> His 448-page report released in April 2019 identified substantial contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia but did not allege a criminal conspiracy. Mueller laid out damaging details about Trump’s efforts to seize control of the investigation, and even shut it down, though he declined to decide whether Trump had broken the law, in part because of department policy barring the indictment of a sitting president.
It still boggles my mind that Trump was even allowed to run for president again, when he publicly and very evidently did whatever he could to try to stop the investigation of himself. In what world does it serve democracy well to let people like that even be candidates or involved in politics at all?
He bragged about trying to stop the investigation! That's why Robert Mueller was appointed the first time. He went on TV and talked about how he fired Comey for even starting the investigation into Russia.
He thought it was pointless and a disruption to his administration, and was under his authority, so why wouldn't he want it shut down? Despite him not cooperating it still proceeded with a large investment in resources and still found nothing, so maybe he was right.
It did not find nothing, it found that the allegations were largely true and then shrugged and said "oh well, presidents are immune so no criminal conspiracy".
Mueller's report said: "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Perhaps you're talking about obstruction of justice. Yes, Mueller refused to state a conclusion about that, but Trump could have been charged with that by the Biden administration after he was out of office. Yet, despite widespread "lawfare", Democrats never tried to bring that charge. Why not?
All the richest sociopaths in SV have latched onto the meme that democracy and (their) freedom (to do whatever they want to the lower classes) aren't compatible, and these people bought control of the algorithms that are currently brainwashing anyone within eyeshot of a screen.
> In what world does it serve democracy well to let people like that even be candidates or involved in politics at all?
You are assuming that Trump's supporters care about the continuation of democracy, which is pretty clearly often not the case.
The only person who really had the means to put an end to Trump politically after his first term was Joe Biden, and people should absolutely never forgive him for his failure on that front.
I think when we say that an executive is the only one to put an end to another executive in power, we overlook how the problem might be that the parties have deadlocked Congress and the legislative branch is one to take power back from the executive branch.
Aaaaaabsolutely not. The president should have virtually no say in who is allowed or not allowed to run an election against them.
All but 7 Republicans in the Senate voted he was not guilty in his impeachment trial. They were gifted the opportunity to do the right thing, and they unquestionably failed.
It would, but only once you have fallen under the spell of thinking meaning and authority was to be found there. Consider your zone has been flooded maybe?
"rules for thee but not for me". People who said _anything_ they deemed disrespected after Kirk died was basically crucified but when it's against someone they deem an enemy they dont care at all.
One guy spent 37 days in jail for posting trump's own words "We have to get over it" (about a school shooting that happened 2 years prior to Kirk's death)
Trump supporters and voters will have to live with the fact that they enabled this for the rest of their life. I do not envy them. Especially those that will snap out of it at some point.
I think only a small percentage might ever feel remorse or empathy regarding how their voting choices shaped world outcomes thereafter. For those that ever do regret it, I think giving them a path to redemption is the only way the world will ever heal. For those incapable of having those feelings.. well, I can hope karma is real.
They won't just have to live with it. They like it.
My aunt is a republican lobbyist. She is also a drunk. This means she regularly texts us the most incredibly odious beliefs. Stuff like how my other aunt should kill herself because she is a leech for taking disability from the government. MAGA voters aren't sad that Trump is out here saying "fuck you, libs" on a regular basis. They love it.
That was true after 2016, and plenty of them did. The problem is that Grump was able to attract a whole bunch of new scumbags - from his destructive politicization of Covid, the surveillance industry seeing a more direct route to become an inescapable part of the government, the growing performative chest-thumping "manosphere" etc. At this point I don't see much shame on the horizon.
There’s a clear distinction when the subject is murdered versus dying of natural causes. One is implicitly encouraging similar behavior. The other is simply being a dick.
no denying your dick conclusion, but the former doesn't have to hold. You can like the outcome without supporting the mechanism. In fact,t here's an entire school of thought around ends vs. means.
But let's not get distracted here: unbelievable that anyone famous, let alone the president of the United States, would publicly promote such disgusting statements. Combined with his WH comments in front of the Japanese PM... I guess to a narcissistic (and frankly, just plain dumb) bully punching down feels like a big win...
Celebrating the act of murder is the distinction. There is no distinction here between someone gloating that CK is dead or someone gloating that RM is dead.
Which is weird because the right explicitly called for violence against the left and transgender people in response but nothing ever happened to any of them.
Come on, seriously? Then you have fallen into an old trap.
As it implies you think it would be good if someone who has to be brought before a court of law to answer for their actions, someone who has to be given a chance to defend themselve, and to be judged fairly by an assembly of their peer, gets the opportunity to die without this public reckoning?
His social media posts are very specifically designed to distract and pack the news cycle full of garbage, drowning out what actually matters. His entire life, his main defense to anything has been to attack and distract.
His posting style is also very typical of facist governments.
His approval rating is the worst of any president since WW2, including his first term, which was the previous 'record holder.' The Iran war is deeply unpopular with the American people, the skyrocketing gas and diesel prices are infuriating many. He's desperate to shift attention.
I don't think they're "very specifically designed" to do that, I think that's just how he is, raw and unfiltered. He was a shitposter on Twitter too, that's why he was banned.
Except the only "evil" thing that Mueller did was investigate Trump after he bragged about firing James Comey for investigating a potential Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Moreover, I'm not sure it is right for the president to celebrate this; isn't part of the job of a president to be diplomatic? It's one thing when a nobody like me celebrates the death of someone bad, but I'm not the president, no one expects me to be diplomatic, and generally speaking no one actually cares what I think about anything.
The fascists' only use high minded ideals as rallying cries to influence people who don't do the work to apply those ideals to the fascists' own actions - whether they're doing it deliberately as a team sport, or have mostly checked out of politics. For those in the currently-designated ingroup, the hypocrisy is the point.
The full, unredacted report has never been released to the general public.
The Trump White House asserted a “protective” claim of executive privilege over the redacted portions and underlying materials, which helped prevent Congress from obtaining the fully unredacted report, though this did not block release of the already‑redacted public version.
In other words, the criminals in charge prefer to work in the dark.
The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.
Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
It absolutely said Trump was connected to Russiagate and very much broke the law, Mueller was forced to shut down the investigation.
We'll never know for sure, but the most likely scenario is that Trump did not collude with Russia, but also did not impede them or create any friction for them trying to get him elected.
Russia wanted Trump to win, because they understood him as deeply destabilizing.
I get why this got flagged and I'm kind of sad for that.
I found Mueller to be highly ethical at times and driven by irrationality (to the point of disingenuousness) at other times. There was a lot to cover about him.
What I find most interesting is that HN posters seem to overwhelmingly skew liberal, but HN flaggers lean extremist “conservative”. They rarely post, but completely control the discourse of the posters. Thats a crazy dynamic.
It just pushes everything to the middle. If you think logically about it, since there are few if any conservative posts, it makes sense that flagging appears to be conservative because the majority of posts that need to be flagged are liberal. If suddenly there were lots of conservative posts, the liberal flaggers would appear.
If you want evidence of this consider comments. Conservative comments are often quickly downvoted.
Why is this eulogy flagged but the Chuck Norris eulogy not? Mods? Some consistency would be nice.
> His 448-page report released in April 2019 identified substantial contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia but did not allege a criminal conspiracy. Mueller laid out damaging details about Trump’s efforts to seize control of the investigation, and even shut it down, though he declined to decide whether Trump had broken the law, in part because of department policy barring the indictment of a sitting president.
It still boggles my mind that Trump was even allowed to run for president again, when he publicly and very evidently did whatever he could to try to stop the investigation of himself. In what world does it serve democracy well to let people like that even be candidates or involved in politics at all?
He bragged about trying to stop the investigation! That's why Robert Mueller was appointed the first time. He went on TV and talked about how he fired Comey for even starting the investigation into Russia.
He thought it was pointless and a disruption to his administration, and was under his authority, so why wouldn't he want it shut down? Despite him not cooperating it still proceeded with a large investment in resources and still found nothing, so maybe he was right.
> found nothing
Citation please.
It did not find nothing, it found that the allegations were largely true and then shrugged and said "oh well, presidents are immune so no criminal conspiracy".
Mueller's report said: "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Perhaps you're talking about obstruction of justice. Yes, Mueller refused to state a conclusion about that, but Trump could have been charged with that by the Biden administration after he was out of office. Yet, despite widespread "lawfare", Democrats never tried to bring that charge. Why not?
I sure wish anyone other than a handful of Congress could become interested in serving democracy rather than filling their pockets.
> In what world does it serve democracy well to let people like that even be candidates or involved in politics at all?
In a world where the population has been systematically trained to vote against their best interests.
> In what world does it serve democracy
It's a feature.
All the richest sociopaths in SV have latched onto the meme that democracy and (their) freedom (to do whatever they want to the lower classes) aren't compatible, and these people bought control of the algorithms that are currently brainwashing anyone within eyeshot of a screen.
