4 ms·

> His 448-page report released in April 2019 identified substantial contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia but did not allege a criminal conspiracy. Mue

> 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?

mpalmer 8mo ago
Your question would seem to be self-answering.
nine_zeros 8mo ago
[dead]
SecretDreams 8mo ago
> 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.
bayarearefugee 8mo ago
> 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.
- jimkleiber 8mo ago
  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.
- the_gastropod 8mo ago
  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.
mullingitover 8mo ago
> 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.
plagiarist 8mo ago
I sure wish anyone other than a handful of Congress could become interested in serving democracy rather than filling their pockets.
tombert 8mo ago
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.
KevinMS 8mo ago
[flagged]
- Tadpole9181 8mo ago
  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".
  - leereeves 8mo ago
    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?
    - cosmicgadget 8mo ago
      Because there we slam dunk cases against him for Jan 6 and the classified documents. Neither of which was lawfare. Neither of which would imperil any intelligence techniques or assets by being brought up during a trial.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- cosmicgadget 8mo ago
  > found nothing Citation please.
kcplate 8mo ago
> It still boggles my mind that Trump was even allowed to run for president again He was at least 35, a natural born citizen of the US, had residency for at least 14 years prior to his candidacy, only served a single term prior, and was never charged and convicted with insurrection. Of course he was allowed, he met all the constitutional criteria to serve.
- cosmicgadget 8mo ago
  Colorado begs to differ.
  - kcplate 8mo ago
    A unanimous supreme court begged to differ with Colorado.
    - cosmicgadget 8mo ago
      They did, it was a great piece of legislation. And you might note that they said that a state can't disqualify a candidate, not that they erred in a judgment that refutes your claim.
      - kcplate 8mo ago
        How exactly was my claim in any way refuted? He quite obviously ran and was elected. That fact alone means he satisfied all the qualification tests.
        cosmicgadget 8mo ago
        > How exactly was my claim in any way refuted? https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2023/23sa300.html https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2023/23s... > He quite obviously ran and was elected. That fact alone means he satisfied all the qualification tests. Did you not read what I wrote above? Here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

mpalmer 8mo ago

Your question would seem to be self-answering.

nine_zeros 8mo ago

[dead]

SecretDreams 8mo ago

> 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.

bayarearefugee 8mo ago

> 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.

jimkleiber 8mo ago
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.
the_gastropod 8mo ago
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.

mullingitover 8mo ago

> 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.

plagiarist 8mo ago

I sure wish anyone other than a handful of Congress could become interested in serving democracy rather than filling their pockets.

tombert 8mo ago

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.

KevinMS 8mo ago

[flagged]

Tadpole9181 8mo ago
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".
- leereeves 8mo ago
  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?
  - cosmicgadget 8mo ago
    Because there we slam dunk cases against him for Jan 6 and the classified documents. Neither of which was lawfare. Neither of which would imperil any intelligence techniques or assets by being brought up during a trial.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
cosmicgadget 8mo ago
> found nothing Citation please.

kcplate 8mo ago

> It still boggles my mind that Trump was even allowed to run for president again He was at least 35, a natural born citizen of the US, had residency for at least 14 years prior to his candidacy, only served a single term prior, and was never charged and convicted with insurrection. Of course he was allowed, he met all the constitutional criteria to serve.

cosmicgadget 8mo ago
Colorado begs to differ.
- kcplate 8mo ago
  A unanimous supreme court begged to differ with Colorado.
  - cosmicgadget 8mo ago
    They did, it was a great piece of legislation. And you might note that they said that a state can't disqualify a candidate, not that they erred in a judgment that refutes your claim.
    - kcplate 8mo ago
      How exactly was my claim in any way refuted? He quite obviously ran and was elected. That fact alone means he satisfied all the qualification tests.
      - cosmicgadget 8mo ago
        > How exactly was my claim in any way refuted? https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2023/23sa300.html https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2023/23s... > He quite obviously ran and was elected. That fact alone means he satisfied all the qualification tests. Did you not read what I wrote above? Here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf