Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[Reaganfan]

President Trump just arrived back at the White House and went to the cameras and said, "I just want to tell you, that America is the greatest place on Earth."

He then went back into the White House.

♥

[Fuzzy Bear]

Scott Pelley just begin 60 Minutes by saying, "The Mueller Report findings completely exonerate President Donald Trump".

Today is a Reaganfan sort of day.

How when this is contrary Mueller and Barr stated?

Firstly, prosecutors should not be making any statements regarding "exonerating" persons.

Secondly, there are no indictments, no "unindicted co-conspirators" named (Nixon was named an "unindicted co-conspirator") and no plans for indictments.  None.  And this was a criminal investigation; indeed, it was THE criminal investigation, since DoJ was pushed aside. 

Except he isn't an "exonerated" person, if he was you wouldn't have had to put it in quotations in the first place. The investigation was, at best, inconclusive in the same sense that a hung jury is--there was (according to Barr) not enough evidence to formally indict, but enough there that Trump could've done it.

For a prosecutor to say that a person who has been under a criminal investigation is "exonerated" or "not exonerated" is not their job.  Their job is to decide whether or not there is sufficient probable cause for an indictment.  In a case such as this, where there is a Constitutional issue as to whether or not a sitting President can be indicted, determining whether the President was an "unindicted co-conspirator" or whether the President's behavior would rise to the level of meriting an indictment were he/she not President.  If the facts don't rise to that level, the matter should be left at that, with the facts of the record available.

We would not consider it acceptable for a Prosecutor declining to indict a member of your family, then going on TV or publishing a document suggesting the person was guilty, talking about all the evidence we had, as in "We tried, but we fell short!".  Such an approach isn't appropriate here, either.  I've listened to a number of ignorant blowhards blather how "The President is not above the law!".  Well, yes, I agree, but the President is not below the law, either. 

[DrScholl]

I accept Mueller's ultimate conclusion, which we now have available.  But the full report should be released.

Also, the president most certainly did attempt to obstruct justice.  Barr's personal conclusions are irrelevant and unimportant.  I want to see Mueller's full, uncensored report.

In any case, it seems like (again, without having the full report--which is a necessity) there was no collusion, and I accept that.  Provided the full report is released and confirms that, I think Trump just won reelection.

That totally ignores the fact that he has has countless other problems that come in way ahead of collusion (which many people believe did happen). He spent last week attacking a dead person, he shutdown the government and didn't even get what he wanted and the list goes on. He needs more collusion to get re-elected and collusion that involves tampering with actual votes.

[bilaps]

Barr's cover letter is itself a cover-up. Maybe it is just his biased interpretation. Yeah, sure, the Russians did it all on behalf of Trump, but Trump had nothing to do with it. Nice kitty, nice kitty -- wouldn't hurt a mouse. 

How were the federal courts able to get so many convictions out of this investigation if there were nothing behind it?

You would actually need half a brain to understand that those convictions had nothing to do with collusion.

[Inmate Trump]

I accept Mueller's ultimate conclusion, which we now have available.  But the full report should be released.

Also, the president most certainly did attempt to obstruct justice.  Barr's personal conclusions are irrelevant and unimportant.  I want to see Mueller's full, uncensored report.

In any case, it seems like (again, without having the full report--which is a necessity) there was no collusion, and I accept that.  Provided the full report is released and confirms that, I think Trump just won reelection.

That totally ignores the fact that he has has countless other problems that come in way ahead of collusion (which many people believe did happen). He spent last week attacking a dead person, he shutdown the government and didn't even get what he wanted and the list goes on. He needs more collusion to get re-elected and collusion that involves tampering with actual votes.

Oh, he's no doubt one of, if not the, worst presidents of our entire history.  No one can look at his performance thus far and not see anything other than a total embarrassment and a weak leader.

He has so many things to count against him.  That said, collusion has been such a major focal point for "the resistance" for the last two years and one of the harshest criticisms towards him.

[Thatkat04]

The hot takes here are unbearable. It absolutely sucks this forum doesn't have a delete account function because today has utterly soured my taste of anything atlas.

[Koharu]

A few thoughts:

- As I've mentioned before, Trump has done enough in plain sight to necessitate impeachment. I was okay with waiting for the Mueller probe to finish to make sure there wasn't something else to add to the laundry list. It's done. Let's go.

- We still don't know what the report says. We have Barr's summary, which doesn't even carry any complete sentences from the report. It needs to be made public ASAP.

- As for those wanting to address the Russia issue, Barr does admit that Mueller found evidence Russia did indeed attempt to interfere with the election, though we already knew that via the previous indictments.

- Lawfare, once again, has an excellent take on this:

In other respects, however, Barr’s summary of Mueller’s report is ominous for the president. While Mueller did not find that Trump obstructed his investigation, he also made a point of not reaching the opposite conclusion: that Trump didn’t obstruct the investigation. Indeed, he appears to have created a substantial record of the president’s troubling interactions with law enforcement for adjudication in noncriminal proceedings—which is to say in congressional hearings that are surely the next step.

Mueller, writes Barr, did not make a “traditional prosecutorial judgment” on the subject. Instead, for each act with a potentially obstructive nexus, “the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.”

This is, as a preliminary matter, a striking decision on Mueller’s part. It almost certainly flows from the difficult questions that arise when one tries to imagine how one would apply the obstruction of justice statutes to presidential acts that are, on their face, authorized by Article II of the Constitution—questions we have addressed at great length on this site.

In laying out this summary, Barr’s letter reveals several new facts about Mueller’s obstruction probe. First, it notes that Mueller’s report covers several actions by Trump that could raise obstruction concerns, “most of which have been the subject of public reporting.” This confirms what has long been suspected: that Mueller believed that at least some of the president’s publicly reported actions—likely including some of his public actions—could raise obstruction problems. It also suggests that there are potentially obstructive acts that have not yet been reported. Barr’s letter thus leaves the distinct sense that Mueller’s detailed accounting of the president’s potential acts of obstruction is significant, regardless of Barr’s own judgment as to the criminality of any of those acts.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-bill-barrs-letter

[GeorgiaModerate]

The hot takes here are unbearable. It absolutely sucks this forum doesn't have a delete account function because today has utterly soured my taste of anything atlas.

Don't leave; you're a good poster and at least some of us would miss you.  If it's that bad, take a break for a few days or a week.  This too shall pass.

[ProudModerate2]

Russia, Russia, Russia!
Oh wait....

You say "Oh wait" because you forgot about Flynn, didn't you?
We understand your error.
(President Trump’s former national security advisor, Lt. General Michael Flynn, was secretly communicating with Russian officials at the same time Russia was attacking our democracy. Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his communications with Russia. His final sentencing and more than likely prison-time, will be decided very soon.)

"The special counsel’s investigation was long, thorough and conclusive: There was no collusion."

Make up your mind.
Is it "Russia, Russia, Russia" or "collusion?"
You seem to change the (your) topic, when you realize you are wrong.

No matter the topic it’s all a witch-hunt

Yes, very true. Mueller went "hunting for witches" and he indicted quite a bit of them. I hope they enjoy their jail time.

[Dr. Arch]

President Trump just arrived back at the White House and went to the cameras and said, "I just want to tell you, that America is the greatest place on Earth."

He then went back into the White House.

He can't seem to stop lying pretty much ever.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I accept Mueller's ultimate conclusion, which we now have available.  But the full report should be released.

Also, the president most certainly did attempt to obstruct justice.  Barr's personal conclusions are irrelevant and unimportant.  I want to see Mueller's full, uncensored report.

In any case, it seems like (again, without having the full report--which is a necessity) there was no collusion, and I accept that.  Provided the full report is released and confirms that, I think Trump just won reelection.

That totally ignores the fact that he has has countless other problems that come in way ahead of collusion (which many people believe did happen). He spent last week attacking a dead person, he shutdown the government and didn't even get what he wanted and the list goes on. He needs more collusion to get re-elected and collusion that involves tampering with actual votes.

Nobody cares about any of that anymore, all of that will be forgotten by American voters. Meanwhile, Trump can shape the narrative on this and bring it up whenever he wants to humiliate Democrats and delegitimize any other investigations or ethical concerns that they have. I'm still not convinced 100% that it has cemented his re-election, if this had dropped in October of next year it would have, but it unequivocally is a benefit to him. 

[Thatkat04]

The hot takes here are unbearable. It absolutely sucks this forum doesn't have a delete account function because today has utterly soured my taste of anything atlas.

Don't leave; you're a good poster and at least some of us would miss you.  If it's that bad, take a break for a few days or a week.  This too shall pass.

Sorry, just venting.


In the end, I'm happy the investigation was allowed to proceed and Trump isnt some Manchurian style candidate. However, its March of 2019. Its far to early to be making politcal prognoses about the 2020 election. Yet cable news, twitter and this forum are all rushing to make their own predictions and its overwhelming.


Your absolutely right though, time for me to take a break and come back when everyones calmed down.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Scott Pelley just begin 60 Minutes by saying, "The Mueller Report findings completely exonerate President Donald Trump".

Today is a Reaganfan sort of day.

How when this is contrary Mueller and Barr stated?

Firstly, prosecutors should not be making any statements regarding "exonerating" persons.

Secondly, there are no indictments, no "unindicted co-conspirators" named (Nixon was named an "unindicted co-conspirator") and no plans for indictments.  None.  And this was a criminal investigation; indeed, it was THE criminal investigation, since DoJ was pushed aside. 

Except he isn't an "exonerated" person, if he was you wouldn't have had to put it in quotations in the first place. The investigation was, at best, inconclusive in the same sense that a hung jury is--there was (according to Barr) not enough evidence to formally indict, but enough there that Trump could've done it.

For a prosecutor to say that a person who has been under a criminal investigation is "exonerated" or "not exonerated" is not their job.  Their job is to decide whether or not there is sufficient probable cause for an indictment.  In a case such as this, where there is a Constitutional issue as to whether or not a sitting President can be indicted, determining whether the President was an "unindicted co-conspirator" or whether the President's behavior would rise to the level of meriting an indictment were he/she not President.  If the facts don't rise to that level, the matter should be left at that, with the facts of the record available.

We would not consider it acceptable for a Prosecutor declining to indict a member of your family, then going on TV or publishing a document suggesting the person was guilty, talking about all the evidence we had, as in "We tried, but we fell short!".  Such an approach isn't appropriate here, either.  I've listened to a number of ignorant blowhards blather how "The President is not above the law!".  Well, yes, I agree, but the President is not below the law, either. 

Mueller never said that there wasn’t enough evidence to indict Trump for Obstruction of Justice and the fact that he didn’t offer any conclusions on that question is extremely strange and rather troubling, to say the least.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Good to see Atlas Democrats scurrying about like rats on a sinking ship. Today has been a good day.

[DrScholl]

I accept Mueller's ultimate conclusion, which we now have available.  But the full report should be released.

Also, the president most certainly did attempt to obstruct justice.  Barr's personal conclusions are irrelevant and unimportant.  I want to see Mueller's full, uncensored report.

In any case, it seems like (again, without having the full report--which is a necessity) there was no collusion, and I accept that.  Provided the full report is released and confirms that, I think Trump just won reelection.

That totally ignores the fact that he has has countless other problems that come in way ahead of collusion (which many people believe did happen). He spent last week attacking a dead person, he shutdown the government and didn't even get what he wanted and the list goes on. He needs more collusion to get re-elected and collusion that involves tampering with actual votes.

Nobody cares about any of that anymore, all of that will be forgotten by American voters. Meanwhile, Trump can shape the narrative on this and bring it up whenever he wants to humiliate Democrats and delegitimize any other investigations or ethical concerns that they have. I'm still not convinced 100% that it has cemented his re-election, if this had dropped in October of next year it would have, but it unequivocally is a benefit to him. 

All of that is already baked into public perception. With that said he does something outrageous every week and there is no reason to think he will change in time to be re-elected. If anything this report will prompt him to do worse things.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

DELUSIONAL DEMS are devastated by the presidents exoneration. I’m sure they’ll start up a new witch hunt soon tho. The average voter is over the entire Russia collusion/ trump. Is illegitimate bullsh**t. Economy is booming and so are re-election chances

The economy is no different now then it was in Obama’s second term

Actually, we had the yield curve invert earlier this month and that's been a fairly reliable indicator of a recession coming soon. (We don't always get a recession when the curve inverts, but we never get one without it inverting.)  I'd say we're likely to have a recession in 2020, with the only question being how deep it is and whether it happens early enuf in the year to cause economic pain in time to affect the election.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

President Trump just arrived back at the White House and went to the cameras and said, "I just want to tell you, that America is the greatest place on Earth."

Which just goes to show that even a little over two years of Trump hasn't been enuf to change that America is great.  It'll still be greater once he's out of office.

[Beet]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

The specific crime is the hacking of a Presidential campaign and political party. The 21st century version of the Watergate break-in. That was a major crime with huge impacts, unlike whatever happened with Hillary's e-mails which literally had zero impact.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

The specific crime is the hacking of a Presidential campaign and political party. The 21st century version of the Watergate break-in. That was a major crime with huge impacts, unlike whatever happened with Hillary's e-mails which literally had zero impact.

Well, yes, and those individuals (most of the Russian Nationals) have been charged.

[SteveRogers]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

The specific crime is the hacking of a Presidential campaign and political party. The 21st century version of the Watergate break-in. That was a major crime with huge impacts, unlike whatever happened with Hillary's e-mails which literally had zero impact.

Well, yes, and those individuals (most of the Russian Nationals) have been charged.

And it’s still illegal to cover up other people’s crimes.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

And it’s still illegal to cover up other people’s crimes.

Barr now appears to be desperately hoping that no one will point this out.

As he said at his confirmation hearing, "It would be a crime for president to pardon someone in exchange for their silence"

"Do you believe a president could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient's promise not incriminate him?" Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Barr during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"No, that would be a crime," Barr said.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-floats-pardoning-paul-manafort-not-table-1235513

President Donald Trump would not rule out pardoning his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort during an interview, published Wednesday, with the New York Post.

“It was never discussed, but I wouldn’t take it off the table. Why would I take it off the table?" the president told the newspaper in the Oval Office.

https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/1032442088338731008?s=21

And that's before dealing with the donkey in the living room: Barr's letter says nothing about the various quid pro quos (dirt on Clinton, emails, Trump Tower Moscow, sanctions) revolving around the Trump Tower meeting.

One added note: I think we're going to find out that the DoJ was very... conservative when it came to defining who it counted as the "Russian government".

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

The specific crime is the hacking of a Presidential campaign and political party. The 21st century version of the Watergate break-in. That was a major crime with huge impacts, unlike whatever happened with Hillary's e-mails which literally had zero impact.

Well, yes, and those individuals (most of the Russian Nationals) have been charged.

And it’s still illegal to cover up other people’s crimes.

And there's no probable cause to believe that Trump, or anyone on his campaign staff or current staff did so.  That's why there's no indictments; there's no probable cause.  No indictments.  No unindicted co-conspirators.  

Donald Trump is not, and should not. be above the law.  But he shouldn't be below the law, either.  The latter is something you and folks like you here seem to think is OK.  It's not, and his being Trump doesn't make it so.

And while I feel for the American people and the American taxpayers that have had to endure this, I am, quite frankly, celebrating the intense, wrenching angst that the intellectually dishonest Echo Chamber Posse are going through now.  Not everyone here, mind you.  Just the Echo Chamber Posse.  You know who you are. 

[GoTfan]

Jesus Christ. Democrats you literally have a wealth of issues to attack him on. His odious economic policies, his trade war, his tax cuts for the rich, his f***ing wall, his obsession with keeping the minimum wage low.

Why do you need to attack him on Russia when you can literally attack him on any of these?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Jesus Christ. Democrats you literally have a wealth of issues to attack him on. His odious economic policies, his trade war, his tax cuts for the rich, his f***ing wall, his obsession with keeping the minimum wage low.

Why do you need to attack him on Russia when you can literally attack him on any of these?

Because he's guilty.

And I would prefer to live in a nation where rule of law exists.

(Not that anyone should let up on any of the others. And don't forget his racism and bigotry, his attempted autocracy, his gross incompetence and unfitness, his pathetic self-dealing, etc.)