More Mueller news: Whitaker, Treason, and Farage.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, there's a big outstanding question on obstruction, among other things. Mueller reached no judgement, just laid out the evidence in the report, so says Barr. Barr (a political hack known for his hostility to the investigation and his history of sweeping executive corruption under the rug) then determined that the evidence of obstruction wasn't enough to warrant charges, and we're just expected to take his word for it, without viewing Mueller's evidence.

I'll accept that, presuming Barr's summary is even vaguely resembling the truth, Trump and his campaign probably did not do anything unambiguously criminal with regard to conspiring with the Russian government. But collusion with non-state actors (which Barr's summary does not discuss, meaning either Mueller did not cover it or Barr deliberately concealed it) and obstruction are very much open questions at this point.

In other words, to extend your analogy, its pre-opening screenings for the Mueller report, and we're reading the first few reviews from critics predisposed to say that the movie is a flop. Whereas I'm saying that we should withhold judgement until we've seen it ourselves. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Rogue 9]

He still has much to answer for, including using a small army with sea and air support to conduct a simple search warrant on completely non-threatening citizens with guns drawn. I dare you do defend that TRR.

I will if he doesn't. I presume you refer to the arrest team sent after Roger Stone. That's FBI standard procedure for suspects deemed a flight risk for a very simple reason: If two agents show up to arrest you, you might think you can defeat and/or escape from them. If you wake up and your house is surrounded by thirty guys, you're much less likely to be under that sort of delusion. It's how you guarantee a peaceful surrender, presuming the subject isn't completely around the bend.

[The Romulan Republic]

That, and Roger Stone has known links to Right-wing militia members which I've posted on in the past (in this thread even, I think), has made threatening comments about a civil war if Trump is impeached, and has videoed himself firing off various guns while talking about civil war.

Calling him a "completely non-threatening citizen" is frankly preposterous.

[Jub]

Whoops, my bad on the quote tags Gandalf. I'd edit it if I could.

Well, there's a big outstanding question on obstruction, among other things. Mueller reached no judgement, just laid out the evidence in the report, so says Barr. Barr (a political hack known for his hostility to the investigation and his history of sweeping executive corruption under the rug) then determined that the evidence of obstruction wasn't enough to warrant charges, and we're just expected to take his word for it, without viewing Mueller's evidence.

If there was obstruction where are the charges? Mueller has charged other parties with crimes so...

[C]ollusion with non-state actors (which Barr's summary does not discuss, meaning either Mueller did not cover it or Barr deliberately concealed it) and obstruction are very much open questions at this point.

Does sharing information with non-state actors constitute a big enough breach of etiquette to be worth a damn even if it is proven?

In other words, to extend your analogy, its pre-opening screenings for the Mueller report, and we're reading the first few reviews from critics predisposed to say that the movie is a flop. Whereas I'm saying that we should withhold judgement until we've seen it ourselves. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Even if the review is biased, and I don't doubt that it is, as long as the outline of the report is factual the movie is 100% sure to flop anyway. If this report contains no new info, and that's looking to be the case, the best anybody has is guessing at why Meuller didn't go after more people and that could take another two years to resolve.

[The Romulan Republic]

On the obstruction issue, I'll simply say that there would not be any charges against Trump regardless of evidence because it is DOJ policy not to indict a sitting President. The conclusion that the evidence would not warrant prosecution is based purely on Barr's summary (he even acknowledges that Mueller reached no such conclusion), with no reasons given as to why he and Rosenstein (and let's be real, it was ultimately Barr's call alone) reached that decision.

As to why Mueller did what he did and whether it was justified... that's why we need the full report and testimony under oath from Mueller, Rosenstein, Barr, etc.

Are obstruction charges/impeachment proceedings warranted? The simple answer is that we don't know, and we won't until the full report is made public, if it ever is.

[The Romulan Republic]

Former Cambridge Analytica employee Christopher Wylie just posted this gem on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/chrisinsilico/statu ... 8397310976

Whatever this report says, here's what I know: when I was at Cambridge Analytica, the company hired known Russian agents, had data researchers in St Petersburg, tested US voter opinion on Putin's leadership, and hired hackers from Russia - all while Bannon was in charge.

Of course, that wouldn't be covered in Barr's summary of the report, because it only deals with collusion between the campaign and the Russian government.

Totally exonerated!

[Jub]

<snip>

So at this point, you admit that with the best knowledge we have, nothing more will happen to Trump or any of his underlings based on Meuller's findings?

Given the men he has charged thus far, do you also agree that it's unlikely that he wouldn't have charged/indicted other key players (Trump excluded) if the evidence existed for him to do so? That being the case do you honestly think more people connected to Trump's 2016 campaign will be convicted based on the findings of the other ongoing investigations?

[The Romulan Republic]

No, that is not an accurate summary of my position.

I think it is unlikely at this point that anyone will be charged for conspiring with the Russian government during the campaign. Charges/impeachment for obstruction will depend on what the full report reveals, and whether Congress agrees with Barr's conclusions, but due to the reluctance of both Republicans and the Dem. leadership (for different reasons) to impeach, I would say that its more likely than not that Trump will not be impeached (not for lack of cause, the Stormy payoffs alone are enough for that, but due to Congressional dereliction of duty).

It is entirely likely that more convictions will occur (Stone for charges already brought by Mueller, additional convictions for Manafort from New York), and that additional charges will be filed in other investigations (mostly boring financial crimes). Trump himself may well be charged for the Stormy Daniels payoffs if he leaves office before the Statute of Limitations expires (ie, if he loses 2020).

To conclude from today's results that no further charges in any case will ever be filed against Trump or anyone connected with his campaign would be absurd, although its certainly the conclusion that Trump wants us to draw.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd also like to take this moment to remind everyone that Barr wrote a piece arguing that Comey's firing was within Presidential powers and not obstruction before being made AG:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics ... index.html

So the fact that he concluded Trump's actions don't warrant obstruction charges should be taken with great skepticism.

I mean, we're basically at "Man who has always said President cannot be guilty finds President not guilty- total vindication!" Sure, he says Rosenstein concurred- but its ultimately Barr who's calling the shots here.

[Jub]

No, that is not an accurate summary of my position.

I think it is unlikely at this point that anyone will be charged for conspiring with the Russian government during the campaign. Charges/impeachment for obstruction will depend on what the full report reveals, and whether Congress agrees with Barr's conclusions, but due to the reluctance of both Republicans and the Dem. leadership (for different reasons) to impeach, I would say that its more likely than not that Trump will not be impeached (not for lack of cause, the Stormy payoffs alone are enough for that, but due to Congressional dereliction of duty).

It is entirely likely that more convictions will occur (Stone for charges already brought by Mueller, additional convictions for Manafort from New York), and that additional charges will be filed in other investigations (mostly boring financial crimes). Trump himself may well be charged for the Stormy Daniels payoffs if he leaves office before the Statute of Limitations expires (ie, if he loses 2020).

To conclude from today's results that no further charges in any case will ever be filed against Trump or anyone connected with his campaign would be absurd, although its certainly the conclusion that Trump wants us to draw.

There was no reason to bring up either of Stone or Manaforrt based on what I actually asked you. The Stone charges aren't from a new investigation and were outside the scope of my questions, so I fail to see why you brought him up. The same goes for Manafort he's not a new player and thus wouldn't constitute more people being charged due to other investigations.

So, seeing as you misread my question let me ask again. Do you think anybody that hasn't already been charged will be charged by further investigations? If so, who will be charged and what do you expect them to be charged with?

I'd also like to take this moment to remind everyone that Barr wrote a piece arguing that Comey's firing was within Presidential powers and not obstruction before being made AG:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics ... index.html

So the fact that he concluded Trump's actions don't warrant obstruction charges should be taken with great skepticism.

I mean, we're basically at "Man who has always said President cannot be guilty finds President not guilty- total vindication!" Sure, he says Rosenstein concurred- but its ultimately Barr who's calling the shots here.

Do you have any law or statute which states that Trump violated the limits of his powers as PotUS by firing Comey?

[Vympel]

Let's go to the entirely vindicated Glenn Greenwald (who as you might know, was a Russiagate skeptic from the start and was accordingly never allowed to be on MSNBC again despite having appeared in the past) for how absurd this bullshitting about Barr from the rapidly disintergrating Resistance is:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1 ... 13857?s=20

I hope I'm not putting this too harshly, but you have to be the world's dumbest person to believe Mueller filled his report with incriminating collusion claims, but he - and his whole team - are sitting silently while his long-time friend Bob Barr lies about what's in his report.

[The Romulan Republic]

Source for Greenwald being barred from MSNBC due to being a "Russiagate skeptic".

In any case, I don't know who you're addressing, but I do not think that the report is full of collusion claims, and I have made no such claim, nor do I think that anyone here has. I suppose that anything is possible until we've seen the full report, but I do not think it likely. However, that does not change the fact that Barr's own summary clears Trump only on collusion between the campaign and the Russian government, not private entities. Which means that either there is a big question regarding collusion that the report did not address, or Barr is purposefully omitting reference to the sections that do address it. Which would beg the question: why?

Mueller also explicitly does not exonerate Trump on obstruction, by Barr's own admission. The idea that Trump is cleared of obstruction, based solely on the summary of a man who more or less said all along that he did not believe it was possible for the President to have committed obstruction, is absurd.

And finally, of course, Trump being vindicated would not prove that the entire investigation was a baseless witch hunt. The investigation was provoked by Trump's own actions, and it needed to happen. You essentially appear to be saying "If an investigation fails to find proof of guilt, then that proves the investigation itself was unjustified." Which is absurd. Law enforcement doesn't work that way. It couldn't work that way, because if it did investigators would have to find a guilty person (whether there was one or not) every time.

You are also ignoring the utter hypocrisy and contradiction of saying "this investigation was a baseless conspiracy theory" and simultaneously arguing "We should immediately accept Barr's summary of its conclusions at face value".

So stopping gleefully setting fire to straw men and address the actual issues with this report, rather than simply sitting back and gloating about how this report totally proves your narrative. There are gaping logical holes in your argument which you have failed to address, and which cannot be covered simply by throwing out insults and repeating Trump propaganda.

By the way, Trump went out again today accusing persons involved in the investigation of "treasonous" acts and threatening that they will be investigated. In other words, a political prosecution/purge of anyone who suspected Trump of collusion or felt he should be investigated. Maybe you have no problem with that. Maybe you think that people with views like mine are guilty of treason (a death penalty offense) and should be prosecuted for saying bad things about Dear Leader and Russia. But if not, then you should consider carefully before blindly repeating the false narrative of total vindication and witch hunt that Trump is now going to use to justify political investigations of his opponents. Because if you uncritically repeat the propaganda being used to justify a political purge, you share moral culpability in that purge. I fully expect that you'll try to cover this with some "Both Sides" rhetoric/Whataboutism, saying that accusations against Trump were a political witch hunt. But the purpose of the Mueller probe was never to brand anyone who had the "wrong" opinions or backed the wrong horse as guilty of treason (as its results clearly show), and I have already pointed out repeatedly how the situation warranted investigation.

But its telling that you gleefully sneer about how the "Resistance" against Trump is "disintegrating". For all your protestations to the contrary, you certainly are talking like a Trump supporter who wants Trump to win, not merely someone who questions the "collusion" theory.

[The Romulan Republic]

Frankly, I think it might be best if everyone refrain from speculating on what's in the report until we read it. Collusion believers got overly-optimistic and were disappointed. Its entirely possible that deniers are now making the same mistake. The preferred bench mark for this being finished (for most of us, anyway) was always "getting a full report from Mueller", not "getting a brief summary from Barr". That has not been met. Saying its all over based on Barr's summary is premature and frankly just an echo of Trump's narrative. Saying that there must be a bunch of stuff condemning Trump would also be premature, though I don't see anyone actually doing that here.

The responsible thing to do is to simply keep insisting that the full report be made public (which the deniers should want if they are so confident that it will validate their conclusions), and refrain from further speculation about its content until we have it.

[Jub]

Don't speculate on the thing says the person that did most of the speculation on the thing... Yeah, that's rich. It'd be like if we asked you to stop spamming the board with threads that boil down to 'The GoP is bad, for reals this time. Why don't you all agree with me hard?' given that each time you do people always try to point out the fact that things aren't as bad as you claim them to be.

So yeah, your call is going to fall on deaf ears for entirely predictable reasons. If you don't want to engage such inevitable posts, perhaps you could just not respond to them until the report comes out?

[The Romulan Republic]

Meanwhile, the White House press secretary Sarah Sanders posted a rather inflammatory tweet today, which could be taken as either condemning the opposition for falsely accusing Trump of treason, or as accusing the opposition themselves of treason for doing so:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1110 ... 56/video/1

Sarah Sanders: "They literally accused the President of the United States of being an agent of a foreign government. That's equivalent to treason. That's punishable by death in this country."

While it is in my opinion ambiguous, and can be taken either way, many are taking this as accusing advocates of the collusion theory of treasonous acts (as Trump himself has done) and suggesting that they deserve death.

Meanwhile, Mitch McConnel has blocked legislation demanding a full release of the report in the Senate:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status ... 2647829505

Tell me, all of you who are insisting that this report vindicates Trump: If that's what it does, then why are his allies so determined to prevent its release? Why do they not want it seen? Especially if they are using it as grounds (even hypothetically) for literally executing their political opponents for Treason?

Always be suspicious when powerful people decide that the public doesn't need to know something.

You can huff and puff all you want about how collusion has been proven false, how Trump is totally vindicated, how it was totally a McCarthyist witch hunt that should never have happened, repeating lines that they White House is now using to build a case for political prosecutions and potentially murder. You can substitute personal attacks for reasoned, evidence-based rebuttal, as Trump does all the time. But it won't make this simple question go away. Why keep it hidden? If you're so confident, then join us in demanding that the full report be made public. If you're so sure that you are in the right, then demand that the DOJ pony up the evidence.

Time to put up or shut up.

Edit: And to preempt anyone saying "innocent until proven guilty" and that the burden is on us to prove Trump's guilt... how can anyone prove or disprove anything if the evidence is being hidden? Trumpers don't get to conceal the evidence and then say "Hah Hah, you couldn't prove it, that means we win!"

[Jub]

So one, you've ignored my post and direct questions again.

Two, I've already outlined why the GoP and Trump might still want to delay the release of this report in a post which you also ignored..

"As for why the report might not be released in a timely fashion, it actually works for Trump and co to hold it back, assuming that the summary is truthful, because the left calling for it's release only to have it say exactly what the summary says makes them look rabid and crazy. They're gaming the system to stir up your anger because your anger fits their narative that it's all a witch hunt.

You're being played by both sides except that the Democrats are shit at the game."

So are you going to keep asking questions which have already been answered while pretending nobody has answered them or are you going to debate properly?

[The Romulan Republic]

To everyone reading this thread:

The reason I have declined to respond to most of Jub's posts is that he has recently adopted a habit of following me from thread to thread, attacking everything that I post and attacking me personally, and the last time I tried arguing back it got two threads derailed and we both got a warning from multiple moderators to knock it off or we'd both be banned. I said at the time that I would try to ignore him henceforth.. That's why I haven't responded to most of the two dozen or so posts he's spammed me with across this board in the last couple of days (that and I honestly have other shit to do).

I am happy to defend my arguments to anyone else. Just not him.

[Jub]

To everyone reading this thread:

The reason I have declined to respond to most of Jub's posts is that he has recently adopted a habit of following me from thread to thread, attacking everything that I post and attacking me personally, and the last time I tried arguing back it got two threads derailed and we both got a warning from multiple moderators to knock it off or we'd both be banned. I said at the time that I would try to ignore him henceforth.. That's why I haven't responded to most of the two dozen or so posts he's spammed me with across this board in the last couple of days (that and I honestly have other shit to do).

I am happy to defend my arguments to anyone else. Just not him.

I post in multiple threads on this board so long as they pertain to my interests. You're an active poster who creates and participates in a lot of threads so obviously, we'll run across one another in threads where we both have interests. Your ignoring my posts means you're ignoring valid arguments for no valid reason.

The mods were telling you to avoid my provocations not to ignore valid critiques of your posts.

You will address the points raised or find yourself in violation of this boards rules.

[Jub]

Mods, if this is too off-topic for you feel free to delete this post or flush it to the HoS. I feel that it is on topic if a poster is going to ignore arguments and repeat questions as if they haven't been answered due to his own petty grudge so I'm posting this. I'll let the board decide who's in the right.

Also, TRR because I suspect you never looked back into the testing thread after your one post in it, you might find it interesting that I posted this there:

Yeah, at the end of the day these are all just bytes on a message board.

We all fuck up, push people's buttons, and take it all too seriously but at the end of the day, SDN is a community I'm happy to be a part of. I don't actually hate anybody on here, especially not a guy like TRR who actually gives the place much-needed activity. It was pretty dead around here when he took a few days away.

For the rest of the board who has no way of knowing I also sent this to TRR via PM the same night:

I doubt you'll want to listen to this, but I genuinely don't have an issue with you as a person. I don't even have an issue with your politics, they're closer to my own than a lot of people's would be.

It's just that you go from zero to 100 in a second and it's hard to pass up pushing those buttons. You can see the difference between how the two of us handle things by our take on the testing thread. I was getting equally roasted but I leaned into it and had some fun. I think you could stand to do the same and not take some petty ribbing on a message board to heart as deeply as you do.

And I know, this seems like more of the same with no apology in sight but I'm sorry for giving you so much shit and going out of my way to push your buttons. I can't say I won't do it again in the future because I most likely will, that's a shitty side of me that won't go away just because I don't like it.

If I do cross the line again, maybe just ignore me like you've said you will. I can't shit up a thread if you refuse to engage with me and if I try I'll be the one who looks like a total jackass. You can also take things to PMs, I can promise I won't go at you in the same fashion as I was in the thread you're PMing me about, but at least it won't shit up N&P.

One last thing, if you don't think I'm sincere here, go look at testing. Even Gandalf and I buried the hatchet. This board is a good place to be and nobody here really hates anybody even if we do give one another shit pretty much daily. Try to remember that the next time Vymple or I give you the gears.

I literally apologized to TRR for the shit I've given him in a PM. If he still has an issue so serious he won't respond to my posters, let the record show that it's on him and not me.

[Vympel]

Source for Greenwald being barred from MSNBC due to being a "Russiagate skeptic".

It's not rocket science dude. He was the most prominent critic of the Russiagate story. Never got invited to talk about it on MSNBC once. In 2.5 years. Despite being invited to talk about other topics on MSNBC prior to the Russiagate story.

The fact that no mainstream network put on a credible or remotely competent skeptic of the Russiagate story on air to shit on it is quite telling.

It's also quite similar to what happened with the Iraq-has-WMD fiasco. And endless procession of former spooks and generals going on air to solemnly intone about the Iraqi threat, and hardly any dissenting voices, ever.

In any case, I don't know who you're addressing, but I do not think that the report is full of collusion claims, and I have made no such claim, nor do I think that anyone here has. I suppose that anything is possible until we've seen the full report, but I do not think it likely. However, that does not change the fact that Barr's own summary clears Trump only on collusion between the campaign and the Russian government, not private entities. Which means that either there is a big question regarding collusion that the report did not address, or Barr is purposefully omitting reference to the sections that do address it. Which would beg the question: why?

So for 2.5 years dishonest conspiracy peddlers constantly pointed to everyone with a Russian surname as being a Putin proxy, and now that won't fly, all of a sudden we're supposed going to pretend they're just private persons who wanted to influence the elections without Russian government involvement, and somehow the report is going to mention this and no one is getting indicted for it?

Mueller also explicitly does not exonerate Trump on obstruction, by Barr's own admission. The idea that Trump is cleared of obstruction, based solely on the summary of a man who more or less said all along that he did not believe it was possible for the President to have committed obstruction, is absurd.

No, this line of argument is absurd.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ns-813171/

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction…

In other words, it was Mueller, not Barr, who concluded there was no underlying crime, so if the next stage of this madness is haggling over an obstruction charge, that would likely entail calling for a prosecution of Trump for obstructing an investigation into what even Mueller deemed non-crime.

And finally, of course, Trump being vindicated would not prove that the entire investigation was a baseless witch hunt. The investigation was provoked by Trump's own actions, and it needed to happen. You essentially appear to be saying "If an investigation fails to find proof of guilt, then that proves the investigation itself was unjustified." Which is absurd. Law enforcement doesn't work that way. It couldn't work that way, because if it did investigators would have to find a guilty person (whether there was one or not) every time.

Don't see where 'witch hunt' came up so not sure what this paragraph is trying to say.

You are also ignoring the utter hypocrisy and contradiction of saying "this investigation was a baseless conspiracy theory" and simultaneously arguing "We should immediately accept Barr's summary of its conclusions at face value".

What's the contradiction?

So stopping gleefully setting fire to straw men and address the actual issues with this report, rather than simply sitting back and gloating about how this report totally proves your narrative. There are gaping logical holes in your argument which you have failed to address, and which cannot be covered simply by throwing out insults and repeating Trump propaganda.

No, there really aren't. I've been pretty much entirely vindicated in my assessment of this fiasco. It's impossible for me not to be, given that there are no new charges or indictments coming for anything to do with this profoundly idiotic conspiracy theory.

By the way, Trump went out again today accusing persons involved in the investigation of "treasonous" acts and threatening that they will be investigated. In other words, a political prosecution/purge of anyone who suspected Trump of collusion or felt he should be investigated. Maybe you have no problem with that. Maybe you think that people with views like mine are guilty of treason (a death penalty offense) and should be prosecuted for saying bad things about Dear Leader and Russia. But if not, then you should consider carefully before blindly repeating the false narrative of total vindication and witch hunt that Trump is now going to use to justify political investigations of his opponents. Because if you uncritically repeat the propaganda being used to justify a political purge, you share moral culpability in that purge. I fully expect that you'll try to cover this with some "Both Sides" rhetoric/Whataboutism, saying that accusations against Trump were a political witch hunt. But the purpose of the Mueller probe was never to brand anyone who had the "wrong" opinions or backed the wrong horse as guilty of treason (as its results clearly show), and I have already pointed out repeatedly how the situation warranted investigation.

This is just being hysterical. You're trying to cover up that the investigation has collapsed with dramatic, overwrought attempts to warn of Trump having ... treason trials? Purges? This is just silly. I'm not going to dignify your not so thinly veiled smears ("Dear Leader and Russia") beyond that.

But its telling that you gleefully sneer about how the "Resistance" against Trump is "disintegrating". For all your protestations to the contrary, you certainly are talking like a Trump supporter who wants Trump to win, not merely someone who questions the "collusion" theory.

I do sneer at the Capital-R Resistance, because they've always been a bunch of pathetic clowns who are shit at everything but getting gullible, upset people to believe in the fantasy that they can defeat Trump without actually doing politics, and they deserve to disintergrate. To be replaced by people who actually know how to do politics, as opposed to obsessing for 2.5 years over the political equivalent of speaking to the manager and/or calling the cops over asinine spy novel bullshit.

Imagine not sneering at these idiots.

[The Romulan Republic]

The following are facts. Not admitted speculation like "Greenwald was barred from MSNBC for questioning collusion", or outright lies like "Collusion was made up by the Clinton campaign to justify their defeat". Facts.

1. While Barr's summary claims complete exoneration of Trump on collusion, the actual passage of the Mueller report that he quotes is much more narrow: it claims only that Mueller could not establish Trump's involvement in a criminal conspiracy with Russia during the election. It says nothing about conspiring with private entities not directly tied to the Russian government, nor about ways in which Trump might be a dupe of or compromised by Russia that do not qualify as crimes.

2. The report does not exonerate the Trump campaign of "collusion". Collusion is not a criminal term. Trump may not have illegally conspired with Russia, but we know for a fact that the Trump campaign colluded- that they sought illegally obtained information from Russia to benefit their campaign, most notably in the Trump Tower meeting.

3. Therefore, we also know that Barr lied (or, more charitably, severely exaggerated) in his summary when he said that the report exonerated Trump of collusion.

4. Mueller pointedly drew no conclusion on obstruction. Barr and Rosenstein concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute for obstruction, after Barr made it clear prior to getting the position as AG that he believes it almost impossible for a President to commit obstruction.

And no, its not okay to obstruct an investigation if it turns out that you were innocent of the original charge. It is supremely stupid to obstruct an investigation where you are innocent, but... it's Trump.

5. The investigation absolutely and unequivocally supports the claim that a substantial Russian interference campaign occurred in the 2016 election. Something which Trump and his supporters naturally ignore, because it serves their interests to do so, at the expense of national security.

6. Multiple other investigations into Trump, including some that spun off from the Mueller probe, are still ongoing.

These are facts. Draw whatever conclusions from them you will, but these issues need to be addressed, and no amount of invective, deflection, assertions, or smears will make them go away.

It is also a fact that Trump and his allies are using this victory to brand those who accused Trump of collusion and investigated him as guilty of "treasonous" acts- something that Sarah Sanders was quick to emphasize carries the death penalty. And to demand further investigation of their opponents for the "crime" of investigating the President. This is not "hysteria"- it is fact. Trying to deny or downplay this blatant authoritarian attack on the justice system and political opposition makes you morally culpable in supporting calls for a political purge.

I will also note that it is entirely possible to criticize collusion allegations without also defending calls to investigate the opposition for Treason. You have gone beyond arguing the merits of the collusion theory to defending despicable and authoritarian acts by Trump that have nothing to do with whether or not collusion occurred. Again, you come off looking like a loyal Trumper, or at least someone who does not mind behaving like one as long as it lets you score some points on a web forum.

Also, I have to say I just love how "anti-establishment" people like you, who are so quick to remind us of how evil the Western media and intelligence establishment are, bring up the Iraq war, tell us how we have to dismiss collusion allegations out of hand as Western propaganda... are now loudly asserting that Barr's summary must be taken at face value, that anyone who refuses to do so is "hysterical" or dishonest, etc. Need I remind you that Barr's resume includes "covered up Iran Contra"? This man is the very embodiment of a "corrupt Western establishment", yet we are supposed to suddenly take his word at face value because it happens to fit your narrative?

The shameless hypocrisy and dishonesty would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.

Anyway, the DOJ is now saying that the report will be released within weeks (presumably to give them time to redact stuff). Hopefully, then, we will get a fuller sense of what Mueller's conclusions were, and why. However, I believe that Congress, at least, must still see the full and unreacted report, to ensure that the redactions are justified by necessity and not done simply to conceal details that would reflect poorly on Trump or on Barr.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll also point out that if you really cared so much about the corruption of the Western establishment, you would be looking at this report and saying "Holy Shit, all that sleazy stuff Trump and his campaign did was legal? America really needs to tighten its laws on political campaigns and executive powers." Not "HAH HAH Trump vindicated! Now I can score some points on a web forum!"

Oh, by the way, 84% of Americans and 75% of Republicans agree with me that the full report should be made public:

https://www.businessinsider.com/majorit ... reddit.com

55% say that they believe the investigation was conducted fairly, while only 43% (virtually synonymous with Trump's approval ratings IIRC) believe that it was a "witch hunt".

Again we see that the only ones who aren't clamouring for a full public report are the ones who bray loudest about it completely exonerating Trump. I wonder why that is.

[Jub]

I'll also point out that if you really cared so much about the corruption of the Western establishment, you would be looking at this report and saying "Holy Shit, all that sleazy stuff Trump and his campaign did was legal? America really needs to tighten its laws on political campaigns and executive powers." Not "HAH HAH Trump vindicated! Now I can score some points on a web forum!"

I agree that the laws should be changed, I just also know that the won't be. Politicians do sleazy things to gain and stay in power and while Trump may be the worst in a long while I'd be willing to bet that men and women from both parties have done their share of shady shit to get where they are. It's like asking them to vote for pay cuts, or change campaign finance laws that they themselves abuse, they should do it but we shouldn't expect them to do so.

Oh, by the way, 84% of Americans and 75% of Republicans agree with me that the full report should be made public:

https://www.businessinsider.com/majorit ... reddit.com

Honest question, who here has said they shouldn't be released? At worst I gave reasons why, even if the report sings his glowing praises, Trump might hold back the report a while.

I fully support the report being released with as little redacted as possible. I just don't think it'll change anything.

[The Romulan Republic]

Glad to hear that you support its release.

As far as the laws needing to be changed is concerned, that was addressed at Vymple, not at you. But I'm willing to bet that we could get some laws passed on foreign election interference, between the Democrats who are outraged over 2016, and the few remaining old guard nationalist Republicans. However, to have the information on the full extent of any loop holes Trump and Russia may have exploited, we need the full report.

Just give us the facts. Give the people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, whoever it helps or hurts, and let the chips fall where they may.

[Jub]

Chill, the report is coming we can discuss that when it gets here. Until then you're spinning your wheels and working yourself up for nothing.