• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Conservatives Stunned by Mueller Suggesting Trump Is Not Innocent

N

Newenglanddeac

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
13,135
Reaction score
390
Robert Mueller’s brief, eight-minute remarks on Wednesday about his investigation left the non-conservatives who closely follow his work fairly nonplussed. Mueller was simply reiterating things he had already written in his report. Conservatives, on the other hand, erupted in outrage.

What so vexed the right about Mueller’s curt affirmation of his previous conclusions? The answer, as we’ll see, seems to be that they believed their own propaganda about what Mueller had (and had not) found. Presented even briefly with reality, their minds have reeled in shock.

Mueller produced massive evidence that President Trump committed Nixonian-scale obstruction of justice in office. But Department of Justice policy prevented him from charging a sitting president with a crime, and Mueller reportedly believes he can’t openly state that this policy prevented him from accusing Trump of crimes. Mueller views his job as sending his evidence to Congress without prejudice, where the impeachment mechanism serves as a substitute for the jury trial that such crimes would normally call for.

Trump, William Barr, and the Republican Party followed a strategy of systematically lying about this. Barr repeatedly suggested that Mueller, rather than being unable to charge Trump with crimes, simply didn’t have enough evidence of misconduct to make up his mind. By all indications, the conservative intelligentsia has failed to read the report and believes the misleading spin emanating from the president and his loyal attorney general.
Click to expand...

Full: https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.co...d-by-mueller-implying-trump-not-innocent.html
 
Wasn't that one of moonz talking points? That Mueller would have indicted Trump if he had enough evidence because he told Barr?
 
ChrisL68 said:
Wasn't that one of moonz talking points? That Mueller would have indicted Trump if he had enough evidence because he told Barr?
Click to expand...

I’m pretty certain Wrangor fell on this particular sword pretty hard. But I’m sure Moonz did as well at some point in one of his countless threads spiking the football over the “Barr Summary”.
 
Conservatives had a choice: believe Mueller, appointed to investigate due to his unassailable nonpartisan criminal justice record, given 2 years to amass a 400 page evidentiary report that clearly shows Trump and co. committing crimes including obstruction of justice; or believe Barr, handpicked to obfuscate, lie, misdirect, and mislead the American people to protect Trump.

They chose Barr. When confronted with actual reality, it’s no wonder their brains are all collectively melting.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
Full: https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.co...d-by-mueller-implying-trump-not-innocent.html
Click to expand...

Good read. More evidence that the House should just subpoena Mueller to do “Storytime with Bob” in which he just reads excerpts of the report in response to all questions.

It’s hard to believe that their whole world view depends on portray Donald Trump as an innocent man. This is a man who has paid and lawyered his way past crimes his entire life.

Beyond that, they saw Trump bully Jeff Sessions for almost two years for not using the AG position to protect Trump. Trump waited until the day after the 2018 election to accept Sessions’ resignation. He ended up installing an AG who wrote a letter explaining that Trump should be protected from the Mueller investigation.

I hope after all this is over and Trump and his co-conspirators are punished, we can go through the list of enablers and parse out which ones were complicit in the cover up or just dumb rubes.
 
there's also reporting in the NYT that Trump, who obviously hasn't read the report, was shocked to see what Mueller had to say since he was told the report totally exonerated him. all because Mueller appeared on TV.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Conservatives had a choice: believe Mueller, appointed to investigate due to his unassailable nonpartisan criminal justice record, given 2 years to amass a 400 page evidentiary report that clearly shows Trump and co. committing crimes including obstruction of justice; or believe Barr, handpicked to obfuscate, lie, misdirect, and mislead the American people to protect Trump.

They chose Barr. When confronted with actual reality, it’s no wonder their brains are all collectively melting.
Click to expand...


But for how long and to what extent?

I mean, the Pub leadership is still solidly behind the Barr spin/myth. Only way to bring or keep the truth in the light seems to be the “liberal” press (“fake news”) or ongoing investigations by congressional Dems (spun as hopelessly partisan, of course).

Congressional Pubs, feckless cunts that they are, won’t budge until they feel it’s in their interest to do so. And that probably won’t happen as long it’s Dems and the “lamestream” media doing the work of exposition.

I think we’ll need Mueller, in spite of his reticence, to continue to speak. His report and brief remarks seem inadequate to the task of adequately illuminating our ignorance-preferring populace.

Or we’ll have to get more Pub/conservative leaders to care about truth, law, honor, integrity, etc.

Somehow.
 
“I post controversial stuff”
 
How could a report that totally exonerates the president be a total fraud?
 
BarcaDeac said:
How could a report that totally exonerates the president be a total fraud?
Click to expand...

They can't seem to keep their stories straight. When Barr's Summary of the Mueller Report came out, conservatives were gloating and trash-talking all over the net, including here. Then when it turned out that Barr's "summary" left out (shockingly) a good deal of damaging material, they grew quiet. Now it's alternating between saying that Mueller is a fraud and liar, and the Mueller Report completely exonerates poor innocent Mr. Trump. The obvious contradiction in those statements doesn't matter. Hell, nothing seems to matter to them anymore, except defending Trump and attacking his critics 24/7, and taunting LibDems on social media.
 
Our comrades at internet troll farms like Zerohedge have melted their logic and reasoning capacities. Sad!
 
Newenglanddeac said:
I’m pretty certain Wrangor fell on this particular sword pretty hard. But I’m sure Moonz did as well at some point in one of his countless threads spiking the football over the “Barr Summary”.
Click to expand...

Nope. Mueller's testimony reaffirms everything I have said. The only issue Mueller didn't address (which I found curious that he remained silent on this issue) is the testimony of Barr regarding the OLC sentiment.

Barr testified in front of Congress that Mueller told him multiple times (I think the number was 3) that regardless of the OLC ruling, he (Mueller) would not pursue an indictment against Trump.

That is a massive statement that undercuts pretty much every argument that Democrats are making. If that is true, then Barr acted correctly, and the evidence didn't support indicting Trump despite the OLC's ruling (which is the current Democratic narrative). If Mueller denies that statement, then Barr has committed perjury and all the Democratic talking points fall deftly into line.

In my opinion, that is the only question that matters. Congress should call Mueller to the floor and ask that singular question to either refute or affirm Barr's testimony. If he sidesteps the question or answers in line with Barr's testimony this whole charade is over. If he answers in contradiction to Barr, then it all falls apart for Republicans.

But until Mueller addresses that question, then I choose to side with testimony that is stated under oath by Barr. Mueller reached a judgement on 'collusion' or whatever you want to call it, and he left the obstruction charge up to Barr (Mueller didn't want to handle that hot potato). Then in his 10 minutes testimony this past week Mueller reaffirmed Barr's intentions and integrity with regards to the releasing of the Mueller report (which was clearly a talking point for Dems) and basically restated that Trump is shady, temperamental, and not a good leader. I already know all of those things. What I care about is did Trump break the law? So far no one has proven the point that he did. Mueller clearly didn't, Barr clearly didn't. If Democrats want that point to resonate they need to impeach Trump and make the case in front of the national audience.

The problem for Democrats is that impeachment is a political loser for them. They won't be successful and they will force Democrats in at-risk states to give up votes in order to get the impeachment. In the end Trump will come off looking like a victim of the Democratic / Press machine which is exactly what he wants. So instead Pelosi and Co will continue fighting this semantic battle in the press, but they won't do anything about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top