Status
Not open for further replies.

Surfinn

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,590
USA
If it's just smooth sailing/totally clears the president I'd think it'd be pretty simple to get the conclusions out there
 

MasterYoshi

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,504

PB9d7.jpg

l̵i̵m̵e̵s̵ crimes
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,849
Norman, OK
Not surprised. It must be an incredibly detailed report, and not something to rush on.

Yep. Based on Mueller's reputation, there's probably an awful lot there to parse. I know many here are in despair over the no new indictments news, thinking this is going to be a nothingburger. I think the truth is going to lie somewhere in between. There will likely be enough meat present for the House to consider further investigation and/or possible impeachment proceedings, for obstruction if nothing else. Dems are likely about to have to make some difficult (political) calculations.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,919
Seattle
I don't think anyone can reasonably draw any conclusions form it taking more than 24 hours for the DOJ to decide how to release info about the report. This is a report that covers an investiation that has handed out nearly 40 indictments, that is probably massive.
 

BoboBrazil

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
18,765
House Dems are supposed to be having a conference call in 20 minutes I believe
 

Finalrush

Member
Dec 7, 2017
729
It's a DOJ plane known to be used for renditions. A lot of people seem to think Assange might have been extradited since he was whipping up a frenzy about it, but it could well have nothing to do with him.

Either way, its journey to London is...interesting.

EDIT: It's usually an 8 and half hour flight, so I believe the plane should be landing around 19:00 GMT/15:00 EST


Maybe nothing, maybe something.
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,839
So...without further indictments, does that mean Trump/Republicans "won"?
Well, he's already an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal crime, so he'd be in jail if he wasn't PotuS, and there are about a dozen other ongoing investigations into tax fraud, charity fraud, etc. etc. To the "party of law and order", that's fine.
 

JaseMath

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,474
Denver, CO
Well, he's already an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal crime, so he'd be in jail if he wasn't PotuS, and there are about a dozen other ongoing investigations into tax fraud, charity fraud, etc. etc. To the "party of law and order", that's fine.
And that's the problem. Like many others, I'm hoping for some documented treachery that will leave no doubt as to Trump's true allegiance, even to his own supporters, though that seems unlikely.
 

ZackieChan

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,056
To report a negaitve, that Mueller is "not recommending more indictments" does not fit this IMO. "A roadmap" is practically a synonym for "a recommendation"... this all just sounds like wishful thinking.

Anyways, we'll see... I don't buy it.
Not necessarily, but like you say, we'll see. It is wishful thinking, because the opposite is...horrifying, tbh.
Right but they got "terabytes" of data from Stone, right?
Yeah, but they could have just gotten a warrant for that. Though I guess Stone also lied to them, so that's fitting with other prosecutions.
 
Oct 29, 2017
5,354
Can Greenwald be fucking banned from Era, please? Sick to fucking death of seeing his tweets posted here. He thinks he's some galaxy brain genius but he's actually just an arrogant, smug prick.

I'm just not anywhere near as involved with political threads on Era anymore because people just cannot help themselves but post shit-take tweets over and over. So many blank posts with a single tweet embed, usually from some yahoo who is simply speculating or just giving an opinion.

Something about a tweet embed makes too many posters think it has more weight than a text post from member here. It doesn't. Too many Era posters just endlessly embedding tweets, letting their political opinions being completely informed by random Twitter hot-takes.

We're in for a rough election.
 

hendersonhank

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,390
It would be an incredibly destabilizing event. An indictment for someone as vital as the president's son would have the right screaming conspiracy, and the left screaming impeachment (at that point, how can Trump Sr. not be guilty?). It's unprecedented, and not necessarily a strategy Mueller would just outright go for prior to his conclusions seeing the light of day.

He is a lawman. He indicts criminals when he has evidence of their crimes. I don't believe he has the leeway, much less the character, to say "we've got evidence but we're not going to prosecute as a 'political strategy'". I don't think that is or even can be a reason for the SCO.

In any case his report has to explain any decisions to prosecute or not prosecute, so I guess we'll know soon enough.
 

Deleted member 5359

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,326
At the end of the day Mueller is a Republican. He probably doesn't want to be THE guy that puts the party in utter turmoil even if his findings reveal criminal activity.

This is silly. Mueller's team was comprised of some of the best investigators and prosecutors in the country. A-listers, top to bottom. They would not collectively throw their reputations into the trash for one person or for the sake of any political party.
 

skullmuffins

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,514
Apparently the Nixon results were basically a "roadmap" that didn't specifically recommend indictments, but laid out the facts and let other prosecutorial bodies do with it what they wished. This could be similar, but we don't know.
They're literally discussing this right now (Barr, Rose, Mueller). So we'll hopefully have more soon!
The special prosecutor in watergate did indict people. The "road map" was written solely for the benefit of congress to use during impeachment proceedings since the grand jury was unable to indict the president. You don't have a grand jury look at a topic for a year and a half just so they can punt on the indictment at the very end and have some other prosecutors re-present the entire case to a different grand jury.
 

ZackieChan

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,056
Yeah I'm not going to say it's impossible; I guess you can read the leak a number of ways too. Did Mueller "recommend no indictments" or simply "not recommend" anything?

Glimmers of hope lol
I guess I'm reading it very narrowly, but honestly the lack of existing sealed indictments ready to go (which was seen as Mueller's trump card) is a bit disturbing.

The special prosecutor in watergate did indict people. The "road map" was written solely for the benefit of congress to use during impeachment proceedings since the grand jury was unable to indict the president. You don't have a grand jury look at a topic for a year and a half just so they can punt on the indictment at the very end and have some other prosecutors re-present the entire case to a different grand jury.
Thanks for clarifying. Yeah, I find the whole thing so odd. Like, seriously, nothing? Just seems impossible.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,919
Seattle
The special prosecutor in watergate did indict people. The "road map" was written solely for the benefit of congress to use during impeachment proceedings since the grand jury was unable to indict the president. You don't have a grand jury look at a topic for a year and a half just so they can punt on the indictment at the very end and have some other prosecutors re-present the entire case to a different grand jury.

Yeah that's the key difference here, we all understand the President himself would be off limits for indictment but his children should not be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.