*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[TheSpoonald]

You're not putting enough weight on the fact that Mueller holds the opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Under NO circumstances could he say the president had committed any crime, given that premise.
You get that, right?
Without addressing anything else, you do understand that is a judicial philosophy that Mueller holds as a constitutional fact, right?
I'm not asking whether or not it's a constitutional fact... only whether you understand that Mueller believes it is.
You get that, right?

Spare me the legalese nuances please. It doesn't matter. The guy was the subject of the most relentless investigation of all time, and he came out ahead!

If Trump did something bad, bad enough to endanger his presidency, or challenge his authority as president, then Mueller had every ability to spell it out in his report. If something happened, Mueller could just say that it happened and provide the evidence in support.

You and everyone else talking about this seems to conflate this with the same standards of trial law that you see on TV. Mueller doesn't have to prove a crime. He doesn't have to meet any legal standard. He can just say what happened.

Maybe he can't do anything about it. Maybe he can't file charges on anything. Maybe he can't indict a sitting president. None of that matters. None of that prevents him from reporting on any evidence-based truth about improper activity by the President.

The 25th amendment gives congress the power to impeach the president if they don't like his necktie. There doesn't need to be a crime. His actions don't have to meet any legal standard. If Congress votes the President out, that's it. There's no complicated DOJ rules. If 67 Senators read the MR and decide that Trump is toast, then he's toast. But right now there aren't anywhere close to that, and the ones that are for impeachment have all declared unabated hatred for Trump, so their opinion might be biased.

This was a very simple exercise. We hired Mueller to find out if the president is a traitor. We found out that he's not. Any interpretation beyond that is truly stupid. It's loser talk.

[oskar]

This was a very simple exercise. We hired Mueller to find out if the president is a traitor. We found out that he's not. Any interpretation beyond that is truly stupid. It's loser talk.

Can you tell me without sarcasm what the Mueller investigation was about?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Spare me the legalese nuances please. It doesn't matter. The guy was the subject of the most relentless investigation of all time, and he came out ahead!

If Trump did something bad, bad enough to endanger his presidency, or challenge his authority as president, then Mueller had every ability to spell it out in his report. If something happened, Mueller could just say that it happened and provide the evidence in support.

You and everyone else talking about this seems to conflate this with the same standards of trial law that you see on TV. Mueller doesn't have to prove a crime. He doesn't have to meet any legal standard. He can just say what happened.

Maybe he can't do anything about it. Maybe he can't file charges on anything. Maybe he can't indict a sitting president. None of that matters. None of that prevents him from reporting on any evidence-based truth about improper activity by the President.

The 25th amendment gives congress the power to impeach the president if they don't like his necktie. There doesn't need to be a crime. His actions don't have to meet any legal standard. If Congress votes the President out, that's it. There's no complicated DOJ rules. If 67 Senators read the MR and decide that Trump is toast, then he's toast. But right now there aren't anywhere close to that, and the ones that are for impeachment have all declared unabated hatred for Trump, so their opinion might be biased.

This was a very simple exercise. We hired Mueller to find out if the president is a traitor. We found out that he's not. Any interpretation beyond that is truly stupid. It's loser talk.

So you have so much cognitive dissonance about the implications of the answer to my question that you can't even answer the question?

C'mon. You respect logic and words. Put your own ego aside and try to understand Mueller's.


Do you understand his position that it is unconstitutional to indict a sitting president?
Is this a thing you understand about Mueller?

If you claim to respect facts, then this is a big one. Ignoring the weight of this fact is causing you to fail to understand what Mueller could say, given his beliefs.
Under no circumstances could Mueller say "guilty." It's against his core philosophy of the power of his position.
Let that sink in.

In Mueller's own mind, if he were to say "guilty" about a sitting president, Mueller would be committing treason.
You get that right?
This isn't spin. This is a fact on the ground that we can all agree on.

If it's not a fact to you, then you are in no position to evaluate the Mueller report. The nuances of his position will be lost on you. Nothing you are claiming the report didn't say was even possible to be said. If Mueller had said that, he would be a traitor in his own mind.

You are doing yourself a disservice by not acknowledging this is Mueller's professional opinion of the authority and restrictions to his position.

[TheSpoonald]

Do you understand his position that it is unconstitutional to indict a sitting president?
Is this a thing you understand about Mueller?

First of all, I want to point out that Republicans have been screaming that it's unconstitutional to induct a sitting president for two years now. And in response, every leftist mouthpiece trotted out a legal expert who claimed "au contraire mon frere....you totally can"

Where are those "experts" now?

Anyway, to answer your question. Yes. Yes I understand that about Mueller. I understand his point of view. I'm just not seeing how it's relevant.

Mueller told us that when the president found out about the special counsel appointment, he slumped in his chair and said "I'm fucked". Mueller told us that, because that's what happened, and he has solid evidence convincing him that is what happened. But what if something else happened? What if instead of saying "Im fucked" Trump decided to put on a mumu and a pink wig, arm himself with a fly swatter, and threw watermelons off the roof of the whitehouse while screaming warnings about alien lizard people infiltrating the FBI. If that happened, Mueller would have told you. And then after he told you (us), then Congress could say that the president has lost his marbles, and invoke the 25th Amendment.

Similarly, Mueller could have told us that Trump had an explicit quid pro quo arrangement with the Kremlin that gave him an unfair advantage in the election. Yes, Mueller could have told us that. Because another republican talking point that's been ignored for the last two years is this: THAT'S NOT A CRIME!! So Mueller would have no restriction governing his discussion of that type of event.

No one asked Mueller to file charges. No one is asking Mueller to indict. That would be superbly dumb given the known policy that the DOJ won't indict a sitting president. All we asked Mueller to do was to tell us what happened. And he has.

[TheSpoonald]

Just so we are clear, I want to reiterate that if a presidential candidate had an explicit quid pro quo arrangement with the Russian government, that is *not* at crime.

How do I know this? Because neither Hillary, nor anyone connected to her, is indicted for the provable act of buying opposition research from the Russian government.

So if it's not a crime...why can't Mueller talk about it?

[MadMojoMonkey]

First of all, I want to point out that Republicans have been screaming that it's unconstitutional to induct a sitting president for two years now. And in response, every leftist mouthpiece trotted out a legal expert who claimed "au contraire mon frere....you totally can"

Where are those "experts" now?

Non-sequitur.
It's an open constitutional question which has never been tested against SCOTUS. Whatever so-called "Experts" you're referring to can have any opinion they like about it. The bottom line is that THEY are NOT experts. The SCOTUS Justices are the experts in this matter, and they haven't ruled.

All non-SCOTUS opinions are speculation, no matter how expert the mind that thought them.

Anyway, to answer your question. Yes. Yes I understand that about Mueller. I understand his point of view. I'm just not seeing how it's relevant.

OK. Good. There's a fact that we both agree on.
I'm getting to how it's relevant.

[...]

IDK who you're talking to. I'm not interested in any of that hand-waving shit-fest.

lol.
Did you seriously just devote a paragraph to some mental fantasy of DJT in a dress with pink hair?
There was literally no reason to go to any of those places, but you just loaded up, and fired that out into the world, huh?
(Hey, if that's your kink, good on you for figuring it out. I don't actually care.)



Next question:
Do you understand that while Mueller would be committing treason (in his own mind) to say the sitting POTUS is "guilty," that Mueller has no similar reason to prevent him from openly saying the president is "not guilty?"
I.e. do you understand that Mueller does not think it's beyond the authority of his position to exonerate the sitting POTUS of alleged crimes?

Is this also something you understand about how Mueller sees his authority and position?

[TheSpoonald]

Is this also something you understand about how Mueller sees his authority and position?

Yes. I get it. You can stop trying to walk me through this like I'm a 3 year old. I understand that Mueller found Trump to be "not not guilty" or whatever bullshit legalese term just got invented this week.

Do you get that I don't care, and it doesn't matter at all?? You keep talking to me like I don't understand something. I'm trying to tell you that I understand completely, and flat out don't give a fuck.

If Trump had said "Hey Putin, I really wanna see Podesta's email. Send them over to wikileaks, and when I'm president, I'll deny arms sales to the Ukraine", then we would have read about it in the Mueller report.

That's my point. There's nothing like that in there. And that was the whole purpose of the investigation. That was item #1 on the list of things Mueller was supposed to do. The other two things on the list were boilerplate bullshit, so you could effectively say that this was Muellers ONLY job.

[Poopadoop]

As fun as it would be to see Trump testifying before Congress, it's probably too close to election time for an impeachment. I do hope they televise his trials after the new president gets inaugurated though.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yes. I get it. You can stop trying to walk me through this like I'm a 3 year old. I understand that Mueller found Trump to be "not not guilty" or whatever bullshit legalese term just got invented this week.

"invented this week"
lol
Just 'cause you only started thinking about it this week doesn't mean it's an idea that is any younger than the concepts of "guilt" and "innocence."

Do you get that I don't care, and it doesn't matter at all?? You keep talking to me like I don't understand something. I'm trying to tell you that I understand completely, and flat out don't give a fuck.

Ahh. So you know you're talking loads of shit that is intentionally ignoring the reality of the situation and still you get your undies all in a bind when people don't agree with you?

Because it does matter. It matters a monumental deal w.r.t to the conclusions you are drawing about the report.

If Trump had said "Hey Putin, I really wanna see Podesta's email. Send them over to wikileaks, and when I'm president, I'll deny arms sales to the Ukraine", then we would have read about it in the Mueller report.

This is so far from consequential, man. It's couldn't be less relevant.

Just because Mueller didn't post that specific quote doesn't mean there isn't a wealth of evidence he's accumulated.
The notion that he's put every single piece of evidence on the table is simply absurd. You're not for real on that, right?

That's my point. There's nothing like that in there. And that was the whole purpose of the investigation. That was item #1 on the list of things Mueller was supposed to do. The other two things on the list were boilerplate bullshit, so you could effectively say that this was Muellers ONLY job.

More of you telling other people what their jobs are and what they're "supposed" to do. The real world doesn't operate on your whimsy, spoon.


Back to the actual point, you puerile purveyor of fine fermented flatus.
(See, if you're going to call someone names, do it with style... bitches)


Now... since Mueller CAN say "not guilty" and CAN'T say "guilty. Maybe he just decided to play it fair and take neither stance on anything, and simply to lay out what he feels are pertinent evidence and let someone else decide on each matter? Is that hypothesis backed up by the Mueller report?

(spoiler, you 3-year-old poo slinger) No, that hypothesis is disproved in the report, as Mueller clearly indicates on some, but not all, matters that there is no evidence of any crime committed.

So, then. How shall we understand the other things?
How shall we understand the many times in which he did not directly and clearly state "not guilty?"

Oh right. You don't care.
Convenient for you, huh?

Convenient that while you understand all these facts, you can't put 2 and 2 together and come out with 4.

Convenient that on one hand you like to point out that Trump is no more slimey than any other politician. Convenient that you point out how slimey other politicians are. Convenient that every single hint at the sliminess of Trump is met with outrage and opposition from you.

You can rage all you like at the ignorance of your opposition, but for you to simply embrace equal amounts of ignorance just places you firmly in the "people who like to get all ragey about politics, but whom don't actually care enough to be right, just enough to be ragey."

Fine. Join the lower classes of political discourse. Just stop pretending that you're trying to sit at the big kids table.

[TheSpoonald]

Just 'cause you only started thinking about it this week doesn't mean it's an idea that is any younger than the concepts of "guilt" and "innocence."

Great. Show me one time that term appears anywhere else before this week. I've heard "guilty" and "innocent" a billion times. This is the first time I've ever heard "not not guilty"

Ahh. So you know you're talking loads of shit that is intentionally ignoring the reality of the situation and still you get your undies all in a bind when people don't agree with you?

The only things I'm intentionally ignoring, are the irrelavant hair splittings of butt hurt losers. The MR doesn't say what you wanted it to say about Trump. Go cry in your fucking cheerios.

Because it does matter. It matters a monumental deal w.r.t to the conclusions you are drawing about the report.

No it doesn't matter. In backwards-world where prosecutors are charged with exonerating people, it might matter. But here on earth, it doesn't.

Just because Mueller didn't post that specific quote doesn't mean there isn't a wealth of evidence he's accumulated.

Great. If that evidence implicates the president in any meaningful way, then I hope congress does the right thing. But even the democrats can't agree on what this "wealth of evidence" means, so get right the fuck out.

The notion that he's put every single piece of evidence on the table is simply absurd. You're not for real on that, right?

Are you trying to say that Mueller still has cards to play? That he knows something that's not in the report?? You're not for real on that right?

More of you telling other people what their jobs are and what they're "supposed" to do. The real world doesn't operate on your whimsy, spoon.

That's not me telling anybody what they're supposed to do. The document that authorized the investigation said exactly that. I'm merely paraphrasing the facts sir.

Now... since Mueller CAN say "not guilty" and CAN'T say "guilty. ..... Mueller clearly indicates on some, but not all, matters that there is no evidence of any crime committed.

here's where you fail. Just because he doesn't say "not guilty" doesn't mean that he's implicitly saying "guilty", or even "probably guilty" or even "maybe guilty". He's just saying "I can't conclude innocence", which is exactly how he would rule if he were charged to investigate your involvement in 9/11. The idea that you think that's meaningful at all is what I find completely laughable.

So, then. How shall we understand the other things?

By evaluating them independently and not measuring them against other things in the report. That's totally fallacious logic that a scientist should be ashamed of.

How shall we understand the many times in which he did not directly and clearly state "not guilty?"

Where were you on the night of September 10th, 2001?

Convenient that while you understand all these facts, you can't put 2 and 2 together and come out with 4.

Uhhh, check your paper bro. You didn't write "4"

Convenient that on one hand you like to point out that Trump is no more slimey than any other politician. Convenient that you point out how slimey other politicians are.

Those are true statements. I'm not sure how "convenient" they are.

Convenient that every single hint at the sliminess of Trump is met with outrage and opposition from you.

Source?

You can rage all you like at the ignorance of your opposition,

How exactly would you define "my opposition"? It sounds like you believe that I am opposed to differing points of view. When in actuality it's the stupidity and false premises that those points of view are built on that I rage against. If you want to say Trump is a racist because he doesn't want a hispanic judge ruling on his case, I get that. I dont' agree, that makes him racist, but I get the argument. On the other hand if you want to say that Trump is racist because he said there were good people on both sides of Charlottesville, then you're a fucking idiot hoax victim, and should expect to be met with rage.