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

Rep. John Ratcliffe, the particular Republi-moron you mention, has been tapped by Trump to replace Dan Coats as DNI, partially on the strength of POTUS’ delight regarding his excoriation of Mueller. Because of course.

I mean… just how single am I? “Haven’t had a date in 6-years single” or “happy for now to trawl the waters of Tinder single” or “I’m single because I don’t want to tell her ‘I love you’ single”?

:wink:

We’ll go with the “reasonable man” standard and say trawling.

Obviously, swap genders as necessary, readers.

McConnell lays on his back, his belly baking in the hot sun, beating his legs trying to turn himself over, but he can’t. Not without your help. But you’re making popcorn. What brand of popcorn are you making?

Jiffy pop.

I fuck it up again, burn the damn thing. Tell Mitch “Wait, I gotta restart”.

Pop Secret

I’m hungry now and the movie’s good. Mitch can wait until the show’s over.

I just posted this link in the clusterfuck thread. A recap of why Trump didn’t like Coats and why Trump wants a yes man as DNI:

Trump says Daniel Coats, director of national intelligence, to step down

*Daniel Coats said what’s happening in the world. In the Trump era, that’s an act of defiance.
*

Very much this. Mark Sumner had a succinct passageI thought responded to the Mueller “nothingburger” well (Be warned! Left-wing site! Oh, no!):

"Because all that Mueller did was confirm that Donald Trump made multiple serious efforts to obstruct justice, interfered with witnesses, lied on his written responses to the special counsel, and engaged in support for illegal activity. Along the way, Mueller reminded the nation that Trump’s campaign chair, campaign co-chair, personal attorney, national security advisor, and a pair of foreign policy specialists were all indicted and convicted. And he reminded everyone that Russian interference in the 2016 election was extensive and extreme, and that Russia was not just planning to do the same thing in 2020, but is doing the same thing right now.

So, gee, it’s too bad Mueller didn’t have anything big to say."

Partially? There’s another reason?

You had me right up to:

…then you blew it. :rolleyes:

Well, he’s also a robotically predictable Trump loyalist who has seemingly surrendered his agency wholly over to the regime. So, looks like a suite of qualifications to Der Furor, I’d guess.

They found what they wanted. It’s just that they just realize that for much of the country hasn’t read or head all the facts; is trying to process competing narratives and interpretations of the facts (one of which is patently false); or just doesn’t give a shit one way or the other.

Mueller, for his part, said what they wanted him to say. He just didn’t say it the way he wanted them to, and he didn’t say it in the manner that would convince the average person to look more carefully at the report, lean away from the false narrative, or otherwise give a shit about it in the first place.

With salt and butter, and I help him to turn over.

That is to say, I would offer a sane response rather than refusing to think about the question. Can you think of any reason that I shouldn’t give full credence and thought to the question and answer it honestly and reasonably? Can you think of any rational reason to do otherwise?

That was the point of my posting the exchange between Colbert and Wallace. No, he didn’t.

Regards,
Shodan

I don’t recall the exact words used. Does someone have a clearer memory of what Mueller had to say about Trump’s response to an invite for a sit down? Or about the truth and completeness of his written responses? Thanks.

My point was, Mueller said more than enough to have Trump impeached. They wanted him to raise his voice, pound the table, and gave his own state of the disunion address to congress. Predictably, it didn’t happen. I don’t know what progressives are waiting for or expecting but a majority of the country has made up its mind about the investigation and wants to talk about something else.

I strongly feel that even if Bob Mueller shouted and pounded the table and shouted, “What is WRONG with you stupid, elected fucks? He should’ve been impeached on day one! I gave you all the fucking evidence!”, it wouldn’t have been nearly enough to flip more than another 2 or 3 republicans voting for impeachment.

Since his destruction of AC in the early '90s, we’ve been shouting “follow the money”. No one has, this investigation didn’t, and until we can prove he’s in major debt and NOT as wealthy as many think, he’ll be a hero to millions. Money is all that talks these days.

That’s a different investigation (and still underway).

And, in the case of Trump, I suspect that there’s just as much wisdom if you opted instead for “follow the girls”.

This is an example of why I think the Mueller testimony was a success for the Democrats:

It would be better if Mueller were stating these things rather than just agreeing to them, but this is about as good as could be expected. Not exactly a slam dunk, but these kinds of sound bites are still useful in chipping away at the perceptions of anyone who is persuadable who isn’t aware of any wrongdoing by Trump and co.

Misleading headline of the day: Mueller ties on display at jury selection for Greg Craig trial

I was hoping to see this one. And this one. And this one.