The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Is The Mueller Report Good For Trump?
in Politics
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
I have no love for Trump, but this witch hunt based on unfounded assumptions was unacceptable. And the worst part of it was that roughly a half of the US population assumed him to be guilty, despite lack of any solid evidence. The media have a lot of apologies to make for a strongly biased reporting on this.
I said it on the grim day Trump was elected, and I say it now: we should judge presidents and presidential candidates on merit, not on unfounded claims and scandals. Let the investigation be independent, and focus your attention on what we do know, rather than what *might* be true.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I honestly don't know if it matters, though. Regardless of what comes of this investigation, we're not likely to see any dramatic change to the ways that Trump is perceived, either by the legal system or by the population at large. Part of what I found rather frustrating in this is somewhat similar to what @MayCaesar discusses, though I look at it from a different perspective. People on both sides had already made their decisions about what they would see as a result of this investigation, and everyone will continue to justify their views of what is reality regardless of how much of the investigation is released. If Mueller had sought to indict Trump, you can bet he and every sycophantic talking head behind him would have immediately declared it invalid because Mueller was obviously biased and the whole thing was a witch hunt to begin with. Now that Mueller's vindicated him from charges of collusion, they will declare him completely innocent and view any further investigation into obstruction of justice as already decidedly wrong. Meanwhile, those against Trump will say that there's Mueller found a lot that we haven't heard yet, declare that there's more to find, and presume his guilt. No one really wants to know the facts, they just want their confirmation bias to be validated, and with Republicans in tight control of the Senate, there was never much of a question that this president would be largely unaffected by the result.
But to get back to the question, any result of this investigation isn't good or bad for Trump. It makes Trump slightly less adversarial, perhaps, but it's not going to change anything for him. He'll still be subject to multiple investigations, and he'll continue to declare them false, just with some actual support behind that claim. I will say that, though I anticipated it, it's kind of ridiculous to watch the circus of jeers that have followed this outcome. All of a sudden, people who viewed Mueller as a massively biased shill of the Democratic Party are singing the praises of the report he produced. Imagine that.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yeshuabought said in another post that she wanted her tax money to go where she wanted it to go. I want MINE to go to an OPEN investigation. I won't be happy until I KNOW what I paid for. The CONS are showing the PROS, I want to SEE the cons. "My tax money, MY choice" to quote.
I'm having trouble understanding the direction of our "Judicial System" lately. Unbelievable AND, IMO, UNJUST decisions, like, every day, it seems! :-(
It's SOO much better to be rich and guilty, than poor and innocent!
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.5  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 13%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 39%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Obstruction is far less clear. Mueller simply deferred on obstruction of justice, he didn't state that there was no guilt there. He didn't even say that it didn't reach a threshold of criminality, simply that his office would hand it off to the Attorney General to assess it. Barr has declared this void, but that seems to be based on how he views the motivations behind it, not based on what actually happened. I'm not saying he's guilty of obstruction, but the report certainly didn't clear him of it.
Like I said before, until we see a greater portion of the report, we can't know precisely what it tells us about Trump, his campaign or his administration. It's good for him in that it does not immediately warrant any litigation against him or those surrounding him, but it is not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.08  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.76  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Russia interfered in the election. They did it in 2018. They will do it in the future. They made fake posts all over the internet claiming to be black lives matter or alt right supporters to widen the partisan gap and sow animosity between Americans. Exactly what the Russian book "Foundations of Geopolitics" released in 97, calls for in it's playbook to make Russia the dominant superpower. It explicitly states that the way to take down America is from creating divisions within and specifically about race.
Why are we ignoring this? Why are Democrats still talking about Trump collusion, if the report didn't find enough evidence to charge him with it then just give it up and focus on Russian actions that were found. Why are Republicans running victory laps instead of addressing Russia's, I would go as far as to say attacks, on America?
If you read Foundations of Geopolitics this is all so painfully obvious. It's worked extremely well too. Look at how the right feels about Black lives matter, they can disagree but the extreme dislike they have is heavily influenced by many groups started by Russians that blew things out and convinced some Americans to join in. The same is true of the left view on the alt right, they saw extremely inflammatory posts by Russians and assumed they were by Americans and then people on the right that were starting to lean further right saw these posts and thought this was the trend in America and went with it.
America is under attack. No one cares and we aren't fighting back. We are being played like the violin. All it will take for the Russians to send out their bot army to support a Democrat is to have one that angers the right more than Trump angers the left, so maybe a Burnie or AOC.
Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationisr tendencies in American politics" from foundations of Geopolitics. Need anymore really be said?
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Barr has declared this void, but that seems to be based on how he views the motivations behind it, not based on what actually happened."
That's not a view on Barr. That's a statement of objective fact. What Barr has said so far about the obstruction of justice charge is exactly this:
"In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction."
Again, this is not an assumption. It's one of the key quotes that Burr gives from Mueller, and he builds from that into an argument that the individuals in question would have to act with corrupt intent, meaning in this context that they were actually hiding something. Barr argues that, since the president was clearly not hiding something, he cannot be guilty of obstruction, i.e. that he lacked intent/motivation to do so. I will note that, within the bounds of a summary, it's impossible to point to available evidence and show that there is no pattern of obstruction, meaning that pretty much any summary would be incapable of portraying what happened and why.
The rest of this is you adding in more information regarding possible means of obstruction that have been disproved (and yes, considering that Comey is just one person and asking him to stop the investigation is one way of impeding this investigation, it is specific way of impeding the investigation - it is not the sole means by which this investigation could have been impeded). Again, not disputing any of this. Apparently, though, you're denying that Barr's own choice of words. To be clear, though, I'm not saying he's wrong that a lack of intent is problematic for any claim of obstruction. I'm just saying that that lack of intent is the basis for his argument that the president and those around him did not obstruct justice. Also, nowhere in this post have I argued that Trump himself or those around him who have not been indicted are criminal, though those indictments certainly speak to at least some criminality in the administration over time.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 48%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.52  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
I've said this before and I'll say it again: I have not claimed that there was any obstruction of justice. You're the only one who is stating an absolute, saying that you know the contents of the Mueller report, which only professed uncertainty regarding this charge, are certain and unequivocal in their vindication of the president. Barr is not exactly an unbiased observer in this - he was placed into this role by the President, and has previously stated his opposition to Mueller's efforts.
As for intent, I actually spent the last post partly explaining why it's a valid concern. For some reason, you feel the need to re-emphasize that, though we apparently don't disagree about the importance of intent.
What bad sources am I listening to, again? I'm solely reading the materials from Barr's summary. I'm not presenting anything else. Yet, for some reason, you assume it's because my mind's been poisoned by something I've read. You know, despite the fact that I haven't stated that anyone is guilty and haven't argued that anyone's done a poor job (the worst I've had to say is that Barr should have released more of the details behind his interpretation), you seem to assume I've done both those things. I don't know why you always have to treat points that disagree with you as pure bias even when all I'm doing is presenting sources of uncertainty.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don’t know where you’re seeing that I have argued any certainty with regards to the charge of collusion, yet you’ve done exactly that, stating multiple times now that the conclusions stated by Barr are 1:1 absolutely equivalent to everything that came out of the Mueller investigation. However, I will point out that even if there is absolutely no difference, your point is that collusion was absolutely proven to have never happened, and that obstruction was similarly proven. The most you can say from what Barr summarized is that anything that did occur did not meet the threshold for criminality - he does not use nearly the level of absolutism you claim.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Too many are counting on an economy that is shaky, at best. Most top economists are cautioning that we are close to a dangerous correction. 99+% of scientists say we are heading for a climate disaster, Europe is having BIG problems, China is nearly up to U.S. militarily, Conservatives want to take away what your mothers, fathers, grandparents depend on. Polluters are again getting carte blanche on our water and air and our Nat'l Parks …. and all some can see is what "certain quarters" say is a "great economy". If that "Trumps all", we are in trouble! The guy is a SHAM, a salesman that is selling U.S. a bill of goods, and getting away with illegalities you or I would be imprisoned for! "Not quite enough to convict a sitting President" does NOT give me much confidence!
