Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

Redacted Mueller Report Poll

Redacted Mueller Report Poll   

16 members have voted

  1. 1. Answer the following after reading about the Redacted Report: Check all that you think is likely true.

    • The Report exonerates Trump of collusion
    • The Report neither exonerates Trump nor incriminates Trump of collusion
    • The Report conclusively proves that Trump colluded
      0
    • The Report's 10 cases of obstruction of justice against Trump can easily be argued away in Trump's favor
    • The Report's 10 cases of obstruction of justice against Trump are likely true, and he should face punishment
    • Trump's approval will increase following the Report
    • Trump's approval will stay the same following the Report
    • Trump's approval will decrease following the Report
    • Trump will be impeached and removed from office, following the Report
      0
    • Trump will be impeached but not removed from office, following the Report
    • An impeachment bill will pass the House, but be blocked in the Senate
    • An impeachment bill will be voted on but fail
    • An impeachment bill will not be voted on.
    • The report will help Trump's 2020 campaign
    • The report will help the Democratic opponent's of Trump in the 2020 campaign.
    • Other
      0


Recommended Posts

Mueller's key findings

● Trump, when told of appointment of special counsel Mueller, said: “This is the end of my presidency.”

● “Substantial evidence” supports Comey over Trump in account of Flynn meeting.

●Trump campaign attempted to obtain Hillary Clinton’s private emails.

● Campaign expected to benefit from stolen information released by the Russians.

So I'm going to say : A small down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not want the 10 cases of obstruction to be argued in Trump's favor, I could just see it happening. Hence my vote there.

 

3 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

You forgot one option....

incredible waste of time and money

^This too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

You forgot one option....

incredible waste of time and money

Because someone who has been elected U.S. President should automatically be considered clear and above reproach of any possible crime or wrongdoing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

You forgot one option....

incredible waste of time and money

I don't think it was a waste of time, because we need to know if he colluded or obstructed since it seemed very possible that he did. To me the Report doesn't even exonerate him nor does it incriminate. It makes it sound more like, "Ok, this is as much as I could to within this time limit. If someone finds any more information, then we can do this all over again." 

His reason for not subpoenaing Trump was that it would slow down the investigation, not that it was unnecessary. It seems Mueller was pressed to wrap this up quicker than he would like. He also states that there are people who refused to speak and information that was erased, destroyed, possibly hidden, that could pretty much could decide whether to exonerate or incriminate Trump. The report does neither. The report seems to be begging for interpretation by voters and lawmakers to make of it what they will. 

The 10 obstruction possibilities really need to be debated. 

I also think it's worrying that Trump thought his presidency would be over when he first learned about the Mueller investigation. That sounds like guilt. What innocent person says that? 

At this point, I don't think it's impeachable without legislators and the court analyzing the 10 obstruction possibilities. 

I think Trump avoids being Nixon-level scandal, but this is much worse than Bill Clinton's scandal for sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

At this point, I don't think it's impeachable without legislators and the court analyzing the 10 obstruction possibilities.

Ah, yes. The impeachment fiasco that turns any charges against a U.S. President or other high Federal official and strips them entirely of being any sort of due process or concept of "justice" in any remote sense and turns it to political theatre, nepotistic favour-trading, and partisan closing of ranks. The Constitutional clause's very existence makes the motto of the District of Columbia, "And Justice for All," nothing more than an insulting taunt while it exists and is in force, or any mechanisms, even de facto, where high government officials (or wealthy elites) have different (and preferential) rules about the way their criminal procedures are compared to all other citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Patine said:

Ah, yes. The impeachment fiasco that turns any charges against a U.S. President or other high Federal official and strips them entirely of being any sort of due process or concept of "justice" in any remote sense and turns it to political theatre, nepotistic favour-trading, and partisan closing of ranks. The Constitutional clause's very existence makes the motto of the District of Columbia, "And Justice for All," nothing more than an insulting taunt while it exists and is in force, or any mechanisms, even de facto, where high government officials (or wealthy elites) have different (and preferential) rules about the way their criminal procedures are compared to all other citizens.

 

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Because someone who has been elected U.S. President should automatically be considered clear and above reproach of any possible crime or wrongdoing?

🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

 

🤔

Do you have a defense of "politicized justice" there, or are you just unproductively shitting on the fact I'm criticizing the institution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Do you have a defense of "politicized justice" there, or are you just unproductively shitting on the fact I'm criticizing the institution?

Ooh someone's getting feisty today! No, I'm just pointing out the two comments made on extreme ends of each other, one defending the rights of the President while the other admonishing them within a mere 9 minutes of each other. It was all very tongue-in-cheek I assure you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Ooh someone's getting feisty today! No, I'm just pointing out the two comments made on extreme ends of each other, one defending the rights of the President while the other admonishing them within a mere 9 minutes of each other. It was all very tongue-in-cheek I assure you.

Actually, you obviously misunderstood the tenor of the first comment, or you'd see there was no contribution or "extreme ends" effect. The first one was a sarcastic jab at DisingenuousAbe's declaration that an inquiry into a President's suspected wrongdoing was a waste of time and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Actually, you obviously misunderstood the tenor of the first comment, or you'd see there was no contribution or "extreme ends" effect. The first one was a sarcastic jab at DisingenuousAbe's declaration that an inquiry into a President's suspected wrongdoing was a waste of time and money.

Actually, you obviously misunderstood the tenor of my comment, or you'd see that I understood the sarcasm. In fact, I had written that in your impeachment quote, you were defending the rights of those accused from a political circus, while in the first quote, you were instead admonishing them with sarcasm and making sure to not put them above any other citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

Actually, you obviously misunderstood the tenor of my comment, or you'd see that I understood the sarcasm. In fact, I had written that in your impeachment quote, you were defending the rights of those accused from a political circus, while in the first quote, you were instead admonishing them with sarcasm and making sure to not put them above any other citizen.

Oh, that wasn't entirely clear. In that case, your brevity betrayed you. :P

So, are you of the belief, like John Randolph said of John Adams way back when, that "if the Sheriff of Washington County cannot walk into the President's office and clap him in irons and cast him into the Gaol like a common citizen on sound suspicion, then the Republic is lost and we might as well crown the President King?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...