RussiaGate

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The report came out too soon. The Democrats should have had Mueller continue the investigation until the Roger Stone case was over. He could have pleaded guilty eventually or given someone else up. In fact, he still can. As that pre-trial/trial is still on-going, Mueller should not even have been interviewed yet. So they also interviewed him too soon. I hope that after Roger stone is convicted of some things, the Democrats will get the report to be redacted and interview Mueller again and make a lot of noise, even though by then the whole thing will be yesterday's news cycle.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The investigation with the report that, between the lines, said to impeach Trump.

So, would taking a report that says 'Impeach the motherfucker' and shouting "It exonerates me!" count as obstruction of justice?
Maybe not for this investigation, but for the next one?

Trump and the GOP have rewritten the rules, so I have no idea what counts as anything anymore.

McConnell could go on tv tomorrow and say Trump's tariffs are a tax cut that Americans have benefited from, and the right-wingers and Libertarian here would start parroting their love of tariffs (and how they are effectively a tax cut and America has benefited from them).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The report came out too soon. The Democrats should have had Mueller continue the investigation until the Roger Stone case was over. He could have pleaded guilty eventually or given someone else up. In fact, he still can. As that pre-trial/trial is still on-going, Mueller should not even have been interviewed yet. So they also interviewed him too soon. I hope that after Roger stone is convicted of some things, the Democrats will get the report to be redacted and interview Mueller again and make a lot of noise, even though by then the whole thing will be yesterday's news cycle.

It's over. Russia fucked with out election, the GOP doesn't give a fuck, right-wingers don't care, and they are putting their full support behind a man with no conservative principles because they either like trolling liberals so much or they are effectively brainwashed and will do whatever the AM radio or Internet tells them to.

It is up to Democrats in 2020 to right the tilting (near sinking) ship.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Polls are showing Democrats are unpopular. (This is because of the right-wing noise machine. It's far better than in the 90's when Clinton was President since now there are major conservative news networks and President Twitler McCrazyPants has national megaphones). So, expect the Democratic Party to get scared and nominate a centrist who does hippy punching who will lose anyway. In any case, Roger Stone and all the stuff he will be convicted of will be a footnote somewhere that a lone guy on the Internet posts about. Like Colonel Ollie North, he'll probably run for office unless Putin has him killed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is why I posted this thread. Trump and McConnell has normalized some pretty shitty and anti-democracy behavior. Russia fucked with our election and the GOP is generally hand-waving it aside.

 

[ZiprHead]

The report came out too soon. The Democrats should have had Mueller continue the investigation until the Roger Stone case was over. He could have pleaded guilty eventually or given someone else up. In fact, he still can. As that pre-trial/trial is still on-going, Mueller should not even have been interviewed yet. So they also interviewed him too soon. I hope that after Roger stone is convicted of some things, the Democrats will get the report to be redacted and interview Mueller again and make a lot of noise, even though by then the whole thing will be yesterday's news cycle.

This is a good point no one asked Mueller about: Why was his investigation closed when it was?

Did Barr order it closed by X date?

And the dems have no power to make the Mueller investigation continue. If they want to continue, it will have to be in the House.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The report came out too soon. The Democrats should have had Mueller continue the investigation until the Roger Stone case was over. He could have pleaded guilty eventually or given someone else up. In fact, he still can. As that pre-trial/trial is still on-going, Mueller should not even have been interviewed yet. So they also interviewed him too soon. I hope that after Roger stone is convicted of some things, the Democrats will get the report to be redacted and interview Mueller again and make a lot of noise, even though by then the whole thing will be yesterday's news cycle.

This is a good point no one asked Mueller about: Why was his investigation closed when it was?

Did Barr order it closed by X date?

And the dems have no power to make the Mueller investigation continue. If they want to continue, it will have to be in the House.

The Congress can vote things into law but it's a rather moot point now.

Somewhat related, news today of an endorsement for impeachment inquiry:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...democrat-yet-calls-impeachment-trump-n1034826

WASHINGTON — Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., became the highest-ranking House Democrat to call for opening an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

"I deeply respect the committee work of House Democrats to hold the president accountable, including hearings, subpoenas and lawsuits. All of our efforts to put the facts before the American people, however, have been met with unprecedented stonewalling and obstruction," the sixth-ranking House Democrat said in a statement Thursday evening, adding, "That is why I believe we need to open an impeachment inquiry that will provide us a more formal way to fully uncover the facts."

 

[Gun Nut]

The moron Dems in the House can go full impeachment with all the bells and whistles... and then simply never* refer to Senate. Just keep the public hearings going on and on, disclosing as much "dirt" as possible for the purpose of moving public opinion. But they're not... which is why they are morons.

* "never", at least until a shift of power in the Senate occurs so that impeachment does not result in "total exoneration", the current fear.

 

[ZiprHead]

The moron Dems in the House can go full impeachment with all the bells and whistles... and then simply never* refer to Senate. Just keep the public hearings going on and on, disclosing as much "dirt" as possible for the purpose of moving public opinion. But they're not... which is why they are morons.

* "never", at least until a shift of power in the Senate occurs so that impeachment does not result in "total exoneration", the current fear.

Or they could be waiting for it to get closer to the election.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The moron Dems in the House can go full impeachment with all the bells and whistles... and then simply never* refer to Senate. Just keep the public hearings going on and on, disclosing as much "dirt" as possible for the purpose of moving public opinion. But they're not... which is why they are morons.

* "never", at least until a shift of power in the Senate occurs so that impeachment does not result in "total exoneration", the current fear.

Right now, the Dems are going through the courts to get testimony or documents from the Trump Admin. What in the heck good is impeaching Trump, if they aren't going to receive any documents they request? It'd be a bunch of hearings with no testimony or evidence.

 

[James Brown]

"A bunch of hearings" about Benghazi lost HRC the election, no?

 

[Horatio Parker]

"A bunch of hearings" about Benghazi lost HRC the election, no?

It didn't help.

The charges against Trump are far more substantial. With some friends last night, Trump haters all, they had no idea Trump dictated a letter to Sessions exonerating himself, or that Trump had ordered McGrath to fire Mueller.

 

[J842P]

"A bunch of hearings" about Benghazi lost HRC the election, no?

I seem to recall the Benghazi hearings actually were a net positive for Clinton, of course, nothing would satisfy the frothing at the mouth haters of her.

The e-mails and Comey seem to me to have been the bigger deal for the election.

 

[James Brown]

"A bunch of hearings" about Benghazi lost HRC the election, no?

I seem to recall the Benghazi hearings actually were a net positive for Clinton, of course, nothing would satisfy the frothing at the mouth haters of her.

The e-mails and Comey seem to me to have been the bigger deal for the election.

"The e-mails" was a direct result of the Benghazi hearings. It was a serendipitous finding by the investigators which Republicans and Fox News exploited to its fullest.

 

[Gun Nut]

The moron Dems in the House can go full impeachment with all the bells and whistles... and then simply never* refer to Senate. Just keep the public hearings going on and on, disclosing as much "dirt" as possible for the purpose of moving public opinion. But they're not... which is why they are morons.

* "never", at least until a shift of power in the Senate occurs so that impeachment does not result in "total exoneration", the current fear.

Or they could be waiting for it to get closer to the election.

cause less time to expose more dirt is... bad? I mean, It's a good point... wish it were true... just find it hard to believe.

 

[Gun Nut]

The moron Dems in the House can go full impeachment with all the bells and whistles... and then simply never* refer to Senate. Just keep the public hearings going on and on, disclosing as much "dirt" as possible for the purpose of moving public opinion. But they're not... which is why they are morons.

* "never", at least until a shift of power in the Senate occurs so that impeachment does not result in "total exoneration", the current fear.

Right now, the Dems are going through the courts to get testimony or documents from the Trump Admin. What in the heck good is impeaching Trump, if they aren't going to receive any documents they request? It'd be a bunch of hearings with no testimony or evidence.

<sigh> I keep hearing this from Dems. so circular.... their failure to begin impeachment hearings is WHY they don't have the power to compel as completely and as quickly as they do. During impeachment, the rules change on discovery. It's like arguing that you are not going to fix the server that keeps going down because you need to take it down to fix it.
Forgive my ignorance on the specifics, but my understanding is that its the difference between being in contempt of congress versus being in contempt of (the supreme) court. Probably a terrible oversimplification, but others on this board probably can speak to the difference in procedure and law during an impeachment versus during an intelligence committee action.

 

[Gun Nut]

"A bunch of hearings" about Benghazi lost HRC the election, no?

I seem to recall the Benghazi hearings actually were a net positive for Clinton, of course, nothing would satisfy the frothing at the mouth haters of her.

The e-mails and Comey seem to me to have been the bigger deal for the election.

"The e-mails" was a direct result of the Benghazi hearings. It was a serendipitous finding by the investigators which Republicans and Fox News exploited to its fullest.

Dems are incapable of exploiting news to its fullest... it would be like a 5 year old with Downs Syndrome debating against Trump... while all his 5 year old friends keep trying to put tape over his mouth... and all of Trumps friends are standing united behind him nodding and repeating his words like the third guy in a Rap group that shouts the last word in each verse of the song between measures.

Edited to add... Just looked it up... they're called "Hype Men". cool.

 

[Elixir]

Dems are incapable of exploiting news to its fullest...

It's a sad fact of life that those who habitually lie cheat and steal (i.e. Republicans) usually get away with lots of stuff. Still not sufficient reason for most decent people to want to be like that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ligarchs-co-signed-trumps-deutsche-bank-loans

According to a single source with insider knowledge of Deutsche Bank, Hair Furor had Russian oligarchs co-sign on various loans.

To be honest, I am skeptical. It's a single source and frankly crazy people may say anything. AND/OR it could be a false flag by Reich wing noise machine to make news look like fake news. Diabolical. IF it's true, I hope Congress will find out through hearings they are doing.