A Thread for the Mueller Investigation Results and Outcomes (Part 1)

[Batano]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

New Yorker jury.

they’d convict him for ordering his steaks well done

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Batano

they’d convict him for ordering his steaks well done

Death penalty for the ketchup.

[crowmanyclouds]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

New Yorker jury.

@Batano

they’d convict him for ordering his steaks well done

@EddyTeddyFreddy

Death penalty for the ketchup.

What jury, straight to the hangin’ tree for eating pizza with a fork!

CMC fnord!

[The_Tooth]

@Batano

they’d convict him for ordering his steaks well done

He’ll be dancing to the Porterhouse Rock.

[Not_Carlson]

@BeenJammin

Aaaaaaand it’s official - Newsflash: Russians meddled in U.S. election!

Wonder how much these “Results and Outcomes” cost taxpayers? :rolleyes:

Now we return to your regularly scheduled Liberal-Democrat circle jerk… :smack:

So, just to clarify, you think the Russian meddling was such an obvious fact that no one should be at all surprised at this verification? That a person might even be worthy of mockery if they had not seen how obvious it was? And that the investigation to uncover the extent and impact of this conspiracy has been somewhat excessive?

Cause I seem to recall that Trump fired the man originally entrusted with investigating this threat to US security and stability, claiming it was all a hoax.
If this is a circle-jerk, why do you insist on crawling into the middle of it?

[Robot_Arm]

@Not_Carlson

So, just to clarify, you think the Russian meddling was such an obvious fact that no one should be at all surprised at this verification? That a person might even be worthy of mockery if they had not seen how obvious it was? And that the investigation to uncover the extent and impact of this conspiracy has been somewhat excessive?

As often happens in political threads, I turn to the great British TV series Yes, Minister:

Bernard Woolley: What if the Prime Minister insists we help them?

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Then we follow the four-stage strategy.

Bernard Woolley: What’s that?

Sir Richard Wharton: Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis.

Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.

Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it’s too late now.

Welcome to stage four, everyone.

[BeepKillBeep]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

And how can anyone forget Obama putting his feet up on the Resolute desk?!!?? :eek: Impeachment grounds right there! :mad:

Impeachment? Not enough. Bring out the firing squad!

[elucidator]

And people say these guys don’t have a sense of humor! That’s some wit, right there! OK, maybe about half, but its a start!

[VinylTurnip]

@Not_Carlson

So, just to clarify, you think the Russian meddling was such an obvious fact that no one should be at all surprised at this verification? That a person might even be worthy of mockery if they had not seen how obvious it was? And that the investigation to uncover the extent and impact of this conspiracy has been somewhat excessive?

Cause I seem to recall that Trump fired the man originally entrusted with investigating this threat to US security and stability, claiming it was all a hoax.
If this is a circle-jerk, why do you insist on crawling into the middle of it?

It’s been a rough few days for Benny, and things aren’t looking up. Don’t take it personally when he lashes out. With time, he’ll be back to his old loveable self.

[pulykamell]

@Not_Carlson

If this is a circle-jerk, why do you insist on crawling into the middle of it?

Somebody likes being the cookie, I guess.

[Superdude]

@VinylTurnip

It’s been a rough few days for Benny, and things aren’t looking up. Don’t take it personally when he lashes out. With time, he’ll be back to his old loveable self.

One would hope that, if he’s in the middle, he’s not LOOKING up. Not without eye protection, anyway. I understand that it can be quite painful to take a shot in the eye.

[gytalf2000]

@Chimera

I feel sorry for those 13. They’re likely to experience a rash of car accidents and suicides.

Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking, as well. Scary!

[jayjay]

@Superdude

I understand that it can be quite painful to take a shot in the eye.

In the immortal words of Miss Coco Peru: “IT BURNNNNNSSSS!”

[SteveG1]

@Ann_Hedonia

Some talking head on MSNBC ( Ken Dilanian, actually an NBC correspondent) just made an interesting point. It’s a legal point and I’m not sure if it’s true.

He said that in order to prove or charge conspiracy there needs to be an underlying crime. He also said that once there is a crime involved people can be charged with conspiracy if you acted to aid and abet that crime, even if your actions are not directly criminal. So these indictments may be a first step, even if they can’t ever bring the defendants to trial. Now they can charge other people with conspiracy.

And also the fact that there is now an underlying crime legitimizes the investigation and makes Mueller’s job safety. Or not. He could push to fire Mueller on the grounds that the investigation should be over.

I don’t think so. Conspiracy and obstruction are both crimes, in and of themselves - I think.

Example: We can meet and conspire to murder someone. If we fail at t or get caught before we can act, it was still conspiracy to commit murder.

[Colibri]

@Not_Carlson

If this is a circle-jerk, why do you insist on crawling into the middle of it?

He’s evident a bukake enthusiast. Recipient, that is.

[Sherrerd]

@ThelmaLou

The thing is, when Nixon finally went, it was the Republicans who told him he had to go.

When the GOP Torpedoed Nixon

… On Aug. 6, 1974, at the regular Senate Republican Conference lunch, Goldwater fumed: “There are only so many lies you can take, and now there has been one too many. Nixon should get his ass out of the White House – today!”…

In that shortened quote from your linked Politico story, I was struck by Goldwater’s remark “There are only so many lies you can take.” It strikes the ear as a faint and far-off echo from a bygone era, never to return. (Clearly the capacity to Take Lies has increased dramatically in today’s congressional Republicans.)

[cuauhtemoc]

@SteveG1

I don’t think so. Conspiracy and obstruction are both crimes, in and of themselves - I think.

Example: We can meet and conspire to murder someone. If we fail at t or get caught before we can act, it was still conspiracy to commit

The FBI director was following credible evidence suggesting that a crime had been committed. Isn’t it a crime to interfere with that whether or not a crime is found to have been committed?

Suppose the FBI suspects that you’ve kidnapped Ann Hedonia and they want to question you. You come to my house and tell me you’re going to hide in Arizona. The next day they ask me about it, and I tell them I haven’t seen you. The next day, Ann shows up unharmed - she wasn’t kidnapped after all. She was just out of town. Didn’t I still commit a crime by lying to the FBI, even though no other crime was committed?

[Locrian]

@cuauhtemoc

The FBI director was following credible evidence suggesting that a crime had been committed. Isn’t it a crime to interfere with that whether or not a crime is found to have been committed?

Suppose the FBI suspects that you’ve kidnapped Ann Hedonia and they want to question you. You come to my house and tell me you’re going to hide in Arizona. The next day they ask me about it, and I tell them I haven’t seen you. The next day, Ann shows up unharmed - she wasn’t kidnapped after all. She was just out of town. Didn’t I still commit a crime by lying to the FBI, even though no other crime was committed?

I think they’d have to have credible evidence of foul play before corralling a suspect’s friends. If she was just out of town, I’m sure there’d be a paper trail. Plus, why would you lie to the police about this? If the suspect actually IS guilty, you’re now an accomplice.

[Ambrosio_Spinola]

@cuauhtemoc

Suppose the FBI suspects that you’ve kidnapped Ann Hedonia and they want to question you. You come to my house and tell me you’re going to hide in Arizona. The next day they ask me about it, and I tell them I haven’t seen you. The next day, Ann shows up unharmed - she wasn’t kidnapped after all. She was just out of town. Didn’t I still commit a crime by lying to the FBI, even though no other crime was committed?

Making a materially false statement to the FBI is itself a federal offense and yes, they will bust you for it.

[SlackerInc]

@Locrian

I think they’d have to have credible evidence of foul play before corralling a suspect’s friends. If she was just out of town, I’m sure there’d be a paper trail. Plus, why would you lie to the police about this? If the suspect actually IS guilty, you’re now an accomplice.

Because maybe you are trying to protect a friend you think is guilty. That’s still a crime.