Your question would seem to be self-answering.
> In what world does it serve democracy well to let people like that even be candidates or involved in politics at all?
You are assuming that Trump's supporters care about the continuation of democracy, which is pretty clearly often not the case.
The only person who really had the means to put an end to Trump politically after his first term was Joe Biden, and people should absolutely never forgive him for his failure on that front.
I think when we say that an executive is the only one to put an end to another executive in power, we overlook how the problem might be that the parties have deadlocked Congress and the legislative branch is one to take power back from the executive branch.
Aaaaaabsolutely not. The president should have virtually no say in who is allowed or not allowed to run an election against them.
All but 7 Republicans in the Senate voted he was not guilty in his impeachment trial. They were gifted the opportunity to do the right thing, and they unquestionably failed.
Donald Trump's reaction, on Truth Social this afternoon, to Mueller's passing:
“Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!” [1]
What a great guy.
[1] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1162683345353...
This is literally against TruthSocial's terms of use. If i was TS, i would suspend his account just to watch him fume.
Donald Trump is the majority owner of Truth Social.
I think that's kind of the joke? Yes, it is his private social media site, and he doesn't even follow his own TOS.
If so, k, that’s funny ^_^
Rules for thee and not for me
His entire MO
guess he will be cancelled like those who didn't approve of Charlie Kirk even after his death
I believe technically this means I'm free to crack a bottle of champagne when Trump dies and incur no negative karma at all!
It would, but only once you have fallen under the spell of thinking meaning and authority was to be found there. Consider your zone has been flooded maybe?
I vehemently dislike everyone who still supports him.
Quite the classy take... I believe many people lost their jobs expressing an opinion like this after Charlie Kirk died.
Edit: I am sadly expecting some brigading on this thread.
"rules for thee but not for me". People who said _anything_ they deemed disrespected after Kirk died was basically crucified but when it's against someone they deem an enemy they dont care at all.
One guy spent 37 days in jail for posting trump's own words "We have to get over it" (about a school shooting that happened 2 years prior to Kirk's death)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlXBqxOmYhA
Trump supporters and voters will have to live with the fact that they enabled this for the rest of their life. I do not envy them. Especially those that will snap out of it at some point.
I think only a small percentage might ever feel remorse or empathy regarding how their voting choices shaped world outcomes thereafter. For those that ever do regret it, I think giving them a path to redemption is the only way the world will ever heal. For those incapable of having those feelings.. well, I can hope karma is real.
Why would they regret it? He's doing exactly what they voted for. I mean, maybe there is fuel price regret but that's not really a redemption path.
They won't just have to live with it. They like it.
My aunt is a republican lobbyist. She is also a drunk. This means she regularly texts us the most incredibly odious beliefs. Stuff like how my other aunt should kill herself because she is a leech for taking disability from the government. MAGA voters aren't sad that Trump is out here saying "fuck you, libs" on a regular basis. They love it.
That was true after 2016, and plenty of them did. The problem is that Grump was able to attract a whole bunch of new scumbags - from his destructive politicization of Covid, the surveillance industry seeing a more direct route to become an inescapable part of the government, the growing performative chest-thumping "manosphere" etc. At this point I don't see much shame on the horizon.
There’s a clear distinction when the subject is murdered versus dying of natural causes. One is implicitly encouraging similar behavior. The other is simply being a dick.
He did the same thing when Rob Reiner was killed so I don't think that's an excuse.
no denying your dick conclusion, but the former doesn't have to hold. You can like the outcome without supporting the mechanism. In fact,t here's an entire school of thought around ends vs. means.
But let's not get distracted here: unbelievable that anyone famous, let alone the president of the United States, would publicly promote such disgusting statements. Combined with his WH comments in front of the Japanese PM... I guess to a narcissistic (and frankly, just plain dumb) bully punching down feels like a big win...
Plus psychopathic hypocrisy.
It's not simply the pathos of lack of decorum, it's maniacal, inverted decorum.
But in USA we are proud to do everything beyond excess.
Celebrating the act of murder is the distinction. There is no distinction here between someone gloating that CK is dead or someone gloating that RM is dead.
Which is weird because the right explicitly called for violence against the left and transgender people in response but nothing ever happened to any of them.
On the one hand, disgusting behavior for a president.
On the other hand, I can see myself feeling something identical were someone else in particular to die.
Come on, seriously? Then you have fallen into an old trap.
As it implies you think it would be good if someone who has to be brought before a court of law to answer for their actions, someone who has to be given a chance to defend themselve, and to be judged fairly by an assembly of their peer, gets the opportunity to die without this public reckoning?
If this were to happen it would make me feel sad.
Isn't he rage baiting? Now everyone talks about him again. Perfect for a narcissist.
Stop seeking ulterior motives. He's just an evil person.
Por qué no los dos?
Claro
His social media posts are very specifically designed to distract and pack the news cycle full of garbage, drowning out what actually matters. His entire life, his main defense to anything has been to attack and distract.
His posting style is also very typical of facist governments.
His approval rating is the worst of any president since WW2, including his first term, which was the previous 'record holder.' The Iran war is deeply unpopular with the American people, the skyrocketing gas and diesel prices are infuriating many. He's desperate to shift attention.
I don't think they're "very specifically designed" to do that, I think that's just how he is, raw and unfiltered. He was a shitposter on Twitter too, that's why he was banned.
>The Iran war is deeply unpopular with the American people
I heard it was popular with Republicans.
Also, the Democratic party establishment seems pretty mum on this war so far. They are full of neocons too.
It's not.
Classy. I'm so glad that half of America thought that this tactless felon who can't even speak a complete sentence would make a great president.
If this is just ok now, can I say something like "I'm glad Donald Trump was shot. He's a colossal douchebag"?
It's always morally correct to celebrate the death of evil men.
Except the only "evil" thing that Mueller did was investigate Trump after he bragged about firing James Comey for investigating a potential Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Moreover, I'm not sure it is right for the president to celebrate this; isn't part of the job of a president to be diplomatic? It's one thing when a nobody like me celebrates the death of someone bad, but I'm not the president, no one expects me to be diplomatic, and generally speaking no one actually cares what I think about anything.
I was referring to Trump. They're going to need to line his grave with ammonia cakes to deal with all of the piss.
Nice counter though, I walked right into it.
Oh, sorry. Kind of a contentious issue I suppose, probably a bit too quick to chew your head off here :) .
It's fine. I think the last few years have made a lot of us trigger happy.
>They're going to need to line his grave with ammonia cakes to deal with all of the piss.
Cheers. That made me laugh!
If you were to have said this about Charlie Kirk, or inevitably Trump himself when it happens, you'd be treated like you had killed them yourself.
Many people literally lost their jobs for saying much kinder things about Kirk.
And for saying less kind things, but by directly quoting the deceased.
HN commenters were saying those quotes were taken out of context. I have no frame of reference, but is this not true?
The fascists' only use high minded ideals as rallying cries to influence people who don't do the work to apply those ideals to the fascists' own actions - whether they're doing it deliberately as a team sport, or have mostly checked out of politics. For those in the currently-designated ingroup, the hypocrisy is the point.
Didn’t he find no connections for Russiagate? Why is he so mad at him?
Edit: I’m being sincere with this question. I didn’t think he had a beef with Mueller and forgot the original report was never made public.
You mistook William Barr's partisan "summary" for the conclusion of Mueller's investigation.
Yes you are right. I forgot the original report never became public.
The full, unredacted report has never been released to the general public.
The Trump White House asserted a “protective” claim of executive privilege over the redacted portions and underlying materials, which helped prevent Congress from obtaining the fully unredacted report, though this did not block release of the already‑redacted public version.
In other words, the criminals in charge prefer to work in the dark.
He referred his investigation to Congress because his boss (William Barr) said the DOJ cannot indict a sitting president.
The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice. Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
It absolutely said Trump was connected to Russiagate and very much broke the law, Mueller was forced to shut down the investigation.
We'll never know for sure, but the most likely scenario is that Trump did not collude with Russia, but also did not impede them or create any friction for them trying to get him elected.
Russia wanted Trump to win, because they understood him as deeply destabilizing.
I get why this got flagged and I'm kind of sad for that.
I found Mueller to be highly ethical at times and driven by irrationality (to the point of disingenuousness) at other times. There was a lot to cover about him.
Queen of England dies? Not flagged.
Chuck Norris dies? Not flagged.
There's a very particular kind of thing that gets flagged.
What I find most interesting is that HN posters seem to overwhelmingly skew liberal, but HN flaggers lean extremist “conservative”. They rarely post, but completely control the discourse of the posters. Thats a crazy dynamic.
It just pushes everything to the middle. If you think logically about it, since there are few if any conservative posts, it makes sense that flagging appears to be conservative because the majority of posts that need to be flagged are liberal. If suddenly there were lots of conservative posts, the liberal flaggers would appear.
If you want evidence of this consider comments. Conservative comments are often quickly downvoted.