• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

DrROBschiz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,477
And what happens if there is no democratic swing? Then the info gets released to an emboldened GOP? What will they do with the Explosive judgments from Meuller?

I say, put it out in the public when its ready, it shouldn't matter when elections are held.

Regardless with no support the justice system is the next to crumble under the cloud of corruption

Its the only branch thats did anything and its on its back heels as well. With all the attacks on the FBI, the disruption of their investigations and the stacking of the Supreme Court

We are in a bad place man
 

Deleted member 18951

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,531
As an outsider looking in I truly hope this report has far reaching consequences for everyone in the White House. It looks like this is the last chance for Trump to be held to account as his own party and the electorate seem to be behind him.
 

methane47

Member
Oct 28, 2017
875
Regardless with no support the justice system is the next to crumble under the cloud of corruption

Its the only branch thats did anything and its on its back heels as well. With all the attacks on the FBI, the disruption of their investigations and the stacking of the Supreme Court

We are in a bad place man

Sigh. You're right.
 

Cup O' Tea?

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,603
Fuck the DOJ's policy about not releasing this information before elections. When you have a President who's clearly a stooge for the Russians, protocol shouldn't fucking matter.
 

Blade24070

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,991
How can this be coming to a close without Mueller having interviewed the Orangutan himself?

At a certain point, this kind of pessimism reflects more ignorantly on the poster than it does "being realistic", especially with how many flips and deals have been cut in addition to the other truckloads of events.

How about it reflects the fact that I don't expect shit to happen or change regardless of the findings unless they're truly major and catastrophic? And if I wanna be pessimistic instead of naively hopeful, so the fuck what? Rather that than getting my hopes up for something to happen. And obviously lots of shit has happened, but I'm referring to the orangutan himself, as you said.
 

ZackieChan

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,056
"he faces intensifying pressure to produce more indictments or shut down his investigation"

Does Bloomberg have legit sources or is this Trump-alligned stuff trying to control the narrative?
Bloomberg are quite well respected
Why the skepticism? It's not like Bloomberg is just making up sources, and the timeline reported here seems reasonable to boot.
People here are as bad as Trump with this shit
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,293
Bloomberg are quite well respected

People here are as bad as Trump with this shit

Them basing this story on Trump-leaning sources wouldn't be an unrespectable act, it's what much of the reporting on the investigation has been based on from other respected outlets. It's just a completely different situation if a story like this is finally coming from inside info considering how leak-proof the investigation has been.
 

mikeys_legendary

The Fallen
Sep 26, 2018
3,008
If this report is true, then it's a good idea to wait until after the election. I'd want to keep the right as complacent as possible for the midterms.
 

8byte

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,880
Kansas
There are two outcomes here, I think.

1) The findings are enough to warrant impeachment, and Mueller is intentionally waiting to see if the House get's enough flipped seats to at least give it a chance at success.

2) The findings aren't significant and won't mean much, so releasing them before the election would be extremely harmful to restoring some balance to our Government.
 
OP
OP
chadskin

chadskin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,013
Them basing this story on Trump-leaning sources wouldn't be an unrespectable act, it's what much of the reporting on the investigation has been based on from other respected outlets. It's just a completely different situation if a story like this is finally coming from inside info considering how leak-proof the investigation has been.
A June 2018 story by two of the same Bloomberg journalists saying the collusion probe would wrap up by fall was sourced to 'a person familiar with the investigation': https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...zero-in-on-trump-russia-collusion-allegations

As Ben Wittes writes:
The phrase "sources familiar with the investigation," while suggestive of sources in the investigation, often includes those defense lawyers interfacing with the prosecutors and investigators.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-news-story-about-investigation-eight-tips-who-saying-what

In other words, the June 2018 story was likely coming from Trump's lawyers. In contrast:
The phrase "government officials," while suggesting executive-branch officials, is capacious enough to include legislative-branch officials, whose tongues tend to be far looser.

So, 'two U.S. officials' could either refer to sources in the government, i.e. DOJ, or to sources in Congress. It's possible, for instance, that Mueller informed the Senate Intelligence Committee about his plans because the Committee is obviously still doing its own investigation.
 

asmith906

Member
Oct 27, 2017
27,363
I think it'll be hard to prove obstruction. I don't think Trump will directly be implicated in the finding but people around him will
 

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,760
It's so frustrating that an investigation has to happen to conclude whether Trump did something that we all saw him do in public, on television, on more than one occasion. Obviously a lot more happened behind the scenes, but what was in public was already enough to draw a conclusion.
 

Hollywood Duo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
41,837
Honestly I'll believe it when I see it.
There are two outcomes here, I think.

1) The findings are enough to warrant impeachment, and Mueller is intentionally waiting to see if the House get's enough flipped seats to at least give it a chance at success.

2) The findings aren't significant and won't mean much, so releasing them before the election would be extremely harmful to restoring some balance to our Government.
The Senate would have to flip too for impeachment.
 

kai3345

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,444
I'd love to be optimistic but with the way shit has been going lately I can't help but expect the worst
 

daveo42

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,250
Ohio
Not expecting much tbh.
Nah, I'm expecting bombshells that the GOP will look at and say:
tumblr_p7mnl2dmuQ1wvvyspo2_400.gif
 

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,985
Several sound reasons for waiting:

1) If he delivers his report to the House Intelligence Committee before the 2018 midterms, then the committee can stall the release of the report, or not release it at all. This would force Democrats on the committee to either leak it or read it in full on the House floor, but the House is not in session from October 12 (last week) to November 13, a week after the election. This would also be a political risk for Democrats with the midterms a imminent. Like the Kavanaugh hearings, if there's a groundswell of momentum for Democrats, and very little motivation for REpublicans, you just don't know what will motivate turnout. It might have seemed unlikely a month+ ago, but the Kavanaugh hearings riled up the GOP base which had a malaise. It's risky that reading the report in a special session of congress might backfire in the midterms.

2) If you want until after the midterms, and if there is a Democratic house, and Democratic-led subcommittee, then the report gets release in full with no or few redactions.

3) Aside from those two major reasons, minor reasons are that Mueller is smart and knows the president is going to claim the report is trying to politicize the investigation, and this gives less fuel to that.

Most notably though, if you're a Democrat, this is probably a good thing that Mueller waits. Right now, Democrats have the advantage with voter mobilization. Like how the Kavanaugh hearing excited the Republican base, a damaging, bomb-throwing report could also motivate the Republican base ("This witchhunt is trying to impeach our president -- We have to come out and vote or they'll impeach Trump!")...

OR... Perhaps the report isn't as damning as what we already know, and then that could also help Trump.

In any event, it could be lose:lose releasing it before the mid-terms, and even if it is damaging to Trump, Congress isn't in session so Republicans could prevent it from being released anyway, the GOP base might turnout in higher numbers as a threat of impeachment, and then the whole thing gets buried if Democrats don't take the House. If Mueller waits, and Democrats take the house, then even if there isn't substantial bombs in the report, Democrats can launch investigations of different allegations throughout the report, Trumps financial history, and more.

Waiting is probably the prudent and politically beneficial thing here.
 

8byte

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,880
Kansas
Honestly I'll believe it when I see it.

The Senate would have to flip too for impeachment.

A lot of the Senate would have to flip, but the House could still initiate the impeachment and dig deeper. Particularly I could see them exploiting their position to hang Kavanaugh over the heads of the senate, to pick one or the other. I get the feeling if the House were to dig deeper into Kavanuagh's past via impeachment, they would have ground to convict on perjury, and if it were serious enough, the Senate would be left without options.

I think if the House gets a majority next month, then they'll have a lot to hang over the heads of the Senate and work some political bargaining. Again, though, this is all dependent on Mueller's findings, and if there's actually enough here to give the House ammo to force the senates hand, flipped or not.

I could be off base here, as my understanding isn't exactly top notch, just very basic, at best.

Personally though...I'm just not expecting the findings to really be anything that will end this nightmare.
 

RoninChaos

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,334
I don't think they'll find collusion. I think the people around him definitely did collude but I don't think he's smart enough to seek that out since he didn't want to win the election. The people around him did. I do think there's a case for obstruction.
 
Oct 26, 2017
17,363
Don't think it would change much this late in the game for 2018, so hopefully he'll take all the time he can to prepare a good statement.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,798
Expecting very little, unfortunately.

If it turns out to be not much, than we should be pleased that it'll at least be a hanging, open question for voters moving into elections. If it is something, then that sucks, but it'll be big news for a while and make it easier to get Trump out of office.
 

ZedLilIndPum

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,999
Given how tight the Mueller ship has been, this is likely coming from someone outside his team (if still DOJ). So the motivations for this info being shared deserve scrutiny. The sense I get is that it's still more pressure on him to wrap it up, which is NOT a good thing.
 

Creamie

Avenger
Nov 14, 2017
543
Really should have done it a month ago. I understand waiting to see if anything flips. I would just think that his findings *should* help them flip. But nothing has made sense these past two years, so it would probably just energize the Republican base. Corruption runs deep, even to the ones that are getting reamed by it.
 
Last edited:

Teh_Lurv

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,095
People are looking for political angles that aren't there. From everything we've seen, Mueller's investigation has done everything it can to stay non-political. If the preliminary findings aren't coming until after the mid-terms, it's probably because the findings won't we ready until after the mid-terms.
 

ZackieChan

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,056
People are looking for political angles that aren't there. From everything we've seen, Mueller's investigation has done everything it can to stay non-political. If the preliminary findings aren't coming until after the mid-terms, it's probably because the findings won't we ready until after the mid-terms.
They got Comey'd last time and are still reelinng, I guess
 

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Nov 14, 2017
18,413
A midterm election having higher turnout than a presidential election? I'm going to need some receipts on that.

http://time.com/5411948/national-voter-registration-drive-record-midterm-elections/

A record number of people registered to vote in the midterm elections on National Voter Registration Day last week, surpassing the previous record set during the 2016 presidential campaign.

More than 800,000 people registered to vote this year as part of National Voter Registration Day, which fell on Sept. 25. The corresponding campaign had aimed to register 300,000 people.

By comparison, the holiday drew in 771,321 voter registrations in 2016. In 2014 — the only other midterm election for which the holiday has existed — 154,500 people registered to vote. The holiday was first observed in 2012.


Vermont: August primary boasted near record high voter turnout
https://www.apnews.com/fe2487227be748b28205c52d8ab068fa

Arizona: Record turnout expected in Arizona's primary election — and Democrats are thrilled
https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...018-record-voter-turnout-expected/1075199002/

Michigan: Voter turnout shatters recent records for Michigan primary elections
https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news...s-for-michigan-primary-elections/69-581599728

New York: A record 1.5 million vote in NY primary
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/A-record-1-5-million-vote-in-NY-primary-13230340.php

Oakland, CA: Oakland County experiences record-breaking election turnout amid ballot shortages
https://www.theoaklandpress.com/new...cle_0b84b976-9b33-11e8-aa05-43acf3f20367.html
 

Br3wnor

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,982
I imagine he has found evidence of collusion but it's going to be presented in such a dry way I'd think it doesn't lead to anything substantial actually happening. Maybe some House investigations if Dems take back the chamber but they won't have any teeth since there's no way in fucking hell that a super majority of Senators is going to convict him of impeachment.

All I can realistically hope for is that it further suppresses his favor ability rating and hampers him going into 2020 w/ the general electorate, that's about it.
 

BrassDragon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,154
The Netherlands
Why the skepticism? It's not like Bloomberg is just making up sources, and the timeline reported here seems reasonable to boot.

All the leaks so far have come from the White House and maybe DoJ to further a narrative - especially one that placates Trump and they've dangled the 'imminent' end of the investigation many times before.

I think Bloomberg is trustworthy and that the sources are real... it's more a question of cui bono.
 

XMonkey

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,827
Ya, not putting much stock in "2 US officials", even from Bloomberg. Mueller's team doesn't leak so this is not from them.

It'll be done when it's done. Speculation on timing is.. a waste of time.
 
Nov 21, 2017
1,772

As much as I would LOVE for turnout out in the 2018 midterms to beat turn out in the 2016 election, it's highly unlikely. And I don't think any of the evidence you cited really supports that that will be the outcome. We had primary records being broken in the 2010 midterm cycle as well, but turn out for the general was only 41%. And voter registration does not ultimately equate to voter turnout. Also, with a sample size of only 4 elections, I don't think voter registration on National Voter Registration Day is a good data set to base your claim on.

What you cite is evidence, however, of higher voter enthusiasm, and I do think turn out will be greater than usual for a midterm election. But greater than a presidential election? That would be historic. Below is a graph of voter turnout of presidential elections versus midterm elections since 1916. Even the best turnout for a midterm election (1966 - 48.7%) wasn't higher than the worst turn out for a presidential election (1924 - 48.9%).

acbEv4o.png


You can find the interactive version of the graph and more data at https://www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101
 

Caja 117

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,467
What are the chances that this investigation was never done with the intention to attach any wrong doing to Trump? Isnt Mueller Republican and so Rosestein? After all the Republican in the Judiciary made a show for that FBI probe for Karvanaugh, sorry if my theory is absurd, but it is hard to trust that Republican pollititians will show respect for justice and instead put party over country.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,750
Norman, OK
The Senate would have to flip too for impeachment.

The House impeaches, the Senate then holds a trial and can convict to remove the subject from office. And the Senate would need to do a lot more than just flip: you need a 2/3rds majority to convict/remove. Basically, the only way Trump is getting removed via the impeachment process is if something so bad comes to light that his own party has no choice but to turn on him. Barring that, any impeachment attempt in the House is essentially a political maneuver meant to bog Trump down and keep his numbers low.
 

Hollywood Duo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
41,837
What are the chances that this investigation was never done with the intention to attach any wrong doing to Trump? Isnt Mueller Republican and so Rosestein? After all the Republican in the Judiciary made a show for that FBI probe for Karvanaugh, sorry if my theory is absurd, but it is hard to trust that Republican pollititians will show respect for justice and instead put party over country.
Well we've already had arrests and convictions for people directly attached to him so I don't think that is a reasonable theory.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,750
Norman, OK
What are the chances that this investigation was never done with the intention to attach any wrong doing to Trump? Isnt Mueller Republican and so Rosestein? After all the Republican in the Judiciary made a show for that FBI probe for Karvanaugh, sorry if my theory is absurd, but it is hard to trust that Republican pollititians will show respect for justice and instead put party over country.

Mueller/Rosenstein aren't politicians. Trump essentially declared open war on the FBI and the IC prior to taking office. I wouldn't be too worried about them secretly being on Trump's side, here.