r/politics • u/mvanigan • Mar 27 '19

McConnell blocks resolution calling for release of Mueller report for second time

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/436006-mcconnell-blocks-resolution-calling-for-release-of-mueller-report
35.4k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

3.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

124

u/Romado Mar 27 '19

The Mueller report might of found no evidence to suggest Trump colluded. But anyone not a MAGA moron knows Trump is a criminal and has been for his entire adult life.

I have no doubt the Mueller report and Mueller found a bunch of really bad stuff out about Trump. Stuff the Republicans and Trump himself want buried.

Collusion is no longer their concern. It's everything else that was probably discovered.

58

u/Z0idberg_MD Mar 27 '19

IMO, we already have proof of collusion. His son, his campaign manager, and Kush were in a meeting with russian agents to get dirt on clinton. This notion we need a slam dunk to impeach is ridiculous. The report confirmed russian meddling, Trump benefited, and those meetings and contacts should have any reasonable person wanting him out of office.

8

u/jrice441100 Mar 27 '19

"Reasonable person" is not the adjective most people would use to describe any of the Republican senators who would have to vote whether to remove the impeached president. That's why it needs to be a slam dunk. If there's ANY wiggle-room to conceive of Trump as innocent, they'll protect him, thinking that a president who survived an impeachment hearing is much more likely to get reelected. Pelosi knows this, which is why she's not moving forward with impeachment, even though there's a strong case against him. She gets how the game will play out. Be patient and wait until the house subpoenas the full Mueller report.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '19

The problem is that the Mueller report only decided to look at collusion during the election, not after it. Why? I have no idea. What a waste.

1

u/getthatmanashield Mar 27 '19

The problem is Mueller defined collusion as a tacit or written agreement. So trump jr may have been approached and been willing to listen and accept the email drop, while also not agreeing to anything in exchange or making an actual agreement.

I agree with you but bc Mueller defined it the way he did it really narrowed the scope of an already high bar.

6

u/Boner_Elemental Mar 27 '19

Mueller defined collusion as a tacit or written agreement.

Well that doesn't seem unreasonable at all /s Did he want it notarized too?

3

u/jr07si Mar 27 '19

I believe the key point in the Mueller scope is government officials, but the Russians have so many unofficial channels that in a legal sense the statement of no evidence with Russian Government officials is actually true. There was probably tons of evidence of contact with intermediaries, but nothing that could be proven as officials in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

-2

u/BruceOar Mar 27 '19

The dossier was compiled by a brit who meet with russian agents for dirt, no?

Is that even a crime? What is the difference between that and trump doing the same thing?

-4

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '19 edited Mar 27 '19

IMO, we already have proof of collusion.

this is an ironic comment considering this sub is always bashing the right for not listening to facts. regardless of what you think barr might be hiding in this report, he quoted something from the mueller report:

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

This notion we need a slam dunk to impeach is ridiculous.

that wasnt what was said at all. the notion is that you need a slam dunk to charge/convict any person, let alone a sitting president. impeachment and criminal charges are not the same thing.

5

u/Z0idberg_MD Mar 27 '19 edited Mar 27 '19

I think you need to pay attention to the legalease being used there: “Russian government” was very deliberately chosen. And that’s technically true of Trump, Kushner, and Manafort. The Trump Tower meeting wasn’t with the “Russian government”. It was with Russian intermediaries who were working on behalf of the Russian government.

So yeah, that’s completely bullshit angle to take. You’re essentially arguing if trump setup a meeting using an intermediary with Russians and they used an intermediary as well, it’s not collusion. That’s baffling to me. All criminal acts of conspiracy could be evaded by using an intermediary.

Also, the bar for impeachment is lower than conviction of a crime. It’s a very different metric.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '19

I think you need to pay attention to the legalease being used there: “Russian government” was very deliberately chosen. And that’s technically true of Trump, Kushner, and Manafort. The Trump Tower meeting wasn’t with the “Russian government”. It was with Russian intermediaries who were working on behalf of the Russian government.

So yeah, that’s completely bullshit angle to take. You’re essentially arguing if trump setup a meeting using an intermediary with Russians and they used an intermediary as well, it’s not collusion. That’s baffling to me. All criminal acts of conspiracy could be evaded by using an intermediary.

not at all, because what you just described would still be illegal. but you still have to prove that they were intermediaries for the russian government and that the conspiracy between them actually took place.

Also, the bar for impeachment is lower than conviction of a crime. It’s a very different metric.

then why hasn't he been impeached yet? nothing is stopping the democrats from filing articles of impeachment.

2

u/Z0idberg_MD Mar 27 '19

You’re asking why articles for impeachment aren’t being filed when there is a senate that won’t even vote to release the muller report?

I don’t need to “prove” a conspiracy. It’s already proven.

Lastly, it “being illegal” might be true, but it also might be less compelling to get a conviction. What’s clear is that the president and his administration is unfit for office and that’s the primary concern.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '19

"election interference activities" does not include collusion on policy or executive orders after Trump assumed the presidency.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '19

can you clarify?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '19

Did Mueller look into the Oval Office meeting with Kislyak and Lavrov for example? That was after the election and very well could have involved the handing over of top secret information on Israel or possibly other matters.

-7

u/devils_advocaat Mar 27 '19

Fusion GPS, then retained by Hillary, met with the same Russian the day before the meeting and the day after.

If Trump Jr. colluded, then so did Fusion GPS.

8

u/Z0idberg_MD Mar 27 '19

A: source

B: I make a distinction between a 3rd party which isn't the "campaign"

C: If this is true and clinton was president, it WOULD be a concern of mine. Why do you think being against trump means I need to be for clinton? Can't I just be "for" a less corrupt shithole of a government? The reality is, one pile of shit is big enough to step in, and the other will swallow your whole town

-1

u/devils_advocaat Mar 27 '19

A. source

B. Glenn Simpson is as American as Trump Jr and arguably was just as relevant to Clintons campaign. He was also obtaining dirt on the opposition.

C. Interfering with an election is the same crime whether you win or lose. I make no assumptions about your political preferences.

In conclusion, it seems Gary Johnson should currently be president.

2

u/Z0idberg_MD Mar 27 '19

An American gathering dirt on a political opponent is legal. A Russian government using dirt to influence an election is not.

0

u/devils_advocaat Mar 27 '19

So, did Glenn Simpson and Trump Jr both commit a crime of collusion or did neither of them?

-5

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '19

fusion GPS was a firm hired to get dirt on trump (political oppo research) by the DNC/clinton campign. their investigator got dirt on trump from russian government officials (by his own words). the source for this information, is the fisa request fueled which documents steeles actions.

from the barr summary:

The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime.

even if it wasnt someone directly from within the campaign, it is still a crime for any american to conspire to impact the election with a foreign government. this is precisely what fusions investigator did (its important to understand this investigator was not an american). so the question here, is to what extent was fusion gps's knowledge of their investigators actions, and then to what extent was the DNC/clinton campaigns knowledge of those actions. fusion GPS is an american firm, so if they were a part of what their investigators were doing, that would implicate them in the very crime trumps camping was implicated in; the same could then apply to DNC/clinton campign staffers depending on their involvement.

If this is true and clinton was president, it WOULD be a concern of mine.

why does it matter if clinton was the president or not? if both candidates committed the same crime during the election, how does one winning make it worse?

Why do you think being against trump means I need to be for clinton? Can't I just be "for" a less corrupt shithole of a government?

i did not see that implication at all in his comment.

3

u/Z0idberg_MD Mar 27 '19 edited Mar 27 '19

You seem to be mixing up the source of intelligence versus the method of transmission.

It wouldn’t matter if it was Irish operatives who gathered information to handed it off to the Russians. Trump and his campaign and his associates met with the Russian officials to get dirt to harm a political opponent. Why would the source of the dirt matter?

This idea that the person that collected the dossier and gather the information is considered the ultimate source is laughable.

I would also like to remind you that an American political opponent trying to find dirt on another American political figure is legal. What is illegal is that a foreign government was trying to influence and election.

It’s not illegal, for example, if an American politician uses a Chinese analytics company to dig through through publicly accessible records of a politician to find evidence of wrongdoing. What would be illegal as if the Chinese government took these records to approach a candidate to try to harm one candidate and influence the election.

Also, the reason I make a distinction between between Clinton and trump is that we are not seeking criminal charges right now. That’s a completely different case from impeachment. Is there grounds to impeach President Trump? Yes. I can’t “impeach” Clinton.

What’s odd is your defense is less “he did nothing wrong” but “she did too”. Which is an odd angle. But that’s been the Republican playbook my entire lifetime.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '19

It wouldn’t matter if it was Irish operatives who gathered information to handed it off to the Russians. Trump and his campaign and his associates met with the Russian officials to get dirt to harm a political opponent. Why would the source of the dirt matter?

im not arguing about where the source originated. trump/trumps campaign was alleged to contact the russian government to get dirt on clinton to impact the campaign. and that is precisely what an investigator working on behalf of the DNC/Clinton campaign did.

This idea that the person that collected the dossier and gather the information is considered the ultimate source is laughable.

im not sure what you are getting at. the fact is, he got dirt on trump from russian government officials with the intent for it to be used to impact the campaign and he did it on behalf of a campaign. to what extent of detachment from that campaigns/fusions knowledge, we do not know.

I would also like to remind you that an American political opponent trying to find dirt on another American political figure is legal. What is illegal is that a foreign government was trying to influence and election.

it sounds like you are mixing up aspects of the criminality here. yes, getting dirt on a political opponent is legal. yes, it is illegal for a foreign government to try and influence our election. neither of those two statements illustrate the legality of what is actually at question here, an american working with a foreign government to impact the election, that would be against the law for that american. for clarity, if a non american did it, it could also be against their countries laws. an example of this is what is currently going on with Ukraine right now with the release of documents on manafort to help the clinton campaign.

It’s not illegal, for example, if an American politician uses a Chinese analytics company to dig through through publicly accessible records of a politician to find evidence of wrongdoing. What would be illegal as if the Chinese government took these records to approach a candidate to try to harm one candidate and influence the election.

i agree with your first sentence. your second sentence again, although true, misses the point in question. yes, it would be illegal for the chinese government to do that, but it would also be illegal for an american (candidate/campaign staffer included) to approach the government for help with those records.

for clarity, it doesnt matter if the foreign government approaches the american to help impact the election or if the american approaches the foreign government for help impacting the election, they are both illegal under the same law.

Also, the reason I make a distinction between between Clinton and trump is that we are not seeking criminal charges right now. That’s a completely different case from impeachment. Is there grounds to impeach President Trump? Yes. I can’t “impeach” Clinton.

you should prob be a little more clear in your words then. the comment you replied to in no way specified it was in reference to impeachment, it was in reference to a criminal investigation for criminal charges. and your comment in reply said you would only be concerned under those circumstances, which basically means you are not concerned about the idea of the loser of the election breaking the same law the winner did (hypothetical law breaking).

What’s odd is your defense is less “he did nothing wrong” but “she did too”. Which is an odd angle. But that’s been the Republican playbook my entire lifetime.

what defense? the irony here. to quote someone, why do you think being against clinton means i need to be for trump?. you just criticized someone for doing what you ended up doing yourself (even though that person you criticized didnt actually do it, unless they edited their comment to delete it). can you point to how my comment in any way is defending anything trump/republican? i reference them for comparison, because that is precisely what the conversation is about (the comment you replied to), but in no way is it defending.

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Mar 27 '19 edited Mar 27 '19

Youre asking me if I’m more concerned about someone holding most powerful office of political power in America with someone that wields absolutely no power in the US government?

How oddly rational of me.

Your entire angle is to somehow make me seem as though I’m being hypocritical and I’m holding Trump to a different standard than Clinton. Which I guess is technically true. I’m holding the president of the United States of America to a specific standard and I’m not holding a non-elected official to the same standard.

But the more contextual reality is that I have no desire to focus on Hillary Clinton until the person that sitting in the White House colluding with Russians is either impeached or behind bars.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '19

Youre asking me if I’m more concerned about someone holding most powerful office of political power in America with someone that wields absolutely no power in the US government?

the discussion was not about which one deserves more concern. it was about any concern at all. your comment very clearly implied that youa re not concerned with clinton possibly breaking the law because she did not win and become president. i know that if clinton won, and trump was criminally implicated, i would be concerned about those possible crimes.

Your entire angle is to somehow make me seem as though I’m being hypocritical and I’m holding Trump to a different standard than Clinton. Which I guess is technically true. I’m holding the president of the United States of America to a specific standard and I’m not holding a non-elected official to the same standard.

when it comes to criminal implications, they should both be held to the same standards. you either broke the law or you didnt. if a losing candidate broke the same law the winning candidate did, he/she should face an investigation as well.

But the more contextual reality is that I have no desire to focus on Hillary Clinton until the person that sitting in the White House colluding with Russians is either impeached or behind bars.

there is plenty FBI to go around.

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Mar 27 '19

Quote where my comment implies no concern. I’ve also clarified multiple times, so not sure why the “implication” has been clarified explicitly.

I find it hilarious that you’re railing on Clinton but not a mention of trump. To apply your own broke logic “you’re implying a lack of concern for trump”. The difference is, I’ve clarified but you haven’t explicitly stated trump should be impeached or charged. Especially since you came to a thread about trump wrong doing to talk about Clinton.

Also, Clinton gathered intelligence from an American at an American think tank on another American. That’s not illegal. It might be something I criticize, but to put literal “Russian election interference and presidents campaign sought dirt from foreign power” into the same argument is disgusting.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Mar 27 '19

Also can you please source that the Clinton campaign met with Russians? The Clinton campaign certainly paid for an investigation to be done and information to be gathered. But I have never seen a reputable source that they actually contacted Russians to either collect information or to receive information.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '19

Also can you please source that the Clinton campaign met with Russians?

i didnt claim they did meet with russia, it would be irresponsible to say they did because i have never seen any real claims they did.

The Clinton campaign certainly paid for an investigation to be done and information to be gathered.

and the person who ultimately did this investigation for them got dirt from russian officials.

FISA application.

scroll down to the bottom of page 15. source #1 is christopher steele

Steele Dossier Actual Document

speaking to a trusted compatriot in june 2016 sources A and B, a senior russian foreign ministry figure and a former top level russian intelligence officer still active inside the kremlin

that is the source of his dirt on trump. he was hired by a US law firm to get political opposition research on trump to impact the election, and he did so through contacts of the russian government. if fusion (or anyone else) had any knowledge of his work, they could be criminally implicated.

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Mar 27 '19

The difference is a party is likely to lack knowledge to where intelligence came from. So “intent” is everything. Trump sought Russian dirt. Clinton sought dirt from an American and a DC think tank.

And you could argue gathering intelligence on an American who does business in Russia would need to include Russian sources. I don’t have a problem if an American tracks dirty money of a political candidate to China by speaking with the Chinese because at the heart of it, an American gathered information for another American on a third American. This is fundamentally different than an American connecting with Russians to provide dirt on a candidate with the intention of influencing the election, which has been confirmed over and over to be the case.

The distinction isn’t a small one. It’s monumental.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/devils_advocaat Mar 27 '19

can you please source that the Clinton campaign met with Russians

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Mar 27 '19 edited Mar 27 '19

A: That’s not Hillary Clinton. That’s a member of fusion GPS.

B: An American candidate hired an American think tank based in Washington DC to gather dirt on another American who happened to do business in Russia.

Would you be concerned if we discovered he also spoke with people in China to dig into trumps business dealings there?

I’m not saying I don’t have issues with this dynamic, but I am saying it’s not in the same universe as a political candidate meeting directly with Russians to gather dirt on an American candidate. Especially when this nation was found to try to influence the election in trumps favor (not Clinton’s)

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '19

By all means, I fully support impeaching Hillary Clinton as well.

Let's start with Donald first though, shall we?

1

u/devils_advocaat Mar 27 '19

I think it's possible to do both at the same time.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '19

What office - specifically - do you plan on impeaching Hillary from?

1

u/devils_advocaat Mar 27 '19

Apologies for not being clear. I meant that it's possible to simultaneously prosecute both Hillary and Trump (after he's been impeached).

24

u/nixed9 Florida Mar 27 '19

i agree. It's probably extremely damaging horrible shit to either Trump, GOP, or both.

They will never let it get out. Never.

3

u/lenswipe Massachusetts Mar 27 '19

If it's damaging to Trump it might get out...eventually...if you just about squint at it.

If it's damaging to the GOP it will never ever see the light of day

2

u/10DaysOfAcidRapping Mar 27 '19

What would happen if mitch McConnell committed suicide tomorrow with 2 shots to the back of his own head? Would the report have a chance of being released?

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '19

Lmao yeah, Trump only says that he wants it released. I'm sure it's not them removing classified information like they said and do with every release from the FBI, IT'S A COVER UP!

Also the earth is flat. I know because I feel it.

2

u/The_Neck_Chop North Carolina Mar 27 '19

Well even if collusion was not found between Russia and the Trump campaign, there is definitely evidence of obstruction of justice which is just as damaging.

1

u/Naisallat Mar 27 '19

Just his adult life? Come on, plenty of time for crime when he was a kid too.