The Mueller Report

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,507
Role
Diaper Lover
I have yet to hear anything that points to Trump actually being involved with Russia

You want to use murder in a scenario?

How about this

Let's say I am the CEO of a huge company making Billions of Dollars; my closest competitor is found murdered

All of a sudden because I'm benefitting from their death I'm being investigated; surely because I benefited that means I was involved in their murder right?

That's exactly the argument you seem to be making here

If they can prove his guilt, fine

But very few people outright say "I'm guilty" unless they figure they are gonna be convicted anyways and are given a sweet deal
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,074
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I have yet to hear anything that points to Trump actually being involved with Russia

You want to use murder in a scenario?

How about this

Let's say I am the CEO of a huge company making Billions of Dollars; my closest competitor is found murdered

All of a sudden because I'm benefitting from their death I'm being investigated; surely because I benefited that means I was involved in their murder right?

That's exactly the argument you seem to be making here

If they can prove his guilt, fine

But very few people outright say "I'm guilty" unless they figure they are gonna be convicted anyways and are given a sweet deal
All you are showing is you are not reading what is being posted. How many times do I have to say, trump direct collision is not his crime(s) in question?????????? So this whole point you made here is not appable to this discussion.
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,507
Role
Diaper Lover
You still need to prove guilt, my point is just because you can prove a crime happened and it was to the benefit of someone, doesn't mean they are actually Guilty of committing a crime
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,074
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
You still need to prove guilt, my point is just because you can prove a crime happened and it was to the benefit of someone, doesn't mean they are actually Guilty of committing a crime
firing someone hired to investigate you is obstruction of justice, its not hard logic.

Now he is compounding this with his resistance of releasing the unaltered report. Even barr, a pro trump filter could not leave out no exoneration and is in overall hot water for misleading the public on what the report was supposed to say.
 
Last edited:

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,507
Role
Diaper Lover
Well to prove obstruction of justice means you need to prove intent, otherwise it's not like firing people is something new to Trump, he loves to say "You're Fired!!!!"

Per Russia (if they are still trying to prove collusion with them) they need to prove Guilt

Either way if they cant prove these things it's a waste of time and vast amounts of money
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,074
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Well to prove obstruction of justice means you need to prove intent, otherwise it's not like firing people is something new to Trump, he loves to say "You're Fired!!!!"

Per Russia (if they are still trying to prove collusion with them) they need to prove Guilt

Either way if they cant prove these things it's a waste of time and vast amounts of money
wrong and it is proven in the report. investigating a criminal is not a waste of money. Also there is a net gain to this because what they charged whats his face in, with fines from it.
 
Last edited:

Drifter

Contributor
Messages
2,419
Role
Private
I have yet to hear anything that points to Trump actually being involved with Russia

You want to use murder in a scenario?

How about this

Let's say I am the CEO of a huge company making Billions of Dollars; my closest competitor is found murdered

All of a sudden because I'm benefitting from their death I'm being investigated; surely because I benefited that means I was involved in their murder right?

That's exactly the argument you seem to be making here

If they can prove his guilt, fine

But very few people outright say "I'm guilty" unless they figure they are gonna be convicted anyways and are given a sweet deal
That is not my argument at all. Investigators and prosecutors provide evidence of guilt. "Proof" of guilt requires a trial. Guilty people avoid trials by disappearing or, if they have a lot of money or influence, by hiding behind a team of lawyers and politicians.
 

Bebezinho

Est. Contributor
Messages
29
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
Basic summary of muller report:
1. no Russian Colussion found. Done end of story.
2. Not enough evidence to prosecute obstruction. There was no intent to obstruct because Trump did not commit colussion.
3. It was not in mueller's power to prosecute, he could have recommended prosecution but failed to do so.
4. Because there was so recommendation from the special counsel, Barr decided there was not enough evidence for an obstruction case.
5. Media is backpedaling and grasping anything to save face because everyone was shouting collusion for 2 years.
6.Barr is not trying to hide anything. There is no cover up because the entire report can be publically read on the DOJ website (minus ongoing investigation parts)
7. Muller is mad because barr didnt release his summary sooner but decided to release the entire report all at once.
8. Trump does have the power to fire anyone at anytime and he often does, still not obstruction.
9. Trump is justifiably pissed off because everyone was accusing him of something he didn't do and complaining about that ins't obstruction.
10. the muller report basically said that trump is not a very good person, but we alread knew that and nothing criminal was found.

End of summary let's move on
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,507
Role
Diaper Lover
I think the whole investigation reeks of "Sore Loser Syndrome" AKA I'm gonna say you sought the help of a foreign entity to win because I'm a sore loser and have nothing better to do

I mean literally 2 years and millions of dollars wasted because Hillary and her side couldn't admit that they lost and move on
 

dogboy

Est. Contributor
Messages
19,212
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
Interesting that so many people have an opinion on a report whose entirety has not been seen because so much of it is redacted. Until congress receives an un-redacted copy, no one can be sure what is in the report. For that very reason, we can't say that Trump is innocent. What we have heard from Mueller is that his report was misinterpreted by Barr. That's a big statement in itself. Still, to draw any sort of meaningful conclusion, the entire report most be published. We the people paid for it and we should be able to read it. That's usually how democracy works, or at least it used to.
 

Bebezinho

Est. Contributor
Messages
29
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
Interesting that so many people have an opinion on a report whose entirety has not been seen because so much of it is redacted. Until congress receives an un-redacted copy, no one can be sure what is in the report. For that very reason, we can't say that Trump is innocent. What we have heard from Mueller is that his report was misinterpreted by Barr. That's a big statement in itself. Still, to draw any sort of meaningful conclusion, the entire report most be published. We the people paid for it and we should be able to read it. That's usually how democracy works, or at least it used to.
Certian members of Congress have seen the full report. Mueller is mad because Barr "didn't say look at all the bad stuff Trump did, he's a terrible person" mueller exonerated collusion and decided not to recommend prosecution on on obstruction. He left that up to barr and barr decided there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. Muller is upset with how the media construed things and barr even let mueller read his summary before he made it public. In short both mueller and barr have read the entire report and decided not to prosecute. it's done, nothing was found, money was wasted, the media is trying to justif lying and probably scariest of all it has set a precedent of investigating everything about presidential candidates and sharing it with the public even though it's not criminal.
 

Drifter

Contributor
Messages
2,419
Role
Private
1. no Russian Colussion found. Done end of story.
Quite a bit of Russian collusion was found and documented in the report.
2. Not enough evidence to prosecute obstruction. There was no intent to obstruct because Trump did not commit colussion.
There was a lot of evidence of collusion and obstruction. Whether it is enough for prosecution is not for you or me to decide.
3. It was not in mueller's power to prosecute, he could have recommended prosecution but failed to do so.
He explained the legal reason for this very well in his report. Your political opinion may differ, but really doesn't count for anything.
4. Because there was so recommendation from the special counsel, Barr decided there was not enough evidence for an obstruction case.
Another purely political assumption about motive. I question your ability to read Barr's mind, especially given Barr's previous statements about the investigation in general.
5. Media is backpedaling and grasping anything to save face because everyone was shouting collusion for 2 years.
Collusion has been established. No back peddling or face saving necessary on that point.
6.Barr is not trying to hide anything. There is no cover up because the entire report can be publically read on the DOJ website (minus ongoing investigation parts)
Mind reading again. And more than just issues with current investigations have been redacted.
7. Muller is mad because barr didnt release his summary sooner but decided to release the entire report all at once.
You know Mueller is mad? And you know the reason? More mind reading.
8. Trump does have the power to fire anyone at anytime and he often does, still not obstruction.
Most of us don't have the power to stop an investigator from investigating evidence of our criminal conduct. It would be obstruction if we even attempted that. Firing people on fantasy TV is different from having the power and making an attempt to fire legal a investigator without cause.
9. Trump is justifiably pissed off because everyone was accusing him of something he didn't do and complaining about that ins't obstruction.
Your exoneration of Trump is based on political opinion, not fact.
10. the muller report basically said that trump is not a very good person, but we alread knew that and nothing criminal was found.
True, we all know Trump is unfit for office. Evidence of criminal activity and intent was found and documented, so that's not the problem. The problem is that Trump does not have to face trial like everyone else does when confronted with such evidence.
End of summary let's move on
Let's end the BS first.
 

Bebezinho

Est. Contributor
Messages
29
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
Quite a bit of Russian collusion was found and documented in the report.
There was a lot of evidence of collusion and obstruction. Whether it is enough for prosecution is not for you or me to decide.
He explained the legal reason for this very well in his report. Your political opinion may differ, but really doesn't count for anything.
Another purely political assumption about motive. I question your ability to read Barr's mind, especially given Barr's previous statements about the investigation in general.
Collusion has been established. No back peddling or face saving necessary on that point.
Mind reading again. And more than just issues with current investigations have been redacted.
You know Mueller is mad? And you know the reason? More mind reading.
Most of us don't have the power to stop an investigator from investigating evidence of our criminal conduct. It would be obstruction if we even attempted that. Firing people on fantasy TV is different from having the power and making an attempt to fire legal a investigator without cause.
Your exoneration of Trump is based on political opinion, not fact.
True, we all know Trump is unfit for office. Evidence of criminal activity and intent was found and documented, so that's not the problem. The problem is that Trump does not have to face trial like everyone else does when confronted with such evidence.

Let's end the BS first.
Lol I love that you didn't substantiate anything you argued with me about. Name calling is a typical emotionally triggered response by those that are unable to rationalize straight facts. I'd argue my points further but your mind is already made up so the point is probably moot and you are just another voice in the echo chamber that is the left. If you question any of my points, go read the report for yourself and then we can work towards a rational discussion with out your petty name calling :)
 

Makubird

Est. Contributor
Messages
431
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Lol I love that you didn't substantiate anything you argued with me about. Name calling is a typical emotionally triggered response by those that are unable to rationalize straight facts. I'd argue my points further but your mind is already made up so the point is probably moot and you are just another voice in the echo chamber that is the left. If you question any of my points, go read the report for yourself and then we can work towards a rational discussion with out your petty name calling :)
Maybe I missed it, but where is the name calling? :unsure:
 

Bebezinho

Est. Contributor
Messages
29
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
Maybe I missed it, but where is the name calling? :unsure:
He said I can't read :( :( perhaps exaggerated in this case... but this is a more sweeping response to those on the left and the mentality displayed is the same :) the more common name calling is homophobic, xenophobic, and racist for anyone that has a differing opionon on these issues :)
 
Last edited:

Makubird

Est. Contributor
Messages
431
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
He said I can't read :( :( perhaps exaggerated in this case... but this is a more sweeping response to those on the left and the mentality displayed is the same :) the more common name calling is homophobic, xenophobic, and racist for anyone that has a differing opionon on these issues :)
Then what do you call it when you give a ‘...sweeping response to those on the left...’ without any immediate cause? Or calling someone ‘ just another voice in the echo chamber that is the left.’? Or accusing someone of ‘petty name-calling’?

And I think that the characterisation of ‘unable to rationalise straight facts’ or ‘...mind..already made up’ applies to more than one person in this discussion.

I am not politically left orientated by the way.
 

Drifter

Contributor
Messages
2,419
Role
Private
Lol I love that you didn't substantiate anything you argued with me about. Name calling is a typical emotionally triggered response by those that are unable to rationalize straight facts. I'd argue my points further but your mind is already made up so the point is probably moot and you are just another voice in the echo chamber that is the left. If you question any of my points, go read the report for yourself and then we can work towards a rational discussion with out your petty name calling :)
Bebezinho said:
He said I can't read :( :( perhaps exaggerated in this case... but this is a more sweeping response to those on the left and the mentality displayed is the same :) the more common name calling is homophobic, xenophobic, and racist for anyone that has a differing opionon on these issues :)
Giving you the benefit of the doubt: you've obviously mistaken me for someone else. The "name calling" you object to are stereotyped labels, which are the kind most rational people object to. I do my best to avoid talking in stereotypes. The labels I find most offensive, and most damaging to rational discussion, are "conservative", "liberal", "the left", and "the right". I've been accused of being all these things, as I'm sure others here have. We would be much better off just calling each other "asshole" whenever emotion prevents us from making an intelligent response. Using a stereotypical label in that situation is just a vain attempt to appear knowledgeable.
 
Last edited:

Trevor

Est. Contributor
Messages
8,848
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur
He said I can't read :( :( perhaps exaggerated in this case... but this is a more sweeping response to those on the left and the mentality displayed is the same :) the more common name calling is homophobic, xenophobic, and racist for anyone that has a differing opionon on these issues :)
He didn't question your ability to read, he questioned your (and presumably anyone's) ability to mind read.
 

Bebezinho

Est. Contributor
Messages
29
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
Then what do you call it when you give a ‘...sweeping response to those on the left...’ without any immediate cause? Or calling someone ‘ just another voice in the echo chamber that is the left.’? Or accusing someone of ‘petty name-calling’?

And I think that the characterisation of ‘unable to rationalise straight facts’ or ‘...mind..already made up’ applies to more than one person in this discussion.

I am not politically left orientated by the way.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt: you've obviously mistaken me for someone else. The "name calling" you object to are stereotyped labels, which are the kind most rational people object to. I do my best to avoid talking in stereotypes. The labels I find most offensive, and most damaging to rational discussion, are "conservative", "liberal", "the left", and "the right". I've been accused of being all these things, as I'm sure others here have. We would be much better off just calling each other "asshole" whenever emotion prevents us from making an intelligent response. Using a stereotypical label in that situation is just a vain attempt to appear knowledgeable.
That's fair, and all of politics is a mess no matter what side your on :)
 
Top