Status
Not open for further replies.
Is anyone tempering their hatred for Donald Trump, now that he has been investigated, and not charged with anything?

I know people like my brother were telling me that once the Mueller Report came out, i'd start hating him too, and I agreed that when it did, and he was charged with a crime, i'd turn on Trump in a heartbeat.

Now that he has not been charged, has anyone gone the other way?

It seems for 2 years Fox, Trump, and his supporters have been correct, and now that the Mueller report is out, no one is realizing that they have been fooled for two years.

The media and DNC have been trying to correct their galactically bad 2016 campaign for almost 3 years, is the fog of cognitive dissonance starting to lift?

Honesty please.

Doesn't it bother you that your President did everything he could to obstruct justice and was only halted by the disobedience of his underlings? Doesn't it bother you that his campaign were so willing to accept aid from a hostile foreign power and only managed to escape being charged due to being so bad at it?

Honesty please.
 
Doesn't it bother you that your President did everything he could to obstruct justice and was only halted by the disobedience of his underlings? Doesn't it bother you that his campaign were so willing to accept aid from a hostile foreign power and only managed to escape being charged due to being so bad at it?

Honesty please.

How about instead of asking a non sequitur, you answer his question?
 
I can't find it now, but I saw data the other day which showed that the public approval of the impeachment of Nixon was very low (around 14%, IIRC) until it had been underway for a while. It's also worth bearing in mind that impeachment would uncover and make public even more evidence against Trump. One last point that I saw made elsewhere was there was a commentator who said "Americans wait for the TV show" - meaning that the majority of people aren't going to read the Mueller report. But a lot of them would watch impeachment hearings. So even the reiteration in an official setting of information that is now public would help to change hearts and minds.

I'm not sure this analysis makes sense with the timeline of the Nixon impeachment process.

The House of Representatives began its investigation to determine whether to impeach Nixon in February 1974. This was only a year after the Senate's initial investigation into Watergate. Five months later, in late July, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment. A week later, August 9, 1974, Nixon resigned. The House never even voted on whether to impeach.

It's possible that if the House picks up where Mueller left off, and continues to investigate Trump, people will get more entusiastic about impeachment. But Trump's been under investigation for two and a half years already. I'm not sure there's an untapped well of impeachment enthusiasm out there.

Plus, my view is that each president is a unique situation. Trump isn't Nixon. This isn't Watergate. It isn't even the same American public, nor the same America, nor the same world situation. Any parallels between two presidents thirty years apart are going to be shaky at best. Comparing presidents only really works to highlight the contrasts, in my opinion. It's a mistake to make predictions based on arbitrary similarities.

Also, I'm curious: That data about public approval for impeachment that you saw. Was it archival data that you dug up? Or was it brought to you by some current author, making the case that if the House starts the process, public enthusiasm will materialize as they go through it? Or did the data come to you some other way that I haven't enumerated?
 
Last edited:
When it comes to Trump, everything seems to be priced-in already: I don't think there is anything Trump can do to lose base support except endorse a "liberal" agenda.

The biggest determinant will be the economy, which will continue to deteriorate.

So I think it won't matter if or if not Dems impeach Trump - it won't change minds.
 
When it comes to Trump, everything seems to be priced-in already: I don't think there is anything Trump can do to lose base support except endorse a "liberal" agenda.

The biggest determinant will be the economy, which will continue to deteriorate.

So I think it won't matter if or if not Dems impeach Trump - it won't change minds.

What do you mean by deteriorate?
 
When it comes to Trump, everything seems to be priced-in already: I don't think there is anything Trump can do to lose base support except endorse a "liberal" agenda.
That's kind of how I see it.

Most of the complaints about Trump are about things we knew or reasonably suspected before the election. In order to really shift public opinion, he'd have to do something new that isn't already accounted for, or new information that isn't already accounted for would have to be produced.

Nixon actually released audio recordings that clearly established his complicity in Watergate. Then he resigned. I don't see Trump doing either of those things. Mainly because I see Trump as being neither as good a man as Nixon, nor as stupid a man as Nixon.
 
What do you mean by deteriorate?

the last recession was 10 years ago, so another is due - and there is no indication that the Tax Cuts helped prolong the boost;
companies are hoarding money, not investing, which is a sign that they don't see growth.
Unemployment can only go up, since it is very low and has been for a while.
And without compromising with Dems, which neither Trump nor McConnell will do close to an election, no Kensian stimuli passage is likely to pass.
 
If the first place, it would have been quite unlikely that Trump would have been charged with a crime regardless of what the Mueller investigation would have found. After all, it has been clearly stated that the Justice Department will not charge a sitting President with a crime.

During Barr's pre-SO report press conference, he was asked directly by a reporter if the reason Mueller had not indicted the president for obstruction was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting a sitting president.

He said Mueller told him, Rosenstein and Principal Associate Deputy O'Callaghan "several times", during their March 5 meeting, the reason for not issuing indictments against the president was not based on DOJ policy.


ETA: Exchange can be seen here.
 
Last edited:
During Barr's pre-SO report press conference, he was asked directly by a reporter if the reason Mueller had not indicted the president for obstruction was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting a sitting president.

He said Mueller told him, Rosenstein and Principal Associate Deputy O'Callaghan "on several occasions", during their March 5 meeting, the reason for not issuing indictments against the president was not based on DOJ policy.
Followed by the report itself saying otherwise.
 
Is anyone tempering their hatred for Donald Trump, now that he has been investigated, and not charged with anything?

I know people like my brother were telling me that once the Mueller Report came out, i'd start hating him too, and I agreed that when it did, and he was charged with a crime, i'd turn on Trump in a heartbeat.

Now that he has not been charged, has anyone gone the other way?

It seems for 2 years Fox, Trump, and his supporters have been correct, and now that the Mueller report is out, no one is realizing that they have been fooled for two years.

The media and DNC have been trying to correct their galactically bad 2016 campaign for almost 3 years, is the fog of cognitive dissonance starting to lift?

Honesty please.
Your post contains a number of false assumptions and understandings. Several other people have pointed some of them out, but just to itemize them the best I can:
  • The purpose of the Mueller Report was not to indict Trump of anything, in fact, it explicitly couldn't. Therefore, not indicting Trump does not mean Trump did not commit crimes.
  • The report, in fact, outlines several crimes Trump, in fact, committed and other he attempted to commit.
  • The report makes the case that, while it is inappropriate for the DOJ to indict Trump, it is appropriate for Congress to investigate those crimes while Trump is president.
  • Failing that, the report indicates that Trump may be indicted on these charges once he is no longer president, assuming the statute of limitations have not run out. (I believe that happens at the end of 2021 or early 2022, after his first term has run out.)
So, honestly, the report says Trump was not charged because he had not committed crimes. Trump was not charged because he currently holds the office of President.

Is your "turn on Trump in a heartbeat" contingent on whether Mueller found that evidence that Trump committed a crime or merely upon the Special Council's ability to charge Trump with a crime? If the former, you should feel free to start turning now, because that's what the report is saying. If the latter, then that is pretty safe way of saying that you would never turn on Trump, no matter what the facts are.

Ugh. And I didn't even get into the stuff about Trump's supporters and Fox News (but, I repeat myself) being correct and unfooled for two years. Maybe next time.
 
Plus, my view is that each president is a unique situation. Trump isn't Nixon. This isn't Watergate. It isn't even the same American public, nor the same America, nor the same world situation. Any parallels between two presidents thirty years apart are going to be shaky at best. Comparing presidents only really works to highlight the contrasts, in my opinion. It's a mistake to make predictions based on arbitrary similarities.

Of course each situation is unique, and you'll notice that I didn't make a prediction based on arbitrary similarities between the two.

The point of the Nixon comparison is that the argument that Trump shouldn't be impeached because "it would divide the country" is spurious, at best. There are other arguments against that that I didn't go in to, of course, but the Nixon point demonstrates that just because something is unpopular when it starts doesn't imply that it will be unpopular when it ends.

Also, I'm curious: That data about public approval for impeachment that you saw. Was it archival data that you dug up? Or was it brought to you by some current author, making the case that if the House starts the process, public enthusiasm will materialize as they go through it? Or did the data come to you some other way that I haven't enumerated?

It was archival data that someone else dug up, but without the argument that you've attached to it.
 
During Barr's pre-SO report press conference, he was asked directly by a reporter if the reason Mueller had not indicted the president for obstruction was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting a sitting president.

He said Mueller told him, Rosenstein and Principal Associate Deputy O'Callaghan "several times", during their March 5 meeting, the reason for not issuing indictments against the president was not based on DOJ policy.


ETA: Exchange can be seen here.

Well, if Barr said it in his press conference, then it must be the truth.
 
I must've missed that part of the report, can you provide a link to the quote?

Page 214*:
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought , affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .5

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report , could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term , OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment 's] secrecy, " and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern." 6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

Which appears just above the portion where they say "If we couldn't find any evidence of the President committing a crime, we'd say so. ...we can't say so."

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

* That's in PDF pages, it's also Volume II, page 2
 
Last edited:
So, honestly, the report says Trump was not charged because he had not committed crimes. Trump was not charged because he currently holds the office of President.

Did you mean to say, “the report doesn’t say Trump was not charged because he had not committed crimes.”

Stipulated that all the double negatives floating around can confuse anyone!
 
Did you mean to say, “the report doesn’t say Trump was not charged because he had not committed crimes.”

Stipulated that all the double negatives floating around can confuse anyone!

...wait ...doesn't say ...not charged....


Yes. That's what I mean ...I think ...maybe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom