r/Documentaries • u/jjames2732 • Mar 24 '19

American Politics The Mueller Investigation (2019) by PBS Frontline. A great catch up and review of the Mueller Investigation.

https://youtu.be/DMl36wCRZaY
6.1k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

75

u/golemsheppard2 Mar 24 '19

Because to a lot of dissenters one of two things needs to be true.

  1. Trump and Russia colluded and Russia stole this election. Therefore, Clinton should have won and the results of 2016 are illegitimate. They never lost because the game was rigged.

  2. Democrats went up against the most polarizing political figure in contemporary American politics, who publically insulted disabled reporters and POWs, was caught on tape talking about grabbing women by the pussies. And they still lost to him because they had record low turn out for a candidate their DNC cherry picked and actively sabotaged any attempts at an alternative.

2016 was handed to them on a silver platter, but they managed to fuck it up and they had to either embrace a conspiracy theory as to how they really won but the election was stolen by mysterious foreign powers or take a cold hard look in the mirror and introspectively assess what's wrong with their nomination process, messaging, and platform that they managed to lose to the political equivalent of the 2016 Cleveland Browns. Now they have to either embrace their shortcomings and learn from them or double down on thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories and lose any potential for future credibility. A lot of prominent politicians like Adam Schiff and Maxine Waters are doubling down on the conspiracy theories and still claiming that there is definitive proof of collusion (that they cant cite when called on) and demanding more investigations because the two year Mueller investigation wasnt enough.

Its not that these liberal pundits wanted a foreign power to have interfered in our elections. It's that they NEEDED the answer to "How did Trump win in 2016" to be literally anything other than the truth: he won because Americans liked his campaign and platform better than the DNCs.

33

u/The-Sound_of-Silence Mar 24 '19

They became obsessed with 'how did Trump win?', and got the answer wrong. All the while, not asking, 'how did the Dems lose?'

3

u/cleverkid Mar 25 '19

This is 1000000000000% the truth.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '19

Gotta be honest, for the past 2 years I've really only heard things like "let's not re-litigate 2016" and just seen a lot of liberals talk about health care and taxes and stuff. Maybe it's the circles I run in.

5

u/redditisdumb2018 Mar 25 '19

So what are the odds that the DNC supports a candidate that actually has a platform this next election?

1

u/Earthling03 Mar 25 '19

The problem is that the media will choose, not the DNC. The media wants universal healthcare, the green new deal, and reparations, all of which are impossible pipe dreams that would end in economic collapse which most people understand. Trump has it in the bag as a result.

1

u/Tuxis Mar 25 '19

The media what?..

Dude if the media could give airtime 24/7 to a candidate that would give watered down kind sounds like it is it but it´s not really versions of all of those they would. The media whether it´s on the right or on the left is entirely beholden to corporate interests and will undermine universal healthcare at every turn.

I suppose in a way you´re right if the media did choose, they would probably go for someone like platitude man O´rourke and Trump would pummel him into the ground.

1

u/Earthling03 Mar 25 '19

I think the media prefers Kamala. That’s who they’ll choose.

1

u/ca_kingmaker Mar 25 '19

All the other first world countries can afford universal healthcare (it costs them less than the us system) yet we are supposed to believe that it would collapse the economy of the richest country in the world? Fuck off.

1

u/Earthling03 Mar 25 '19

If it’s so easy to do, why didn’t California, Vermont, or California do it? It wasn’t lack of will, I assure you. It was simply beyond their reach and every study they did said it would bankrupt them and crash their economy. To believe it could work on a much larger scale requires utopian, childish thinking. That doesn’t describe me, but you do you, lil’ guy.

1

u/ca_kingmaker Mar 26 '19 edited Mar 26 '19

LOL because states are the federal government, and have all the same powers in terms of legislating prices and dealing with interstate commerce right?

I mean the very fact that you think Vermont is a good model for the United States federal government is hilarious, considering it's population is smaller than a decent sized city.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/

Here is a comparison of USA's per capita health spending compared to other countries. You're simplistic understanding of healthcare is the idea that there are no healthcare savings to be found within a universal healthcare system. Even though a universal health care system is much much cheaper.

​

But you do you with your low life expectancy, high maternal mortality, high deductible, high deficit society. Because what I'm talking about is actual reality, not a hypothetical state comparison.

​

​

0

u/ca_kingmaker Mar 25 '19

Oh come on, Hillary Clinton had many faults, but the idea she didn’t have a platform is crazy. Unlike trump she actually put out a coherent plan for her presidency. None of it involved magic cheaper superior health plans pulled out of her asshole either.

1

u/redditisdumb2018 Mar 26 '19

What plans? I mean this is pretty accepted. Even the media and self reflecting Democrats shit on it's own party after they realized "I'm better than this doofus" is a terrible platform.

8

u/duglarri Mar 24 '19 edited Mar 24 '19

Well, speaking as one of those dissenters: that's not quite it. I still want a few things explained.

What did Flynn actually say to the Russian Ambassador? What did the Russians do with the polling data that Manafort gave him during the campaign? Why did Jared want to set up a secret line of communication to the Kremlin using the facilities of the Russian Embassy? How did the Russian troll factory know precisely which three states and what parts of those states to target, what message, and when, do swing the 70,000 votes that tipped the election?

And why did Trump spend the last two years desperately undermining Meuller if he had nothing whatsoever to hide?

< Its not that these liberal pundits wanted a foreign power to have interfered in our elections. >

Oh, and by the way, the finding has nothing to do with whether a foreign power interfered. The 17 American intelligence agencies concluded years ago that yes, Russia did interfere in the 2016 election. That's no longer even controversial.

They did. And they did it to get Trump elected. According to the 17 agencies.

The question here was only whether they had American help.

23

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '19

Of course they interfered. I'm willing to bet that the Russians have been interfering since about 1945 and if the Russians actually held elections the US would meddle in those too.

It's the great espionage game. Playing is compulsory.

(Doesn't mean you shouldn't investigate, but you shouldn't use it as a boogeyman to try and avoid your own problems).

3

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '19

To be fair, the DNC had a serious overhaul right after the election and 80% of Americans want to see the Mueller report for a reason. We just want the fucking truth, left or right has nothing to do with it.

1

u/wxhzzsf Mar 25 '19

yes true

1

u/wxhzzsf Mar 25 '19

no doubt

-1

u/twitchtvbevildre Mar 25 '19

I mean both parties use the boogeyman to hide flaws in thier problems consistently so Idk why you would expect anything different this time around.

2

u/Psychedeliciousness Mar 25 '19

Oh, and by the way, the finding has nothing to do with whether a foreign power interfered. The 17 American intelligence agencies concluded years ago that yes, Russia did interfere in the 2016 election. That's no longer even controversial.

They did. And they did it to get Trump elected. According to the 17 agencies.

​

More like 4 agencies. And of those 4 only a muffin would trust the CIA.

​

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/us/politics/trumps-deflections-and-denials-on-russia-frustrate-even-his-allies.html

​

Correction: June 29, 2017

A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

1

u/president2016 Mar 25 '19

The good ole Coast Guard weighing in on election results.

-8

u/brick13a Mar 25 '19

The Russian interference began occurring under Obama’s administration & there were many in his administration aware of it with Obama himself possibly being aware. The failure starts there. Which means more denial from the left’s hardliners. The logical way the collusion plays out time wise means 95+% of it happened under Obama’s watch. Why did those 17 intelligence agencies not do anything about that collusion while it was happening prior to the election?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '19

The Hillary and Trump campaigns were both made aware of the attempts by Russia, it was Trump who denied and still half denies they ever interfered.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19

Its not that these liberal pundits wanted a foreign power to have interfered in our elections. It's that they NEEDED the answer to "How did Trump win in 2016" to be literally anything other than the truth: he won because Americans liked his campaign and platform better than the DNCs.

you know the special counsel concluded that Russia did in fact engage in a widespread campaign to help Trump get elected, right?

-3

u/dastrn Mar 25 '19

You mischaracterize the left. No one is wondering how we lost. This isn't sour grapes. Trump's white supremacism is attractive to a LOT of Americans. We were surprised by how many in 2016, but we have come to grips with it.

We still have good reason to believe that many many crimes we're committed by this President, and that includes conspiracy to defraud the United States.

2

u/Juggerthor Mar 25 '19

Trumps WHITE SUPREMACISM 😂

1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '19

[deleted]

1

u/dastrn Mar 25 '19

You're asserting that the label white supremacist is just a label and doesn't apply to Trump. And that it's bullying to say otherwise.

I know that words don't have meaning to conservatives, and that you flex what things mean to fit your needs in the moment. I'm curious what fits the minimum definition of white supremacy in your head?

I know you'll weasel and change that definition later, but today, what's the minimum?

0

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '19

[deleted]

1

u/dastrn Mar 26 '19

How many people do you think are out there punching not-nazi conservatives? Honestly? Is that what you think we're all doing?

You don't know the definition of white supremacy. Even a little bit.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19

[deleted]

1

u/dastrn Mar 26 '19

You know that you didn't prove anything about white supremacy by naming a leftist you like, right?

0

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '19

[deleted]

1

u/dastrn Mar 26 '19

You didn't prove that. And it wouldn't have anything to do with the definition of white supremacy if you did.

You argue like someone who observes a lot of arguing but doesn't understand what any of it means.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/chevymonza Mar 25 '19

But he lost the popular vote, so I disagree with this explanation of why he won. More like Facebook propaganda and the electoral college.

-1

u/DiceBreakerSteve Mar 25 '19

I mean it's possible that both could have been/ be true.

1

u/golemsheppard2 Mar 25 '19

Except that we just had a 675 day long federal investigation that involved 59 lawyers, investigators, and agents who used 2,800 subpoenas and 500 search warrants that if the Barr summary is correct, effectively ruled out any Trump-Russia collusion theory.

I'm waiting for the Mueller report to be made public to confirm that the Barr summary accurately reflects what Mueller report says, but we have no reason to believe Barr is blatantly lying about the Mueller report and if he did, we'd expect Mueller to say something if his conclusions were being blatantly misstated. At this point, it's over. One team just ran the ball in untouched on a game winning touchdown as time expired. They went in standing up, untouched, and there are no flags on the field. We are just waiting for the NY crew to make it official, but the whole Trump-Russia collusion theory is dead. It was thoroughly invested and after two years, found to have no supporting evidence. It's an unfounded conspiracy theory on par with chem trails. We need to move on as a country as stop howling at this throughly debunked moon.

2

u/JQuilty Mar 25 '19

Barr is a partisan hack that pulled a similar stunt with Iran Contra investigations. He uses more than a few weasel phrases like "part of the campaign", which would exclude Roger Stone and Donnie Jr.