Here are 20 questions raised by the Mueller Report

#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/04/18/here-are-20-questions-raised-b.html

Barr’s redactions aside, I have questions.

10 Likes
#2

I was watching the CNN Nixon doc over the weekend and all I could think was, “that was quaint” with regard to Watergate. The amount of unbridled and naked corruption and illegality on display from the Trump administration in comparison will do that to you.

50 Likes
#3

i have a question as well…how the F is DJT still president!!!

23 Likes
#4

The answer to a lot of the questions about when Il Douche decide something is “around five minutes before he tweeted about it.” That’s not a joke, that’s how arrested development cases like him make decisions and act on them.

35 Likes
#5

Ask Mitch McConnell. Any impeachment proceeding would have to go through him.

19 Likes
#6

Highlights I found interesting:

  1. "I’m so fucked! This is the end of my presidency" Totally the sort of thing someone innocent of wrongdoing says. /s

  2. The incompetence and/or disloyalty of Trump’s staff prevented collusion from occurring. Trump wanted to collude, was looking for information as to how to do it, was willing to follow along with it. However his staff either didn’t know how or didn’t bother to do what was requested

  3. SHS was a lying toad

  4. Obstruction was likely, intended and deserves further inquiry. Again as with collusion, the only thing which may have prevented that was the incompetence or intransigence of Trump’s staff in carrying out his directions. Trump clearly intended to obstruct justice

Trump may have been saved from prosecution because his staff thought he was too stupid to follow.

47 Likes
#7

When did Donald Trump first recognize that sufficient damning facts existed such that if a Special Counsel were to be appointed, that would constitute, as Trump put it, “the end of his presidency”?

When? How about, precisely what facts did Donald Trump know at the time that made him believe that the appointment of a Special Counsel would mean the end of his presidency?

10 Likes
#8

A Higher Loyalty.

8 Likes
#9

Not really. Congress can impeach whenever they want. The Senate may or may not convict, but I don’t think they could duck the vote. Either way, impeachment gives the Democrats the microphone for a solid year or two. And discovery.

24 Likes
#10

I feel pretty certain that he doesn’t get a pass just because his aides didn’t cooperate with his attempts to obstruct justice.

14 Likes
#11

I thought this was astonishing.

11 Likes
#12

I think the question I’d like answered is when will Nancy Pelosi admit that the standard for impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors, is not the same as the standard for criminal prosecution and has clearly been met, and when the heck will she begin proceedings against the president?

23 Likes
#13

now imagine if nearly half this country votes for him again and he gets re-elected… because it could happen, I mean they made someone President of the United States after he admitted on tape to grabbing women by the genitals, I mean that’s a pretty low bar

42 Likes
#14

That thing should be called the Barr Interpretation because it is not Mueller’s report.

14 Likes
#15

What’s interesting is we’re seeing how recent revelations about DHS staffing (etc) are part of a consistent pattern throughout the presidency: Trump wants to do something authoritarian and fucked up; he can’t figure out a way to do it without breaking the law, so he demands that his underlings break the law. They don’t, so he fires them until he finds someone who will. If someone has managed to stay in the White House, that becomes an indication of how much they were willing to lie and break the law for him.

Shocking, even!

29 Likes
#16

21: When does tRump shit his pants?

A: Everyday

24 Likes
#17

Ken White (of PopeHat fame) has explained how Trump’s worst habits have basically been at the core of his legal defense on a lot of this stuff.

Normally, when a person changes their explanation of why they did something six times or fires a senior official without apparent cause or makes crazy public threats you could likely cite that behavior as evidence of intent, which is critical for building an “obstruction” case. For Trump it’s just a day that ends in a “y.”

26 Likes
#18

I don’t think there are any questions to be answered. That’s the whole problem.

The Mueller report was a busted flush from the start. Its whole premise – of “finding out” whether Turmp is crooked – denies the flagrant crookedness that has always been a matter of public record. Every word spoken about this report simply adds to that denial.

Democrats should ignore all of it – ignore impeachment – and just state it as fact that Turmp is a criminal. They should have been doing that all along. I mean, what does it say about someone if they need a bunch of lawyers to decide for them whether Turmp is crooked? Hot tip: he is the most overtly crooked person who has ever lived.

20 Likes
#19

The investigation actually had a far narrower scope than that. Mueller wasn’t tasked with finding out whether Trump was a crook. He was tasked specifically to find out if there was conclusive evidence of Trump and his team conspiring with the Russians in the 2016 election.

18 Likes
#20
3 Likes