President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[creekster]

Here's a clue: no reasonable person is claiming it. But a hell of a lot of people are, from Trump on down some of the republican ranks.

But this is exactly the problem with the current climate. Most reasonable voices are being marginalized and the unreasonable voices are pushing to the front. This is true on both sides and on almost all topics. Listening to the press coverage of the report has been exasperating to me. They are misstating and disclaiming all kinds of things either because they are biased, inattentive ro really just that stupid. I don't see much reason in validating any of those voices, whether they are right or wrong.

So, if thats what JL meant by his rhetoric, I guess the answer is "No one reasonable."

[BlueK]

But this is exactly the problem with the current climate. Most reasonable voices are being marginalized and the unreasonable voices are pushing to the front. This is true on both sides and on almost all topics. Listening to the press coverage of the report has been exasperating to me. They are misstating and disclaiming all kinds of things either because they are biased, inattentive ro really just that stupid. I don't see much reason in validating any of those voices, whether they are right or wrong.

So, if thats what JL meant by his rhetoric, I guess the answer is "No one reasonable."

JL quoted directly from Mueller's report, which states that Trump tried on multiple occasions to order his staffers to do things they wouldn't because they thought it would have constituted illegal obstruction.

[Northwestcoug]

But this is exactly the problem with the current climate. Most reasonable voices are being marginalized and the unreasonable voices are pushing to the front. This is true on both sides and on almost all topics. Listening to the press coverage of the report has been exasperating to me. They are misstating and disclaiming all kinds of things either because they are biased, inattentive ro really just that stupid. I don't see much reason in validating any of those voices, whether they are right or wrong.

So, if thats what JL meant by his rhetoric, I guess the answer is "No one reasonable."

I would say that reading the initial reports, the 'left' side of the media is closer to the truth than the 'right'. And the majority of the reasonable voices are coming from the left side of the media spectrum. There are multiple specific allegations in the report where Trump directed people to either lie or impede the investigation. I'll leave it to the legal eagles to decide whether or not that is obstruction of justice. But it certainly isn't exoneration, which some on the right are parroting.

[creekster]

JL quoted directly from Mueller's report, which states that Trump tried on multiple occasions to order his staffers to do things they wouldn't because they thought it would have constituted illegal obstruction.

And? As I said, he was saved by adults in the room.

[BlueK]

And? As I said, he was saved by adults in the room.

He had the intent to obstruct. That's obvious. As a political question that should be bad enough. Whether that political question is settled at the ballot box or within Congress is another serious question. But it should be part of the public discussion at the very least. Also, this was really never about legally prosecuting Trump because the special counsel approached it from the perspective that a sitting president can't be indicted.

[BlueK]

Also, the actual report seems to show that the news stories last week about members of Mueller's team being unhappy with Barr's characterization of it had merit -- namely when they said the actual report makes Trump look a lot worse than Barr's summary did.

Example: page 220 of the report:

"The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction
laws to the President ' s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional
system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."

Pretty damning language there. Mueller actually referred to Trump as corruptly exercising the powers of office and trying to be above the law. -- not exactly the impression Barr seemed to try to leave about the report. Not that it will happen, but that should fit the standard for impeachment. Just because Mueller felt like he couldn't do anything about the President's corrupt behavior and abuse of power doesn't mean he thinks Congress shouldn't.

Also, Barr doing the press conference without Mueller there was pretty weird. When Mueller appears before Congress it will be fun to hear the answer to the question as to why he wasn't there. I'm sure it will be asked.

[frank ryan]

Also, the actual report seems to show that the news stories last week about members of Mueller's team being unhappy with Barr's characterization of it had merit -- namely when they said the actual report makes Trump look a lot worse than Barr's summary did.

Example: page 220 of the report:

"The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction
laws to the President ' s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional
system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."

Pretty damning language there. Mueller actually referred to Trump as corruptly exercising the powers of office and trying to be above the law. -- not exactly the impression Barr seemed to try to leave about the report. Not that it will happen, but that should fit the standard for impeachment. Just because Mueller felt like he couldn't do anything about the President's corrupt behavior and abuse of power doesn't mean he thinks Congress shouldn't.

Also, Barr doing the press conference without Mueller there was pretty weird. When Mueller appears before Congress it will be fun to hear the answer to the question as to why he wasn't there. I'm sure it will be asked.

Compound all this with Barr's use of the term "spying," to describe members of Trump's campaign being surveilled for justified reasons, and the guy is nothing more than a partisan stooge. I never thought I'd appreciate Sessions so much.

[wapiti]

He had the intent to obstruct. That's obvious. As a political question that should be bad enough. Whether that political question is settled at the ballot box or within Congress is another serious question. But it should be part of the public discussion at the very least. Also, this was really never about legally prosecuting Trump because the special counsel approached it from the perspective that a sitting president can't be indicted.

There is a difference between criminal obstruction and obstruction. For criminal obstruction, intent to hide the crime must be proven. Trump's intent could just as easily, and probably was, to stop the bad publicity that was harming his ability to govern and advance his agenda. Given the utter lack of evidence Mueller found of Russian collusion, I'm inclined to believe that any alleged Trump obstruction effort was not criminal.

[BlueK]

There is a difference between criminal obstruction and obstruction. For criminal obstruction, intent to hide the crime must be proven. Trump's intent could just as easily, and probably was, to stop the bad publicity that was harming his ability to govern and advance his agenda. Given the utter lack of evidence Mueller found of Russian collusion, I'm inclined to believe that any alleged Trump obstruction effort was not criminal.

Go read the Russia sections of the report. They couldn't establish there was criminal conspiracy and coordination, which without an email or something from Trump to Vlad asking to work together, would be pretty hard to prove. But it's pretty clear there was plenty of weird and suspicious back and forth going on between Russian figures and members of Trump's campaign and transition team. The report goes into all of that. It said Trump's team knew what Russia was doing with hacking and trying to influence the election, and instead of raising any alarm about it they still tried to reap the benefits by getting the emails. It also said that immediately after the election there was a concerted effort from the Russians to cash in on favors by lessening sanctions and asking for changes in US policy toward Ukraine, etc.

Even if none of that was technically illegal, it's still crappy.

[frank ryan]

There is a difference between criminal obstruction and obstruction. For criminal obstruction, intent to hide the crime must be proven. Trump's intent could just as easily, and probably was, to stop the bad publicity that was harming his ability to govern and advance his agenda. Given the utter lack of evidence Mueller found of Russian collusion, I'm inclined to believe that any alleged Trump obstruction effort was not criminal.

You continue to be ridicudlously generous to Trump, a man who lacks any goodness or decency. As of for an utter lack of evidence. That isn't what the report says. The word collusion is not one Mueller uses. It's true he did not charge Trump and friends for illegal coordination with Russians but it wasn't because they were above reproach. In some cases, they were morons like Donald J. Trump. You had Manafort make some pitched and efforts, and you Roger Stone interact with GRU hackers. As far as we can tell there wasn't any successful coordination between the two camps (that Mueller found). That doesn't mean none were suspected. There were a few things, like Stone, Assange and the Russians coordinating when hacked DNC emails would drop for maximum political impact. Also it is might shady that Manafort shared sensative internal polling data with the Russians. The report is definitely not a vindication or exoneration for Trump on those charges.

The 448 page report is still being digested, we are still learning, and that goes to show how awful Barr's political stunt of releasing his editorial letter ahead report-release time was, and how naive treating it like the truth was.

Trump still has yet to condem Russia for interfering in the elctions and helping him win. The report says Russia's efforts did help him, btw. As an American, I'd hope you'd frustrated by your president silence on this.

[creekster]

There is a difference between criminal obstruction and obstruction. For criminal obstruction, intent to hide the crime must be proven. Trump's intent could just as easily, and probably was, to stop the bad publicity that was harming his ability to govern and advance his agenda. Given the utter lack of evidence Mueller found of Russian collusion, I'm inclined to believe that any alleged Trump obstruction effort was not criminal.

Mueller is pretty clear that there was no criminal collusion but leaves open the possibility of obstruction. But you would be charging someone with attempting to obstruct an investigation into a crime which the investigation found did not occur and the chief investigator is not claiming was impeded by any efforts to obstruct. That seems a little odd. ONe might suggest that the fact that Trump did try to obstruct, or acted that way, means there probably WAS collusion. Except we are talking about Trump, who sees anything about him that is other than overwhelmingly laudatory as an attack. So, who knows? For me, it is hard to get too excited about these claims of obstruction (firing Mueller? meh.) when he was cleared on the underlying crime. Obstruction seems more like a referendum on Trump's character and I already believed it was defective.

[Commando]

There is a difference between criminal obstruction and obstruction. For criminal obstruction, intent to hide the crime must be proven. Trump's intent could just as easily, and probably was, to stop the bad publicity that was harming his ability to govern and advance his agenda. Given the utter lack of evidence Mueller found of Russian collusion, I'm inclined to believe that any alleged Trump obstruction effort was not criminal.

lol. Mueller specifically declined to make a finding on the criminality of Trump's activities and efforts to obstruct the investigation, since that was not the purpose of the investigation. I'm glad you're more qualified than Mueller to make the call here, though, and we thank you for your service.

[frank ryan]

lol. Mueller specifically declined to make a finding on the criminality of Trump's activities and efforts to obstruct the investigation, since that was not the purpose of the investigation. I'm glad you're more qualified than Mueller to make the call here, though, and we thank you for your service.

Commando, keep in mind Wapiti has said it should be illegal for the media to harrass Trump with negative reporting on him.

[Commando]

Commando, keep in mind Wapiti has said it should be illegal for the media to harrass Trump with negative reporting on him.

also,

[ScoopJahoop]

Who claimed it was vindication?

WTF