It largely depends on how the 2020 Democratic primary goes down. If Copmala or Bobby O'Dork wins, they will use the same rhetoric they used to cope after 2016. If Bernie wins but loses the election, then Chapo is going to turn into a massive shitfest (or they'll find their own equivalent to Russiagate).

If Bernie wins but loses the election, then Chapo is going to turn into a massive shitfest

Why doesn't Chapo hate Bernie? Shouldn't they view him as being a liberal reformer?

Probably because he's the only one who "isnt corrupt"? Good question

From what I’ve seen on chaps, Bernie is “still just an establishment politician, but the best of them”

From my talks with chapocels, it's because they know he's the furthest left politician that Americans would vote for. An outright anarcho communist wouldn't get any support from the Democrats or the voter base.

It really depends on how aunty pelosi handles her mongs. If the proggies go insane and full conspiratard, the public may think the Dems are unstable lunatics. If the dems get into lockstep and repeat the portions and quotes of the report that support them, they may be able to weaponize the report.

I suspect given how the proggies have resisted mommy pelosi’s tender care, we will see them spaz out uncontrollably and contradict one another ad nauseum.

I hope Tulsi Gabbard wins.

They will lose the house. Proplem whit whole deal is that they spent all this time reeeing about trump and Russia, now they are doing same thing whit obstruction. But deep down core voter base doesn't care because this doesn't affect them. They could have been talking about rising cost of living, Medicare, jobs and education all this time. But no they chose to fight dragons instead.

now reps can come and and tell how ecenemy in better, tax cut worked and trump and hes people promise how trafis will bring more industry jobs back to america.

Depends on if you think Daddy was gonna play defense forever.

Folks, he's not gonna just let a thing slide and forget about it.

Q predicted this.

Report said "we cannot prove that Trump is 100% innocent", and also the Trump quote "I'm fucked."

That's more than enough for 6 more years of angry op-eds.

Depends on how each part of the party acts. If the base and file insist on collusion than it'll backfire pretty hard, they have no real ground to stand for. The Trump Jr. meeting was a pretty blatantly unethical move, but it doesn't seem to be illegal so there isn't anything to go on there and that's probably the best they have.

​

If they go for impeachment it will sail through the House and get sent to the Senate. There, it'll probably be largely political, and I doubt they're going to get the Republican will to impeach despite a pretty clear case for obstruction (I mean lets be serious, the report essentially says "the only way he didn't obstruct justice is if he was too retarded to be malicious or because the sitting president may be above the law"). Whether they do pull it off or not, its going to be absolutely terrible for politics, but at least it will be absolutely fantastic for dramacoin.

despite a pretty clear case for obstruction

People really misunderstand this.

Obstruction is a charge where intent actually matters. To make it simple for people to understand

If Trump was guilty of collusion and then ordered Comey fired, then that's obstruction.

If Trump was not guilty of collusion and then ordered Comey fired, then that's not obstruction.

The intent matters. If you're firing someone because you're trying to stop them from proving you committed a crime, then it's a pretty clear case, but if you're firing someone just because you're fucking annoyed at them, then it's not.

Reasonably speaking, Trump would know (hopefully??) that he wasn't guilty of collusion, so trying to prove that he fired Comey because he was trying to prevent being found out (obstructing justice) is pretty fucking hard.

This is completely wrong and is discussed at length in the report. There does not need to be an underlying crime for interference with an investigation to constitute obstruction.

You are misreading what I am saying.

I'm not saying that if a then b, I'm saying that you can prove it more easily. The crime is really about intent, so you need to show motive. If you can prove the crime, then he has clear motive for obstruction.

This has actually been talked about for weeks prior to this report coming out, at length, when people were speculating the contents. Well, at least people who were not brainlets.

If Trump was not guilty of collusion and then ordered Comey fired, then that's not obstruction.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of cases in which a person who committed no underlying crime has been convicted of obstruction for interfering with an investigation, I can link to some relevant ones I found if you want. I fully admit I could be wrong, but from what I can see there is a good case for obstruction, and I think if he wasn't rich/The President he would be brought up on charges.

People in politics do unethical things, who knew 🤔🤔🤔

i hope they do start investigating obama and implying hes in trouble just because of how angry it would make reddit

They stopped really relying on it last year as a talking point. It’s just their sperg constituency that want to keep pushing it thinking Hillary can still win here’s how.

AOC still going strong tho

He's not really gone up or down in the polls, people who hate him still hate him and those who love him still love him.

Also his polling in the rust belt is pretty bad, even if it's as wrong as last time he is still underwater, and it's pretty hard for him to win without the rust belt. I think this is why so many of the dem candidates are from the mid west. Things could turn around though who knows.