  Considerate: 55%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Second, this is basically what I've been saying from the start: that no criminal charges are being brought based on the information from the Mueller investigation, and that therefore nothing in that investigation so obviously rises to the level of criminality that it will immediately lead to further indictments. For some reason, you've been arguing against this perception the whole time, yet now you find that it was your "point all along"? I find that distinctly odd.
Third, this was objectively not your point all along. Your very first point was absolutely unequivocal and much further reaching than the statement you've quoted from me and apparently agree with. Here's what you said:
"If anything, what Mueller said was that there was NO evidence of collusion, and that he could find NO evidence of obstruction."
Note that you didn't include the adjective of "criminal" before collusion, nor before obstruction. That's an important distinction because a) your claim goes well beyond the bounds of the summary presented by Barr, which does not discuss individual pieces of evidence, nor does he argue that absolutely no collusion or obstruction occurred, and b) even if it doesn't rise to the high bar established for criminality, collusion and obstruction are still possible without seeking any indictments. This means it’s still entirely possible that evidence exists for collusion and/or obstruction. I’m not saying that that evidence does exist, I’m saying that it’s inaccurate to proclaim it doesn’t.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 51%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 29%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
So, let me get this straight. Because it was 2 people who made the summary, the summary is absolutely accurate in its portrayal of the investigation results, missing nothing of importance from what Mueller sent to them? Whether it’s Rosenstein or Barr, they had 48 hours to read through what was likely a great deal of material and summarize it in 4 pages. If you’re certain that what they presented is not only accurate but also all-encompassing of both the evidence and conclusions of the Mueller report, I guess that’s you’re prerogative, though I find that somewhat suspect.
It’s interesting that you both argue that there was no evidence of collusion and then state that there is no such thing as criminal collusion. To some degree, I agree with that, but that would mean that what conclusions Barr made about the report based solely on criminality are, by definition, not going to cover all instances of collusion. As for obstruction, as I said, there’s a threshold that the criminal justice system has to meet in order to prove that someone is criminally responsible for this. That doesn’t mean that there is no evidence, just that it doesn’t meet the threshold. Again, you said there is no evidence. That was your point. And all this assumes that Barr and Rosenstein accurately assessed the evidence regarding obstruction to come to their conclusion that it doesn’t warrant indictment. You know what their interpretation is, not what the evidence is.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
We NEED the "transparency" promised as "the most transparent administration EVER!" All I see are dark clouds and fog. Open the report, if there's nothing to hide, it can only help the Trumplicans. ;-)
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
When it comes to legal action there was no obstruction. However we don't view people, especially politicians, or cast votes only on information that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Hillary's emails resulted in no charges, however Republicans are still perfectly reasonable to have a negative opinion of her because of the private server. In the same vein if some of the evidence in favor of obstruction comes out then it's perfectly reasonable for people to have a more negative view of Trump
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well, to be fair, the Muller investigation costs are at 25.5 millions, but it was able to seize 28.6 millions total so in fact, it made profits, 3.1 millions to be exact, yeah peanuts but still...
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm not sure where you're trying to go. If you want to define collusion so broadly that it includes Trump making a joke that may have been heard by some Russians that's fine, but it's also meaningless. That's not a reason to convene a special council. There has never been a legitimate justification for the Mueller investigation. Mueller set out to investigate a crime that wasn't a crime and ended up creating more criminals than he caught.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 33%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.38  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
No one told Mueller (or Rosenstein, or Barr, or anyone else) not to pursue charges, there just wasn't any evidence. Lynch told FBI investigators not to indict Hillary in spite of the evidence. See the difference now?
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.32  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I swear you are the most polarized person on this site
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.18  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/26/mueller-investigation-cost/
If the final statement tracks with that, total spending from the investigation would reach about $34 million.
Some news outlets reported that the combined value of the real estate properties could be an estimated $22 million.)
the Mueller probe’s final total is likely to be $32 million to $35 million.
http://money.com/money/5639569/mueller-report-cost-waste-of-money-fines/
if they sell the properties for more than they are currently worth I guess they could make peanuts on it as you said, but this is the government after all, I'm sure it will somehow turn into negative cash flow.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10  
  Sources: 7  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
Even if it costed 5-10 millions, for a 3 year investigation of that level, it still is cheap all things considered... Clinton's email investigation was a net loss of about 30-35M... And I'm not saying anything about either investigation beside their costs...
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
don't know about cheap lol I find most things the government gets involved in or runs is terribly inefficient and way too expensive. but all that set aside. I did hear an interview as to why the report shouldn't be release which actually made a lot of sense. It's no different than the details not being released when someone is found not guilty. There's still things that can potentially make the person look bad and people love to be 'arm chair quarterbacks' so really there's no benefit generally to opening up that can of worms.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well, cheap is relative right? 10 millions are just a few bricks in his multi-billion wall...
As for the release of the report, it must be made public and as un-redacted as possible... We're not talking about an average Joe here but important public offices, so while there seems to be no criminal behavior (I'm quite fine with those conclusions), the ethical considerations matter a lot in regards to those public offices... Unethical does not equate criminal mind you, but it still says a lot about character...
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
not that I disagree but the hypocrisy on both sides makes it meaningless and pointless I'm afraid, judging by those running in 2020, and those who have ran in the past.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
I agree but I would like to shamelessly plug my endorsement for Buttigieg for the 2020 Democratic nomination. The man is absolutely ethical and of sound character unlike any of the other potential candidates. Plus he doesn't obsess over the Trump Russia thing, he even said he just wants to take Trump down by having more attractive policies. He also echoed your sentiment that no evidence of bad behavior will ever effect his supporters, they understand he has at least some bad behavior but they don't care, because that's what they wanted in Washington.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
there's on other, a woman can't remember her name, but those 2 sound promising, though I don't know much about either one which doesn't matter because they won't receive much of any coverage or interest. We live in a time of extremism, which they are not imo.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
I watched many Buttigieg interviews this week and the more I see him the more I like him (althought I still see jimmy Fallon when I see him... ).
He's the first democrat to appear on FoxNews in a long time, and if you look at the comments on Fox's youtube channel, they are overwhelmingly positive which really surprised me, usually it's just a litany of ad hominems and nonsensical rants...
He's by far, the best candidate yet, no question about it...
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.98  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
What the Mueller Report, is based on:
https://www-nationalreview-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/steele-dossier-hillary-clinton-campaign-trump-russia-investigation/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/steele-dossier-hillary-clinton-campaign-trump-russia-investigation/
"The Steele Dossier, Hillary Clinton’s Malignant Gift to America"
"The ‘salacious and unverified’ documents invaded the body politic like a cancer.
The Mueller investigation has concluded, and Mueller’s declaration has now entered the public record: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” But it’s worth reflecting on how the contrary view — the firm conviction that Trump did coordinate with Russia — became so deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans. And it’s worth reflecting on why another set of Americans could look at actual, troubling evidence of Russian contacts and simply not care at all."
I think that both of the conversations that some of the liberal news media outlets, have been harvesting for their own opinion oriented news fodder, to entertain their news media outlet followers, and fan bases with?
The Steele Dossier product, is conversation number one, and the Mueller Report product, is conversation number two.
Maybe if Hillary Clinton, hadn't messed things up with Bernie Sanders, with her fiddling behind the political scenes ways, she might have won the last Election outright, but because she messed things up with her own actions, and activities, it would appear that the current POTUS, became President, because of her very actions?
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 51%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.94  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
The Mueller Report product, is good for everyone.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/25/hysterical-cable-news-anchors-meltdown-mueller-report-findings/
It's fascinating, to watch how some of the liberal news media anchors reacted.
Because a lot of their, for 2 years plus (talking points,) now have to replace now, with other "entertainment worthy" liberal talking points to entertain their follower fanbases with?
That's how I see it.
Now we get to see:
What Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, AOC, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Juan Williams, Chuck Todd, Joe Biden, Chris Matthews, Bill Maher, Wolf Blitzer, Rachel Maddow, along with some of the Democrats, and Socialists Democrats, will say about the Mueller Report product now?
So some, may want to get their popcorn ready, because I'm sure that some of the above individuals, will come up with all sorts of talking points, or sound bites, to entertain some of their liberal popcorn eating follower fanbases with?
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 49%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.88  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra