.

If the GOP wasn't the hyper-partisan party it is now, Trump would be getting indicted, being freshly booted from the White House.

 

[PyramidHead]

In general, you need to show an intent to obstruct an investigation. If there is no exposed crime, what is there to obstruct? The argument is literally that simple for the GOP to make. They vote not to convict, we have wasted time and political capital.

Turnout matters just as much if not more. Which is why we should be investigating Trump, not impeaching him (yet).

Impeachment proceedings are how you build your case for impeachment and get public opinion on your side. It's how you show the electorate that corruption has consequences, and that instead of asking why the President should be impeached by talking about the technicalities of crime (which is not a prerequisite for impeachment!) we should be asking why he should remain in office.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Congress has investigatory powers outside of impeachment.

Again, potato/potato.

 

[Gun Nut]

In general, you need to show an intent to obstruct an investigation. If there is no exposed crime, what is there to obstruct?

THE INVESTIGATION, of course.

If you are pulled over while driving a car... and before the cop gets to your window, you bail and run... and then physically fight the cop chasing you... and then get arrested for resisting arrest, obstruction of justice, and assaulting a police officer.. .will your defense be, "I wasn't speeding. case closed"?

It matters exactly not at all the results of an investigation. obstructing an investigation is obstruction... obviously.

Logically, how can you defend that? It's like saying that if you successfully obstruct an investigation so that it fails to draw an accurate conclusion, then it is not obstruction... so only unsuccessful obstuction attempts are illegal? this is all complete nonsense... and evidence to me that they all but admit to obstruction.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In general, you need to show an intent to obstruct an investigation. If there is no exposed crime, what is there to obstruct?

THE INVESTIGATION, of course.

If you are pulled over while driving a car... and before the cop gets to your window, you bail and run... and then physically fight the cop chasing you... and then get arrested for resisting arrest, obstruction of justice, and assaulting a police officer.. .will your defense be, "I wasn't speeding. case closed"?

It matters exactly not at all the results of an investigation. obstructing an investigation is obstruction... obviously.

Logically, how can you defend that? It's like saying that if you successfully obstruct an investigation so that it fails to draw an accurate conclusion, then it is not obstruction... so only unsuccessful obstuction attempts are illegal? this is all complete nonsense... and evidence to me that they all but admit to obstruction.

Okay, but the strategy was to obstruct any investigation into collusion. Now the strategy is to obstruct any investigation into obstruction. Next, the strategy will be to obstruct any investigation into obstruction of obstruction investigations. After a while it will be like that movie Inception.

 

[Gun Nut]

In general, you need to show an intent to obstruct an investigation. If there is no exposed crime, what is there to obstruct?

THE INVESTIGATION, of course.

If you are pulled over while driving a car... and before the cop gets to your window, you bail and run... and then physically fight the cop chasing you... and then get arrested for resisting arrest, obstruction of justice, and assaulting a police officer.. .will your defense be, "I wasn't speeding. case closed"?

It matters exactly not at all the results of an investigation. obstructing an investigation is obstruction... obviously.

Logically, how can you defend that? It's like saying that if you successfully obstruct an investigation so that it fails to draw an accurate conclusion, then it is not obstruction... so only unsuccessful obstuction attempts are illegal? this is all complete nonsense... and evidence to me that they all but admit to obstruction.

Okay, but the strategy was to obstruct any investigation into collusion. Now the strategy is to obstruct any investigation into obstruction. Next, the strategy will be to obstruct any investigation into obstruction of obstruction investigations. After a while it will be like that movie Inception.

A thief who steals corporate secrets through the use of dream-sharing technology is given the inverse task of planting an idea into the mind of a C.E.O.

Yes, exactly like that.

 

[Shadowy Man]

In general, you need to show an intent to obstruct an investigation. If there is no exposed crime, what is there to obstruct? The argument is literally that simple for the GOP to make. They vote not to convict, we have wasted time and political capital.

They may make that argument, but legal precedent has shown that one may obstruct an investigation without an underlying crime. It has happened and been prosecuted.

 

[Gun Nut]

I am unable to understand why people are having such a hard time with two totally different words.

Crime - a wrong doing
Investigation - a look into happenings

While there is nuance and room for flexibility into the meaning of these words, they are not in any imaginable way synonymous.. they are totally different words with totally different meanings.

So, when people say;

In general, you need to show an intent to obstruct an investigation. If there is no exposed crime, what is there to obstruct?

Answer: THE INVESTIGATION, of.fucking.course.

If I am driving along at 1000 MPH wearing my seatbelt, then how can I be speeding if there is no seatbelt violation?????

If I then get pulled over by a cop, and then shoot the cop in the face, how can I have murdered a cop if there was no seatbelt violation!!?!?!

The stupid with that runs deep.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Watch Mark Hamill, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Mark Ruffalo Read Portions of the Mueller Report