The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Crunch on March 22, 2019, 06:22:06 PM

Title: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 22, 2019, 06:22:06 PM
This it!  Oh my god, it’s happening!

The one thing we know for sure, no more indictments. Bottom line: not one single American was charged, indicted or convicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election - not even a low-level volunteer. The number is zero. The whole point of the thing was to get Russian collusion established - don’t deny it, I know some of you will try. So that’s a bust, a major bust. Getting a few guys on tax dodging or lying to the FBI (only a crime if you’re a Republican) is nothing, Democrats  that routinely. Indicting a few Russians to add some window dressing to the whole thing is, again, nothing.

The timing is perhaps a little telling. After 5 pm on a Friday on what may arguably be the biggest sports weekend of the year.  It virtually guarantees a soft launch for the report. After all the leaks, I’m going to be surprised if there’s anything of value in there, it would have neen leaked. Prediction: the media and democrats will once again join forces to tell us ”It's What's Not In Mueller's Report That Is Important”.


Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 22, 2019, 11:58:37 PM
Quote
A panel on CNN’s Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer reacted live on air to news that the Mueller report has concluded and resulted in no new indictments by admitting that President Trump has won a “huge victory.”

He’s been vindicated by them,” Evan Pérez said of President Trump and the Mueller report

“And then he’s now vindicated, exactly,” Gloria Borger said.

“You know–how do you manage that politically? I mean, we obviously can’t jump the gun here. We have to see what comes out from Barr, and what’s in the report. But if I’m at Mar-A-Lago with the president, as Pamela has been reporting, the lawyers are … that I would be very happy,” she added.

Later, a panel member concluded that the Mueller report was in fact a “huge victory” for President Trump.

“A couple of victories here,” CNN’s Shimon Prokupecz said.

“The president did not have to sit down for an interview. They were so concerned about that, because he’d get caught up in lies–and there’d be perjury traps. Okay, so that’s now over. No more people being indicted. Sealed, unsealed–no more indictments. Mueller is done. Huge victory for the president,” he said.

Special counsel Robert Mueller concluded the Russia investigation and turned over his report to Attorney General Willian Barr Friday afternoon. According to multiple reports, there will be no further indictments in the report, sealed or unsealed.

Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on March 23, 2019, 01:36:09 AM
Crunch,

Quote
The one thing we know for sure, no more indictments. Bottom line: not one single American was charged, indicted or convicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election - not even a low-level volunteer. The number is zero.

There will be no new indictments 'in the report', but there are still sealed indictments (26?), that we don't know who the indictments are against or what they are for, and further indictments can be brought after the report.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 23, 2019, 08:55:45 AM
From CNBC, emphasis mine:

Quote
Special counsel Robert Mueller has concluded his investigation and will not file any more indictments in connection with his inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, NBC News reported on Friday, citing a senior U.S. law enforcement official. There are no sealed indictments.

It is possible that leads uncovered during the special counsel’s inquiry and handed off could lead to charges brought by state prosecutors or other parts of the Department of Justice. But Mueller has no more indictments waiting under seal, and he will not recommend any further indictments, multiple outlets reported.

Who is telling you there are so many sealed indictments? Virtually every media outlet I’ve seen is reporting the same thing as NBC News and CNBC, hence the “multiple outlets reported”. Where are you getting this?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 23, 2019, 09:42:31 AM
Quote
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Friday that his panel will subpoena special counsel Robert Mueller if more details regarding his report on possible collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia is required.

Threatening to subpoena Mueller now? 

I’m literally laughing out loud

Democrats also want to subpoena the “full report”. For you armchair lawyers, here’s the thing; this report contains grand jury testimony which is always sealed from public review. It can, in rare cases, be opened up but the odds are incredibly long. Also, this report almost certainly contains classified material that cannot be exposed, including sources and means.

I will be shocked if the “full report” is ever made available. At most, we’ll see a redacted, possibly heavily, version. And that, kids, is when this conspiracy theory will get into jet contrail/nazi base dark side of the moon, territory. It’s nearly there already.

It’s gonna be magical.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on March 23, 2019, 10:37:14 AM
Threatening to subpoena Mueller now?

It isn't a threat, it was always intended to subpeona Mueller to insure that the public gets all parts of the report that can be lawfully released. 

Regarding the NBC report of no indictments under seal and there will be no new indictments, it was from an anonymous source in the justice department.  It is amusing that you 100% trust anonymous sources from within the justice department now :)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 23, 2019, 11:02:06 AM
Threatening to subpoena Mueller now?

It isn't a threat, it was always intended to subpeona Mueller to insure that the public gets all parts of the report that can be lawfully released. 

Bull*censored*. Pure bull*censored*.


Regarding the NBC report of no indictments under seal and there will be no new indictments, it was from an anonymous source in the justice department.  It is amusing that you 100% trust anonymous sources from within the justice department now :)
Riiight. So, in other words, you don’t want to say where the idea came from about all those sealed indictments you imagine are out there for Trump. I know where you got it, I really do. That’s why I also know that you don’t want to say. Come on, let it all out.

You’re gonna demand I tell you where you got it so you can then deny it. I’ll throw out a hint, back youa little further into that corner : August - September last year
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on March 23, 2019, 11:55:37 AM
Bull*censored*. Pure bull*censored*.

Well you clearly haven't been paying attention.  Here is a discussion of the matter from a month ago,

Quote
Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on Sunday that House Democrats were prepared to go to court to force the release of the final report from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and subpoena Mr. Mueller to testify if it was not made public.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/24/us/politics/adam-schiff-trump-mueller-report.html

I've read discussions on Quora on this topic for about a year.  So you apparently live in your own fact free bubble.


Quote
Riiight. So, in other words, you don’t want to say where the idea came from about all those sealed indictments you imagine are out there for Trump.

No, not in other words.  Please don't attribute things to me based on your paranoid delusions.  I read about the sealed indictments on quora, but don't recall the specific thread and since you aren't someone to whom facts matter I don't really feel the need to try and dig them up.

The last mention I recall is actually from a few weeks ago,

https://hillreporter.com/4-new-sealed-dockets-filed-in-d-c-court-could-indicate-impending-indictments-in-mueller-case-23089

The source is  https://twitter.com/TimInHonolulu/status/1091078420694392832 and you can see a list of the sealed indictments in a comment.

Here is a direct link to the list of sealed indictments, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyRT_gCX0AEkQRV.jpg:large

Not sure what source you think I might be using.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on March 24, 2019, 01:41:14 AM
So, I love how Pelosi evidently thinks that Congress should only be given the Unclassified version of the Report. Evidently she thinks they can't handle the Classified version?

Also taking odds that most of the "Russia" part of the Report is going to end up classified for valid national security reasons.

It's also likely a fair bit of the "supporting material" for the Trump portion of the investigation will end up being withheld for Privacy Reasons. Just because Mueller's team took a deep dive into the finances of several of Trump's close associates doesn't mean the DNC, or CNN, needs access to everything they discovered in the course of their "investigation" seeking finance ties back to Russia.

Which actually leaves me thinking the Public Version of the Mueller Report is actually going to be rather insubstantial when compared to rest of it. But oh man, I expect there's going a be a number of people who are going to be laughing over the next few days. The only question is what they'll laughing about, and which side gets to laugh about what. Based on the "no further recommended indictments" I'm suspecting it's going to be a laugh-fest for the Republicans and Trump. We'll see soon enough I guess.

And in the meantime Democrats will start complaining about all of those "undisclosed documents" from the Mueller team.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2019, 09:51:07 AM
Bull*censored*. Pure bull*censored*.

Well you clearly haven't been paying attention.  Here is a discussion of the matter from a month ago,
A month ago. Always is just a bit longer than a month. I’ve no doubt subpoenaing Mueller was floated in the last few weeks, as in “if we don’t get Trump with this, we can always subpoena mueller”. But you’re making out that there were plans to subpoena mueller since 2017. We all know that’s not true.

I've read discussions on Quora on this topic for about a year.  So you apparently live in your own fact free bubble.

You read an online forum. For a year. Ok, wow. I didn’t realize you’d read it on the internet.  ;D

Quote
Riiight. So, in other words, you don’t want to say where the idea came from about all those sealed indictments you imagine are out there for Trump.

No, not in other words.  Please don't attribute things to me based on your paranoid delusions.  I read about the sealed indictments on quora, but don't recall the specific thread and since you aren't someone to whom facts matter I don't really feel the need to try and dig them up.

The last mention I recall is actually from a few weeks ago,

https://hillreporter.com/4-new-sealed-dockets-filed-in-d-c-court-could-indicate-impending-indictments-in-mueller-case-23089

The source is  https://twitter.com/TimInHonolulu/status/1091078420694392832 and you can see a list of the sealed indictments in a comment.

Here is a direct link to the list of sealed indictments, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyRT_gCX0AEkQRV.jpg:large

Not sure what source you think I might be using.

That is what I was thinking, nailed it. So here’s why a year of reading quora is more of a joke than anything else, you’re being lead by these people to think that the sealed indictments are connected to the Mueller investigation based on .... nothing more than wishful thinking.

You have to understand that sealed indictments are not public, none of those people making you think they know what sealed indictments contain actually know anything. These sealed indictments may have nothing to do with the mueller report or its investigation. In fact, since it’s being reported that there are no sealed indictments related to the investigation by multiple sources and outlets, it almost certainly means that those indictments random people on an internet discussion forum are either lying to you or don’t understand how sealed indictments work either.

Dude, seriously, don’t use random, anonymous, people on internet fora as replacement for finding out how these things work.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2019, 10:06:42 AM
But oh man, I expect there's going a be a number of people who are going to be laughing over the next few days. The only question is what they'll laughing about, and which side gets to laugh about what. Based on the "no further recommended indictments" I'm suspecting it's going to be a laugh-fest for the Republicans and Trump. We'll see soon enough I guess.

Based on Maddow’s teary report and Matthews disbelief, I think your suspicions are spot on. Twitter is hysterical right now as MSM reporters and other leftists melt down. These people were invested in this investigation being the silver bullet to overturn the 2016 election, they’re really losing it.

And in the meantime Democrats will start complaining about all of those "undisclosed documents" from the Mueller team.
Conspiracy theorists alway have what they think is proof being withheld by secretive government officials.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on March 24, 2019, 11:12:08 AM
A month ago. Always is just a bit longer than a month.

I proved you wrong (as you usually are), I didn't bother with older sources, because that was convenient.

Quote
I’ve no doubt subpoenaing Mueller was floated in the last few weeks, as in “if we don’t get Trump with this, we can always subpoena mueller”.

Again inaccuracy.  Once there was concern that AG Barr might interfere it became more of a concern, but it was largely an idea 'in the atmosphere' for quite some time.

Quote
That is what I was thinking, nailed it.

No that isn't what you were thinking, it is directly contracted by your speculation that proves quite clearly that that absolutely wasn't what you were thinking.  Please don't do such bold faced lies.

Quote
So here’s why a year of reading quora is more of a joke than anything else, you’re being lead by these people to think that the sealed indictments are connected to the Mueller investigation based on .... nothing more than wishful thinking.

The sealed indictments are likely connected to Mueller based on where they were filed.  Not all the sealed indictments are connected to Mueller and some of the ones tracked might be wrong.

Quote
You have to understand that sealed indictments are not public, none of those people making you think they know what sealed indictments contain actually know anything. These sealed indictments may have nothing to do with the mueller report or its investigation.

I'm familiar with the nature of sealed indictment.  As are those doing the reporting.

Quote
In fact, since it’s being reported that there are no sealed indictments related to the investigation by multiple sources and outlets, it almost certainly means that those indictments random people on an internet discussion forum are either lying to you or don’t understand how sealed indictments work either.

As far as I can tell it is one anonymous source repeated by multiple outlets.  The reporting seems a bit muddied saying there will be "no new indictments in the report".  The claim of "no sealed indictments" seems dubious since we know of the presence of at least one existing sealed indictment against Julian Assange that was accidentally revealed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/assange-usa/u-s-prosecutors-get-indictment-against-wikileaks-assange-court-document-idUSL2N1XR04A

So it is at least unclear as to the accuracy of the claim of "no sealed indictments".  If the source is in error, or if the reporter misunderstood, etc.  Or perhaps the indictment against Assange wasn't done by a member of Mueller's team (Or perhaps it is a coincidence of someone else having the same last name as Julian Assange having a sealed indictment against them and it is totally unrelated).

So while I think it possible remaining sealed indictements have nothing to do with the Mueller investigation, I don't think we have any reason to be certain that they don't and at least one pretty strong reason to believe that at least one does.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on March 24, 2019, 11:25:46 AM
minor addition - "(Or perhaps it is a coincidence of someone else having the same last name as Julian Assange having a sealed indictment against them and it is totally unrelated)." - I included that for completeness but if you read the wording of the text (included in the Reuters article I linked) I think it is impossible to conclude that the sealed indictment is for anyone other than Julian Assange.

Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on March 24, 2019, 12:27:41 PM
Uh, if sealed indictments have already been delivered to the courts, then those indictments are already underway. They're not "new" and will no longer be able to a "new" moniker going forward. The most that could be said at some point is that they're "newly made public."

But as it stands, it looks like Trump and his immediate family has no pending litigation underway, and it is sounding like no further legal prosecution is advised.

Which isn't to say impeachment couldn't still be on the table, as SCotUS and numerous other authorities have previously held the position that  Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. So just because there isn't a legal basis wouldn't rule out a political reason. Except Pelosi herself has walked away from Impeaching Trump as well, "He's not worth it" anymore.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2019, 04:01:10 PM
Quote
WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election did not find that any U.S. or Trump campaign officials knowingly conspired with Russia, according to details released on Sunday.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2019, 04:11:12 PM
Uh, if sealed indictments have already been delivered to the courts, then those indictments are already underway. They're not "new" and will no longer be able to a "new" moniker going forward. The most that could be said at some point is that they're "newly made public."

Careful, you could become the target of Quora fueled poutrage.  :o

But as it stands, it looks like Trump and his immediate family has no pending litigation underway, and it is sounding like no further legal prosecution is advised.

Which isn't to say impeachment couldn't still be on the table, as SCotUS and numerous other authorities have previously held the position that  Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. So just because there isn't a legal basis wouldn't rule out a political reason. Except Pelosi herself has walked away from Impeaching Trump as well, "He's not worth it" anymore.

If the Democrats attempt impeachment for something we now know never happened, it’ll never fly and they’ll be severely punished by voters in 2020. Pelosi knows this and is trying to avoid that particular disaster (obviously she doesn’t read Quora where there’s unequivocal proof of Orange Man Bad).

Personally, I’d love to see democrats start impeachment proceedings. It would be incredible to watch them commit electoral suicide.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2019, 04:15:48 PM
Quote
WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election did not find that any U.S. or Trump campaign officials knowingly conspired with Russia, according to details released on Sunday.
Also
Quote
Unfortunately, the report then says that they did not evaluate, at all, whether he obstructed justice by firing Comey and leaves that open for the AG to decide. The Democrats and media and NeverTrump conspiracy theorists will seize on this.

The AG has announced that he and Deputy AG Rosenstein have considered the issue and have decided that there is no case for obstruction of justice, but Mueller has deliberately left this open to give his Democrat and media pals room to rumble.

Complete, total, vindication.

The whole collusion thing was fake news.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on March 24, 2019, 04:19:28 PM

If the Democrats attempt impeachment for something we now know never happened,

There is a difference between strong enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt and "never happened".

If no indictment occurs it doesn't necessarily mean "never happened" just that he doesn't think the evidence rises to a level that a successful prosecution can occur.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2019, 04:29:57 PM
You keep flogging that dog.  LOL

I can honestly say this is almost as good as the night Trump won the election. Twitter is lit AF right now.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 24, 2019, 05:19:11 PM
Quote
“It began illegally,” Trump said of the investigation. “And hopefully somebody is going to look at the other side, this was an illegal takedown that failed. And hopefully somebody is going to be looking at the other side. So it’s a complete exoneration, no collusion, no obstruction, thank you very much.”

Yes. Now it’s time to investigate the creators of the hoax and those that fueled it. This was an attempt to overthrow a president. Brennan, Clapper, Schiff et al and all their accomplices on CNN, MSNBC, etc need to be investigated and charged for their serial deceptions.  Burn them all.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on March 24, 2019, 07:38:15 PM
Quote
WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election did not find that any U.S. or Trump campaign officials knowingly conspired with Russia, according to details released on Sunday.
Also
Quote
Unfortunately, the report then says that they did not evaluate, at all, whether he obstructed justice by firing Comey and leaves that open for the AG to decide. The Democrats and media and NeverTrump conspiracy theorists will seize on this.

The AG has announced that he and Deputy AG Rosenstein have considered the issue and have decided that there is no case for obstruction of justice, but Mueller has deliberately left this open to give his Democrat and media pals room to rumble.

Complete, total, vindication.

The whole collusion thing was fake news.

I'd like to see the logic train on that one.

1) The investigation found no evidence of criminal activity after very extensive investigation.
2) This indicates they very likely investigated something which never happened.
3) Attempting to stop an investigation into events that never happened is now going to become a criminal offense("Obstructing Justice").

How does that NOT end up going to very bad places very quickly.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 25, 2019, 08:12:02 AM
Quote
On the call, prominent Democrats, including Pelosi, made two important points about the Democratic response to the report: one, that Pelosi and other prominent Democrats and committee leaders will not take any classified briefings in relation to the report, and two, that Congressional investigators, like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), are peparing to alter their planned investigations into the president, his inner circle, and his business dealings, to include both Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his forthcoming report.

They want to see the full report but will refuse to attend the classified briefings. This is theater. Everyone knows the full report cannot be legally released. Now democrats will pretend there’s a cover up going on.

Which is why Schiff will alter the house investigation to now include Mueller himself. The Democrats are going to investigate Mueller. Now, I’m sure the boys over on Quora are saying the Democrats were always going to investigate mueller but gearing up to investigate the special council since he didn’t deliver the goods is pretty frigging incredible.

This is going over the edge.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: yossarian22c on March 25, 2019, 08:21:24 AM
Which is why Schiff will alter the house investigation to now include Mueller himself. The Democrats are going to investigate Mueller.

Interviewing Mueller to make sure his report wasn't mischaracterized by Barr is not investigating Mueller.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on March 25, 2019, 02:38:26 PM
Which is why Schiff will alter the house investigation to now include Mueller himself. The Democrats are going to investigate Mueller.

Interviewing Mueller to make sure his report wasn't mischaracterized by Barr is not investigating Mueller.

I would agree with this, but I somehow find it hard to believe the Democrats will be able to restrain themselves to only that.

Evidently even Pelosi seems to be realizing this, as per the "Democrats will only accept non-classified briefings on the report" policy she seems to have decided to invoke.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: yossarian22c on March 25, 2019, 02:43:35 PM
Evidently even Pelosi seems to be realizing this, as per the "Democrats will only accept non-classified briefings on the report" policy she seems to have decided to invoke.

This is weird and stupid. Learn everything and if there is some classified bombshell work to get it declassified. I see how it is potentially beneficial politically to allow yourself to talk about what may still be classified but refusing to look at all the facts is just obnoxious. From what I've heard in other interviews I'm not sure the rest of the democrats are on board with this plan.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on March 25, 2019, 02:47:29 PM
The Democrats best play at this point may be to let it go and focus on business.  If they want to beat Trump it won't be by attacking him (his personality)
That said I would love the hear Mueller thoughts

Trump is a winner. The Universe likes him... those that have stood with him don't tend to end well, but like him or hate him, hes a winner.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 25, 2019, 02:49:10 PM
Which is why Schiff will alter the house investigation to now include Mueller himself. The Democrats are going to investigate Mueller.

Interviewing Mueller to make sure his report wasn't mischaracterized by Barr is not investigating Mueller.

Unbelievable. There will be classified briefings, if Democrats would go to them they will find this out. This idea that Barr could or would mischaracterize is it is just a sad grasping at straws.

That being said, I'd love to see the Democrats keep digging this hole, all the way through 2020 elections. They've virtually assured Trump a 2020 victory already, trying to keep this going will only help Trump more.

It's just unreal to watch Democrats so completely implode on so many fronts and do it just over and over again.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on March 25, 2019, 02:53:04 PM
Quote
It's just unreal to watch Democrats so completely implode on so many fronts and do it just over and over again.

It is truly unreal... its... I have no words.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 25, 2019, 02:58:22 PM
You know, I just don't understand it. I joke a lot about Trump Derangement Syndrome but maybe it's real. Has Trump destroyed the Democrat party? Did his winning the presidency break these guys somehow?

I'm completely serious, I just don't understand how they're going down this road. All of them, at one time. Whatever credibility the media had left is gone. I don't care what Trump does at this point, if CNN and all the rest reports it nobody is going to believe. Trump can shout fake news and the majority of people are gonna believe Trump. The MSM has literally destroyed itself in the last 6 months. Seriously, WTF? As much as I enjoy them getting what they deserve, in the long run this could be an incredibly dangerous thing.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on March 25, 2019, 03:12:09 PM
The Democrats have always had a tenancy to be their own worst enemy... they love to eat their own.
It's gotten worse lately perhaps something to do with the idea of morally superiority?
Whatever you say about Trump a moral role model likely doesn't top the list which may be what so many on the left can't accept???
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on March 25, 2019, 03:48:41 PM
Of course the Democrats want to see the information in the report and be able to use it politically. This idea that they are going to refuse to know any classified information is a pretty weird spin. Obviously what Pelosi was saying is that they won't be *satisfied* with a gang of eight briefing by itself. This was of course *before* Barr's letter on Sunday.

Crunch is having a good time though, so I guess we should be happy for him.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on March 25, 2019, 05:09:52 PM
No matter how you look at it - its a win for those that support Trump. Personally I still feel that history will uncover the truth about Trump and it won't be kind however that's 15 to 20 years away

I'm almost tempted to check in with CNN to see how the spin the failure of their pendents speculation but can't do it. 
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 25, 2019, 06:01:52 PM
Crunch is having a good time though, so I guess we should be happy for him.

You know, the last few months have been pretty incredible. I keep thinking it’s about t as good as it’s gonna get and the hits just still keep coming. Kavanaugh, Covington Kids, Smollett, it was building up and up. The report dropped and I was blown away, it not only exceeded my expectations but even blew past most my wishful thinking. I think, we’ll, that’s it and then today Avenatti gets arrested. What? I mean, my God, what else is gonna happen!?!?

But no, I’m not having a good time. I’m having a great time. I keep breaking out into laughter. I have a schadenboner so hard you could hang a rack of suits on it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 25, 2019, 06:19:44 PM
See, this right here is exactly what I’m talking about:
Quote
BREAKING: Jussie Smollett Attorney Mark Geragos is alleged co-conspirator with Michael Avenatti.

The dam broke, it keeps coming, it just won’t stop.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on March 26, 2019, 02:59:37 PM
What I will be most interested in seeing, when the full report is released (assuming Trump doesn't change his mind again), is why the Trump Administration behaved like it did.  Specifically:

* Why did Trump Jr. meet with the Russians at Trump Tower, along with Maniford and Kushner?  What did he really expect to get from the Russians?  What did Maniford and Kushner expect?

* Why did Donald and Jr. lie about what the Trump Tower meeting was really about?  If anyone who thinks they were only expecting to discuss Russian adoptions, I have a nice new bridge to sell you. :)

* Why did Kushner attempt to get a secret phone line through the Russian embassy? (https://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-russia-back-channel-testimony-2017-7)

* Why did Trump refuse to allow any American translator listen to his official conversations with Vladimir Putin?

* Why did Maniford share poll data with a man linked to Russian intelligence?  I can't think of a good reason unless it was to help the campaign.

* Why did Mueller categorically state that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," but only stated that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime [regarding obstruction of justice], it also does not exonerate him?"  Why was he so conclusive about one issue, but not the other?  What instances did Mueller considered it possible that Trump obstructed justice? And why did Trump act like he did in those instances?

I am glad that this investigation was done, and that we will have some answers about the Trump Administration's behavior.  But it has yet to clarify the suspicious behaviors that started the investigation.  Hopefully, the full report will provide satisfactory answers.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 26, 2019, 03:07:51 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/congressman-quotes-anti-semitic-hitler-012105095.html

“Quote: ‘In the big lie, there is always a certain force of credibility because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature ... and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie,’” Brooks read.

“It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To continue with Mo's line of thinking, this whole Russian collusion thing is the Democrats' attempt at a Reichstag fire, a false flag attack in which they are the ones burning down our faith in our democratic system while they put the blame on their enemies. Just like in Germany, our democracy is indeed under attack, but it is from within. The Democrats aren't just taking war lessons from Hitler either but also throwing in a little Napoleon with their multi-pronged attack by including their plans to pack the Supreme Court, lower the voting age, but most of all facilitate the continuing massive invasion because not enough current American citizens agree with them but the illegal invaders and most importantly their new American children whose parents still have a foreign allegiance will.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on March 26, 2019, 03:24:25 PM
I'm with Wayward Son
no political motive but Just out of curiosity as the behavior seems odd to me. It was the  "protest too much" that left me wondering more then anything else if their was collusion.
I mean Rudy Giuliani behavior was WTF
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 26, 2019, 04:35:23 PM
But it has yet to clarify the suspicious behaviors that started the investigation. 

Wut? This investigation was not started by any suspicious behavior on the part of the Trump campaign or the Whitehouse. This whole thing was started when corrupt FBI and DOJ officials took Hillary's half baked oppo research and fraudulently obtained FISA orders to conduct the investigations (Stzok's "insurance policy"). This whole thing was kicked off for no other reason than to delegitimize Trump and get him impeached, overturning the election results, literally a coup. Saying this started because of suspicious behavior from Trump or his team is just more gaslighting.

I am glad that this investigation was done, and that we will have some answers about the Trump Administration's behavior. 

Millions spent, lives ruined, what was left of the MSM's credibility utterly destroyed, that's great. This was the third investigation into this, and you still have no answers? What you mean is, you don't have the answers you were promised - specifically, ones that indicted Trump.

Hopefully, the full report will provide satisfactory answers.

You *know* what happens when the report gets released. Come on, stop. Redacted areas will be used as proof for the conspiracy theory. More things will be cherrypicked for you to be gaslighted further into believing something happened that didn't.

This was a scam, that's all it was.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on March 26, 2019, 05:45:52 PM
I don't fully disagree with you however I find your stance hard to take when I know 'Know' that if the same amount of smoke surrounded a Demarcate you would never stop demanding a investigation.
There was and remains a a stink to Russia "coincidences" over the last few years
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 26, 2019, 06:34:47 PM
If it was a Democrat and the only evidence was Republican oppo research, I might, and I mean might, have some fun with it on a forum like this. It’s so frigging weak that you guys would chew it up in a week. If it was a Democrat, there’s no way this would have seen three investigations, regardless of the demand.  You know it, I know it.

“Coincidences”. That’s how flat earthers and jet contrail wackos talk.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on March 26, 2019, 06:36:54 PM
But it has yet to clarify the suspicious behaviors that started the investigation. 

Wut? This investigation was not started by any suspicious behavior on the part of the Trump campaign or the Whitehouse. This whole thing was started when corrupt FBI and DOJ officials took Hillary's half baked oppo research and fraudulently obtained FISA orders to conduct the investigations (Stzok's "insurance policy"). This whole thing was kicked off for no other reason than to delegitimize Trump and get him impeached, overturning the election results, literally a coup. Saying this started because of suspicious behavior from Trump or his team is just more gaslighting.

Oh, so you're saying that all these other dubious events happened after the investigation started or came to light while the investigation was underway.  Well, even better that we had an investigation to address them, isn't it? :)

Quote
I am glad that this investigation was done, and that we will have some answers about the Trump Administration's behavior. 

Millions spent, lives ruined, what was left of the MSM's credibility utterly destroyed, that's great. This was the third investigation into this, and you still have no answers? What you mean is, you don't have the answers you were promised - specifically, ones that indicted Trump.

What we were promised was a thorough and unbiased investigation by a respected Republican former-head of the FBI.  I still assume that was what we got, in spite of all the rhetoric and unsubstantiated slander from the Right Wing Media.  Which is why I want to see the results, so I can judge for myself, and not rely on unreliable interpreters like you.

The bottom line is I want to why such suspicious behavior was actually innocent.  How did it look so bad?  What was the real motivation behind these suspicious acts?  That's something that the Right cannot answer, because they are so blinded by their partisanship that they cannot even recognize how bad it all looked.  I am hopeful that Mueller would be able to explain it now.

And while you like to comfort yourself about how the "MSM's credibility" was "utterly destroyed," I wonder where you will get your information in the future, since the Right Wing Media never had an ounce of it.  :P

Quote
Hopefully, the full report will provide satisfactory answers.

You *know* what happens when the report gets released. Come on, stop. Redacted areas will be used as proof for the conspiracy theory. More things will be cherrypicked for you to be gaslighted further into believing something happened that didn't.

This was a scam, that's all it was.

I realize you are basing your expectations of the future based on what Republicans have done during the last Administration.  And I'm sure there are those who will do precisely what you expect.  But we still have Mueller's own words to refer to.  Since everyone on the Left and the Right seems to believe him (the Left before the report came out, the Right now :) ), I think his insight into these events will be illuminating. 

Yes, parts will be redacted and people will interpret those redactions in all sorts of ways.  Which is why you should be supporting Pelosi's request that the report be released unredacted, to thwart those who would scam us with them.  But, of course, you won't because--you know, she's a Democrat.  :o

The thing is, Crunch, Trump is a liar, a con-man and a fool, and this report hasn't changed any of that.  You knew these things when you voted for him, and he has proven them time and again since.  Why you are so adamant about believing him is beyond me.  Yes, these particular accusations apparently are not true.  We'll know just how much they are untrue when the report comes out.  But if you think he's done nothing wrong, well, more the fool are you.  Eventually he will slip up, and we intend to nail him then, if only at the next election.  Because our country deserves someone better than this automobile-wreak of a President and presidency.

And if you think this attitude is horrible and terrible and we should be ashamed of ourselves--where were you during the last Administration, when all this and more was being heaped on Obama, for far less reason?  ???

You don't like it when the opposition has no respect for the President?  Well, you should have spoken up when it happened the previous time.  And you shouldn't have elected a President that richly deserves such scorn.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on March 26, 2019, 07:49:52 PM
Let's just say that as a Democrat, I find Trump's strategy of swamp draining particularly curious.  I guess he wanted a front row seat.  Maybe his ex staffers can sue for entrapment?  :)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on March 27, 2019, 03:03:05 AM

Wut? This investigation was not started by any suspicious behavior on the part of the Trump campaign or the Whitehouse. 
 This whole thing was started when corrupt FBI and DOJ officials took Hillary's half baked oppo research and fraudulently obtained FISA orders to conduct the investigations (Stzok's "insurance policy").

Actually it started with Papadopolous telling a foreign diplomat that the Trump campaign was getting material stolen from the Democrats from Russia. 

Quote
This whole thing was kicked off for no other reason than to delegitimize Trump and get him impeached, overturning the election results, literally a coup. Saying this started because of suspicious behavior from Trump or his team is just more gaslighting.

It started before the election at a time where almost everyone, including Trump and his entire campaign staff, thought that Trump would lose.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: DonaldD on March 27, 2019, 07:16:19 AM
"Did not establish that there was" is not equivalent to "established that there was not".  I get why the 24-hour news cycle requires immediate response and drama, though. This does give some information, but without access to the details in the report, it's still looking at tea leaves.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 27, 2019, 08:00:56 AM

Wut? This investigation was not started by any suspicious behavior on the part of the Trump campaign or the Whitehouse. 
 This whole thing was started when corrupt FBI and DOJ officials took Hillary's half baked oppo research and fraudulently obtained FISA orders to conduct the investigations (Stzok's "insurance policy").

Actually it started with Papadopolous telling a foreign diplomat that the Trump campaign was getting material stolen from the Democrats from Russia. 

Quote
This whole thing was kicked off for no other reason than to delegitimize Trump and get him impeached, overturning the election results, literally a coup. Saying this started because of suspicious behavior from Trump or his team is just more gaslighting.

It started before the election at a time where almost everyone, including Trump and his entire campaign staff, thought that Trump would lose.

Everything tou just said is fake news, it’s been disproven. How do you not know that? I guess it never came up n Quora.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on March 27, 2019, 02:50:56 PM
So much fake news. Except for the parts where people connected to the Trump campaign lied about which Russians they met with, when they met with them, why they met with them. Trump on camera inviting Russia to hack Hillary's email. I will accept the result of the investigation, but lets not pretend it didn't look like something shady was going on.

It reminds me of Saddam Hussein and the WMD. Turns out, he definitively didn't have any. But he acted like he did, fought inspections, and acted belligerent.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on March 27, 2019, 04:26:31 PM
What would have happened if Mueller found Trump guilty of colluding, obstructing justice and being a traitor?

The deep state realizing the harm such a finding would be convinced Mueller to doctor his report, the truth of which will be revealed after Trump term in office 
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 27, 2019, 04:38:47 PM
What would have happened if Mueller found Trump guilty of colluding, obstructing justice and being a traitor?

The deep state realizing the harm such a finding would be convinced Mueller to doctor his report, the truth of which will be revealed after Trump term in office

See, nobody can tell if you're kidding. There are people seriously floating just this. It's so insane but it's taken seriously.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on March 27, 2019, 04:41:14 PM
Given our reality star in chief, they could roll out this "twist" just before the election to boost ratings.

You're right, for the past few years, satire is unsafe humor territory because anything could be "real", or at least news...  Fake or otherwise.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 27, 2019, 04:41:41 PM
So much fake news. Except for the parts where people connected to the Trump campaign lied about which Russians they met with, when they met with them, why they met with them. Trump on camera inviting Russia to hack Hillary's email. I will accept the result of the investigation, but lets not pretend it didn't look like something shady was going on.

It reminds me of Saddam Hussein and the WMD. Turns out, he definitively didn't have any. But he acted like he did, fought inspections, and acted belligerent.

"Trump on camera inviting Russia to hack Hillary's email".  Jesus *censored*ing Christ, seriously?  :o

You cannot be serious with that. If you say things like that, expect to be ridiculed and laughed at. That is the ultimate in fake news to put that out as a true fact.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on March 27, 2019, 04:43:51 PM
Fascinating.  As far as I can tell, we still don't know what they claim justified the special counsel investigation.  Now that it's over, we need to see what justified it in the first place.  If it's nothing but the Dossier some people need to go to jail.  I'd also like to see Shiff go under oath on some of the statements he made.  He's made some serious claims from a position of being a serious intelligence insider that seem to be complete bunk.

So what actually happened here?  If I had my guess, all that happened is that a non-recused Attorney General that Mueller and Co. knew they couldn't intimidate got appointed.  I think its extremely likely, given the report, that Mueller has known for some time that there was no collusoin, and if that's the case, keeping the investigation ongoing to investigate a dubious obstruction premise is nothing but a politically driven abuse of power.  Having to explain to Barr that you've known there was no collusion for x amount of time but haven't closed the investigation was going to risk serious consequences.

I have been saying for over year that Mueller had to know if he had red meat, and keeping the investigation underwraps at that point was hurting the country.  Either he was allowing a Russian asset to stay in power, or delegitimizing a legitimate President.  With this report it looks like it was clearly the latter.  He knew he had nothing and kept going.

The obstruction claim is pure bunk.  Even the phrasing was written solely to throw meet to the Dems.  "Not exonerate" is not a real standard, you either have the facts to allege the elements of the crime or obstruction of justice didn't happen.  You can't allege that someone made you uncomfortable in a non-criminal way.  Barr flat out cleared him.

Keep in mind, the "obstruction" was largely comprised of Trump accurately and publicaly calling an  investigation into a fake crime a with hunt.  Believing this is obstruction is tantamount to claiming that defending yourself is a crime.

Media reaction is actually appalling at this point.  No mea culpa.  Doubling down and nonsense instead.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on March 27, 2019, 04:51:14 PM
Seriati, you're acting like you know what's in the report. All you have is Barr's narrowly focused letter. Why don't you wait and see what else is in there.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on March 27, 2019, 04:51:48 PM
You cannot be serious with that. If you say things like that, expect to be ridiculed and laughed at. That is the ultimate in fake news to put that out as a true fact.

"Russia, please if you can, get us Hillary Clinton’s emails, please, Russia, please, please get us the emails."

Direct quote, an absolute undeniable fact. Just because he said "JUST KIDDING" doesn't mean he didn't say it, that he didn't think it, and that he thought Russian hacking was a matter to make light of. There is absolutely nothing fake about it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 27, 2019, 04:53:49 PM
Seriati, you're acting like you know what's in the report. All you have is Barr's narrowly focused letter. Why don't you wait and see what else is in there.

Are you really going to make out that Barr lied about what's in the report? That he covered up relevant information that would blow this whole thing open and get Trump?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 27, 2019, 04:55:38 PM
You cannot be serious with that. If you say things like that, expect to be ridiculed and laughed at. That is the ultimate in fake news to put that out as a true fact.

"Russia, please if you can, get us Hillary Clinton’s emails, please, Russia, please, please get us the emails."

Direct quote, an absolute undeniable fact. Just because he said "JUST KIDDING" doesn't mean he didn't say it, that he didn't think it, and that he thought Russian hacking was a matter to make light of. There is absolutely nothing fake about it.

Oh. My. God. You are serious. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. Wow! Just ... wow. Really. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'll never take anything you say seriously again. Oh man, amazing.  HAHAHA
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on March 27, 2019, 04:58:57 PM
What I will be most interested in seeing, when the full report is released (assuming Trump doesn't change his mind again), is why the Trump Administration behaved like it did.

Your confused at how they reacting to being illegally spied on for political purposes?  Having intentional and malicious security breaches by members of the bureacracy?  Not having any real control over the administration of justice (a primary function of the executive) because an internal cabal was looking to use anything they could to generate a charge?

And oh yeah, having the entire media and DNC sell a lie about them being agents of a foreign power?

Quote
Specifically:

* Why did Trump Jr. meet with the Russians at Trump Tower, along with Maniford and Kushner?  What did he really expect to get from the Russians?  What did Maniford and Kushner expect?

Trump Jr. said from the start he thought he was getting dirt on the Clinton campaign.  I've pointed this out to you at least 4 times. 

Quote
* Why did Donald and Jr. lie about what the Trump Tower meeting was really about?  If anyone who thinks they were only expecting to discuss Russian adoptions, I have a nice new bridge to sell you. :)

Are you intentionally lieing, or do you keep forgetting?  Trump Jr. said he thought the meeting was to get dirt, but all they wanted to talk about was the Magnitsky Act.  That's literally the opposite of what you erroneously believe. 

In other words, he didn't lie.

Quote
* Why did Kushner attempt to get a secret phone line through the Russian embassy? (https://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-russia-back-channel-testimony-2017-7)

Same reason Hillary did?  Assuming it's even true.

Quote
* Why did Trump refuse to allow any American translator listen to his official conversations with Vladimir Putin?

Leaks.  Leaks.  Leaks.  And oh yeah, big ole lies based on pseudo leaks.

Quote
* Why did Maniford share poll data with a man linked to Russian intelligence?  I can't think of a good reason unless it was to help the campaign.

Have you responded to a single point I raised on this?  No. No and No again.

Quote
* Why did Mueller categorically state that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," but only stated that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime [regarding obstruction of justice], it also does not exonerate him?"  Why was he so conclusive about one issue, but not the other?  What instances did Mueller considered it possible that Trump obstructed justice? And why did Trump act like he did in those instances?

Because there's literally no real evidence of collusion, which just underscores how silly your prior lines of questions are.

Obstruction, 3 likely reasons, 1. he was running a political witch hunt and that's all he could throw to his allies the DNC and Never Trumpers; 2. he was pissed as a prosecutor with all the things Trump said and he had no obligation to make Trump's life easier; 3. he honestly found Trump's behavior repugnant and was looking for anything he could charge but couldn't bring himself to actually make the charge.

Quote
I am glad that this investigation was done, and that we will have some answers about the Trump Administration's behavior.  But it has yet to clarify the suspicious behaviors that started the investigation.  Hopefully, the full report will provide satisfactory answers.

Yes, I'd like to see clarity on the "suspicious behaviors" that started the investigation.  1.  How did a FISA warrant get issued on Carter Page requiring verified evidence he's a Russian agent, yet he not get charged.  2.  How did the DNC get away with hiring a British Spy to collect Russian intell and internet accounts into a report that triggered a federal investigation of an opposition political party.  3.  How did the bureacracy manage to leak left and right things to trigger an investigation, including illegally unmasking and leaking the names of Americans in intell transcritpts.  4.  How did the head of the FBI manage to get away with attempting to blackmail an American president, leaking classified information, and triggering a special counsel without legitimate evidence.  5.  How are the DNC and the Media getting away with coordinating a message of constant lies?

I mean honestly, you guys have been calling Trump a liar since he claimed that the Obama admin had his campaign wiretapped - which turned out to be true, in Trump tower - which turned out to be true.  That he was lieing about Russian collusion - which again turned out to be true.

Now, several of you said you'd accept the conclusions of the Mueller report.  Are you there?  Do you accept that the story of Russian collusion was a lie?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on March 27, 2019, 05:03:30 PM
I'll never take anything you say seriously again.

That will be a big change, since there's little evidence you take anything seriously.

I don't know why you can't see the problem with him giggling and joking around about a foreign power attempting to destabilize our country. Imagine if Obama had made a sarcastic joke about Benghazi.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on March 27, 2019, 05:05:44 PM
Seriati, you're acting like you know what's in the report. All you have is Barr's narrowly focused letter. Why don't you wait and see what else is in there.

I will have a blast reading the report, but you're buying into a media narrative on this.  Barr is highly competent, he didn't say anything that Mueller didn't conclude on that point.  There will be ambiguities, there can't not be in a report of that size.  If you want to buy into conspiracies you'll have your meat, but there's no chance he gave you a false conclusion.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on March 27, 2019, 05:07:39 PM
Quote
See, nobody can tell if you're kidding. There are people seriously floating just this. It's so insane but it's taken seriously.

I was kidding. Should have guessed people were floating that conspiracy around
Still what would have happened if the evidence concluded that Trump colluded and was a traitor? I can only imagine chaos 

It is a better outcome that collusion was ruled out. I only wish the obstruction shadow was equally ruled out as I feel keeping the idea alive actually works in Trump favor


Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on March 27, 2019, 05:17:10 PM
Quote
Seriati, you're acting like you know what's in the report. All you have is Barr's narrowly focused letter. Why don't you wait and see what else is in there.

Quote
I will have a blast reading the report, but you're buying into a media narrative on this.  Barr is highly competent,

The statement "Barr's narrowly focused letter" does not necessarily imply one is saying that Barr is incompetent - only that the letter was a summary and as such lacked details.
I don't know what the 'media' narrative on this is. I suspect your using the wide brush of speculative 'news' media to paint your argument of why we don't need any more details

There are actually real people that didn't buy into speculation and waited for Meuller's report, accepting its findings yet still curious as to the details.
It should be ok to ask for details but in this environment that scares the crap out of people and perhaps understandably. Still we should be able to talk about it
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 27, 2019, 05:22:21 PM
I'll never take anything you say seriously again.

That will be a big change, since there's little evidence you take anything seriously.

I don't know why you can't see the problem with him giggling and joking around about a foreign power attempting to destabilize our country. Imagine if Obama had made a sarcastic joke about Benghazi.
Quote
On the opening day of his foundation’s summit in Chicago, former president Barack Obama added managed to troll the current president without mentioning him by name.

“The reason I’m so excited to see you all here today in part is because this is where I started,” Obama said Tuesday. “This isn’t where I was born. I was born in Kenya 

So there you have it, proof that Obama was born in Kenya. He admitted it! Ermagerd! You must be convinced that Obama was not a US citizen, right? Oh my God, please tell me you are now convinced the birth certificate truthers are correct.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on March 27, 2019, 05:30:34 PM
So there you have it, proof that Obama was born in Kenya. He admitted it! Ermagerd! You must be convinced that Obama was not a US citizen, right? Oh my God, please tell me you are now convinced the birth certificate truthers are correct.

Again you fail the analogy portion of the SAT. Obama being born in Kenya was always a subject for ridicule. It didn't involve a foreign power trying to generate civil unrest. I also never said that Trump's statement proved anything at all, just that it looked bad - especially in the context of him taking Putin's word over the reports from American intelligence agencies.

"I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,"
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 27, 2019, 05:37:04 PM
I love how you keep digging that hole. Just awesome.

Quote
President Obama said that if his material worked well, he would recycle it for use at Goldman Sachs - Mrs Clinton was famously paid $675,000 for a series of speeches at the financial giant.

He also said the presidency had aged him, making him "grey, grizzled and counting down my days to my death panel" - opponents had said his health reforms would see "death panels" introduced to ration healthcare.

Obama just admitted to death panels being a part of Obamacare! They exist! And ... is that admission of bribery?  :o
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on March 27, 2019, 05:41:36 PM
You cannot be serious with that. If you say things like that, expect to be ridiculed and laughed at. That is the ultimate in fake news to put that out as a true fact.

"Russia, please if you can, get us Hillary Clinton’s emails, please, Russia, please, please get us the emails."

Direct quote, an absolute undeniable fact. Just because he said "JUST KIDDING" doesn't mean he didn't say it, that he didn't think it, and that he thought Russian hacking was a matter to make light of. There is absolutely nothing fake about it.

I'm pretty sure we covered this multiple times already, and I did so in some detail very recently at that.

And the quote, in context, isn't anywhere close to what you portray.

And on an additional review, I take additonal notice that even The Atlantic, left-leaning media organization that it is, had enough integrity to mention "The DNC had recently announced the Russian intrusion, and Trump speculated that if Russia broke into the DNC, it would have accessed Clinton’s emails, too."
 
So again, even The Atlantic in this case acknowledge that he's referencing release of information they(Russia) would have already had. Rather than him making "an ask for Russia to hack the DNC and pursue it further."

And again, you're leaving out the "You'll be rewarded by our press" part as well. He isn't offering quid pro-quo from himself in that statement.
 
Back to context of his comments. We know Trump speaks off the cuff, rambles, and says outrageous things.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/russia-hacking-trump-mueller/565157/

Quote
On July 27, 2016, at a Trump press conference in Florida, the candidate referred to 33,000 emails that an aide to Hillary Clinton had deleted from the former secretary of state’s personal email server. The DNC had recently announced the Russian intrusion, and Trump speculated that if Russia broke into the DNC, it would have accessed Clinton’s emails, too.

“By the way, if they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 emails,” Trump said. “I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted. Because you’d see some beauties there.”

That was perhaps irresponsible speculation, but it wasn’t crazy. There were widespread questions about Clinton’s information security, and whether she might have compromised government secrets. But a few minutes later Trump said something much stranger.

“I will tell you this: Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

The president was encouraging a foreign adversary to illegally hack into messages by a former secretary of state that might contain sensitive information, then release them publicly.

And hey, The Atlantic being the somewhat leftist partisan entity it is, seems to be in the tank right there with you on "Trump told them to hack Hillary's stuff" except the context they themselves give doesn't provide that.

Unless you operate on the belief that the Clinton's still had the emails.

But if you think the e-mails are truly deleted, and suspect that the server in question had previously been compromised by the Russians, such as with a comment like:

Quote
On July 27, 2016, at a Trump press conference in Florida, the candidate referred to 33,000 emails that an aide to Hillary Clinton had deleted from the former secretary of state’s personal email server. The DNC had recently announced the Russian intrusion, and Trump speculated that if Russia broke into the DNC, it would have accessed Clinton’s emails, too.

“By the way, if they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 emails,” Trump said. “I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted. Because you’d see some beauties there.”

Which oddly enough seems to have been exactly what Trump said in the lead-up to that other comment.

In which case:

Quote
“I will tell you this: Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Which brings up another question here that I just noticed. Did you notice the "rewarded mightily by our press" portion of his quote? Every time I hear the MSM play back that sound bite, it mysteriously stops afters "Rewarded mightily" almost as if they want it to seem that Trump was promising a reward from him, not the Press Corps.

But back on topic, "I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing" in the context of a speech where he previously said "They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted." Would make a reasonable person, as opposed to a partisan, conclude that Trump was essentially saying "Hey, I think the Russians had hacked that server, I think they still have the information, they just may not be fully aware of what they have. So if they'd go over the information they already have, and release these e-mails that we can't seem to find here in the United States, that'd be great."
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on March 27, 2019, 05:41:58 PM
I'm delighted to meet someone as obtuse as you are. You're like an exhibit at Ripley's Believe It Or Not!
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on March 27, 2019, 06:04:18 PM
Quote
So again, even The Atlantic in this case acknowledge that he's referencing release of information they(Russia) would have already had. Rather than him making "an ask for Russia to hack the DNC and pursue it further."

And again, you're leaving out the "You'll be rewarded by our press" part as well. He isn't offering quid pro-quo from himself in that statement.

Yeah, of course. It's absurd to think that he's using a public speech to collude with Russians. The point is that he just didn't think it was a big deal, he thought it was funny that a major political party was hacked by agents of a foreign nation. This on top of initially denying that Russia had anything to do with the DNC hack in the first place. Then blamed the DNC for being a victim of foreign agents.

It would be like Nancy Pelosi cracking a joke about human trafficking.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on March 27, 2019, 06:08:57 PM
Yeah, of course. It's absurd to think that he's using a public speech to collude with Russians. The point is that he just didn't think it was a big deal, he thought it was funny that a major political party was hacked by agents of a foreign nation. This on top of initially denying that Russia had anything to do with the DNC hack in the first place. Then blamed the DNC for being a victim of foreign agents.

Are you quite sure of that? At the time I had taken it as his point that he was making fun of the claim that they had been hacked by Russia. When those events occurred I did not personally believe Russia was behind it, and that the DNC was trying to throw smoke on an internal security breach by blaming Russia (as had been the policy of the White House for the few years before that). Whether or not I happened to be correct about that, have you considered that Trump was making the same type of assumption, and rather than mocking a Russian hack was mocking the DNC claim that they were hacked?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on March 27, 2019, 06:32:54 PM
Quote
have you considered that Trump was making the same type of assumption, and rather than mocking a Russian hack was mocking the DNC claim that they were hacked?

I can see that as a potentially valid point of view, but that's not how I take it. I have to concede that Trump may have thought such things and his delivery was so garbled that he didn't make the DNC the obvious punchline. He's usually not very subtle about "fake news" so I guess if elsewhere in the speech he was mocking the DNC about crying wolf on Russian hacking. Of course this brings back the problem of not taking Russian hacking as a serious threat. It's part of his routine that he conjures up all kinds of other parties to take the blame instead of Russia - including 400-pound hackers and China.

Possibilities about his mindset at that time, from what I see.

1. Trump believes that Russians have been hacking and is actively trying to shield them from blame.
2. Trump believes that Russians have been hacking, but doesn't think it is a big deal.
3. Trump doesn't believe that Russians have been hacking, and is mocking it

All 3 have troubling implications about his relationship with the Russian government.

1. Collusion - full bore
2. An historic acceptance, considering his normally belligerent stance with foreign nations
3. Takes Russia's excuses over intelligence reports, implying he trusts them a great deal
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on March 27, 2019, 06:35:02 PM
What I will be most interested in seeing, when the full report is released (assuming Trump doesn't change his mind again), is why the Trump Administration behaved like it did.

Your confused at how they reacting to being illegally spied on for political purposes?  Having intentional and malicious security breaches by members of the bureacracy?  Not having any real control over the administration of justice (a primary function of the executive) because an internal cabal was looking to use anything they could to generate a charge?

And oh yeah, having the entire media and DNC sell a lie about them being agents of a foreign power?

Notice the word "specifically."  What you just wrote has little, if anything, to do with what I was specifically looking for.

I will note that most of the security breaches were committed by Trump appointees in his own White House.  But then, they were "only the best" leakers and security breachers, weren't they? :)

Quote
Quote
Specifically:

* Why did Trump Jr. meet with the Russians at Trump Tower, along with Maniford and Kushner?  What did he really expect to get from the Russians?  What did Maniford and Kushner expect?

Trump Jr. said from the start he thought he was getting dirt on the Clinton campaign.  I've pointed this out to you at least 4 times.

Oddly enough, I don't recall this.  Could you point to your source, so I can see the time line of when he said he thought he was getting dirt on Clinton?  As I recall, he only admitted it after his e-mail leaked, and it was obvious they didn't meet to talk about adoptions, i.e. when Junior couldn't lie anymore.

Quote
Quote
* Why did Donald and Jr. lie about what the Trump Tower meeting was really about?  If anyone who thinks they were only expecting to discuss Russian adoptions, I have a nice new bridge to sell you. :)

Are you intentionally lying, or do you keep forgetting?  Trump Jr. said he thought the meeting was to get dirt, but all they wanted to talk about was the Magnitsky Act.  That's literally the opposite of what you erroneously believe. 

In other words, he didn't lie.

Except I don't believe they only talked about Magnitsky Act.  Russia had dirt on Clinton.  The other Russian players who were at the meeting were not there to talk about the Magnitsky Act.  Do you really think they would waste their time just talking about adoptions?  ;D

Why do you think they only talked about the Magnitsky Act?  How do you know what they talked about?  What's your source?

I'd like to see what Mueller came up with.

Quote
Quote
* Why did Kushner attempt to get a secret phone line through the Russian embassy? (https://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-russia-back-channel-testimony-2017-7)

Same reason Hillary did?  Assuming it's even true.

Hillary tried to get a secret line with the Russians?  Why wasn't that front-page news for the Right Wing Press?  What's your source?

Or are you referring to Hillary's improper use of non-government cell phone lines, like Kushner is now accused of doing?  (BTW, does this mean Republicans will now be chanting "Lock Him Up?"  Or do they only want to lock up Democrats? ;) )

Quote
Quote
* Why did Trump refuse to allow any American translator listen to his official conversations with Vladimir Putin?

Leaks.  Leaks.  Leaks.  And oh yeah, big ole lies based on pseudo leaks.

You're telling me Trump couldn't find a single translator he could trust?  That you believe he is that incompetent?  And you voted for this clown.  ;D

Quote
Quote
* Why did Maniford share poll data with a man linked to Russian intelligence?  I can't think of a good reason unless it was to help the campaign.

Have you responded to a single point I raised on this?  No. No and No again.

And which of your points wasn't speculation on your part?  I'd like to hear the opinion of a professional investigator before I stop wondering.

Quote
Quote
* Why did Mueller categorically state that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," but only stated that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime [regarding obstruction of justice], it also does not exonerate him?"  Why was he so conclusive about one issue, but not the other?  What instances did Mueller considered it possible that Trump obstructed justice? And why did Trump act like he did in those instances?

Because there's literally no real evidence of collusion, which just underscores how silly your prior lines of questions are.

Obstruction, 3 likely reasons, 1. he was running a political witch hunt and that's all he could throw to his allies the DNC and Never Trumpers; 2. he was pissed as a prosecutor with all the things Trump said and he had no obligation to make Trump's life easier; 3. he honestly found Trump's behavior repugnant and was looking for anything he could charge but couldn't bring himself to actually make the charge.

Just because you believe they are "likely reasons" doesn't make them true.  I'd rather see Mueller's reasoning than to speculate based on nothing.

And you ignore the most "likely reason:"  that Mueller did find evidence of obstruction of justice, but felt it was not sufficient for him to make any charges and left it up to the Attorney General.

Quote
Quote
I am glad that this investigation was done, and that we will have some answers about the Trump Administration's behavior.  But it has yet to clarify the suspicious behaviors that started the investigation.  Hopefully, the full report will provide satisfactory answers.

Yes, I'd like to see clarity on the "suspicious behaviors" that started the investigation.  1.  How did a FISA warrant get issued on Carter Page requiring verified evidence he's a Russian agent, yet he not get charged.  2.  How did the DNC get away with hiring a British Spy to collect Russian intell and internet accounts into a report that triggered a federal investigation of an opposition political party.  3.  How did the bureacracy manage to leak left and right things to trigger an investigation, including illegally unmasking and leaking the names of Americans in intell transcritpts.  4.  How did the head of the FBI manage to get away with attempting to blackmail an American president, leaking classified information, and triggering a special counsel without legitimate evidence.  5.  How are the DNC and the Media getting away with coordinating a message of constant lies?

I mean honestly, you guys have been calling Trump a liar since he claimed that the Obama admin had his campaign wiretapped - which turned out to be true, in Trump tower - which turned out to be true.  That he was lieing about Russian collusion - which again turned out to be true.

Now, several of you said you'd accept the conclusions of the Mueller report.  Are you there?  Do you accept that the story of Russian collusion was a lie?

I certainly accept that there is not sufficient evidence to accuse Trump or his Administration of colluding with the Russians.  I would still like to see the evidence of why these suspicious behaviors were innocent and innocuous events.

Hopefully some of your questions will be answered, too, although I doubt Mueller investigated the reasons for his investigation.

I am also happy about the outcome.  This is precisely what you would expect from an unbiased investigation.  The facts were considered, and the conclusions were based on the facts, and not politics.  Trump should have had more faith in the system, instead of calling it a "witch hunt" from the beginning.  That only made him look guilty and afraid of the results.  I'd rather have a system that verifies the integrity of our leaders than one where just investigating suspicious behavior makes one a "traitor" to our country.  (And you know what we do with traitors...)  Let us hope we never reach a point where the latter becomes true.   :(
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on March 27, 2019, 06:50:52 PM
Possibilities about his mindset at that time, from what I see.

1. Trump believes that Russians have been hacking and is actively trying to shield them from blame.
2. Trump believes that Russians have been hacking, but doesn't think it is a big deal.
3. Trump doesn't believe that Russians have been hacking, and is mocking it

All 3 have troubling implications about his relationship with the Russian government.

1. Collusion - full bore
2. An historic acceptance, considering his normally belligerent stance with foreign nations
3. Takes Russia's excuses over intelligence reports, implying he trusts them a great deal

Maybe those are possibilities, but I find it hard to believe you don't see any other possibilities. None of the above have anything to do with sticking it to the DNC, which is overwhelmingly the likeliest motive for his statements. That you should put his "relationship with the Russian government" as the headline conclusions to draw seems to me already going off on a tangent. And even among the possibilities on that topic, which I think is the wrong topic to focus on in context of his statement, you have not by any means exhausted the likeliest scenarios. But that's sort of what the fake news does (not accusing you of this personally): create a falsely narrow set of explanations, to leave the people to "decide for themselves" which it is, when in fact the more obvious and logical choices have conveniently been excluded because they don't follow a desired narrative. You are literally telling me you can't come up with a single scenario where Trump said what he said and also wasn't guilty of either helping or underestimating Russia?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on March 27, 2019, 07:12:02 PM
So even if he is trolling the DNC and delighting his base, by definition he falls into the #2 or #3 categories. I'm happy to let you frame the alternative. Now, you can try to say that it isn't that big of a deal, but this is a man who thinks everything needs to be blown up or exaggerated. Only in this case does he minimize it?

He is, in this instance, giving Russia a free pass on their activities. I accept that he wasn't getting a quid pro quo for it, based on the reports. But I think one could be forgiven for being suspicious of his motives.

Fundamentally, he either does or doesn't believe the Russians hacked. If he does believe it, then there's a question of how seriously he takes it. You can't condemn their actions and then cast doubt on whether they were even involved.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on March 27, 2019, 10:20:22 PM
So even if he is trolling the DNC and delighting his base, by definition he falls into the #2 or #3 categories. I'm happy to let you frame the alternative.

What about this - Trump makes a joke at the DNC's expense, delighting his fans, and when going to work in private takes the matter very seriously? I would think it would be obvious that "politics" has little to do with policy. You tell the people what establishes the position you want from them; and behind closed doors you do what you need to. I don't see how the two should be assumed to me even linked, no less identical.

Basically however he jokes about it in public would seem to have little to do with whether he's taking it seriously or not in his practical preparations. God forbid every time someone tells a joke in bad taste it should be taken as proof that they don't care about the subject for real. In Trump's case it's anyone's guess what he actually cares about for real, but his public 'hilarity' is surely no sign of it either way.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on March 28, 2019, 11:10:37 AM
Quote
What about this - Trump makes a joke at the DNC's expense, delighting his fans, and when going to work in private takes the matter very seriously? I would think it would be obvious that "politics" has little to do with policy. You tell the people what establishes the position you want from them; and behind closed doors you do what you need to. I don't see how the two should be assumed to me even linked, no less identical.

I don't buy the idea that Trump has a public and private persona, that his theatrics are all just an act.

Quote
God forbid every time someone tells a joke in bad taste it should be taken as proof that they don't care about the subject for real.

A regular person (someone) can do that. A President can't. Economies, armies, and security turn on a simple choice of words in an ad hoc discussion. When it does happen, it would normally be followed up pre-emptively with a clarification making it clear how important the subject is and a vow to deal with the subject.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on March 28, 2019, 11:49:30 AM
Quote
A regular person (someone) can do that. A President can't. Economies, armies, and security turn on a simple choice of words in an ad hoc discussion. When it does happen, it would normally be followed up pre-emptively with a clarification making it clear how important the subject is and a vow to deal with the subject.

That is what we expect from a President however Trump is changing the 'rules'. Eventually it may work against him and America and the 'rules' will be reapplied but for now he's the winner
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on March 28, 2019, 11:54:27 AM
I don't buy the idea that Trump has a public and private persona, that his theatrics are all just an act.

*Everyone* has a private persona and a public persona, to some extent. You don't behave the exact same way in private, or by yourself, that you do when in public, nor as you would when in the presence of Queen Elizabeth. How these things shift can be subconscious, often conscious, and it doesn't mean you have a crafty Machiavellian scheme of how to trick the people with your public image. That said, the latter isn't even that difficult to do; it's literally what all famous actors do. And like Doc Brown said in Back to the Future II, Presidents these days are all by necessity actors. It is yet another false dilemma to paint the options as being "Trump privately thinks exactly what he says in public, including jokes" or "Trump has deviously sculpted a false public image, the truth of which he jealously guards using guile and skill." That's not how people work.

Quote
Quote
God forbid every time someone tells a joke in bad taste it should be taken as proof that they don't care about the subject for real.

A regular person (someone) can do that. A President can't. Economies, armies, and security turn on a simple choice of words in an ad hoc discussion. When it does happen, it would normally be followed up pre-emptively with a clarification making it clear how important the subject is and a vow to deal with the subject.

I think you're falling right into Crunch's arms with this kind of argument, because then his silly counterexamples of Obama joking become actually relevant (and they shouldn't be). What you're literally saying is that a President cannot joke or be tongue-in-cheek on matters of security, because the literal-minded media will go crazy misinterpreting it. Well you don't have to worry about that - they will go crazy misinterpreting it no matter whether he jokes or not.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on March 28, 2019, 12:08:06 PM
"What you're literally saying is that a President cannot joke or be tongue-in-cheek on matters of security, because the literal-minded media will go crazy misinterpreting it."

A president or CEO can't joke about matters that they want people to take seriously. Whether it was Reagan joking about pre-emptively attacking Russia, GWB joking about not finding WMD, or other examples - bad idea.

Obama speechwriter David Litt on the jokes the president can and can’t tell (https://www.vox.com/2018/3/21/17144894/obama-comedy-jokes-david-litt)

Quote
How do you write a joke for the president of the United States? How do you come up with something that will seem perfectly cutting but not too cruel, silly but not stupid?

There’s two different questions there. One is, what can you not do because it’s inappropriate? The other is, what can you not do because it’s just not funny if a president does it? The most important thing about the president telling any joke is that it’s the president telling a joke.

To try to answer your question a little more succinctly, I think that the No. 1 topic that we would not joke about was national security. That was important to us, because one of the things about writing jokes for a president is if you have the joke and it’s totally in good taste, but then a week later, something happens — there’s a tragedy, there’s a shooting, there’s a terrorist attack — the joke can become retroactively in bad taste. That was an important thing for us. We didn’t want anything to end up in a campaign ad, and we also didn’t want to do anything that was insensitive and diminished the office.

It is clear that Trump writes his own jokes, and that these considerations never occur to him. I get what you're saying about having different faces - I certainly don't expose my colleagues to the persona I display at the pub. But my impression with Trump is that he is largely transparent. For proof, we have some of his private conversations with world leaders leaked to us. He also embraces the idea of being real, usually speaking off the cuff and deliberately ignoring any "PC" rules that might edit what he has to say.

If there is a nuance, I'd say Trump says what Trump wants to say with very little modification. He's not Nixon, who had such a wide variation between public and private. And we have that insight largely because he recorded himself.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on March 28, 2019, 12:34:19 PM
Quote
A president or CEO can't joke about matters that they want people to take seriously
A President should be allowed to joke about whatever however most 'good' leaders are careful as the game has always been that the words they use matter. Trump knows it doesn't matter.

Trump is deliberately obtuse and always has been because it works for him as it wears down his opponents. 
Trump is difficult to parse because his rhetoric style seems to always require parsing. Did he really mean what he just said? Wait he just contradicted himself, or did he? What he just said isn't true but its also true....  It is funny (sad) how Democrats fall all over themselves trying to parse Trump.

I wonder what might happen if the Democrats just focused on policy coming out of the white house and stopped engaging with the rhetoric.



Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on March 28, 2019, 12:53:15 PM
A president or CEO can't joke about matters that they want people to take seriously. Whether it was Reagan joking about pre-emptively attacking Russia, GWB joking about not finding WMD, or other examples - bad idea.

I underlined the important part here: because in fact they can do just that. And Trump does. I think what you mean to say is that it's typically understood that they shouldn't do so, and while that is debatable it would certainly seem to be the case that Trump deliberately flouts this. If there's one thing deliberate he does, it's to tell the jokes no one else will, for better or worse. But the fact that Trump doesn't give a crap what his detractors think of his jokes, doesn't then give license for media to interpret them as "Well, since no one jokes about that stuff, we will choose to editorialize about it as if he was being completely serious!" Uh-huh.

Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on March 28, 2019, 01:31:41 PM
Here's a succinct summary from David Brin's blog today (in the comments section):

Quote
Dig this. The only thing Mueller dismissed was Trump direct collusion DURING 2016 with Russian meddling DURING THE 2016 ELECTION.

Not a single other thing was absolved. Indeed, close to 150 charges have been filed against scores of people who were/are varying degrees of Trump/GOP factotums.

So I look forward to the report.  I look forward to things that came up but weren't investigated.  I look forward to Mueller explaining exactly what he meant by what he wrote in the report, and parts that he may have omitted because he felt they were not appropriate to the parameters of the investigation.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 02:13:37 PM
I hope you guys keep flogging this all the way through 2020. It's a winner of a foundation for winning the election.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on March 28, 2019, 02:53:02 PM
Quote
I underlined the important part here: because in fact they can do just that. And Trump does. I think what you mean to say is that it's typically understood that they shouldn't do so.

More specifically:

A president or CEO can't joke about serious matters and expect not to be criticized for it. Crying that the press is being unfair when they take your quip seriously is ridiculous.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on March 28, 2019, 03:03:16 PM
A president or CEO can't joke about serious matters and expect not to be criticized for it. Crying that the press is being unfair when they take your quip seriously is ridiculous.

Not sure why you're mixing apples and oranges with this statement. To be criticized for making a joke when you shouldn't be joking directly implies they know you're joking. And if the press takes you literally then it means they either (a) didn't realize you made a joke, or (b) knew you did but were deliberately misinterpreting it to suit their own purposes. Case (a) can certainly happen but should result in a "well, that was a stupid joke then" response when it's explained that it was a joke. Somehow that result doesn't happen, and seemingly keeps reverting back to (b). In Trump's case I could understand the theory that it wasn't entirely a joke (although I think it was); but not the theory that there's no other possible explanation for it. By far the likeliest explanation was that it was a stupid joke, like he does many times, and that it said nothing in particular about his views about Russia.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on March 28, 2019, 03:14:29 PM
Now this is what I'm looking forward to seeing for the Mueller Report. (https://www.amazon.com/Starr-Report-Findings-Independent-President/dp/189162024X/ref=asc_df_189162024X/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312607785736&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5947698438310449980&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9003243&hvtargid=pla-570946300544&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=61775261186&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=312607785736&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5947698438310449980&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9003243&hvtargid=pla-570946300544) 

I'm sure no one would have any objections...  :D
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 03:20:35 PM
I am happy to see as much of the report released as legally possible. Somehow, I think any redacted grand jury testimony or classified information is simply going to be seen a "proof" of the hoax. It's like talking to flat earthers.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 30, 2019, 08:18:33 AM

Case in point, Trump’s Treachery Goes Way Beyond Russia (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/trumps-treachery-goes-way-beyond-russia.html)

It doesn’t matter. Release everything, release nothing, the story won’t change.

The left has gone insane. Trump broke you guys.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on March 30, 2019, 09:22:09 AM

Case in point, Trump’s Treachery Goes Way Beyond Russia (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/trumps-treachery-goes-way-beyond-russia.html)

It doesn’t matter. Release everything, release nothing, the story won’t change.

The left has gone insane. Trump broke you guys.

Do you expect less from a group of activists where every single weather event "proves AGW is happening" without regard to there being 100+ year old records of comparable events happening, or other more mundane explanations. (Such as Forrest fires in California being as bad as they were due in large part to Forestry management practices and poor/inadequate response to invasive species, and so on)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on March 30, 2019, 12:20:31 PM
Or get all their information from Quora or other sources that only reinforce their belief. 
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 11:10:19 AM
Seriati, you're acting like you know what's in the report. All you have is Barr's narrowly focused letter. Why don't you wait and see what else is in there.

Barr's letter was not "narrowly focused" it had a broad and sweeping focus.  Summary is not the same thing as narrow.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 11:12:34 AM
You cannot be serious with that. If you say things like that, expect to be ridiculed and laughed at. That is the ultimate in fake news to put that out as a true fact.

"Russia, please if you can, get us Hillary Clinton’s emails, please, Russia, please, please get us the emails."

Direct quote, an absolute undeniable fact. Just because he said "JUST KIDDING" doesn't mean he didn't say it, that he didn't think it, and that he thought Russian hacking was a matter to make light of. There is absolutely nothing fake about it.

You should literally be embarrassed. 

I heard him say it, in context and it was absolutely clear it was nothing but a dig at Hillary.  It's total delusion to take a light hearted comment out of context and misrepresent it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 11:16:33 AM
Quote
See, nobody can tell if you're kidding. There are people seriously floating just this. It's so insane but it's taken seriously.

I was kidding. Should have guessed people were floating that conspiracy around
Still what would have happened if the evidence concluded that Trump colluded and was a traitor? I can only imagine chaos

Then the reaction would have been to question why Mueller sat on it for 2 years.  I said a year ago, he knew that he had it or that he didn't have it and neither situation tolerated sitting on it.

If he had let a traitor sit in office for a year, then Mueller was a traitor.  If he undermined a President without cause for a year, then Mueller was a traitor.

Quote
It is a better outcome that collusion was ruled out. I only wish the obstruction shadow was equally ruled out as I feel keeping the idea alive actually works in Trump favor

Obstruction is the shadow of a shadow.  It's been ruled out.  Barr flat out told you the elements don't exist.

Finding otherwise would mean it's literally a crime to defend your self against an unjust prosecution.  Literally a crime to call out an investigation for being false. 

Even if there had been a "there" there it is completely inconsistent with American values to claim that defending yourself in public is a crime.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on April 01, 2019, 11:34:36 AM
Quote
Obstruction is the shadow of a shadow.  It's been ruled out.  Barr flat out told you the elements don't exist.

The problem is that Barr said obstruction wasn't possible before he got the job which understandably opens the door of possible bias in reporting of the report
Either way its ammo for the troll farms.
America divided is America controlled
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 11:34:50 AM
Quote
have you considered that Trump was making the same type of assumption, and rather than mocking a Russian hack was mocking the DNC claim that they were hacked?

I can see that as a potentially valid point of view, but that's not how I take it.

There was no consistent theory at that time as to what had happened.  It was alleged that it was hackers, maybe Russian, maybe US, Wiki leaks was denying Russian involvement, there were stories of DNC leakers, including - as you recall - allegations of suspicious murder, it was generally acknowledged with Hillary that potentially multiple countries had hacked her servers, and oh year, Podesta fell for the most basic phishing attack on earth.

Looking back from today with hindsight is not the same as real time.

And yes, laughing at the Dems was perfectly legit at the time.  Terrible as the hacking was, what was even worse was the absolute contempt they held their voters in  as revealed in their email.  These were bad people pretending to be good guys, and seeing that exposed is pretty much the plot of several shows every night.

Quote
I have to concede that Trump may have thought such things and his delivery was so garbled that he didn't make the DNC the obvious punchline.

Garbled?  Really, you are going with garbled?  Why don't you go back and pull up the video on Youtube and watch it with some context.  This may be one of those times, when refreshing your memory could do some wonders.

Quote
Possibilities about his mindset at that time, from what I see.

1. Trump believes that Russians have been hacking and is actively trying to shield them from blame.
2. Trump believes that Russians have been hacking, but doesn't think it is a big deal.
3. Trump doesn't believe that Russians have been hacking, and is mocking it

How about, Trump knows that Hillary screwed the pooch with her server, believes she is an intentional criminal with her email practices and deliberate deletion of emails (that everyone assumes had incriminating evidence in them) and saw a great opportunity to stick it to with a multi-sided swipe?  He got to ridicule Hillary, the DNC and the Russian conspiracy angle simultaneously.

Quote
All 3 have troubling implications about his relationship with the Russian government.

Believing those are 3 likely, and the only 3 likely possibilities have troubling implications with respect to objectivity on the point. 

Quote
1. Collusion - full bore
2. An historic acceptance, considering his normally belligerent stance with foreign nations
3. Takes Russia's excuses over intelligence reports, implying he trusts them a great deal

Again at that point, we hadn't and neither had he seen anything objective and convincing that says it was the Russians, which means neither 2 or 3 makes sense.  As there was no collusion, you seem confused about what was really going on.

It's entirely possible to think Russian hacking is a serious issue, that any hacking is a serious issue, and still enjoy the DNC being revealed for a bunch of lying hypocrites in the moment. 

