(03-24-2019 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 12:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I just want to know what the report says before speculating about what is/isn’t in it. The reporting saying that no further indictments will be made by Mueller’s team is about the only thing I feel comfortable discussing with respect to what is in the document.

None of my comments rose to 'what is in the report' -- they reflect the actions of the Mueller investigation. I find it rather amazing that people seemingly cannot or are unable to comment on actions that can be easily ascertained to have or have not occurred.

Each of the five points noted above either occurred, or did not. We have one person on the board saying that 1-5 'are possible'. And another who responds to the 5 points not to what the points are --- but abstaining to comment on the existence of a straight fact of occurrence by noting that they wish to 'see the report'. Is it really that tough to note the existence of the 5 points stated above?

For all we know, the only reason there are reports of no further indictments by Mueller is that he is following DOJ protocol about not indicting a sitting president.

Lmao. Yes. Thats the case. /sarcasm off

So you say 'it is possible to realistically implicate Trump without anyone else being indicted'. Got it. Hate to tell you but 'further indictments' includes the 'inner circle'; which does *not* include the sitting President. No legal issue about indicting them, fyi.

Mueller had no fing qualms indicting people for a crap-ton of non-related process crimes, and you *really* expect him not to indict on something pertinent? Put your thinking cap on there lad, instead of your deflated wishes cap that your comment evidences.

I read the same crap thesis in HuffPo -- case of 'wishful thinking trumping anything approaching rational thought process'. I expect that line from MSNBC and from HuffPo. Not necessarily from other quarters. I wonder how many other times I will see that rather unrealistic comment used in the next week or so.

The singular fact is that if the 'sitting President' indictment is flawed since if there was a sufficiency 'but for' that issue, then there would be a raft of indictments out for others as well that did not enjoy that protection. Look up Haldeman and Erlichman. If there was criminal 'collusive' activity, more than just Trump would be implicated and those others would *definitely* be indicted.

It has nothing to do with deflated wishes - go back to posts I've made regarding this investigation for the past two years and find all of the times I said I thought Trump would be indicted for "collusion."

My point is that I am going to wait until the report is released to try and draw any conclusions about what is included in it, beyond the current reporting that says it will not include any further indictments by Mueller. Again, I wasn't responding to your 5 points that you spend so much time typing out, sorry that I confused you.

My comment above yours was not in response to 'whats in the report' -- it was in response to your thesis that

Quote:"[f]or all we know, the only reason there are reports of no further indictments by Mueller is that he is following DOJ protocol about not indicting a sitting president."

That thesis is pretty stupid for a number of real-world reasons.

I guess that didnt sink in.