How Trump "Survived" Mueller Probe


bambooshots

Suspended
Jul 25, 2013
1,414
2,870
I am at loss of words how those can defend trump

people in this very thread support junior in 2024. What the actual hell
Of all the presidential candidates, he’s the only one whose political leaning is aligned with mine:
E16D6ECF-8054-4734-91B4-8C48C6F10CBC.jpeg


Same goes for Don Jr.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solver

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
That’s the problem. He’s as guilty as they come and you can’t see the Forrest for the trees
The only guilty party was Hillary and the DNC and how they cheated Bernie Sanders in the primary. There's much more public evidence of that than anything Mueller uncovered.

This from someone who voted for Obama twice and will never vote for a Democrat again until they rid themselves of the Clinton disease.
 

RichardMZhlubb

Contributor
Nov 26, 2010
209
14,839
Washington, DC
Evidence thus far does not support this claim.

If they want to nail him with something they should get better at fabricating evidence that sticks, as Trump is more than halfway through his first term.
When I read posts like this, I wonder if the Mueller report is written in some sort of code that Trump defenders cannot understand, because there is no way that anyone can read that report and come away thinking that Mueller didn’t find evidence of a laundry list of serious abuses of power by Trump. The guy tried to get a hostile foreign government to help his campaign, and when they committed a bunch of crimes to help him, he welcomed and encouraged those crimes, and then he lied about and tried to cover up both his contacts with the Russians and the Russian crimes. And, he then tried repeatedly to block the investigation of those contacts and crimes. He tried to get Mueller fired (which would have been illegal) and he even tried to get Sessions to block Mueller from investigating the Russian criminal interference.

The only way to conclude that there is no evidence of Trump wrongdoing is to live in a fantasy world of make believe. But, then again, you people thought a failed TV game show host could be a competent president, so I guess you’ve been in that world for quite a while already.
 

TheFluffyDuck

macrumors 6502
Jul 26, 2012
496
1,143
Gods a nasty piece of work that creates worms that burrow into toddlers eyes and makes them blind. Of course he is with Trump :p
 

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,440
10,360
When I read posts like this, I wonder if the Mueller report is written in some sort of code that Trump defenders cannot understand, because there is no way that anyone can read that report and come away thinking that Mueller didn’t find evidence of a laundry list of serious abuses of power by Trump. The guy tried to get a hostile foreign government to help his campaign, and when they committed a bunch of crimes to help him, he welcomed and encouraged those crimes, and then he lied about and tried to cover up both his contacts with the Russians and the Russian crimes. And, he then tried repeatedly to block the investigation of those contacts and crimes. He tried to get Mueller fired (which would have been illegal) and he even tried to get Sessions to block Mueller from investigating the Russian criminal interference.

The only way to conclude that there is no evidence of Trump wrongdoing is to live in a fantasy world of make believe. But, then again, you people thought a failed TV game show host could be a competent president, so I guess you’ve been in that world for quite a while already.
yes, it's in code.. it uses words bigger than 2 syllables :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: samcraig

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Jun 13, 2015
2,457
4,451
TOTAL EXONERATION
"
As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.
"
 

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,440
10,360
TOTAL EXONERATION
"
As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.
"
This does raise a question:

if the evidence is enough that Mueller believes a thorough FBI investigation would find crimes. Why didn't Mueller investigate them?

OR, is it possible those crimes are the subject of the 10+ ongoing investigations that spawned from the Mueller Investigation and that the FBI is investigating those potential crimes. we dont' know what those investigations are as they were all redacted in the public release.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,606
24,509
Texas
This does raise a question:

if the evidence is enough that Mueller believes a thorough FBI investigation would find crimes. Why didn't Mueller investigate them?
The para is talking about the President's perspective, not that the investigation could've gone further.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rhonindk

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Jun 13, 2015
2,457
4,451
yaxomoxay's spin can't substitute for Mueller's testimony.
 
Last edited:

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,606
24,509
Texas
yaxomoxey's spin can't substitute for Mueller's testimony.



(not sure why you're implying that I am against Mueller's testimony. I was among the first ones to say that Barr's testimony was kinda irrelevant and that we need to have Mueller testify in both chambers)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rhonindk

Rhonindk

macrumors 68040
Oct 3, 2014
3,766
7,350
watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
Why would they impeach him? (and I guess we're talking about removal since impeachment is the House's duty). For no committed crime? Do we really want to open this Pandora's box?
After some of the conversations here, some of the speech in Washington DC, and some of the speech in the media there are a number of folks who desperately want just that.
[doublepost=1556908282][/doublepost]
Here's the best takedown of Rachel Maddow I've seen.

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1122551982332481537?s=19
That was a pretty decent shred. Wow. :cool: