Russia! Russia!! Russia!!!

[SuburbanFarmer]

Here's the excuse making. If it was a serious investigation they would have nailed him with something. See, he's still guilty of......something.....we just need to look harder.

Nah. They could have hit him with “obstruction of justice” if they wanted to. That’s the catch-all for any investigation.

I tell you, it was cover. Nothing more.

No they couldn't have hit him with "obstruction of justice" or they would have. They wanted to, but they had nothing on him. Trump not getting indicted isn't an indication that they didn't want to nail him to wall, it's evidence that they found nothing to nail him to the wall with, despite turning over every possible rock to see if they could find something that fits that description.

Many forum members here called that once Trump wasn't indicted, the other side would simply say that Mueller was trying to cover for Trump, moving the goalposts from "Lets wait for The Mueller Report before assuming it's a political witch hunt, until then we'll give Mueller the benefit of the doubt" to "The Mueller Report doesn't say what we thought it would, therefore Mueller was secretly working for Trump the entire time, or he would have caught him". And right on cue, here you are, peddling that bullshit, the only difference is that you claim it's to cover for Clinton.

Trump is clean, but you refuse to admit it, you just assume it was because they didn't look hard enough, otherwise they would have caught him.

Sad.

As usual, you failed at reading comprehension.

It wasn't cover for Trump, it was created and driven by the DNC as cover for Hillary. There's no human being on earth that can't be hit with 'obstruction of justice' - that's what they use it for. And Trump has plenty of skeletons in the closet, just nothing to do with 'collusion to be elected' by Russia. Everybody knew that in the first place, except the most brain-dead of DNC hacks.

[StCapps]

As usual, you failed at reading comprehension.

It wasn't cover for Trump, it was created and driven by the DNC as cover for Hillary. There's no human being on earth that can't be hit with 'obstruction of justice' - that's what they use it for. And Trump has plenty of skeletons in the closet, just nothing to do with 'collusion to be elected' by Russia. Everybody knew that in the first place, except the most brain-dead of DNC hacks.

As usual you failed at reading comprehension, I said that the only difference is you think it's cover for Hillary instead of Trump. There is at least one human being on earth who can't be hit with 'obstruction of justice', Donald Trump. I suspect there are a whole lot more who can't be charged with it at as well, and you severely over-estimate how easy it is to charge someone with 'obstruction of justice'. They found no skeletons that they could charge him with, that doesn't mean they didn't look hard enough, it means he's pretty damn clean for a politician.

[TheReal_ND]

Trump was bailed out. He's not beholden to Russia. He's beholden to the same people that looted Russia.

[StCapps]

Trump was bailed out. He's not beholden to Russia. He's beholden to the same people that looted Russia.

Trump is less beholden than most in his position would be, him having fuck you money and all, plus most of the special interests siding with Clinton instead of him in 2016.

[Fife]

Trump was bailed out. He's not beholden to Russia. He's beholden to the same people that looted Russia.

If we could somehow get his daughter to divorce Jared, and burn him down, things might get fixed.

[Fife]

[pineapplemike]

It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD
The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it
By Matt Taibbi

Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.

As has long been rumored, the former FBI chief’s independent probe will result in multiple indictments and convictions, but no “presidency-wrecking” conspiracy charges, or anything that would meet the layman’s definition of “collusion” with Russia.

With the caveat that even this news might somehow turn out to be botched, the key detail in the many stories about the end of the Mueller investigation was best expressed by the New York Times:

A senior Justice Department official said that Mr. Mueller would not recommend new indictments.

The Times tried to soften the emotional blow for the millions of Americans trained in these years to place hopes for the overturn of the Trump presidency in Mueller. Nobody even pretended it was supposed to be a fact-finding mission, instead of an act of faith.

The Special Prosecutor literally became a religious figure during the last few years, with votive candles sold in his image and Saturday Night Live cast members singing “All I Want for Christmas is You” to him featuring the rhymey line: “Mueller please come through, because the only option is a coup.”

The Times story today tried to preserve Santa Mueller’s reputation, noting Trump’s Attorney General William Barr’s reaction was an “endorsement” of the fineness of Mueller’s work:

In an apparent endorsement of an investigation that Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked as a “witch hunt,” Mr. Barr said Justice Department officials never had to intervene to keep Mr. Mueller from taking an inappropriate or unwarranted step.

Mueller, in other words, never stepped out of the bounds of his job description. But could the same be said for the news media?

For those anxious to keep the dream alive, the Times published its usual graphic of Trump-Russia “contacts,” inviting readers to keep making connections. But in a separate piece by Peter Baker, the paper noted the Mueller news had dire consequences for the press:

It will be a reckoning for President Trump, to be sure, but also for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, for Congress, for Democrats, for Republicans, for the news media and, yes, for the system as a whole…

This is a damning page one admission by the Times. Despite the connect-the-dots graphic in its other story, and despite the astonishing, emotion-laden editorial the paper also ran suggesting “We don’t need to read the Mueller report” because we know Trump is guilty, Baker at least began the work of preparing Times readers for a hard question: “Have journalists connected too many dots that do not really add up?”

The paper was signaling it understood there would now be questions about whether or not news outlets like themselves made a galactic error by betting heavily on a new, politicized approach, trying to be true to “history’s judgment” on top of the hard-enough job of just being true. Worse, in a brutal irony everyone should have seen coming, the press has now handed Trump the mother of campaign issues heading into 2020.
...
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagat ... -a-million

[Speaker to Animals]

Did anybody run a welfare check on Ooky?

[Speaker to Animals]

Anywho.. Tulsi and Yang could easily capitalize on this implosion.

Tulsi, especially, needs to go to war with the establishment and their fake news propaganda apparatus. Those fuckers already declared war on her, so what the fuck does she have to lose?

[pineapplemike]

trump is the only one that can take them on, tulsi isnt charismatic or ruthless enough and yang is completely out of his element on this stuff

It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD
The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it
By Matt Taibbi
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagat ... -a-million

an absolutely devastating article, very long, with tons of damning examples of the press failures over the last few years. how long before matt taibbi is called out as an alt-right nazi