Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[S019]

Maybe Mueller can indict some officials for colluding with Israel now.

This is something that Ilhan Omar would say. This is not an acceptable coent.

[S019]

Why do you guys WANT it to be true that trump colluded with russia? It is bizarre to me.

Millions of Americans are livid that their President WASN’T colluding with a foreign power

Think about that for a second. Imagine half of the country actively hoping that FDR or Truman was caught colluding with the Japanese during WW2.

It’s difficult to comprehend

FDR was a decent men]/b] while Trump is a corrupt, narcissistic ,bigoted sack of sh!t

*Wonders how FDR is a decent man*
*Looks at party label*
*Ah, now it makes sense*

FDR is overrated and his policies were really watered down socialism. Had we chosen Hoover again, Landon, Willkie, or Dewey, today, our nation would be a much better place

[S019]

Why do you guys WANT it to be true that trump colluded with russia? It is bizarre to me.

Millions of Americans are livid that their President WASN’T colluding with a foreign power

Think about that for a second. Imagine half of the country actively hoping that FDR or Truman was caught colluding with the Japanese during WW2.

It’s difficult to comprehend

FDR was a decent men]/b] while Trump is a corrupt, narcissistic ,bigoted sack of sh!t

*Wonders how FDR is a decent man*
*Looks at party label*
*Ah, now it makes sense*

FDR is overrated and his policies were really watered down socialism. Had we chosen Hoover again, Landon, Willkie, or Dewey, today, our nation would be a much better place

I'm well aware of the clown car you ride in, so I don't pay much attention to your posts.

I just feel that America would be better off, without FDR's radical expansion of government, you can disagree, but that's my view, had it even been a moderate Democrat, America would have been better off, than we were with FDR.

[S019]

Is anyone honestly surprised this ended with a whimper? Even i checked out on following the investigation months ago. Took too long and got boring. Either way, the American voter dosent care about scandals when the economy is good. See: Tea Pot dome, Iran Contra, Clinton's scandals, Jack Abramoff, etc...

Senator Conrad Burns agrees that Jack Abramoff had no impact on the MT Senate race when he soundly defeated Jon Tester in 2006, Conrad Burns is still a Senator to this day

[S019]

Is anyone honestly surprised this ended with a whimper? Even i checked out on following the investigation months ago. Took too long and got boring. Either way, the American voter dosent care about scandals when the economy is good. See: Tea Pot dome, Iran Contra, Clinton's scandals, Jack Abramoff, etc...

Senator Conrad Burns agrees that Jack Abramoff had no impact on the MT Senate race when he soundly defeated Jon Tester in 2006,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-year_itch

Conrad Burns is still a Senator to this day

Yes....i hear him and newly elected Bob Hugin, who was soundly rejected by the voters of NJ due to Menedez's corruption, have become great friends in the Senate

Burns was mired in the Abramoff scandal and it was enough to cost him reelection, just like "Macaca" was enough to cost George Allen reelection

Bob Hugin was a Trump hugger and got hammered for his pharmaceutical ties

[S019]

Is anyone honestly surprised this ended with a whimper? Even i checked out on following the investigation months ago. Took too long and got boring. Either way, the American voter dosent care about scandals when the economy is good. See: Tea Pot dome, Iran Contra, Clinton's scandals, Jack Abramoff, etc...

Senator Conrad Burns agrees that Jack Abramoff had no impact on the MT Senate race when he soundly defeated Jon Tester in 2006,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-year_itch

Conrad Burns is still a Senator to this day

Yes....i hear him and newly elected Bob Hugin, who was soundly rejected by the voters of NJ due to Menedez's corruption, have become great friends in the Senate

Burns was mired in the Abramoff scandal and it was enough to cost him reelection, just like "Macaca" was enough to cost George Allen reelection

What factor do you think caused Allen to lose more? The fact his election happened during the 6 year itch with a deeply unpopular presidency with a state with fast changing demographics favorable to Democrats....or Maccaca?

For every reason you list for a specific candidate losing....there are completely opposite examples of where someone did or said the same and still won anyway. What you are falling for is what is known as the narrative fallacy.

Atlas cant let go of this obsession with finding a simple easy to  understand A to B to C causal explanation for election outcomes. Candidate said something dumb -> all voters are totally informed on the situation and simultaneously reacted and interpreted the comment the same way -> voters voted the politician out. Its not that simple. The explanation is always something boring such as the partisan tilt of the state, demographics, state of the economy, etc.... but people would much rather prefer the interesting narrative. This is understandable of course as human brains have literally evolved to seek out and create narratives to explain things.

Bob Hugin was a Trump hugger and got hammered for his pharmaceutical ties

Corey Booker is literally pharmas biggest whore in the Senate lol

Allen's and Burns' races were close enough that those two things could have swing them. Burns lost by 0.88, Allen lost by 0.39, it is not hard to think that the Jack Abramoff scandal swung 1% of Montana voters and that Allen's "macaca" comment swung 0.5% of Virgini voters, those small amounts is all that was needed to swing the election. For someone like Lincoln Chaffee or Mike DeWine, or even Jim Talent, you can blame the national environment, also Talent, Chaffee, and DeWine did not make many missteps, also it is not impossible to imagine Santorum losing by 13 or 14, instead of 17, if he did not make all the missteps that he did. Missteps hurt a campaign and sometimes swing elections and with them an entire chamber of Congress.

[S019]

It did explicitly state Trump wasn't exonerated so it's too far to say this exonerates him, though it is probably a relief for him compared to what some people may have been expecting/hoping for.

You have to remember that Republicans control the narrative, so this is going to be spun as a complete exoneration. With the economy the way it is, this country's clueless independents will all come home and his approval rating will probably be in the 60s by the end of the year.

Lolololololololololol

Trump is way too polarizing to have an approval above 53%, even in a perfect storm, his approval will peak at 47% at the 2020 election and then immediately plunge back into the lower 40's by February 2021

[S019]

While it's true that this won't change enough minds to have an actual impact on the results of the 2020 Presidential election, this seems like good news for Trump from what I've heard.

I'm starting to think 2020 is going to be a 2004 redux.

No, because the popular vote is Likely/Safe D and just about everyone agrees that Trump will do worse in the EC, he almost certainly loses Michigan, Pennsylvania is 50-50, his only pick up opportunity is really NH, which is 50-50

[S019]

Has anyone read the report, if so, could you summarize it. I’m too lazy to read a 400+ page report

[S019]

A lot of redactions in the 1st one hundred pages of the report

https://imgur.com/a/uOPFCyq

Yes, I was scrolling through it, and found one page entirely redacted, and multiple pages with more than half redacted, I only looked at the first 50 pages-or so