For goodness sake, you can't be arguing principal here, where you've enjoyed leaks from inside the government that hurt the administration.  Leaks are in many ways worse that what hostile powers are doing.  We should expect and defend ourselves against Russian actors, which in the case of attempted infiltration of the Trump campaign the Obama administration seemed reluctant to do (compare, Feinstein being warned of her driver versus Trump being spied on).  Every single leaker is compromised from a blackmail perspective, so even if you think foreign influence is "worse" every one of them is a blackmail risk away from becoming a foreign asset.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 11:36:43 AM
Quote
Obstruction is the shadow of a shadow.  It's been ruled out.  Barr flat out told you the elements don't exist.

The problem is that Barr said obstruction wasn't possible before he got the job which understandably opens the door of possible bias in reporting of the report

Barr said that a President couldn't obstruct before he got the job.  His "narrow" summary, specifically said he did not rely on that principal in reaching his conclusions.

Don't let the media confuse you.  Barr ruled out obstruction as a factual matter, not as a matter of executive interpretation.

Quote
Either way its ammo for the troll farms.
America divided is America controlled

So ask yourself why the media is working so hard to divide us?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 12:20:21 PM
Quote
How about, Trump knows that Hillary screwed the pooch with her server, believes she is an intentional criminal with her email practices and deliberate deletion of emails (that everyone assumes had incriminating evidence in them) and saw a great opportunity to stick it to with a multi-sided swipe?  He got to ridicule Hillary, the DNC and the Russian conspiracy angle simultaneously.
All without realizing, despite his intellectual credentials, that Russia, seeing this would think to themselves, "*censored*... this is a win-win!  We do exactly what he says.  He denies it as a joke, we strike a blow against the candidate we defiantly want while putting a cloud over the other guy in the event he actually wins this thing!" 

Even if he's 100% innocent, the guy was a train wreck of a candidate and a train wreck of a president.  He's sold me on the whole "outsider" candidate as a terrible idea.  And that's when compared to some contemptible insider opposition.

Quote
It's entirely possible to think Russian hacking is a serious issue, that any hacking is a serious issue, and still enjoy the DNC being revealed for a bunch of lying hypocrites in the moment. 
I won’t say I enjoyed it, but as a Sanders supporter, it was… illuminating.  I wish it was more shocking.  :(
Quote
Leaks are in many ways worse that what hostile powers are doing.
Depends for me.  If a hostile power leaks/hacks some info out, they’re doing it to cause damage/chaos.  In SOME cases, leaks from within the government are done because the leaker believes it is for the good of the country.  It may or may not be partisan and viewed as nothing but sabotage by one side, but motivations can matter here.  That said, I still think you enforce the laws against the leakers.  I think the self-martyring aspect of it is a good built in safety valve.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 12:32:34 PM
D.W., the truth is Russia got everything it wanted when the DNC bought into the Russia collusion hook, line and sinker.  They spent a tiny fraction of money on FaceBook without much effect and the DNC has lauded them as super masterminds capable of disrupting the entire US. 

As a Sanders supporter you might want to be a little more concerned about how quickly the manipulation of the DNC against Bernie dropped out of the public eye (more accurately, how the media has suppressed it because it doesn't favor their chosen DNC insiders).  Like I said at the time, if it were the RNC servers we'd still be seeing "new" stories from the stolen emails leading the headlines.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 12:59:22 PM
On the second item, I am.

On the first, I'm still waiting to read the report, (or as much of it ever sees the light of day).  No doubt Russia's efforts were effective.  I would contest the effects of those efforts...   ::) 
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 01, 2019, 01:05:33 PM
Quote
Obstruction is the shadow of a shadow.  It's been ruled out.  Barr flat out told you the elements don't exist.

The problem is that Barr said obstruction wasn't possible before he got the job which understandably opens the door of possible bias in reporting of the report
Either way its ammo for the troll farms.
America divided is America controlled

Does it help that Rosenstein also agreed with his(Barr's) conclusion on the matter?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 01:13:33 PM
On the first, I'm still waiting to read the report, (or as much of it ever sees the light of day).  No doubt Russia's efforts were effective.  I would contest the effects of those efforts...   ::)

I doubt that "Russia's efforts were effective" at all.  I don't think what you've seen is the effect of Russian manipulation, it's the effect of US media and DNC manipulation that found the Russian story a useful narrative.  It's not the tiny amount of Russian media spend that did this, it's the billions in free "collusion" coverage that did it.

If it's really a Russian master operation, then shortly after Barr releases the report, the Russian's will release something that supports the narrative to further undermine our system.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 01:19:34 PM
Careful with that Seriati.  That's the kinda play that makes sense for Russia no matter what the facts are or the report says.  There's no down side for them as far as muckraking on the issue.

Quote
It's not the tiny amount of Russian media spend that did this, it's the billions in free "collusion" coverage that did it.
Depends on what period of time one is referring to.  :P
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on April 01, 2019, 01:31:12 PM
Quote
So ask yourself why the media is working so hard to divide us?

That's the question, however to answer it the word 'media' is to wide of a brush.
How do you know that the sources of media that you rely on are reliable?


To add. I ask myself that question all the time
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on April 01, 2019, 01:34:03 PM
Seriati, you're acting like you know what's in the report. All you have is Barr's narrowly focused letter. Why don't you wait and see what else is in there.

Barr's letter was not "narrowly focused" it had a broad and sweeping focus.  Summary is not the same thing as narrow.

Yes, it was narrowly focused. Did not establish a criminal conspiracy with Russian government or IRA, and Barr doesn't think Trump is guilty of obstruction. There's no elucidation of the evidence on "both sides" of the obstruction question, and there's 400 pages of Mueller's summary of his prosecutorial decisions (which resulted in many indictments).

Also, it would be more understandable to say what you are saying a week ago, but since then Barr himself denies that he tried to summarize the report:

Quote
“I am aware of some media reports and other public statements mischaracterizing my March 24, 2019, supplemental notification as a ‘summary’ of the Special Counsel’s investigation and report,” Barr wrote.

Note that when I told you that you should wait, you were making claims about Mueller's timing - you seem pretty sure he was delaying announcements about his conclusions for no good reason. Presumably the report contains some information about how the investigation progressed, which questions remained open for how long, and when conclusions were reached. There's a lot we don't know, and your presumptions about how the case progressed are uninformed.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 01, 2019, 01:35:52 PM
This is all just like Obama's birth certificate. Those deniers are called birthers. I should know. Is there a witty equivalent term yet for those who still refuse to believe Trump didn't collude with Russia to steal the election from Hillary who already stole it fair and square from Bernie?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 01:40:47 PM
Careful with that Seriati.  That's the kinda play that makes sense for Russia no matter what the facts are or the report says.  There's no down side for them as far as muckraking on the issue.

So true.  I'm powerless to stop them or it, only you can choose whether to believe it or not.

Here's a recent quote from Ted Rall that made me laugh (and for the record, I've enjoyed reading him off and on for years, and have yet to find a political point he makes that I can agree with):

Quote
Wanna know the richest irony? Trump knew how this would turn out. He knew what the Mueller report would say. For two years, he's been watching DNC mouthpieces such as MSNBC's Rachel Maddow rant about Russiagate. He knew he'd use those clips for one attack ad after another.https://www.creators.com/read/ted-rall/03/19/i-told-you-so-only-idiots-believed-in-russiagate (https://www.creators.com/read/ted-rall/03/19/i-told-you-so-only-idiots-believed-in-russiagate)

Quote
So ask yourself why the media is working so hard to divide us?

That's the question, however to answer it the word 'media' is to wide of a brush.
How do you know that the sources of media that you rely on are reliable?


To add. I ask myself that question all the time

You can't, I've said it at least a hundred times.  Propaganda works.  It works whether you are aware of it or not.  That's why it's so powerful.

All I can suggest is that you use logic and reason and do you best to weed out what the facts actually are.  On this one, the one thing I've asked from the beginning is that I want to see what justified appointing Mueller.  We have to see that, that alone is what we need to judge if this was a witchhunt or a justifiable investigation.  That alone is what determines if the Cabal at the FBI and DOJ were nothing but criminals.

On this stuff, anytime you heard a story with an "anonymous source" that sounded too much like what you wanted to hear you should have been a skeptic. 
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 01:49:25 PM
Yes, it was narrowly focused.

It really wasn't. 

There is no doubt there is more detail in the report itself, but what was released was not in any reasonable sense of the word "narrowly focused."

Quote
Note that when I told you that you should wait, you were making claims about Mueller's timing - you seem pretty sure he was delaying announcements about his conclusions for no good reason.

I have very good reasons.  I laid them out I think almost a year ago.  This is not a typical prosecution situation, it never was.  If there was a "there" there it was always going to be about impeachment.  And it was an ongoing national security threat if the President was compromised by a foreign power.

Literally if Mueller had convincing evidence that Trump was an asset it was treason not to act on it.

If he didn't, then he let our contrary fall so far into division without good cause.

This should have been an open bipartisan investigation from the start, that followed the evidence into the RNC, the DNC, the Russians and whereever it led, instead of a partisan cluster *censored*.

Supporting this as reasonable only makes sense if there was convincing evidence of collusion.  If it turns out that it was all based on the Dossier, then literally everyone involved should go to prison.

Quote
Presumably the report contains some information about how the investigation progressed, which questions remained open for how long, and when conclusions were reached. There's a lot we don't know, and your presumptions about how the case progressed are uninformed.

Unless the report says that they had major evidence that only cleared Trump in March 2019, then what I said is literally truth.  I will say - at this point - I don't believe that's the case.  I'm willing bet they have had little but technicalities to clear up for over a year.  Hopefully we will actually find out.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 01:56:39 PM
This whole thing strikes me as an arson investigator trying to get into a building.  The owner insists it was an accident and tries everything they can to block the investigator.  Sure, it really WAS an accident, but they'd rather nobody know they were operating a *censored*ing meth lab in the place.   ::)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 02:09:51 PM
This whole thing strikes me as an arson investigator trying to get into a building.  The owner insists it was an accident and tries everything they can to block the investigator.  Sure, it really WAS an accident, but they'd rather nobody know they were operating a *censored*ing meth lab in the place.   ::)

This drives me nuts.  You post an analogy that has next to nothing in common with what actually happened.  Trump was the President, did he really do "everything he could to block the investigation"?

Did he fire Mueller?  Shut down the special counsel?  Refuse to turn over records?  Pardon people guilty or innocent?

No. 

By "everything he could" you mean, he shared a million and half pages of documents with the special counsel's investigation, including materials entitled to executive privilge.  He let Mueller appoint a team of clear partisans (including lawyers for the Clinton investigation that represented her in the email scandal); he let the investigation continue as it became increasingly evident that they had spied on his campaign, and that senior members of the DOJ and FBI were partisan Trump haters; he didn't even bring charges against Comey for leaks or anyone else.

What exactly do you think he did?  I mean did he destroy half of his records with bleach bit?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 02:17:27 PM
Quote
Trump was the President, did he really do "everything he could to block the investigation"?

Did he fire Mueller?  Shut down the special counsel?  Refuse to turn over records?  Pardon people guilty or innocent?
And this drives ME nuts.  Yes, I do think he did everything his Whitehouse/cabinet/party senate would allow him to do.  Could he have legally done more to block it?  Yes.  Would it have been an uncontested *censored*storm had he done so?  Also yes. 

The only scenario where his actions make sense other than C.Y.A. is if you believe he is squeaky clean and this is all some genius plot to make his opponents look silly.  And that this plot goes so far as to knowingly include actual criminals to dispense like flares and chaff as needed to fuel the deception.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2019, 02:22:47 PM
Quote
This drives me nuts.  You post an analogy that has next to nothing in common with what actually happened.  Trump was the President, did he really do "everything he could to block the investigation"?

I agree. I'll have a crack at it.

It is like the guy standing on the curb screaming about how the arson investigators are biased and how they shouldn't even be in his house poking around. Then spending time defending your suspected accomplice, who has a track record of burning down houses. Then he put his lawyer on TV who contradicted his statements.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on April 01, 2019, 02:31:44 PM
On the other hand, Trump did try twice (although limply) to fire Mueller, praised those who refused to cooperate while denigrating those who did cooperate, refused to rule out pardoning Manafort, howled without any evidence that Mueller's team was engaged in a political witch hunt (which convinced you apparently), and has repeatedly floated the idea of retributive prosecutions.


If you're concerned about how divisive the whole thing has been, you should be blaming Trump.



Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 01, 2019, 02:35:42 PM
Quote
Trump was the President, did he really do "everything he could to block the investigation"?

Did he fire Mueller?  Shut down the special counsel?  Refuse to turn over records?  Pardon people guilty or innocent?
And this drives ME nuts.  Yes, I do think he did everything his Whitehouse/cabinet/party senate would allow him to do.  Could he have legally done more to block it?  Yes.  Would it have been an uncontested *censored*storm had he done so?  Also yes. 
It has been exposed as an unfounded witch hunt. That he didn't do everything in his power to block it is amazing. That he essentially did nothing to block it, is even more amazing.


The only scenario where his actions make sense other than C.Y.A. is if you believe he is squeaky clean and this is all some genius plot to make his opponents look silly. 

Trump is now the most vetted president in history. Look at the venom and vigor with which the media has gone after him. They've found nothing. They make up a lot of stuff but none of it stick because it's delusional most of the time and flat our wrong the rest of the time. The democrat media complex is pretty much done now. Even if they find something that's actually true, nobody is gonna believe it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 02:48:22 PM
Quote
They've found nothing.
   ::)
Quote
Even if they find something that's actually true, nobody is gonna believe it.
Now now.  We believe you when you bring us stuff sometimes.  Credibility isn't everything.  :)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 03:13:20 PM
No.

You guys are just flat wrong.

A President does not "try" to fire a member of the executive branch and somehow fail to do it.  That's just a media driven nonsense interpretation.  I have no doubt he contemplated shutting down the investigation.  You would too if you knew the whole thing was nothing but garbage and simultaneously completely undermining your legitimate ability to do your job.

There's no longer any credibility to the arguments you are making.  Giving 2 years of essentially free rein on a fake investigation into a lie is not in ANY CREDIBLE WAY doing everything in his power to obstruct. 

You seem to forget.  Trump KNEW ALL ALONG that there wasn't any collusion on his part.  That makes his tolerance and yes patience with a politically driven witch hunt truly remarkable.

If you're concerned about how divisive the whole thing has been, you should be blaming Trump.

Thank you CNN.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 03:22:33 PM
But THIS president may “try” by floating up a test balloon.  “Should I do X thing?”, “I’m considering Y thing.” , “I should totally do Z thing, the people will love it!”, “Wouldn’t it be great if…”

If he gets full throated support, he may go for it.  If people panic and tell him why it’s a terrible idea, he may or may not do it.  If he’s told flat out that’s illegal or unconstitutional, he may ask if there’s a way to achieve it without breaking the law…

This guy isn’t normal.  Quit pretending he is.  The “normal” rules don’t apply.  That’s not a nonsense interpretation.  You can love him for it if you want, but he is an anomaly; no interpretation needed.

Alternately, for 2 years Trump was terrified of how much of his dirty laundry and illegal activity on his part or those surrounding him would come to light during this investigation and it had nothing to do with restraint, and everything to do with abject terror yet another, and the most significant, of his house of cards was about to come tumbling down around him.  Not the price he was willing to pay when this PR stunt of a campaign blew up and he actually won the office.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2019, 03:26:49 PM
Quote
But THIS president may “try” by floating up a test balloon.  “Should I do X thing?”, “I’m considering Y thing.” , “I should totally do Z thing, the people will love it!”, “Wouldn’t it be great if…”

Eh, I think he floats balloons but doesn't normally overrule himself. Remember his state of emergency? That had as little support as anything he's ever floated, and he went for it anyway.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: NobleHunter on April 01, 2019, 03:30:01 PM
Given the number of times Trump's administration had to correct their statements about meetings with Russians, I'm doubtful Trump knew for certain that his campaign had not colluded with Russia. I'm fairly certain he did not know whether or not he or his campaign had done anything illegal as he has repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the sort of rules intended to prevent the appearance of misconduct.

While purposeful and intentional collusion or conspiracy was always unlikely, it seemed far more reasonable that the campaign had blundered into illegality through it's own incompetence and ignorance.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on April 01, 2019, 03:32:46 PM
Quote
A President does not "try" to fire a member of the executive branch and somehow fail to do it.

What do you call it when he orders a subordinate to fire Mueller and the subordinate refuses, then the president later drops it?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 01, 2019, 03:55:15 PM
Quote
Giving 2 years of essentially free rein on a fake investigation into a lie is not in ANY CREDIBLE WAY doing everything in his power to obstruct. 

You seem to forget.  Trump KNEW ALL ALONG that there wasn't any collusion on his part.  That makes his tolerance and yes patience with a politically driven witch hunt truly remarkable.

And what you forget, Seriati, was the Mueller wasn't tasked to investigate Trump on collusion.  Think about that for a moment.  Mueller was never specifically tasked to investigate Trump.  You can read it for yourself.

So when Trump said the whole investigation was a "witch hunt," he wasn't talking only about himself.  He was talking about his whole team.  Everyone involved in the campaign.  And he couldn't have known, 100 percent, that they were all squeaky-clean.

So when he called it a witch-hunt, he was also trying to protect everyone else.  Which means Paul Manifort and his work for Ukrainian politicians.  Richard Pinedo, who sold bank account numbers created using stolen identities to foreign entities--a practice the Russians used to subvert our elections, and may have been to those Russians.  George Papadapoulos, who lied to the FBI about talking to a Russian with "substantial connections to Russian government officials."  And others.

So when Trump knew he hadn't colluded with the Russians, that justifies him calling any investigation into whether anyone in his campaign colluded with the Russians "a witch hunt?"  That since he was "clean," then his entire staff must have been "clean," also, and anyone who thought otherwise is automatically a "TRAITOR?"

If you think that is "tolerance," I would hate to see what you consider "intolerance."  ::)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 04:03:29 PM
So D.W. you seem to be asserting that if the President thought of firing Mueller, but didn't that's essentially the same thing and proof that he did everything he could to undermine the Mueller investigation?  So are you saying that he could not have shut it down by his own authority?  The fact that there are political consequences to doing so does not change the fact that he could have done it.

TheDrake - there's actually more truth to the southern border being in a state of emergency than not.  Or do you have some evidence that our border patrol is able to capture and hold pending hearing everyone that crosses illegally?  We both know that isn't the case.  The backlog on hearings is 2 years, and the hold period is less than 2 months.  Not liking facts, doesn't make them untrue.

NobleHunter - Mueller found the Russians repeatedly sought to gain access to the Trump campaign and they didn't bite.  Trump knew he didn't collude and more importantly, that there was no top down order to do so.  That means - at best - that  a Russian infilitration campaign would have involved Trump and his campaign as victims.  We don't have to ask how we treat victims of infilitration campaigns in the ordinary course do we?  We already know, we call Senator Feinstein, tell her that her driver of 20 years is a Chinese agent and help her protect her office.  That's exactly what didn't happen here, there better be a darned good reason, or your supporting the deliberate undermining of a US Presidential campaign against our national interest (but coincidentally, I'm sure in the interests of the other political party).

Scifibum, I call it nothing. 
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: NobleHunter on April 01, 2019, 04:12:48 PM
Victims who repeatedly lied about contacts? Who's recall seems to be closely linked to public reporting on such meetings?

Even if the campaign itself--or Trump himself--might have been a victim, that does not mean individual members of the campaign were not collaborators. A lot of the smoke about the investigation was caused by Trump and his proxies loudly declaring they did nothing wrong and announcing exoneration at every turn. Trump's behavior on this has not been that of an innocent man.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2019, 04:13:10 PM
Quote
TheDrake - there's actually more truth to the southern border being in a state of emergency than not.  Or do you have some evidence that our border patrol is able to capture and hold pending hearing everyone that crosses illegally?  We both know that isn't the case.  The backlog on hearings is 2 years, and the hold period is less than 2 months.  Not liking facts, doesn't make them untrue

To clarify, I meant as little public and political support for the unilateral allocation of funds. If one thought that Trump will float unpopular policy as a way to gauge whether he should go through with something or not, this would have been the thing for him to not do. So I don't buy that Trump talking about firing Mueller was a way to determine if he could get away with it. I think he struggled mightily with the idea, and had a fair amount of internal pressure, and barely restrained himself.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 04:13:54 PM
Quote
Giving 2 years of essentially free rein on a fake investigation into a lie is not in ANY CREDIBLE WAY doing everything in his power to obstruct. 

You seem to forget.  Trump KNEW ALL ALONG that there wasn't any collusion on his part.  That makes his tolerance and yes patience with a politically driven witch hunt truly remarkable.

And what you forget, Seriati, was the Mueller wasn't tasked to investigate Trump on collusion.  Think about that for a moment.  Mueller was never specifically tasked to investigate Trump.  You can read it for yourself.

What a gross retcon.  Go back to pretending.  Anyone who paid any attention for the last 2 years, saw a massive propaganda campaign by the media and the DNC claiming that it was Trump himself that was guilty of collusion, that he was a Russian plant and that the Mueller investigation was going to take him down.

I will not accept your gaslighting of what happened.  Mueller's specific mandate has never been clearly and fully laid out.  And your "current interpretation" bears no resemblance to that which was being bandied about.

Quote
So when Trump said the whole investigation was a "witch hunt," he wasn't talking only about himself.  He was talking about his whole team.  Everyone involved in the campaign.  And he couldn't have known, 100 percent, that they were all squeaky-clean.

He wouldn't have to know that.  I guarantee there are criminals involved in his campaign and in Hillary's campaign.  They are both massive groups of extreme partisans with numerous people of questionable ethics.  SO are all campaigns.

Not finding collusion against that backdrop is a major faceplant.

Quote
So when Trump knew he hadn't colluded with the Russians, that justifies him calling any investigation into whether anyone in his campaign colluded with the Russians "a witch hunt?"

Yes.  Unless there was evidence - WHICH WE HAVE NEVER SEEN - this was an investigation looking for a crime, not an investigation of a crime.  That is exactly what's meant by a witch hunt.

Even investigating one crime as a pretext to investigating something that you have no evidence of is a witch hunt.

This basic civics.  Our government is required to have a reasonable suspicion that there was a crime to investigate.

My god, the whole reason this was run as a counter-intelligence operation seems to have been so they could violate the civil rights of members of the opposition party without any evidence of a crime in hopes that they could find a crime to retroactively justify the investigation.

Civil liberties have no place in the modern left.

Quote
That since he was "clean," then his entire staff must have been "clean," also, and anyone who thought otherwise is automatically a "TRAITOR?"

I don't care what you thought or anyone else.  I do care that someone seems to have abused the powers of the government for political purposes.  And yes, they are potentially traitors here.

Quote
If you think that is "tolerance," I would hate to see what you consider "intolerance."  ::)

I have no tolerance for corruption.  I'm beginning to think you do, so long as it's going the correct direction.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 04:17:12 PM
Victims who repeatedly lied about contacts? Who's recall seems to be closely linked to public reporting on such meetings?

How many?  Mueller interviewed 300 witnesses, and found what 4 that lied about things that weren't even criminal?

You do know that in the Clinton investigation - as we discovered in released testimony - they caught her aides in lies and didn't charge them with anything.  The hypocrisy on this knows no limits.

Quote
Even if the campaign itself--or Trump himself--might have been a victim, that does not mean individual members of the campaign were not collaborators.

But it does mean that the solution was to involve the highest levels of the campaign in an effort to weed them out, not to open a two year long smear campaign.

Quote
A lot of the smoke about the investigation was caused by Trump and his proxies loudly declaring they did nothing wrong and announcing exoneration at every turn. Trump's behavior on this has not been that of an innocent man.

I see.  Only a guilty man would say he's innocent?

Smoke?  Seriously?  The government is required to have evidence not smoke and denials.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 04:20:59 PM
I think he struggled mightily with the idea, and had a fair amount of internal pressure, and barely restrained himself.

And?  If your employee conducted a two year investigation of you on a charge that you personally knew was nonsense but that was costing you business would you not consider firing them too?

The President is the head of the Department of Justice.  He's entitled to set policy.  Obama did it left an right.  Yet Trump has had to act with an internal department, investigating a lie, without an effective oversight, that could see any policy that Trump wanted his department to pursue as potentially evidence of a "collusion" or "obstruction." 
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: NobleHunter on April 01, 2019, 04:31:21 PM
How many press releases did Mueller give on the status of the investigation? How many leaks came from his office? It's a pretty interesting way to run a smear campaign. None of the smoke came from Mueller's investigation.

An innocent man does not slander and deride the investigation which is apparently in the process of establishing his innocence. An innocent man doesn't take every opportunity to bring up the subject and repeatedly lie about the positions of now disgraced members of his campaign. An innocent man who's largely responsible is preserving the dignity and authority of the executive branch does not promote conspiracy theories.

And?  If your employee conducted a two year investigation of you on a charge that you personally knew was nonsense but that was costing you business would you not consider firing them too?

Not if I had confidence the investigation would allay suspicions. Not that it'll do much good since the GOP and their proxies have well and truly spent any credibility they had on this manner.

They could take a lesson from our Liberal Party. The best investigation is a quiet investigation.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 04:36:56 PM
Again, your "proof" that he was guilty was that he claimed he was innocent and rightly claimed those investigating him were looking for a crime that didn't exist - aka a witchhunt.

Not sure where you get off saying that an innocent man doesn't do this or that about an investigation that takes two years to "prove" what he already knew.

The idea that being innocent was a guarantee that an investigation that seemed to have no basis but politics would clear you is completely naive.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2019, 04:42:46 PM
I'll accept his innocence.

His fierce defense of the really dirty people who used to work for him, followed by his dismissal of their importance, and then turning on them really made it seem like he was concerned that the investigation was going to close in on something he was involved in. If you believed your colleague was innocent, is that how you would behave?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: NobleHunter on April 01, 2019, 04:48:15 PM
And if the investigation had been regularly making announcements about how they were closing in on proof of his complicity, maybe you'd have a point. But Trump seemed desperate to convince everyone that the entire thing was a conspiracy against him. It's especially interesting since the chances of Trump being indicted was essentially nil and getting an impeachment past the Senate would require ironclad proof. Not the sort of thing that could be fabricated without any basis whatsoever. And before you raise the specter of a Democratic led Senate, please indicate at what point it looked like they'd gain enough seats to convict.

His protests aren't proof that he was guilty; they give the impression of guilt. I trust you aren't naïve enough to confuse the two.

The investigation wasn't for the President. It was for everyone else. If Trump had refused to comment on it, there would have been much less noise about it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 04:58:36 PM
Quote
So D.W. you seem to be asserting that if the President thought of firing Mueller, but didn't that's essentially the same thing and proof that he did everything he could to undermine the Mueller investigation?
If I said that somehow in what I wrote, rest assured that is not what I meant to convey…  Now, I will openly speculate that if he thought he COULD shut down the investigation without stirring up even more trouble for himself, *I believe* he would have.  It’s not proof of anything.  It’s my opinion.  If only we had someone compiling such “proof” for the country so we could settle this once and for all and put this speculation to rest…
Quote
So are you saying that he could not have shut it down by his own authority?
Pretty sure I didn’t say this either.  But there are things a president CAN do that would amount to self-sabotage if not term-ending.  Just because he CAN do something, doesn’t mean he should; even if he really really wants to.
Quote
The fact that there are political consequences to doing so does not change the fact that he could have done it.
Didn’t mean to argue that point, (if you feel I did).
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 05:06:08 PM
Quote
Anyone who paid any attention for the last 2 years, saw a massive propaganda campaign by the media and the DNC claiming that it was Trump himself that was guilty of collusion, that he was a Russian plant and that the Mueller investigation was going to take him down.
I just want to point out that the portion in bold, was never seriously considered by anyone I've met.  Compromised by them?  Maybe, but never a plant.  Hell, I would have bought the Democrat plant to thwart the Republican primaries over Putin using Trump as a plant.  A dupe now...
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2019, 05:50:44 PM
Quote
Anyone who paid any attention for the last 2 years, saw a massive propaganda campaign by the media and the DNC claiming that it was Trump himself that was guilty of collusion, that he was a Russian plant and that the Mueller investigation was going to take him down.
I just want to point out that the portion in bold, was never seriously considered by anyone I've met.  Compromised by them?  Maybe, but never a plant.  Hell, I would have bought the Democrat plant to thwart the Republican primaries over Putin using Trump as a plant.  A dupe now...

How about Rep Swalwell, who said it more than once.  https://ijr.com/swalwell-doubles-down-on-claims-that-trump-is-a-russian-agent/ (https://ijr.com/swalwell-doubles-down-on-claims-that-trump-is-a-russian-agent/)

Or everyone's favorite crazy lady Maxine Waters https://lasentinel.net/maxine-waters-drags-donald-trump-down-the-twitter-timeline.html (https://lasentinel.net/maxine-waters-drags-donald-trump-down-the-twitter-timeline.html)

Or a host of media people and articles from the left.  Not the best links above, but whether you personally know someone that said is hardly the test.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 01, 2019, 06:41:04 PM
Quote
What a gross retcon.  Go back to pretending.  Anyone who paid any attention for the last 2 years, saw a massive propaganda campaign by the media and the DNC claiming that it was Trump himself that was guilty of collusion, that he was a Russian plant and that the Mueller investigation was going to take him down.

You, and the President, appear to believe that the investigation was run by the media and the Democrats.  If so, it would have come to a different conclusion, since the court of public opinion is not as rigorous as the Justice Department.   In fact, the reason Mueller was appointed was to make sure neither the media or the DNC would have undo influence on the investigation.

Yes, there were plenty of hopes, the top one being that Trump hoped it wouldn't take him down, which is the real reason he called it a witch hunt (insurance).  But he wasn't calling the media and DNC portrayal a witch hunt; he was calling Mueller's investigation a witch hunt.  Not the same thing.

Quote
Mueller's specific mandate has never been clearly and fully laid out.

Then what  was this?? (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download)

Quote
Quote
So when Trump knew he hadn't colluded with the Russians, that justifies him calling any investigation into whether anyone in his campaign colluded with the Russians "a witch hunt?"

Yes.  Unless there was evidence - WHICH WE HAVE NEVER SEEN - this was an investigation looking for a crime, not an investigation of a crime.  That is exactly what's meant by a witch hunt.

If they had evidence of a crime, they wouldn't need to investigate, would they?  They would have gone directly to indictments.

They had suspicious behavior.  It was good to make sure that was all it was.

Do you really want our intelligence services to wait until they can arrest someone before investigating possible corruption to our electoral system?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 07:04:00 PM
I don't know any of them Seriati.  I didn't say I never heard that opinion voiced by others.  I just never encountered it "in the wild".  :P
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 01, 2019, 07:55:15 PM
Trump is now the most vetted president in history. Look at the venom and vigor with which the media has gone after him. They've found nothing. They make up a lot of stuff but none of it stick because it's delusional most of the time and flat our wrong the rest of the time. The democrat media complex is pretty much done now. Even if they find something that's actually true, nobody is gonna believe it.

Uh, I'm going to say it is a close-run thing between him and Bill Clinton. I do think Trump's "circle" were wrung through a wringer, which continues to chug away, which Clinton's associates were not put through however.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 01, 2019, 08:02:51 PM
Alternately, for 2 years Trump was terrified of how much of his dirty laundry and illegal activity on his part or those surrounding him would come to light during this investigation and it had nothing to do with restraint, and everything to do with abject terror yet another, and the most significant, of his house of cards was about to come tumbling down around him.  Not the price he was willing to pay when this PR stunt of a campaign blew up and he actually won the office.

You're making that far more nefarious than it is likely to be.

Trump has been conducting business on the International Scene for decades. I doubt there are many people who "play at that level" who would come back looking squeaky clean after being put through an in depth, rigorous and unrestricted investigation.

They may not be able to turn up enough to bring up criminal charges, but they sure as *censored* are likely to be able to string enough things together to paint some pictures that look plenty damning all the same.

For that matter, remember the Mitt Romney tax returns? Those actually DID come back "squeaky clean" and the media still found ways to skewer him with information contained within them.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 09:21:08 PM
That is why I still believe he had no intention of winning.  This whole thing got away from him and now he's flailing around trying to make the most of it and not ruin himself and his family.  This type of scrutiny, when you ARE unlikely to look squeaky clean, was a known risk.  I gotta say, he's done a pretty good job all things considered not having all his dirty laundry trotted out to the public.  I see why people read his book.  He's got a talent for sure.

His term has struck me as a lesson in "be careful what you wish for."  (Him, not his supporters I mean).  While there is an undeniable "orange man bad" motivation for this, it's also a chance for a lot of people to take someone "playing at this level", down a peg or two.  There's no shortage of resentment for the extremely wealthy, particularly those who flaunt it.  And even more if they seem to revel in their...  (What's the opposite of squeaky clean?)  public image.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on April 02, 2019, 01:07:51 AM
This whole thing strikes me as an arson investigator trying to get into a building.  The owner insists it was an accident and tries everything they can to block the investigator.  Sure, it really WAS an accident, but they'd rather nobody know they were operating a *censored*ing meth lab in the place.   ::)

Isn't this what Seriati is calling a witch hunt? It basically sounds like you're arguing that although Trump and his team may not have really been compromised by Russia, they certainly would have had shady deals in their past, fraudulent activity, cheating people, embezzlement, etc etc. Basically stuff that close scrutiny would reveal in a sleazy businessman like Trump. But if your analogy holds (despite others thinking it doesn't) it would directly imply putting up a fake investigation into collusion in order to reveal evidence of various white collar crimes for which there's no evidence yet. And in fact this would jive with the timeline, because the most prevalent criminal accusation put against Trump leading up to the conclusion of the generals was about his tax returns and possibly shady real estate dealings. It got to the point where "everyone knew" that he was a crook of some kind, and that it only needed documented disclosure to show it. I wouldn't at all be surprised to learn one day that this was the real meat and potatoes they were hoping they'd 'happen to' dredge up in the investigation. Sure, it might not be politic to use it directly against him and claim that "they found what they were looking for" when it wasn't what they were looking for, but knowing where that stuff is would allow them to 'happen upon it' subsequently and distance its disclosure from the investigation supposedly unrelated to it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 02, 2019, 09:39:03 AM
Probably, yes Fenring.  I've never had much expectation that he, or his immediate advisers, were deliberately collaborating with Russia to strategize a win or even more far fetched that he was working FOR the Russians. 

That the guy and pretty much all those surrounding him are criminals?  That I do believe.  Granted, there was a chance that they were colluding, so it did need to be looked into. 

But I'm pro-witch hunt or pro-fishing expedition when it comes to the highest offices of our nation.   With that much power I think transparency and a total lack of privacy are the cost of doing business (on our behalf). 

I in no way suggest that a "fake" claim was made or that I condone it if it was.  Maybe we'll find out that this is indeed what happened.  That they needed an excuse.  Maybe we should accept that crooks are gonna be crooks and those people seek and often achieve power.  Maybe our system of government is best served by turning a blind eye and only acting when... err, well, I don't know what threshold people would agree on anymore.  We're way past it from where I sit.

The ideal, for me anyway when it comes to our government, there needn't be a catalyst to get out the small stones, ducks, and hear out any former newts.  But those aren't the rules of the game. 

If those "out to get Trump" broke laws, then investigate the instigators.  Beef up anti-whistle-blower laws to thwart future "fake" allegations.  Get rid of impartial oversight.  Let those in power pick and chose those worthy of judging them.  I'm just hoping this guy is the aberration and once he's gone we'll never see another like him.  I'm pretty jaded in accepting most of our high level politicians are crooks at some level but I hope we don't make a trend of seeking out the most high profile flagrant crook (who has avoided being locked up) as our "best" candidates.

Your criticism is fair.  I at least never needed a smoking gun linked back to Putin to believe Trump was a national disaster.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 02, 2019, 10:15:38 AM
In fact, the reason Mueller was appointed was to make sure neither the media or the DNC would have undo influence on the investigation.

Really, was that the reason?  I'm still waiting for the factual predicate that justified a Special Prosecutor to be revealed.

Quote
Quote
Mueller's specific mandate has never been clearly and fully laid out.

Then what  was this?? (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download)

It's one of two things, its either a Summary of what he was really charged with investigating, or its a gross violation of the regulations and laws that authorize the appointment of a special prosecutor.

What were the grounds for a criminal prosecution?  It's not legal to appoint a special prosecutor to continue a counter intelligence operation, only a criminal one.  What was the criminal investigation, and what was the evidence that supported it?

Like I said, we've never seen the evidence and we've never seen Mueller's actual mandate.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1)

Quote
If they had evidence of a crime, they wouldn't need to investigate, would they?  They would have gone directly to indictments.

They had suspicious behavior.  It was good to make sure that was all it was.

They need evidence to support a reasonable suspicion of a crime.  Again, this is why I say you have no belief in civil liberties.  You seem to blend the standards for criminal investigations with counter intelligence ones willy nilly, and then allow the prosecutors free reign to investigate and subpeona without showing any actual evidence. 

This only occurred because of the secrecy of the FISA courts and that ought to tell you everything about how abusive it was.  We have plenty of ability to use legitimate courts to do everything that happened here.  We don't use FISA courts to investigate the Mafia and we still manage to keep the secret.  FISA was used specifically to do an end around of due process.

Quote
Do you really want our intelligence services to wait until they can arrest someone before investigating possible corruption to our electoral system?

No, nor do they have to do so.  What I don't want is the FBI abusing an intelligence process that is deliberately lower than our legal civil liberties to conduct criminal investigations that ignore our civil rights.  Neither should you.

What I don't want is a 2 year criminal investigation that wasn't based on criminal conduct, and neither should you.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on April 02, 2019, 10:31:23 AM
Your criticism is fair.  I at least never needed a smoking gun linked back to Putin to believe Trump was a national disaster.

Strictly speaking I wasn't criticizing you, but only pointing out that your position and Seriati's didn't seem as far apart as it may have appeared, regarding the original of the 'witch hunt'. Where you seem to differ - and where I actually don't have a concrete opinion - is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Since my views on what should be required to hold high public office are rather...draconian...I probably lean closer to your side on this in spirit, even though I agree with Seriati that breaking the law 'for the greater good' isn't the right way to do things.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 02, 2019, 10:47:43 AM
Just to be clear, I don't agree with breaking the law to achieve revealing a law breaker.  Where I quibble is awaiting the full report before I'm convinced the law WAS broken.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 02, 2019, 10:58:14 AM
Let's be honest.  I'm not asserting the law was broken either (on appointing Meuller, on other things it appears to have been).

I've just been pointing out for 2 years that we have never seen anything released that justified the appointment of a special prosecutor and I think we have a right to see what justified this two year event.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 02, 2019, 11:07:30 AM
Quote
It's not legal to appoint a special prosecutor to continue a counter intelligence operation, only a criminal one.  What was the criminal investigation, and what was the evidence that supported it?

OK, Seriati, I see your point.  I've been thinking of this investigation as a counterintelligence investigation, which is properly in the purview of the FBI.  The FBI should have investigated Trump's campaign, not a special prosecutor.

But, of course, IIRC, the special prosecutor was appointed after Trump fired the head of the FBI, partially because the FBI was investigating his campaign (according to Trump himself). (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/31/president-trump-contradicts-himself-by-claiming-he-didnt-fire-james-comey-over-the-russia-probe.html)  So what would have been the legal way to continue a counterintelligence investigation when one of the people being investigated can fire anyone investigating it? 

After all, we can't wait until secrets are compromised before we start investigating possible ties to Russia by the Trump Administration.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 02, 2019, 11:11:21 AM
Quote
Let's be honest.  I'm not asserting the law was broken either (on appointing Mueller, on other things it appears to have been).

No, you just asserted that those who appointed Mueller "are potentially traitors here." :)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 02, 2019, 11:21:02 AM
I can easily think of a narrative that explains going after the Trump circle. It is on the record that some of them made provably untrue statements about Russian meetings, etc. So it only makes sense to leverage those guys using their financial crimes to try to dig up the truth.

Quote
Trump has been conducting business on the International Scene for decades. I doubt there are many people who "play at that level" who would come back looking squeaky clean after being put through an in depth, rigorous and unrestricted investigation.

So it is so common to get away with such things, that it becomes unfair to investigate them?

As for a basis for the investigation, we absolutely knew that Russia interfered in the election. There was ample basis for the fact that the result of their action was pro-Trump, though the matter of degree is in question. Members of the Trump team had close ties to Russia, including Trump himself. This is graphically demonstrated here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/trump-russia/?utm_term=.70d2b45e736c). The DNC was the one hacked. Flynn sat at Putin's dinner table in 2015. Flynn was talking to the Russian ambassador, then lied about it. They had the meeting at Trump tower, which was lied about. Trump asked Comey to take it easy on Flynn.

That's not enough reason to investigate on collusion and obstruction?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2019, 12:59:53 PM
THere is no evidence of any collusion. Three investigations have been conducted. The most recent one taking 2 years, millions of dollars, 50 FBI agents, 17 lawyers that were universally pro-Democrat (even attending Hillary’s “victory” party).

There was no collusion. No matter what you guys can imagine, there is no proof of anything going on with Russia and Trump.

You guys have literally lost your minds. Trump has broken you somehow. I sincerely hope you keep it up and make it a major theme in 2020.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 02, 2019, 01:22:07 PM
Now let's not jump to conclusions, Crunch.

Yes, Mueller apparently determined there was no evidence of "collusion" during the 2018 election.

But it was limited to the 2018 election.  Nothing after.

And we still haven't seen the explanations for what appeared to be collusion at the time (Trump Tower meeting, attempts to create a secret communication line with Russia, etc) and why Mueller didn't consider them not to be collusion.  And whether most people would agree with his conclusions.

And don't forget, Mueller specifically did not decide if the evidence he found indicated obstruction of justice or not.  That was Barr's and Rosenstein's calls, and we don't know if most people would agree with that until we see the evidence.

So...it ain't over until its over. :)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 02, 2019, 04:01:01 PM
Now let's not jump to conclusions, Crunch.

Yes, Mueller apparently determined there was no evidence of "collusion" during the 2018 election.

But it was limited to the 2018 election.  Nothing after.

Uh......  ;D
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 02, 2019, 04:09:03 PM
It's entirely funny to be lectured on "not jumping to conclusions" after 3 different investigations failed to find collusion, after 2 years of "jumping to conclusions" that there was collusion.  Apparently, jumping to that conclusion was so immutable that even after it's repeatedly failed to be demonstrated, it would still be jumping to a conclusion to say it was unwarranted.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 02, 2019, 05:30:40 PM
Now let's not jump to conclusions, Crunch.

Yes, Mueller apparently determined there was no evidence of "collusion" during the 2018 election.

But it was limited to the 2018 election.  Nothing after.

Conspiracy theory. Thinking Trump became a Russian agent after he was elected is, literally and in the most clinical sense, delusional.
And we still haven't seen the explanations for what appeared to be collusion at the time (Trump Tower meeting, attempts to create a secret communication line with Russia, etc) and why Mueller didn't consider them not to be collusion.  And whether most people would agree with his conclusions.


Mueller and all those agents and lawyers are in a cover up, are they? Perhaps Putin got to them? Turned them.
And don't forget, Mueller specifically did not decide if the evidence he found indicated obstruction of justice or not.  That was Barr's and Rosenstein's calls, and we don't know if most people would agree with that until we see the evidence.

So...it ain't over until its over. :)

For conspiracy theory nuts, it’s never over.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 04, 2019, 12:48:17 PM
Just out of curiosity, what is the form that the collusion took?

Did the Russians show Trump a bunch of possible Facebook ads and he chose the one of Jesus and the devil arm wrestling?

If there was collusion, what would it look like?

Another thing I'm wondering about is if it was illegal for Russia to try to influence our election, is it also illegal for the American government to try to influence the elections in other countries? What is the statute that says one is illegal but the other is not?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 04, 2019, 01:04:30 PM
Got off my tush, figuratively, and looked for myself. So it's this:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/11/house-democrats-release-russian-troll-facebook-election-ads.html

So the Russians took out ads. So what? What is even illegal about that? Let's say Trump colluded with them and told them exactly which ads he preferred. They told him they were thinking about running some ads and asked him which ones he liked best and he told them this one, this one, this one, and oh this one is pretty funny. All the ones we saw that they ended up running. How would that even be illegal?

Maybe it's some sort of campaign finance violation where he is getting free political advertising paid for by a foreign government. But as far as I know there is no law against a foreign government taking out ads to say which American politician they prefer. Didn't Obama do more than that to meddle in the French and Israeli elections?

And that's not an attempt at whataboutism. My point is that people have the right to freedom of speech and to say which candidates they prefer and to take out ads if they want to. Nothing at all illegal about it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on April 04, 2019, 02:22:44 PM
I suspect the sort of collusion people think happened is unclear to most people, but probably the biggest fear was a conflict of interest between his real estate ventures with Russia (which he claimed didn't exist) and then owing them favors or otherwise taking stances that benefit them. It would indeed be troubling to know that a U.S. President is beholden to Russia on a personal level involving money.

As far as "interfering" with the election, I've always thought that was ridiculous. Yes, foreign governments are supposed to make all official actions...official. But the idea that this is really what happens is preposterous. Just look at the Biden thread regararding his own interactions with Ukraine and the whole idea that 'each government minds its own business' is fantasy; but even worse than fantasy, one where everyone else is a villain and everything you do is angelic.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2019, 03:17:03 PM
It's a violation of US election law if there was coordination, including the selection or preference for an ad. Just like with a PAC.

It's a matter of national defense if a country interferes with another country's elections, thus the sanctions when we found out. And yes, the US has done that before and been condemned for it. Typically people get kind of upset about that sort of thing, and countries generally react in some way. Talk about political interference, how about funding revolutionary groups?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2019, 05:02:38 PM
Another thing I'm wondering about is if it was illegal for Russia to try to influence our election, is it also illegal for the American government to try to influence the elections in other countries? What is the statute that says one is illegal but the other is not?

The one that is codified into United States Code. No other law matters, well, unless the Democratic Party decides "international standards or norms" are more important for their favored issue. Obviously for this particular case, US Code is the only thing that matters.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2019, 05:08:09 PM
I think colluding with foreign governments to effect a change of leadership in the country is commonly known as treason.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 04, 2019, 05:15:56 PM
So Macron committed treason against France when he colluded with Obama to help him win against Le Pen?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/04/barack-obama-backs-macron-in-last-minute-election-intervention
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2019, 05:22:04 PM
So Macron committed treason against France when he colluded with Obama to help him win against Le Pen?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/04/barack-obama-backs-macron-in-last-minute-election-intervention

What about the Anti-Brexit people when they actively sought Obama's involvement in things there?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 04, 2019, 05:50:59 PM
If it's treason or clearly collusion, why have we not arrested Hillary and her lawyers for hiring a British spy to obtain information from Russian intelligence operatives for the purpose of manipulating our election and launching a bogus counter intelligence operation to spy on a campaign during the election?

Just want to understand the "standard" in a world where the DNC has previously accepted contributions from operatives of the Chinese government, where the Clinton Foundation openly and notoriously accepted contributions from the governments of countries with decisions pending before the state department, where various European and Israeli leaders have expressed open endorsements of one candidate or the other.

Kind of like trying to understand why an individual is prevented from donated more than $2,700 to a political campaign but George Soros manages to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the same campaigns.

We don't have a fair set of rules here, we have a set of "gotchas" that are manipulatable by the elites.  The myth of Russian collusion is little more than a massive attempt at a fake gotcha, where everyone else is more guilty than the accused.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2019, 06:12:07 PM
I'm just stating a fact. I'm not declaring anyone innocent or guilty of it. Selling political favors, by the way, is not treason. It is corruption, could be bribery. Maybe there's an equivalence if he were an active agent of the UK, rather than a private citizen who used to work for a government. I hear you on the elites, yes, many of them may be much better at covering up and protecting themselves.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2019, 06:15:34 PM
BTW, from the Onion:

Quote
“This report has found the president so overwhelmingly innocent that the average human mind, unable to grasp just how completely free from culpability he is, would lose its grip on reality and spiral into insanity,” said Huckabee-Sanders, who warned that the general public, upon reading the 300-page report, would be reduced to “gibbering idiots,” foaming at the mouth as they read the secret revelations that confirm President Trump is the single least-guilty individual in the history of mankind.

:D
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 04, 2019, 07:13:32 PM
We are here to protect you.  Please go stand by the stairs.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on April 05, 2019, 10:28:55 AM
If it's treason or clearly collusion, why have we not arrested Hillary and her lawyers for hiring a British spy to obtain information from Russian intelligence operatives for the purpose of manipulating our election and launching a bogus counter intelligence operation to spy on a campaign during the election?

First the Clinton campaign didn't hire him.  They hired a lawyer who hired an op research firm, who employed him to finish research he had already done for Republicans.  Secondly hiring a foreign national isn't against the law.  There is only very narrow behavior that is illegal - they can't direct campaign actions (which is illegal behavior engaged in by most of the Republican campaigns when Cambridge Analytics British employees directly determined ad buys), they can't be volunteers, they can't donate, and I'm sure there are others.

Quote
Trevor Potter, a campaign finance attorney who advised the 2008 presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said that “it is permissible for campaigns to hire foreigners” as long as they are involved in lower-level activity in a campaign.

“It would be a problem for a U.S. super PAC — or any other domestic political actor — to have foreign nationals involved in running a political operation, including making decisions on strategy, targeting and expenditures for that political entity,” he said. “If foreigners were involved in the senior levels of decision-making for a political organization, that would be a violation of federal law.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-cambridge-analytica-workers-say-firm-sent-foreigners-to-advise-us-campaigns/2018/03/25/6a0d7d90-2fa2-11e8-911f-ca7f68bff0fc_story.html


Quote
The complaints allege that several Cambridge Analytica employees, including Alexander Nix, the company’s CEO who was recently suspended, performed significant work that constituted being part of the “decision-making process” in campaigns during the 2014 and 2016 US election cycles.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/26/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign-us-election-laws

Quote
Just want to understand the "standard" in a world where the DNC has previously accepted contributions from operatives of the Chinese government

If there is any evidence they knew or had reason to think it was an illegal contribution I'd be interested.  Chung is an American citizen and was just another bundler.  I'm all for making bundling illegal.  What Chung did was illegal, but there is no evidence that the DNC participated in his illegal behavior or had knowledge he was doing it (or for that matter any way to know he was doing it).  The way bundling is legally done is to have a lot of donors who can legally donate - do so at the same time as a block - so that the politician knows that the bundler represents their interests and will provide favors to the designated group leader.  Bundling can also be done in an illegal manner by having someone who wants to donate a lot of money, funnel money to a bunch of individual donors and have them donate it.  Chung apparently received money from China and did the latter.

https://www.thoughtco.com/bundling-political-contributions-legal-and-illegal-3367621

Quote
where the Clinton Foundation openly and notoriously accepted contributions from the governments of countries with decisions pending before the state department

Whether a non-profit can be considered a violation of the emoluments clause is an interesting discussion, I'm in favor of clarifying legislation that would make it so - but it isn't currently the case, nor was it while she was Secretary of State.

Quote
where various European and Israeli leaders have expressed open endorsements of one candidate or the other.

I don't actually have a problem with this.  Nor do I see how it could possibly run a foul of any existing laws.

Quote
Kind of like trying to understand why an individual is prevented from donated more than $2,700 to a political campaign but George Soros manages to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the same campaigns.

If you have any evidence of illegal behavior by Soros, would be interested.  As far as I know he has done nothing illegal and all of it is within the law.  I think it should be illegal but the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.  Basically what Soros does is donate to groups that will run issue ads that aren't favorable to Republicans.  As long as there isn't coordination between campaigns and the issue groups it is legal.  Note however, that coordination is illegal - such as the coordination between the NRA and many Republican campaigns.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/01/nra-republicans-campaign-ads-senate-josh-hawley/

Quote
We don't have a fair set of rules here, we have a set of "gotchas" that are manipulatable by the elites.  The myth of Russian collusion is little more than a massive attempt at a fake gotcha, where everyone else is more guilty than the accused.

This is such absurd reasoning.  The rules are clear to anyone running campaigns.  They know where the lines are and the lines are pretty bright.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 06, 2019, 08:47:52 AM
Papadapolous is talking. It’s becoming more and more clear that the FBI was running an operation to set him up so they could start the fake investigation. Check out Papadapolous on Twitter (painful to paste in here), he is putting it all together now that he can speak freely.

This whole thing was a intelligence operation by the DOJ and the FBI to create an “insurance policy” (as Strzol called it) to take down Trump in case he wins the election.

Lynch, Comey, Obama, and Hillary, along with their minions, need to be investigated now.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 18, 2019, 07:51:22 AM
And here we go! Based on the attacks on Barr, I think the left is feeling less than optimistic about seeing the report. This will be a great circus.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 18, 2019, 09:23:01 AM
It seems a stupid thing to worry about.  Sure it would be nice if some positions were above politics, but it will be out and spun every which way and dissected for soundbites before tomorrow morning.   ::)

P.S.  In a totally not collusion way, anyone listening out there should totally leak the un-redacted report... for the good of the country.  :P 




kidding!
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 18, 2019, 09:53:20 AM
Can we at least agree that the attacks on Barr are completely over the line?  Man's got a great record and served as the AG previously.

I mean honestly, leading Democrats, going on tv - last night - to claim that Barr is giving his press conference to "spin" the report.  Notwithstanding that the DOJ routinely has such press conferences, making the idea that this somehow unusual again effectively fake news.  And they pretty much said truly hateful things about his integrity, with absolutely no basis on which to hang it (and for those who claim it's the way that Trump acts that you hate, seems an odd "omission" that you aren't outraged by this).

Does anyone else see the explicit irony in going on national tv to "spin" a press conference the next day as "spin."  It's literally one of those cases, where a guilty person has to accuse another of the very crime they are guilty of, because it's the only way their mind works.

We stink as a people that these are the people we elect to lead us.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 18, 2019, 11:24:07 AM
As the old Russian proverb says: "Trust, but verify."

Now we get to verify.  Including the sweeping statements Barr made this morning. :)

Quote
Notwithstanding that the DOJ routinely has such press conferences...

Seriati, could you show a few examples of these press conferences?  I would do a Google search, but I can't think of criteria to use to find them. :(
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on April 18, 2019, 11:28:18 AM
Can we at least agree that the attacks on Barr are completely over the line?  Man's got a great record and served as the AG previously.

Actually he has suggested it is impossible for a President to commit the crime of obstruction of justice.  He has also said it is "impossible to commit obstruction of justice if there is no underlying crime" - also blatantly false which any experienced prosecutor knows.   Ergo he has a complete lack of credibility.

If he is willing to lie on those, I don't see why we shouldn't doubt he integrity and credibility on other aspects.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on April 18, 2019, 11:37:28 AM
Quote
We stink as a people that these are the people we elect to lead us.

Amen!

I agree the attacks on Barr cross the line. History will be the final judge
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 18, 2019, 12:04:39 PM
"This report totally supports whatever I believed before it was published!" - Everybody
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on April 18, 2019, 12:08:43 PM
Here is the report,

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Haven't read it yet, just skimming it looking through the redactions.

I'm pleasantly surprised that the redactions are less than I expected from by brief skim, but more than I hoped.  I suppose we shall have to see if congress determines they were reasonable.

Some of the items marked "HOM" (harm to ongoing matter) - seem like it will be easy for reporters to reverse engineer (the name length and the fact they are alphabetized should make the names easy to determine).
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 18, 2019, 12:18:43 PM
I'm sure CNN will find something that fits the length of the blanks and their narrative.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on April 18, 2019, 12:51:45 PM
Ah figured out what was going on.

It is two volumes, and both volumes are numbered from page 1.  So I was looking for the redactions mentioned in volume 1, on the page numbers of volume 2.

Looking at volume 2 - which is the investigation in to obstruction.  They state that

Quote
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the President committed crimes. [...] Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgement when no charges could be brought.

So - because in the DOJ's opinion - you can't charge a sitting President (only after they leave office), they refused to reach a judgement or evaluate the evidence.  Instead they can only 'investigate' and provide the findings of their investigation.

They similarly reason that they can't bring a sealed indictment against the President, because if they did - it might leak, and thus damage his reputation (since he can't be charged while President in their opinion) and that such a leak would 'impair his ability to govern'.

The DoJ's policy on this is utterly insane.

These are on pages 214is (of 448) for those interested, the inability to copy and paste is a huge pain.

Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 18, 2019, 01:18:06 PM
Article with link to searchable PDF (https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/04/18/searchable-version-mueller-report-pdf/)

Not really sure why DOJ released a printed (imaged) version, maybe they have an antiquated redaction process.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 18, 2019, 01:28:57 PM
Images are less risky for just the reason you mention.  Why take a chance that some PDF editing or word processor feature translated over to the PDF making the text "under" the redaction searchable or able to have a layer turned off? 
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 18, 2019, 01:41:50 PM
Images are less risky for just the reason you mention.  Why take a chance that some PDF editing or word processor feature translated over to the PDF making the text "under" the redaction searchable or able to have a layer turned off?

Didn't the pentagon have pretty much exactly that happen with one of it's more high profile releases? The redactions turned out to be a "layer" in Adobe Acrobat, which the media quickly figured out how to remove.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 18, 2019, 01:51:09 PM
I'm sure that happened once. I've even heard of somebody just setting a background color to match the letters (but not removing the ascii from the file). It still doesn't explain why they didn't take the one extra step that others did to run through OCR again after doing a scan of a printout or whatever those images came from.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on April 18, 2019, 01:56:27 PM
I think this is probably the most slam-dunk case of obstruction of justice you can have without a literal recording of the indivudal uttering the phrase "I am intending to obstruct justice".

It is a mockery of justice if you can't indict a sitting President for a crime.  If it would interfere with his ability to govern, that is part of why we have a VP.  That is such an utterly absurd policy.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 18, 2019, 02:52:35 PM
Never mind the fact that Mueller himself didn't think it was the slam-dunk you think it is.

Quote
Special counsel Robert Mueller's lengthy report made public Thursday reviewed President Donald Trump's attempts to muddy the investigation, including efforts to tamper with witnesses, but decided not to charge him with obstruction because there was no underlying crime and many of the attempts were carried out in plain view.

So we don't want to paint a picture that the only reason Trump isn't indicted is because of the precedent to not indict a sitting president.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 18, 2019, 02:55:35 PM
Can we at least agree that the attacks on Barr are completely over the line?  Man's got a great record and served as the AG previously.

Actually he has suggested it is impossible for a President to commit the crime of obstruction of justice.  He has also said it is "impossible to commit obstruction of justice if there is no underlying crime" - also blatantly false which any experienced prosecutor knows.   Ergo he has a complete lack of credibility.

If he is willing to lie on those, I don't see why we shouldn't doubt he integrity and credibility on other aspects.

What justice should be applied to someone if they've not committed a crime?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on April 18, 2019, 02:56:30 PM
For the Trump Tower meeting - charges weren't brought because they can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that the meeting attendees knew in advance it was illegal.

Quote
On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful. The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context. The government does not have strong evidence of surreptitious behavior or efforts at concealment at the time of the June 9 meeting. While the government has evidence of later efforts to prevent disclosure of the nature of the June 9 meeting that could circumstantially provide support fr a showing of scienter, see Volume II, Section II.G, infra, that concealment occurred more than a year later, involved individuals who did not attend the June 9 meeting, and may reflect an intention to avoid political consequences rather than any prior knowledge of illegality. Additionally, in light of the unresolved legal questions about whether giving "documents and information" of the sort offered here constitutes a campaign contribution, Trump Jr. could mount a factual defense that he did not believe his response to the offer and the June 9 meeting itself violated the law. Given his less direct involvement in arranging the June 9 meeting, Kushner could likely mount a similar defense. And, while Manafort is experienced with political campaigns, the Office has not developed evidence showing that he had relevant knowledge of these legal issues.

[...] And while value in a conspiracy may well be measured by what the participants expected to receive at the time of the agreement, see, e.g., United States v. Tombrello, 666 F.2d 485,489 (11th Cir. 1982), Goldstone's description of the offered material here was quite general. His suggestion of the information's value-i.e., that it would "incriminate Hillary" and "would be very useful to [Trump Jr.'s] father"-was nonspecific and may have been understood as being of uncertain worth or reliability, given Goldstone's lack of direct access to the original source. The uncertainty over what would be delivered could be reflected in Trump Jr.'s response ("if it's what you say I love it") (emphasis added).
Accordingly, taking into account the high burden to establish a culpable mental state in a campaign-finance prosecution and the difficulty in establishing the required valuation, the Office decided not to pursue criminal campaign-finance charges against Trump Jr. or other campaign officials fr the events culminating in the June 9 meeting.

So in this case - ignorance of the law is a defense.

Also thanks for the OCRed link - it has a lot of errors, but much better than typing it from hand.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on April 18, 2019, 03:00:14 PM
Never mind the fact that Mueller himself didn't think it was the slam-dunk you think it is.

He didn't offer an opinion.

Quote
Special counsel Robert Mueller's lengthy report made public Thursday reviewed President Donald Trump's attempts to muddy the investigation, including efforts to tamper with witnesses, but decided not to charge him with obstruction because there was no underlying crime and many of the attempts were carried out in plain view.

Where is that quote from?  Definitely isn't in the report and I don't see anything implying that.

Quote
So we don't want to paint a picture that the only reason Trump isn't indicted is because of the precedent to not indict a sitting president.

Please read the report, I think that is absolutely the take-away.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 18, 2019, 03:14:24 PM
Quote
The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.

This works in the other direction too. Difficult issues. Not Slam-dunk. But I'm sure you can pull something else out to prove what you believe to be true.

The summary I provided is from NBC, you can generally track such things down by pasting the quote and searching it, but here's the article. NBC (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-s-report-trump-sections-blacked-out-released-public-n990191). I generally trust that it isn't "fake news" because it is not an opinion piece, it is a source that is definitely not Trump-leaning, and I am not willing to sift through 400 pages to find justification for what I already believed.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 18, 2019, 03:34:29 PM
So in this case - ignorance of the law is a defense.

Also thanks for the OCRed link - it has a lot of errors, but much better than typing it from hand.

Hey, it worked for Hillary!
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on April 18, 2019, 03:40:47 PM

The summary I provided is from NBC,

Why not provide a link when you post a quote.

Quote
I generally trust that it isn't "fake news" because it is not an opinion piece, it is a source that is definitely not Trump-leaning, and I am not willing to sift through 400 pages to find justification for what I already believed.

Well if you read further down your link where the actually quote from the report,

Quote
Mueller's office says it weighed charging Trump with obstruction, but didn't in part because "we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct."

Which is again inaccurate - Meuller explicitly stated he had no intention of a Prosecutorial finding and no intention of charging or indicting a sitting President as per the guidance of the OLC.

I'm not sure how they came up with the paragraph that you quoted, but it was not at all implied or stated in the report.

The beginning of the report is what I was quoting from - where the explicitly lay out that the will not be making a Prosecutorial finding and the reasoning for it.  The paragraph you quoted stated that the Mueller "decided not to charge him with obstruction because there was no underlying crime and many of the attempts were carried out in plain view," is 100% false.  (Perhaps they confused Barr's statement with Mueller?)

Ah, they appear to be misreading this paragraph, discussing some of the features that differ from a typical obstruction of justice investivation.

Quote
Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of-justice cases. First, the investigation concerned the President, and some of his actions, such as firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time, the President's position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses-all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis. Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct. Third, many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 18, 2019, 03:46:30 PM
Quote
Mueller's office says it weighed charging Trump with obstruction, but didn't in part because "we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct."

Doesn't "in part" imply "not entirely because of"?

Quote
Why not provide a link when you post a quote.

I usually do. Lately I've gotten the feeling that nobody is clicking on them or reading them, and if somebody really wants to know they can slice a sentence out and google it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on April 18, 2019, 03:50:19 PM
Barr definitely put his own spin on the report with his initial statements on the "principal conclusions".

It's accurate to say that Mueller declined to accuse the President of obstruction of justice, but he goes out of his way to explain that he did not think he should do so even if the evidence warrants it. He offers:

1) OLC guidance against indicting sitting President
2) Sealed indictment might leak
3) Might interfere with Congress's ability to hold the President accountable

#3 is pretty key, and I think Barr's response to this question this morning is significantly misleading:

Quote
Reporter: "Did the special counsel indicate that he wanted you to make the decision or that it should be left for Congress? And also, how do you respond to criticism you're receiving from congressional Democrats that you're acting more as an attorney for the president rather than as the chief law enforcement officer?"

Barr: "Well, special counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress. I hope that was not his view, since we don't convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose. He did not -- I didn't talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision."

Clearly the reporter doesn't mean that Congress should decide whether DOJ indicts the President. The question was whether Mueller intended for Congress to determine whether and how to hold the President accountable for obstruction of justice. There's evidence in the report that Mueller thinks that's the preferable alternative given the constraints he listed out.

All that being said, no, there's no slam dunk. Nobody in the Senate is going to suddenly want to convict after impeachment based on this report. Mostly it's stuff we already knew.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 18, 2019, 03:54:46 PM
Quote
"the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims."

The left calls that obstruction. WTF? Full cooperation, provided access to everything and everyone involved with the direction they testify freely, and no claims of executive privilege.

How does this behavior obstruct the investigation?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on April 18, 2019, 03:58:09 PM
Quote
Mueller's office says it weighed charging Trump with obstruction, but didn't in part because "we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct."

Doesn't "in part" imply "not entirely because of"?

See my edit - I pointed out that they were (again) making inaccurate statements.  Mueller never intended to make a Prosecutorial finding and thus charges as per OLC.

Here is the opening to the obstruction investigation report, which is explains their reasoning in not giving a prosecutorial finding nor issuing a sealed indictment

Quote
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at
this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5 The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern."6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual§ 9-27.220.

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on April 18, 2019, 04:02:23 PM
scifibum,

I think it is a slam dunk in that the evidence is overwhelming.  The only way a prosecutor wouldn't win the case, is via a juror simply ignoring the evidence.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on April 18, 2019, 04:19:20 PM
Quote
I think it is a slam dunk in that the evidence is overwhelming.  The only way a prosecutor wouldn't win the case, is via a juror simply ignoring the evidence.

I agree however its not going to change anything. Arguing otherwise is only strengthening Trump.
I'm leaving it up to History to clear things up. (Just as it did for OJ and MJ) But even then those on the wrong side of history won't care much.

If everyone who really believes that these things matter votes accordingly then the madness will be over in two years. But I'm not optimistic that is going to happen.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on April 18, 2019, 04:22:36 PM
Quote
"the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims."

The left calls that obstruction. WTF? Full cooperation, provided access to everything and everyone involved with the direction they testify freely, and no claims of executive privilege.

How does this behavior obstruct the investigation?

That is not a remotely accurate summary. Barr seems to be shilling there.

In the report Barr is releasing as he says this, it's documented that Trump tried to get McGahn to lie, he instructed Hicks and Trump Jr. to lie. He publicly condemned people cooperating with prosecutors and praised those who seemed to be withholding cooperation. 
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 18, 2019, 04:39:28 PM
I'll give it one more try. Section unedited for full disclosure of their reasoning.

BBC breaks down its summary with supporting quotes. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47983775)

Quote
No 'underlying crime'

On potential obstruction of justice, the Mueller report makes clear the inquiry is far from the "total exoneration" claimed by Mr Trump during a victory lap last month.

The document cites 10 instances that were investigated as potential obstruction by Mr Trump, most of them already known because, as the inquiry says, they largely "took place in public view".

The report ultimately concludes: "Unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."

It adds: "Obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime."

But the report also pointedly notes:

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."

To be guilty of obstruction, it would have to be established that Mr Trump had "corrupt intent" when he tried to undercut the investigation.

As the report makes clear, a president has wide constitutional latitude to act under his executive authority. And legal experts point out that Mr Trump could simply have argued he believed the investigation was a meritless waste of government resources.

Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on April 18, 2019, 05:00:50 PM
TheDrake,

are you willfully ignoring the 4 paragraphs that I quoted from the start of the the Mueller report where he explains why he will not provide a Prosecutorial finding?  There is no conclusion because he explicitly refused to make such a finding due to OLC policy that you can't charge a sitting President or even file a sealed indictment against a sitting President.  A Prosecutorial finding of innocence or exhoneration would be allowed by OLC policy.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 18, 2019, 05:06:18 PM
Yes, that was the summary. I am providing evidence that there are reasons why a prosecution might not be a slam dunk.

Are you willfully ignoring the fact that even if you sweep aside precedent and the indictment problem, that there is a defense that can be mounted successfully, specifically as stated?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 18, 2019, 05:55:39 PM
I'll give it one more try. Section unedited for full disclosure of their reasoning.

BBC breaks down its summary with supporting quotes. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47983775)

Quote
To be guilty of obstruction, it would have to be established that Mr Trump had "corrupt intent" when he tried to undercut the investigation.

As the report makes clear, a president has wide constitutional latitude to act under his executive authority. And legal experts point out that Mr Trump could simply have argued he believed the investigation was a meritless waste of government resources.

And that would be his defense, particularly as it relates to his "public behavior" given they failed to find sufficient evidence regarding the thing they actually were investigating.

As it is, thing that seems to be getting ignored is they seemed to be alluding to the possibility that IF they had pursued criminal obstruction charges against Trump, it would have potentially prevented Congress from pursuing impeachment proceedings, among a number of other constitutional issues.

Knowing their findings were likely to make it to Congress, it is reasonable for them to issue the report based on evidence available at the time, and let somebody else address the issue through Articles of Impeachment, or prosecution after Trump's term of office has concluded.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 18, 2019, 05:55:48 PM
Quote
"the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims."

The left calls that obstruction. WTF? Full cooperation, provided access to everything and everyone involved with the direction they testify freely, and no claims of executive privilege.

How does this behavior obstruct the investigation?

That is not a remotely accurate summary. Barr seems to be shilling there.

In the report Barr is releasing as he says this, it's documented that Trump tried to get McGahn to lie, he instructed Hicks and Trump Jr. to lie. He publicly condemned people cooperating with prosecutors and praised those who seemed to be withholding cooperation.

Sure. Whatever you say.

Why do you think none of the 17 lawyers or 40 FBI agents or even Mueller himself, who have leaked heavily this whole time, are not contradicting Barr?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 18, 2019, 06:20:07 PM
Quote
If Trump had really wanted to obstruct the investigation, he could simply have terminated it. And Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way. So the “attempts to obstruct” come down to Trump expressing outrage at the fact that a baseless, partisan investigation was hampering his administration.

See that? Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way. The left calls this obstruction. It’s insane.

No collusion. No obstruction.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 18, 2019, 06:32:16 PM
Quote
Why do you think none of the 17 lawyers or 40 FBI agents or even Mueller himself, who have leaked heavily this whole time, are not contradicting Barr?

Be patient, Crunch.  Mueller hasn't appeared in front of Congress yet. :)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 18, 2019, 07:14:23 PM
Quote
Why do you think none of the 17 lawyers or 40 FBI agents or even Mueller himself, who have leaked heavily this whole time, are not contradicting Barr?

Be patient, Crunch.  Mueller hasn't appeared in front of Congress yet. :)

What do you think mueller withheld from the report that he will reveal to congress? Why did mueller withhold it?

Why do the dozens of other investigators remain silent if Barr has misrepresented them?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 18, 2019, 07:32:28 PM
This is literally where we are:

Liberals: Trump stole the election by colluding with Russia!

Trump: I didn’t collude.

Liberals: We’ll wait for House investigation.

House committee: No collusion!

Liberals: We’ll wait for Senate investigation.

Senate committee: No collusion!

Liberals: We’ll wait for Mueller report.

Mueller: No collusion!

Liberals: BUT OBSTRUCTION

We now go back to the beginning.    :o
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: seekingprometheus on April 18, 2019, 08:43:16 PM
Scifi:
Quote
All that being said, no, there's no slam dunk. Nobody in the Senate is going to suddenly want to convict after impeachment based on this report. Mostly it's stuff we already knew.
Only if you distrusted the POTUS' persistent pronouncements that all the news stories about his connections with Russia were fake news.

It seems that all the major reporting stories which Don was declaiming as fake news (Don Jr Russia meeting, sourceless leaks about staff defiance of crazy orders, etc) were largely true.

Meanwhile, the whole legal question seems like it would come down to whether or not Trump's intent in obstructing like we all saw him publicly do was corrupt.

Lol!

That should be a slam dunk, but there's no accounting for the judgment of a jury of his peers, when it comes to the question of corruption.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 18, 2019, 09:53:35 PM
Why do the dozens of other investigators remain silent if Barr has misrepresented them?

Allegedly many of them haven't been particularly silent, but they're staying in the shadows with their complaints rather than going whistleblower.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 19, 2019, 09:42:39 AM
Why do the dozens of other investigators remain silent if Barr has misrepresented them?

Allegedly many of them haven't been particularly silent, but they're staying in the shadows with their complaints rather than going whistleblower.

 :o
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 19, 2019, 09:51:08 AM
I have not had a chance to read the report in whole and my initial reaction from the executive summaries is that it looks like a hit job.  I'd caution everyone to realize that what you read may not be the truth or the only version of a story.  If one person said what the prosecutors wanted to hear and eleven said it didn't happen, what ended up in the report (Guiliani has flat out said that some of the things in the report were directly contradicted, and known to have been directly contradicted, by the special counsel's office by more credible witnesses).

The one thing I do know, is this report was not written to end the controversy.  I can't imagine how you could write a report to generate more partisan discord, than to fail to make a case for obstruction (ergo, no corruption charges), yet still write out a report that shows you really wanted to bring those charges. 

I think the summary that LR cites to (describing what Meuller thought he could and couldn't do on obstruction) is disingenuous.  It's laid out that way to give Meuller an excuse for not bringing charges that he doubted would be valid or winning in court, notwithstanding that his team was convinced of the "truth" of them, by implying that he couldn't do so.  It's a version of the ultimate in prosecutor dirty tricks, knowing you don't have a legal case, but still smearing the accused where the accused won't be able to directly confront the statements in court.

In any event, I will give updates when I do read it, though I expect, unfortunately, that'll be too late to change any minds.  Just remember as you go forward, you didn't get every version of each event, and what you did get may not be the truth (that's why we have the right to cross examine and introduce witnesses that contradict the account).  Go back and watch My Cousin Vinnie if you want to see the difference between an air tight prosecution case, and an ultimate reality.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 19, 2019, 09:52:34 AM
Glenn Greenwald:
Quote
These facts are fatal to the conspiracy theorists who have drowned U.S. discourse for almost three years with a dangerous and distracting fixation on a fictitious espionage thriller involved unhinged claims of sexual and financial blackmail, nefarious infiltration of the U.S. Government by familiar foreign villains, and election cheating that empowered an illegitimate President. They got the exact prosecutor and investigation that they wanted, yet he could not establish that any of this happened and, in many cases, established that it did not.

No collusion. No obstruction.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 19, 2019, 10:28:01 AM
Who's a good birdie?  Crunch want a cracker?

We heard Trump the first time.  ;)

I for one am glad that the talk of him being a willing foreign agent will finally be silenced (even if I think the number of those claiming such has been overblown by his defenders).  I'm saddened that the current spin/deflection is trying to make it appear the man did nothing wrong. 

Thanks to those around Trump willing to say, "Sir that's *censored*ing insane... No, just... no."  I honestly didn't think there were any/many around to do so.  As upset as the other side gets when one is in power anymore, it's good to see a lot of the pressure valves and safety nets do their job in protecting us from bad decisions.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 19, 2019, 11:06:22 AM
Quote
I have not had a chance to read the report in whole and my initial reaction from the executive summaries is that it looks like a hit job.  I'd caution everyone to realize that what you read may not be the truth or the only version of a story.  If one person said what the prosecutors wanted to hear and eleven said it didn't happen, what ended up in the report (Guiliani has flat out said that some of the things in the report were directly contradicted, and known to have been directly contradicted, by the special counsel's office by more credible witnesses).

Are you saying, Seriati, that we should not put too much credence into this report that completely and totally exonerated Trump on collusion and obstruction of justice? ;)

OK, if you say so. :)

(BTW, I wouldn't take Guiliani's word over Mueller's any day of the week, year, or millennium.  In fact, I wouldn't take him at this word at all.  That man has already proven himself to be a stupid shill for Trump, and would probably lie at the drop of a hat if he thought it would help him.  A utterly unreliable source.)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: ScottF on April 19, 2019, 11:18:31 AM
Quote
I have not had a chance to read the report in whole and my initial reaction from the executive summaries is that it looks like a hit job.  I'd caution everyone to realize that what you read may not be the truth or the only version of a story.  If one person said what the prosecutors wanted to hear and eleven said it didn't happen, what ended up in the report (Guiliani has flat out said that some of the things in the report were directly contradicted, and known to have been directly contradicted, by the special counsel's office by more credible witnesses).

Are you saying, Seriati, that we should not put too much credence into this report that completely and totally exonerated Trump on collusion and obstruction of justice? ;)

OK, if you say so. :)

(BTW, I wouldn't take Guiliani's word over Mueller's any day of the week, year, or millennium.  In fact, I wouldn't take him at this word at all.  That man has already proven himself to be a stupid shill for Trump, and would probably lie at the drop of a hat if he thought it would help him.  A utterly unreliable source.)

I think he's also saying the facts within the report will have a zero percent chance of changing anyone's mind. He said it less definitively but I believe the odds of someone actually changing their opinion based on the report is 0.0. Too much confirmation bias on both sides for this to have ever been anything other than radio static for the next month or two until it fades into the background. I suppose that's ultimately a "win" for the Trump side and continued misery on the orange-man-bad side.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 19, 2019, 11:44:18 AM
Sadly, youare probably correct. The left got exactly the investigation they wanted by the guys they wanted to do it and now dismiss the results.

From page 2 of the report:
Quote
The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election of interference activities.

Yet there are people, even on this forum, that still maintain there are mountains of proof that Trump coordinated with Putin and is a Russian agent.

Quote
Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way.

Yet people, right here on this forum, insist that despite Mueller confirming such cooperation that there must be obstruction. Note, these are the same people that for the last 2+ years told us about all that proof of Russian collusion which, it turns out, never existed.

There is a level of denial here at work that’s just truly incredible. I hope it lasts.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 19, 2019, 11:53:14 AM
I think the biggest disconnect is Trump defenders lumping all his opponents into one group.  There were SOME people who believed this investigation would uncover a direct criminal link between the Russian government and Trump/his campaign.  There were A LOT of people who believed it would reveal criminal behavior on the part of Trump/his campaign.  Calling it a fishing expedition or what have you, but the people in the latter group are going to read it an find a lot of what they believed confirmed.  It's only the smaller first group that got shut down.

Either way.  The problems / vulnerabilities are apparent to all.  I expect we'll see swift bipartisan action to address them...   ::)

I'll say it again, I'm thankful for those in this administration restraining DJT to the best of their ability.  Your nation thanks you, as should your boss who's ass you probably saved by telling him "NO".
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on April 19, 2019, 11:54:03 AM
For those interested, here are really good summaries of the two reports.

The first summarizes the first volume of the report (Russian activity, and interaction between Russia and Trump campaign), I was doing my own summary and spent a couple of hours last night reading the report, but this is better than I could have done.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis

This is a detailed summary of the second volume of the report looking at each instance of potential obstruction of justice, and to what extent there is evidence to support such a charge in each instance (if in fact all three elements of the crime were met).

https://www.lawfareblog.com/appendix-instances-obstruction-mueller-report
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 19, 2019, 12:05:36 PM
Quote
Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way.

Who said that, Crunch?  And why should I believe that person?

And if the administration cooperated with the investigation "in every way," why are there 11 instances of apparent obstruction of justice listed in the report?  ???
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Lloyd Perna on April 19, 2019, 01:01:32 PM
Quote
Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way.

Who said that, Crunch?  And why should I believe that person?

And if the administration cooperated with the investigation "in every way," why are there 11 instances of apparent obstruction of justice listed in the report?  ???

I think you are misstating what the report says.  I think a more correct statement would be "there were 11 instances of possible obstruction investigated and the evidence they found for each is summarized in the report"

The report makes no statement regarding whether that evidence supports an obstruction charge.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on April 19, 2019, 01:26:28 PM
Sure. Whatever you say.

Why do you think none of the 17 lawyers or 40 FBI agents or even Mueller himself, who have leaked heavily this whole time, are not contradicting Barr?

This is a strange argument for you to make, since Mueller's team has famously been tight lipped, and it only began to change after Barr's summarization came out - THEN a few of the team members began talking on background to reporters about how Barr was not fairly representing the report.  The opposite of what you seem to be saying here.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on April 19, 2019, 01:31:07 PM
Sadly, youare probably correct. The left got exactly the investigation they wanted by the guys they wanted to do it and now dismiss the results.

From page 2 of the report:
Quote
The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election of interference activities.

Yet there are people, even on this forum, that still maintain there are mountains of proof that Trump coordinated with Putin and is a Russian agent.

Quote
Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way.

Yet people, right here on this forum, insist that despite Mueller confirming such cooperation that there must be obstruction. Note, these are the same people that for the last 2+ years told us about all that proof of Russian collusion which, it turns out, never existed.

There is a level of denial here at work that’s just truly incredible. I hope it lasts.

Couple of things.

1. Your second quote - who said that? Those aren't Mueller's words. There are plenty of ways described in the report that the President was not cooperative, to put it mildly. That quote is a dishonest or ignorant summary.

2. You're making things up. Go pull the quotes of people right here on this forum who said there are mountains of proof of the nature you're representing here.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on April 19, 2019, 01:33:20 PM
This is literally where we are:

Liberals: Trump stole the election by colluding with Russia!

Trump: I didn’t collude.

Liberals: We’ll wait for House investigation.

House committee: No collusion!

Liberals: We’ll wait for Senate investigation.

Senate committee: No collusion!

Liberals: We’ll wait for Mueller report.

Mueller: No collusion!

Liberals: BUT OBSTRUCTION

We now go back to the beginning.    :o

It strikes me if you're confident in your position you wouldn't rely so much on inaccurate paraphrases and lumping all "liberals" together.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 19, 2019, 02:37:25 PM
It's not directly the Mueller Report, but if you want to see how perjury traps are set up, take a look at the now released questions that the Special Counsel's office submitted to President Trump.  And consider also, that there are a couple that were phrased so that either answer would lead to incrimination - take a look at I h. for example, and try to imagine how to answer that in a way that couldn't be twisted.

If you want to see how one is completely frustrated then also read President Trump's answers.

Seriously, ask yourself if you could provide an answer in the level of detail asked for without a single misstatement.  Then ask yourself if every person you referred to would have an identical memory of each of those conversations to what you yourself had.  Any conflict or forgotten meeting by either side sets up a potential charge for lying to the prosecutor, which sets up pressure to force that person to dispute other specific conversations.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-trump-s-written-responses-mueller-report-n995851 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-trump-s-written-responses-mueller-report-n995851)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 19, 2019, 03:28:52 PM
I hear you say that all the time, Seriati, but I still don't really accept it. You present it like somebody just sprung up out of nowhere and demanded answers. Take questions about the timing of meetings on Trump tower moscow. Somebody might not remember that detail if they hadn't thought about it in a year or more. You and your lawyers know they are going to ask about trump tower moscow, however. You have your plane tickets from when you went out there. You can review your email. There is absolutely no reason why people shouldn't have been prepped with the proper information, and for that matter why they couldn't have provided it in advance if they were truly cooperating.

Let's say you overlook it in preparation. If you don't know, you get to answer that you don't know.

Let's say you made a mistake. Presumably you could look at your own deposition and proactively amend your testimony.

If what you are saying is true, then doesn't it suggest the entire system of testimony and deposition breaks down? That's a much bigger issue than what happened to Trump's aides.

Here's a set of tips for people giving depositions (randomly on a law blog):

Quote
Some Tips for Dealing With the Process—Preparation

Be prepared. Spend some time before the deposition date thinking about the event or circumstances you'll be questioned about. You might want to make some notes to jog your memory. You can bring the notes with you to the deposition.

See, you git to bring notes with you. You don't have to memorize the information.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 19, 2019, 07:03:21 PM
Sure. Whatever you say.

Why do you think none of the 17 lawyers or 40 FBI agents or even Mueller himself, who have leaked heavily this whole time, are not contradicting Barr?

This is a strange argument for you to make, since Mueller's team has famously been tight lipped, and it only began to change after Barr's summarization came out - THEN a few of the team members began talking on background to reporters about how Barr was not fairly representing the report.  The opposite of what you seem to be saying here.

Did you not warch the news for the last 2 years?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Redskullvw on April 20, 2019, 08:52:31 AM
If at this point in time you cannot comprehend the report and realize that this was an incredible attack on our election process, then you are either so partisan that you are blind or you really can't read English. The entire step by step process has only one logical conclusion. A sitting President, his leadership in the Department of Justice, the Democrat party and its Presidential candidate intentionally and attempted to nullify the election of the Republican nominee and after the election, push for invalid grounds for impeachment.

if you are not realizing you've been lied to for two years and cannot recognize how unprecedented this is in United States political process, there is zero competency in your logic and discernment of facts.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: seekingprometheus on April 20, 2019, 03:11:30 PM
Quote
if you are not realizing you've been lied to for two years
I think that everyone gets that they're being lied to, Redskull, the issue is that we don't seem to agree on the question of who it is who is doing the lying.

At this point (the release of the redacted Mueller report) it seems pretty apparent that the individual who has been lying the most to the most people is...Trump.

Most of the biased right writers around here have been claiming that the media has been lying to us in their portrayal of Trump's actions (read: lies), but it appears that the reputable liberal sources of news (NYT, WP) have been telling the truth all along.

The stories about Trump's attempts to obstruct the Mueller investigation (which he has been lying and calling fake news) were all true, according to the report. What has been reported about his (or his people's) dealing with Russia (eg his attempts to put up a hotel in Moscow at a time he was claiming he had no dealing in Russia) has also been largely true.

I've never considered myself to be part of the liberal echo chamber--as I frequently find myself partial to arguments which typically are asserted by voices on the political right, and because I find that many voices which I identify as representative of the liberal echo chamber lack the logic of simple common sense--but to be honest, I'm so turned off to the total deafness to hypocrisy in the conservative echo chamber these days that I'm not even certain specifically whom you are calling a liar, at this point. It's not Trump, to your mind, I suppose, but I'm confident that you'd be hard pressed to find another individual who has been proven at this point in time to have been lying to us more over the last two years than the sitting POTUS...

The president has been attacking the credibility of the fourth estate, and persistently calling the truth about his behaviors "fake news." According to the Mueller report, the major reporting Trump was declaiming as false, was decidedly true. Trump has been lying to the American people about what he is really doing and saying behind closed doors, even when it has been leaked to the news--he just lies about it more. Until you can come up with a better liar, it seems to me that Donald Trump is the current Liar-to-US-in-Chief.

Btw, obstruction of justice is a perfectly constitutionally valid reason for impeachment (even if our silly political system doesn't permit for impeachment for lying to the people like your job depends on it), and, at this point, it is well-established that there is plenty of evidence Trump that obstructed Justice.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on April 20, 2019, 05:19:50 PM
if you are not realizing you've been lied to for two years and cannot recognize how unprecedented this is in United States political process, there is zero competency in your logic and discernment of facts.

Oh we absolutely were lied to - but it appears to be solely by Trump and Republican mouthpieces.  Nearly everything reported about Trump and his and his campaign and cabinet members and people acting on his behalf (such as Cohen) has been accurate.

The only reason more Trump campaign members aren't in jail is because it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they had criminal intent (arguing ignorance of the law) when they committed their crimes.  Not because they didn't engage in the criminal behavior that was reported in the newspapers.

Similarly the only reason Trump isn't under indictment is due to quite dubious findings by the Office of Legal Council (findings that were not based on law, but rather by the person drafting the finding asking the AG what outcome he wanted), that state that a sitting President can't be charged or indicted.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 20, 2019, 05:53:30 PM
To quote the great sage Ice T:  Don't hate the player, hate the game.
 8)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 20, 2019, 06:16:10 PM
No collusion. No obstruction.

You guys got 3 investigations, 1 of them by exactly the guy and process you wanted. It’s pretty incredible that you now reject the findings of all of them.

When Trump wins his second term, it’s really gonna be something to watch.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 20, 2019, 06:54:58 PM
NO illegal collusion, MAYBE obstruction.  get it right Crunch.  :)

Investigation went about exactly as I expected it to.  Several convictions and lots of shady activity nobody should condone revealed.  But hey, he was upset and scared and treated unfairly, that excuses a lot!  I guess.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 21, 2019, 01:37:54 AM
NO illegal collusion, MAYBE obstruction.  get it right Crunch.  :)

Investigation went about exactly as I expected it to.  Several convictions and lots of shady activity nobody should condone revealed.  But hey, he was upset and scared and treated unfairly, that excuses a lot!  I guess.

Considering the entire basis of the investigation was 100% politically motivated from the onset, and the investigation also failed to produce anything to substantiate what political basis for investigation even was, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Trump on the obstruction charges.

He was elected to be President of the United States. Not a Saint.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 21, 2019, 01:50:17 AM
Also there is a thing called "spirit of the law" or "spirit in which the law was written" vs "the letter of the law" and with a lot of what has surrounded Trump, from some of the Campaign Finance violations to even the obstruction issues present, I have to tend to strongly to believe the "spirit of the law" would be siding with Trump over the Democrats wanting to haggle over the precise interpretation of each individual letter used in the phrasing of a particular law.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: DonaldD on April 21, 2019, 06:59:31 AM
politically motivated... so Republicans investigated Republicans, but it was all politically motivated...

You didn't also believe that these investigations, initiated by the majority party and run by majority party representatives, were, as the president repeated endlessly, a Democrat driven witch hunt, do you?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 21, 2019, 08:50:53 AM
politically motivated... so Republicans investigated Republicans, but it was all politically motivated...

You didn't also believe that these investigations, initiated by the majority party and run by majority party representatives, were, as the president repeated endlessly, a Democrat driven witch hunt, do you?

You do remember there was an extremely Democrat Friendly media which was running almost wall to wall coverage with accusations from the Clinton Campaign and outgoing Obama Administration officials at the time?

The Republicans couldn't ignore it even if they wanted to, and given the large Never-Trump contingent in Washington, I doubt most did to start with.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 21, 2019, 10:14:38 AM
politically motivated... so Republicans investigated Republicans, but it was all politically motivated...

You didn't also believe that these investigations, initiated by the majority party and run by majority party representatives, were, as the president repeated endlessly, a Democrat driven witch hunt, do you?

Yes, politically motivated. I find it unbelievable that you don’t know this.  It started off with Democrats from the Obama administration and loyalists in DOJ and CIA and the Clinton campaign. Never-Trumpers from the Republican party, a significant faction within the Republican party, quickly joined the coup efforts.

Hopefully there will be an investigation of this witch hunt and the attempted coup, how it started and who drove it. It should be far ranging with a mandate to track down all the evidence and ultimately jail people like Comey, Clapper, Mueller, Strzok, Lynch, and all the other co-conspirators, including investigation of their business associates, families, and friends. It is my sincere hope that Trump unleashes the full vindictive might of the justice department on all of them.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 21, 2019, 10:32:03 AM
NO illegal collusion, MAYBE obstruction.  get it right Crunch.  :)

Investigation went about exactly as I expected it to.  Several convictions and lots of shady activity nobody should condone revealed.  But hey, he was upset and scared and treated unfairly, that excuses a lot!  I guess.

I do have it right, no collusion, no obstruction. If it was anything else, 3 investigations with the final one being exactly what the left wanted and the way they wanted it would have uncovered the evidence to support your accusations. With no legal violations, the best that could be done was build a foundation of innuendo to try to keep the political efforts going.

Not a single person was indicted, convicted, or even implicated in collusion with the Russian. Zero. Even the NYT is now coming forward with the idea that the Steele dossier was largely bull*censored* or completely unverified crap. This was a witch hunt, literally an attempted coup.  Every American should be upset at the attempted overthrow of a legally elected president - Trump especially. They took their shot and missed, now Trump should destroy them.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 21, 2019, 03:00:20 PM
Quote
They took their shot and missed, now Trump should destroy them.
With?  His black magic witchy powers?  :D
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: DJQuag on April 21, 2019, 06:36:10 PM
Have to admit it's pretty funny to me to see right wingers getting worked up over the Russia thing. You know, after the birther thing.

Reap what you sow, my friends.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: DJQuag on April 21, 2019, 06:38:14 PM
Quote
They took their shot and missed, now Trump should destroy them.
With?  His black magic witchy powers?  :D

Trump is the King and can do whatever he wants.

Source: Trump's twitter account.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 22, 2019, 08:13:55 AM
Quote
They took their shot and missed, now Trump should destroy them.
With?  His black magic witchy powers?  :D

No, with the FBI. And, if he wants, the CIA and the IRS.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on April 22, 2019, 12:27:16 PM
Quote
No, with the FBI. And, if he wants, the CIA and the IRS.

Are you saying you would be OK with a president using the CIA and IRS to get revenge?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 22, 2019, 01:03:47 PM
Quote
No, with the FBI. And, if he wants, the CIA and the IRS.

Are you saying you would be OK with a president using the CIA and IRS to get revenge?

I'm saying if it was OK for Obama to use the IRS to target conservatives, then it must be OK for Trump to do the same thing.

I'm also saying if it was OK for the CIA to engage in targeting Trump campaign staff, it's probably OK for Trump to do the same.

Why is it only bad if Trump does it?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on April 22, 2019, 01:11:10 PM
Quote
Why is it only bad if Trump does it?

I guess if we don't demand better we will never get better. But if your OK with using the argument that a president should be allowed to emulate the worst qualities of past Presidents that's fine
Likely wont end in a world we want to live it but why aim for better.

I wonder if Democracy is proving to be a failed experiment as the current trend to a false belief that giving up one freedom to the strong man or 1% is the best shot at freedom
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 22, 2019, 01:51:24 PM
You know, the only time the left demands better is when they're out of power.

What the Democrats and their media outlets have done the last 2 years is anything but democracy. It was an attempted coup, they tried to nullify an election, the very antithesis of democracy.

Trump should use every means at his disposal to identify and punish everyone that had any connection to the attempted coup - including those used by past Democrat presidents when this behavior was perfectly fine. Trump should do everything in his power to personally, professionally, and financially ruin them and then send them off for lengthy prison sentences. He should use the power of his office to such an extent that nobody ever tries this again, crushing his enemies, see them driven before him, and hear the lamentation of the women. Scorched earth, no stone unturned, no soul unburned.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on April 22, 2019, 01:56:37 PM
Be careful what you wish for. If history is to judge, the distance between being a friend of Trump and a Enemy isn't that great

We create what we Fear more often then we create what we hope for.

Quote
“If we do an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, we will be a blind and toothless nation.” ― Martin Luther King Jr
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 22, 2019, 02:08:11 PM
The only thing worse than Trump doing this would have been for the coup to succeed.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 22, 2019, 02:10:14 PM
I don't think you know what the word coup means. Even if the Democrats had impeached Trump on a bunch of made up charges, they wouldn't have been able to take executive power for themselves, nor could they have accomplished such without cooperation from Senate republicans.

If this was a coup attempt, then we've had several of them. Nixon, Clinton, and Obama have all faced widespread investigations.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 22, 2019, 04:20:33 PM
May I remind you, Crunch, that Congress has the obligation to oversee the government, including the Presidency.

If you believe that investigating the Presidency because of suspicious behavior is an attempted coup to nullify an election, and the elected officials who started that investigation should be "personally, professionally, and financially ruin[ed] ... and ... sen[t] ... off for lengthy prison sentences," then you are advocating that this role of Congress be stricken from the Constitution.  This is basically calling for the destruction of our Constitution and our system of government, since achieving the above would provide the President the power to become a dictator and destroy anyone who questions him.  >:(

If you read the Mueller report, you will see there were plenty of behaviors that were suspicious, some even being legally and morally questionable.  Most of them still are, even if Mueller determined there was insufficient evidence for criminal prosecution.  So calling for the President to use the power of his office to "crush... his enemies," "[drive] them before him," and "hear the lamentation of the women"  ( ??? )--well, let's just say that there are plenty of American patriots who love this country who will respond in kind.  :D
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on April 22, 2019, 04:47:59 PM
If I understand the conclusion of the Mueller report with regards to collusion. Mueller found evidence of Russian interference (which the base ought to be more upset about) and that Trump campaign knew Russia was interfering and capitalized on it however their was no proof of intent to conspire with Russia = no crime as “collusion” has no legal definition and isn’t a federal crime.

Mueller looked into whether the Trump campaign purposefully worked with Russia which he found reasonable doubt with regards to intent not that it didn't happen
Mueller did find several troubling interactions for example:
- Two Trump campaign officials — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — provided polling information to a Russian oligarch Gates believed was a “spy” for the Kremlin
- Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, with Trump’s approval, tried to arrange meetings between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin
- Russia tried to hack Hillary Clinton’s office five hours after Trump called on Moscow to find her deleted emails

Trump campaign may not have crossed the line of criminal intent but they did walk it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 22, 2019, 04:53:21 PM
You guys can pretend whatever you want, split all the hairs necessary. But you’re in an echo chamber. It’s not playing like you think it is anywhere but CNN, MSNBC and random Quora questions. It’s in Trump’s interest that you keep the flame alive.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on April 22, 2019, 05:10:15 PM
I agree its in Trumps interest to keep the issue alive though that doesn't change the facts even if you don't like them.
There is no collusion because collusion isn't a crime case closed

With regards to the echo chamber your argument of a coup (which you incorrectly define) is straight out of the echo chamber you take your 'truth' from

Classic case of shadow projection :)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 22, 2019, 05:29:53 PM
Quote
A coup d'état (/ˌkuː deɪˈtɑː/ (About this soundlisten); French: [ku deta]), also known as a putsch (/pʊtʃ/), a golpe, or simply as a coup, means the overthrow of an existing government; typically, this refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 22, 2019, 05:34:36 PM
There is no collusion because collusion isn't a crime case closed

It’s weird that you say this now.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 22, 2019, 05:34:47 PM
Yet the attempt was legal and constitutional and in no way an attempt to overthrow the government.  Even if your most extreme partisan fever dreams, it doesn't fit this definition.

Then again there IS what appears to be an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator going on...   ;D
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on April 22, 2019, 05:37:02 PM
exactly what your echo chamber describes as being a coup does not meet the definition.  The investigation was not unconstitutional
The echo chamber and Trump attempt to quash such investigations is unconstitutional.. so who is trying to overthrow the Constitution?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 22, 2019, 05:43:04 PM
exactly what your echo chamber describes as being a coup does not meet the definition.  The investigation was not unconstitutional
The echo chamber and Trump attempt to quash such investigations is unconstitutional.. so who is trying to overthrow the Constitution?

Illegally obtained FISA warrants, a political faction engaging in clandestine operations with foreign operatives to delegitimizate and overturn an election with the assistance of loyalists in the DOJ, FBI, and CIA. What do you want to call it?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 22, 2019, 05:59:06 PM
More investigations for all!  When laws are believed to be broken, investigate it, prove it then act in accordance with the law. 

If the law falls short, then... propose some laws to fix the system so it "never happens to a future president". 

Meanwhile, the same process will continue for the current president.  Hopefully, with more laws passed to prevent his exploitation of a flawed system so this never happens with a future president..."

We don't have to spiral down the toilet of, "Because I BELIEVE the other side is terrible, I will excuse terrible actions in my side!"   ::)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 22, 2019, 06:00:26 PM
So how exactly would the Democrats seize power, according to your definition? If Trump evaporated tomorrow, the Democrats would have zero more power, much less control of the government. They'd have to somehow get the succession to Pelosi for that, and dissolve the Senate as well.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on April 22, 2019, 06:14:35 PM
Quote
Illegally obtained FISA warrants

No, they followed the normal process and it was legal.

As for the subsequent investigations you're calling for, perhaps you will want to engage a top notch outfit called Surefire Investigations. They were ahead of the curve with this thinking.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 22, 2019, 06:20:52 PM
Quote
Illegally obtained FISA warrants

No, they followed the normal process and it was legal.

As for the subsequent investigations you're calling for, perhaps you will want to engage a top notch outfit called Surefire Investigations. They were ahead of the curve with this thinking.

They withheld the information that the document was Clinton opposition research and instead positioned it as having been legitimately gathered by law enforcement and intelligence resources. This was the “insurance policy” Strzok bragged about.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on April 23, 2019, 04:04:09 PM
They followed normal processes in FISA applications. They didn't break the law. Nunes is a clown.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 23, 2019, 04:15:16 PM
As if FISA would have set down their rubber stamp if SOURCE:HILLARY CLINTON were emblazoned on the cover of the application in rainbow glitter. FISA is a body with no oversight and no accountability.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 23, 2019, 06:40:16 PM
They followed normal processes in FISA applications. They didn't break the law. Nunes is a clown.

No matter how many times you say it, it won’t make it true.

Quote
Congressional investigators have confirmed that a top FBI official met with Democratic Party lawyers to talk about allegations of Donald Trump-Russia collusion weeks before the 2016 election, and before the bureau secured a search warrant targeting Trump’s campaign.

Former FBI general counsel James Baker met during the 2016 season with at least one attorney from Perkins Coie, the Democratic National Committee’s private law firm.

That’s the firm used by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to secretly pay research firm Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence operative, to compile a dossier of uncorroborated raw intelligence alleging Trump and Moscow were colluding to hijack the presidential election.

The dossier, though mostly unverified, was then used by the FBI as the main evidence seeking a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign in the final days of the campaign.

The revelation was confirmed both in contemporaneous evidence and testimony secured by a joint investigation by Republicans on the House Judiciary and Government Oversight committees, my source tells me.

It means the FBI had good reason to suspect the dossier was connected to the DNC’s main law firm and was the product of a Democratic opposition-research effort to defeat Trump — yet failed to disclose that information to the FISA court in October 2016, when the bureau applied for a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Do you still believe Trump colluded with Putin?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 23, 2019, 06:45:04 PM
As if FISA would have set down their rubber stamp if SOURCE:HILLARY CLINTON were emblazoned on the cover of the application in rainbow glitter. FISA is a body with no oversight and no accountability.

That FISA Court is ripe for abuse is not an excuse to abuse it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 24, 2019, 11:40:43 AM
Hey, Crunch, do you know who wrote that opinion piece you quoted extensively in you're second-to-last post?

A guy named John Solomon.

A person who "has been accused of biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Solomon)

And he's basing at least parts of his piece on an unnamed source.

Tell me, what would Donald Trump call an opinion piece by a biased reporter using an unnamed source? ;)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 24, 2019, 11:59:53 AM
BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier? (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/19/eight-times-mueller-report-shows-trump-white-house/)

Quote
The Mueller report confirms it was the actions of Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that triggered the investigation in July 2016.

Mueller’s report corroborates previous reporting in the New York Times about the sequence of events that set the probe in motion. Papadopoulos told a high-ranking Australian diplomat at an upscale London bar in May 2016 that Moscow had "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. (The Mueller report does not identify Australia, however.)

In late July — days after WikiLeaks’ dumped thousands of internal Democratic National Committee documents that proved damaging to Clinton — U.S. law enforcement became aware of Papadopoulos’ claim.

"Within a week of the (WikiLeaks) release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign," said Mueller’s report (p. 6, volume 1). "On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign."

The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used, to some extent, to persuade a U.S. foreign intelligence court to authorize surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But that wasn’t until October 2016 — several months after Papadopoulos’ actions started the investigation.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on April 24, 2019, 12:54:01 PM
He's never gonna buy that.  This particular item is the linchpin for the entire "witch hunt" narrative. 
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 24, 2019, 03:34:28 PM
BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier? (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/19/eight-times-mueller-report-shows-trump-white-house/)

Quote
The Mueller report confirms it was the actions of Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that triggered the investigation in July 2016.

Mueller’s report corroborates previous reporting in the New York Times about the sequence of events that set the probe in motion. Papadopoulos told a high-ranking Australian diplomat at an upscale London bar in May 2016 that Moscow had "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. (The Mueller report does not identify Australia, however.)

In late July — days after WikiLeaks’ dumped thousands of internal Democratic National Committee documents that proved damaging to Clinton — U.S. law enforcement became aware of Papadopoulos’ claim.

"Within a week of the (WikiLeaks) release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign," said Mueller’s report (p. 6, volume 1). "On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign."

The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used, to some extent, to persuade a U.S. foreign intelligence court to authorize surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But that wasn’t until October 2016 — several months after Papadopoulos’ actions started the investigation.

So we have

1) A tip from "a foreign government" (How much do we want to bet it was the UK? Maybe sour grapes over his pro-Brexit position?)
2) A dossier from the former agent of "a foreign government" and non-US Citizen(UK Citiizen). (which was paid for as opposition research by the Democrats)

As basis for investigation. Where no (illegal) connection was subsequently made between Trump and company with regards to Russia.

Which raises the question as to whether or not those "foreign sources" were being given incentives by agents of the DNC/Obama Admin.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: NobleHunter on April 24, 2019, 03:49:07 PM
Quote
Which raises the question as to whether or not those "foreign sources" were being given incentives by agents of the DNC/Obama Admin.

Why?

And you're aware of Five Eyes, right?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 24, 2019, 04:03:57 PM
Quote
Which raises the question as to whether or not those "foreign sources" were being given incentives by agents of the DNC/Obama Admin.

Why?

And you're aware of Five Eyes, right?

Not that specific name for it, but yes, I'm aware of the "special relationship" with the UK in particular, as well as its other significant English Speaking (Pacific Rim) former colonies.

Doesn't mean we trust everything they provide without question. Or the same in reverse for them.

That's evident in this case as well. Five Eyes by itself evidently wasn't enough to get FISA approval, it took the Steele Dossier to "put it over the top" which makes things smell more than a bit rotten, particularly given that probably gives a "double-whammy" from presumably UK Sources causing a large amount of political unrest inside the United States.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: NobleHunter on April 24, 2019, 04:16:59 PM
The point I'm alluding to is that you're raising concerns of criminal conduct without evidence at the same time as decrying the Mueller/FBI for starting an investigation without evidence.

Unless you have evidence that the DNC bribed foreign sources or that the UK fed the FBI false information in retaliation for pro-Brexit posturing?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 24, 2019, 04:57:59 PM
We actuallydo have proof that Christpher Steele, a British former intelligence officer with the Secret Intelligence Service MI6 and who also ran the Russia desk at MI6, was hired by Hillary and the DNC to engage Russian assets and create the dossier that led to the collusion hoax. We also know that Steele paid some informants for their “stories”.

So yeah, we have Hillary and the DNC funneling money to foreign sources.

If it relates to Brecit in any way, Ive no idea. But there’s more proof of that than there was Russian collusion.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 24, 2019, 05:40:58 PM
Quote
...it took the Steele Dossier to "put it over the top" which makes things smell more than a bit rotten...

From what I understand, the Steele Dossier didn't "put it over the top."  The original information about Papadopoulos started the investigation.  The Dossier was only added at the second FICA hearing (IIRC) as some evidence that the investigation was proceeding and getting results.  At best, it was a nudge that kept the investigation going, not something required to get it started in the first place.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on April 24, 2019, 05:45:12 PM
Quote
Where no (illegal) connection was subsequently made between Trump and company with regards to Russia.

Not sure that is accurate or how your defining connection
A total of 34 people and three companies have either been indicted or pleaded guilty to criminal charges in Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
True many of the people were indicted for financial crimes and or perjury
That said 13 Russian nationals were charged with conspiracy to launder money and identity theft and 12 Russian GRU Intelligence officers charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. as well as identity theft.
3 Russian companies have been charged accused of interference

I don't understand why the base are so angry about the investigation that "cleared" their man of collusion and arn't more angry at the Russian interference
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on April 24, 2019, 05:47:26 PM
Quote
...it took the Steele Dossier to "put it over the top" which makes things smell more than a bit rotten...

Quote
From what I understand, the Steele Dossier didn't "put it over the top."  The original information about Papadopoulos started the investigation.  The Dossier was only added at the second FICA hearing (IIRC) as some evidence that the investigation was proceeding and getting results.  At best, it was a nudge that kept the investigation going, not something required to get it started in the first place.

And it was Trump firing of Comey that triggered abstraction stuff
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 24, 2019, 06:54:53 PM
Quote
Where no (illegal) connection was subsequently made between Trump and company with regards to Russia.

Not sure that is accurate or how your defining connection
A total of 34 people and three companies have either been indicted or pleaded guilty to criminal charges in Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
True many of the people were indicted for financial crimes and or perjury
That said 13 Russian nationals were charged with conspiracy to launder money and identity theft and 12 Russian GRU Intelligence officers charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. as well as identity theft.
3 Russian companies have been charged accused of interference

I don't understand why the base are so angry about the investigation that "cleared" their man of collusion and arn't more angry at the Russian interference

Because you pretend that what little interference there was did something. Not a single American was implicated, there is no evidence anyvote was changed. The indictments of Russians were show indictments. There was no reason to clear Trump, it was a baseless witch hunt designed to overturn a legal election. This was corrupt FBI, CIA, and DOJ engaging in it. It should anger every American.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 24, 2019, 10:27:23 PM
Quote
Where no (illegal) connection was subsequently made between Trump and company with regards to Russia.

Not sure that is accurate or how your defining connection
A total of 34 people and three companies have either been indicted or pleaded guilty to criminal charges in Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
True many of the people were indicted for financial crimes and or perjury
That said 13 Russian nationals were charged with conspiracy to launder money and identity theft and 12 Russian GRU Intelligence officers charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. as well as identity theft.
3 Russian companies have been charged accused of interference

I don't understand why the base are so angry about the investigation that "cleared" their man of collusion and arn't more angry at the Russian interference

The Russian Interference into the campaigns, and their (dis)information/hacking campaigns are a separate issue and would undoubtedly have been pursued absent the Trump portion of the investigation.

It still stands that the Trump portion of the investigation appears to have been without merit.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 25, 2019, 02:09:42 AM
It might anger me, if the Trump people weren't constantly lying about their contacts.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 25, 2019, 07:54:04 AM
It might anger me, if the Trump people weren't constantly lying about their contacts.

Multiple investigations confirm: No collusion. No obstruction.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 25, 2019, 08:16:14 AM
Quote
A Georgian-American businessman is accusing special counsel Robert Mueller of publishing “glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations” about rumors of alleged sex tapes of President Donald Trump during a visit to Moscow in 2013.

In a letter sent to Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday, a lawyer for the businessman, Giorgi Rtskhiladze, called on the Justice Department to retract a footnote in Mueller’s report mentioning an Oct. 30, 2016 text message exchange he had with attorney Michael Cohen about a rumored Trump tape.

Rtskhiladze claims that the special counsel’s report inaccurately quotes his text message with Cohen. He says that additional text messages not quoted in the report show that he was doubtful about a rumor he had heard from an associate in Moscow about the existence of a tape.

“We strongly demand that a full and immediate retraction of these falsehoods should be issued forthwith to restore his good name,” wrote A. Scott Bolden, a lawyer for Rtskhiladze.

So here we see that at least one of the contacts mueller details in the report that has anti-Trumpers worked up is false.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 25, 2019, 09:42:35 AM
Quote
A Georgian-American businessman is accusing special counsel Robert Mueller of publishing “glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations” about rumors of alleged sex tapes of President Donald Trump during a visit to Moscow in 2013.

In a letter sent to Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday, a lawyer for the businessman, Giorgi Rtskhiladze, called on the Justice Department to retract a footnote in Mueller’s report mentioning an Oct. 30, 2016 text message exchange he had with attorney Michael Cohen about a rumored Trump tape.

Rtskhiladze claims that the special counsel’s report inaccurately quotes his text message with Cohen. He says that additional text messages not quoted in the report show that he was doubtful about a rumor he had heard from an associate in Moscow about the existence of a tape.

“We strongly demand that a full and immediate retraction of these falsehoods should be issued forthwith to restore his good name,” wrote A. Scott Bolden, a lawyer for Rtskhiladze.

So here we see that at least one of the contacts mueller details in the report that has anti-Trumpers worked up is false.

We see that it's false because the guy quoted says it was?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on April 25, 2019, 10:20:27 AM
Quote
Because you pretend that what little interference there was did something

The interference by Russia was sophisticated as it turned social media, once thought to be a tool for democracy, into a tool against democracy.

I suspect that the rights echo chamber is unable to acknowledge the interference because they feel do so undermines the administration and subconsciously feel that such interference helping them.
I not that many of your arguments at some level undermines democracy as the echo chamber moves closer to the desire for 'the Strong man' government. But this you will not see until its to late.

Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on April 25, 2019, 10:55:44 AM
The word "interference" is so nebulous, lacking in quantitative value, and deliberately obscure, that it can literally mean anything and be tied to anyone. One can say that Trump wasn't guilty of colluding, but benefited from "interference". It's a technical way of somehow tying his election to Russia no matter what other evidence is on the table. In my opinion this is poisoning the well, and if any discussion is going to be had about Russian interference (which is fair play) it should be stricken from any connection with conversations about Trump's behavior, collusion, or criminality in other regards.

It hasn't even been established that "interference" is illegal, much less even outrageous, given how much the U.S. interferes in foreign elections, politics, regimes, and so much more. If realpolotik suggests that one can use sheer might to enforce "laws for thee but not for me" that's perhaps how this world works, but needn't worm its way into more intelligent discussions.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 25, 2019, 11:34:15 AM
It hasn't even been established that "interference" is illegal, much less even outrageous, given how much the U.S. interferes in foreign elections, politics, regimes, and so much more.

So because we invaded Iraq, we shouldn't be upset if somebody invades Hawaii? Or because we blew up Iran's centrifuges, we shouldn't really be concerned if the Chinese hack into our power plants?

Clearly, the correct answer is that we should stop doing these things and be concerned when other countries do them.

It may not be "outrageous", whatever that means, but we should be concerned and we should take steps to limit, if not prevent, foreign influence in our electoral process. Imagine if foreign entities get behind one of our new socialist candidates for president, people would be describing that in apocalyptic terms. Regardless of the scope or efficacy.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on April 25, 2019, 11:58:18 AM
So because we invaded Iraq, we shouldn't be upset if somebody invades Hawaii? Or because we blew up Iran's centrifuges, we shouldn't really be concerned if the Chinese hack into our power plants?

If you want to talk about absolute level of aggravation, even if you invade someone else and they just kick trash onto your lawn I suppose you can be upset about it. I am talking about hypocrisy, not about whether aggravating things are aggravating. Maybe setting a good example is a more honest way of improving conditions for denouncing others who do things far lesser to you than what you do to them. But what I really don't understand is why you're comparing military invasion and industrial sabotage to social media bots and Facebook posts. Unless you mean the 'hacking' into the DNC files? I still barely believe that happened, as the only source for that having happened has zero credibility.

Quote
It may not be "outrageous", whatever that means, but we should be concerned and we should take steps to limit, if not prevent, foreign influence in our electoral process. Imagine if foreign entities get behind one of our new socialist candidates for president, people would be describing that in apocalyptic terms. Regardless of the scope or efficacy.

They will be doing that either way, because that's how nu-truth works. And that's what comes of using words like "interference" as a carte blanche boogeyman, because since it's not quantifiable or provable you can attribute it to anything, and going forward will be able to attribute any election victory to it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 25, 2019, 01:27:48 PM
Quote
I still barely believe that happened, as the only source for that having happened has zero credibility.

I guess you mean all of our intelligence agencies, who concur that it did happen?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 25, 2019, 02:31:33 PM
Quote
I am talking about hypocrisy, not about whether aggravating things are aggravating.

Well there's certainly plenty of hypocrisy to go around when it comes to clandestine activities. Like denouncing someone who steals your military secrets at the same time you are trying to steal everyone else's. Or complaining about other countries trying to subvert our democracy, while actively supporting the overthrow of democratically elected socialists.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 25, 2019, 02:41:48 PM
It might anger me, if the Trump people weren't constantly lying about their contacts.

Multiple investigations confirm: No collusion. No obstruction.

With the Mueller investigation explicitly not being one of them. :)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 25, 2019, 02:54:11 PM
The word "interference" is so nebulous, lacking in quantitative value, and deliberately obscure, that it can literally mean anything and be tied to anyone. One can say that Trump wasn't guilty of colluding, but benefited from "interference". It's a technical way of somehow tying his election to Russia no matter what other evidence is on the table. In my opinion this is poisoning the well, and if any discussion is going to be had about Russian interference (which is fair play) it should be stricken from any connection with conversations about Trump's behavior, collusion, or criminality in other regards.

It hasn't even been established that "interference" is illegal, much less even outrageous, given how much the U.S. interferes in foreign elections, politics, regimes, and so much more. If realpolotik suggests that one can use sheer might to enforce "laws for thee but not for me" that's perhaps how this world works, but needn't worm its way into more intelligent discussions.

So you're saying, Fenring, that if Iran mounted a propaganda campaign similar to Russia's, and convinced a large number of independent voters to vote Democrat in the next election, you'd have no problem with that? 

If Russia did the same for Trump, letting him know beforehand that they won't do it unless he changed certain policies, that you'd have no problem with that?

If China let it be known that they would spread lies and disinformation about any candidate that didn't explicitly denounce all tariffs, now or in the future, that would be "fair play" and we should just accept it?

Opening up our elections to any subterfuge by any foreign country to  influence our elections is a very, very bad idea.  Because by influencing our elections, they influence our foreign policy the way they want, which may be detrimental to our best interests.

Do you think Russia won't help Trump in the next election without him agreeing to certain concessions?  And are you 100 percent certain that he will ignore those concessions, since he barely won the last election?  And does your confidence also apply to the next Democratic President?

Do you really want to bet the security of our nation on that? ;)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on April 25, 2019, 03:21:54 PM
So you're saying, Fenring, that if Iran mounted a propaganda campaign similar to Russia's, and convinced a large number of independent voters to vote Democrat in the next election, you'd have no problem with that?

Are you suggesting that free speech itself about American politics is what should be banned, and that people of foreign citizenship (government or otherwise) should be debarred from making convincing arguments about politics that might sway people? Or are you talking strictly about doing so under the guise of being someone local, like a fake Twitter account? Or do you mean employing intelligence operatives to do actually illegal activities? All of these may be implied by what you say, and based on past discussions it sounds like "interference" can mean literally anything wherein foreign people stick their noses in American affairs. But the matter is far more difficult than that, because if completely legal speech can affect American political results, isn't that exactly what freedom is supposed to achieve? Or do you mean that if you don't like who's doing the speaking their speech should be silenced?

Now, I completely sympathize with not wanting 'bad guys' as it were to mess up stuff in America. But a careful line has to be drawn between speech you don't like, activities that actually break terms of service on sites like Twitter or FB, and activities that are actually illegal and for which the CIA and NSA should already be employed to police. But the basic idea that when something is done by the UK that's ok, and the same thing coming from Iran or Russia is treated criminally - that's pretty messed up to me.

Quote
If Russia did the same for Trump, letting him know beforehand that they won't do it unless he changed certain policies, that you'd have no problem with that?

If China let it be known that they would spread lies and disinformation about any candidate that didn't explicitly denounce all tariffs, now or in the future, that would be "fair play" and we should just accept it?

These are indeed prickly matters. But perhaps it's worth noting that opening up the world to gloabalized trade and economics probably naturally leads to globalized politics as well. Pretending that each country should mind its own business, when for over half a century organizations like the IMF and World Bank have basically been moving things in completely the opposite direction to that, seems to me misguided. Or at the very least a politically isolationist viewpoint should properly be supported by a likewise isolationist view on all other international affairs, because frankly they are all connected at the hip.

Quote
Opening up our elections to any subterfuge by any foreign country to  influence our elections is a very, very bad idea.  Because by influencing our elections, they influence our foreign policy the way they want, which may be detrimental to our best interests.

What you're pointing out isn't a weakness in American security, but rather a weakness in democracy itself. It goes without saying that people can be swayed against their own interests. We can see this plainly enough in local American politics. That you would prefer certain interested parties to be doing this rather than others is an opinion, but the concept of sheltering people from damaging ideas is a real non-starter. Maybe the right move should be to bolster cohesion among Americans rather than setting up ideal grounds for foreign entities to divide and conquer. Both American parties and their powerful special interests are to blame for creating easy pickings for the likes of Russia.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 25, 2019, 03:51:06 PM
Quote
A Georgian-American businessman is accusing special counsel Robert Mueller of publishing “glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations” about rumors of alleged sex tapes of President Donald Trump during a visit to Moscow in 2013.

In a letter sent to Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday, a lawyer for the businessman, Giorgi Rtskhiladze, called on the Justice Department to retract a footnote in Mueller’s report mentioning an Oct. 30, 2016 text message exchange he had with attorney Michael Cohen about a rumored Trump tape.

Rtskhiladze claims that the special counsel’s report inaccurately quotes his text message with Cohen. He says that additional text messages not quoted in the report show that he was doubtful about a rumor he had heard from an associate in Moscow about the existence of a tape.

“We strongly demand that a full and immediate retraction of these falsehoods should be issued forthwith to restore his good name,” wrote A. Scott Bolden, a lawyer for Rtskhiladze.

So here we see that at least one of the contacts mueller details in the report that has anti-Trumpers worked up is false.

We see that it's false because the guy quoted says it was?

Rtskhiladze supplies the texts, in context. Ironically, you think it's true because someone told you it then make out like it's not enough to make any conclusions. Right.

Rtskhiladze has the entire text exchange documented on his phone, it's clear this was snipped out of context to create a narrative.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 25, 2019, 03:55:19 PM
Quote
Because you pretend that what little interference there was did something

The interference by Russia was sophisticated as it turned social media, once thought to be a tool for democracy, into a tool against democracy.

I suspect that the rights echo chamber is unable to acknowledge the interference because they feel do so undermines the administration and subconsciously feel that such interference helping them.
I not that many of your arguments at some level undermines democracy as the echo chamber moves closer to the desire for 'the Strong man' government. But this you will not see until its to late.

Russia's social media spend totaled $160,000. That's less than the campaigns spent in a day (this was a $900 million dollar campaign by the candidates), not to mention what PAC's spent.

$160,000 in an environment of billions, it has been clearly stated there is no evidence if a single vote being switched because of what amounts to a fart in the wind. Real sophisticated, really undermined the whole election. ::)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 25, 2019, 03:57:26 PM
It might anger me, if the Trump people weren't constantly lying about their contacts.

Multiple investigations confirm: No collusion. No obstruction.

With the Mueller investigation explicitly not being one of them. :)
You have to use a lot more emoticons to make that true, maybe a 1000 since it's so far from true.

From Rolling Stone:
Quote
There was no Trump-Russia conspiracy, that thing we just spent three years chasing. The Mueller Report is crystal clear on this.

He didn’t just “fail to establish” evidence of crime. His report is full of incredibly damning passages, like one about Russian officialdom’s efforts to reach the Trump campaign after the election: “They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect.”

Not only was there no “collusion,” the two camps didn’t even have each others’ phone numbers!

No collusion. Ever. Trump campaign officials and the Russians didn't even know how to contact each other.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 25, 2019, 04:02:06 PM
The word "interference" is so nebulous, lacking in quantitative value, and deliberately obscure, that it can literally mean anything and be tied to anyone. One can say that Trump wasn't guilty of colluding, but benefited from "interference". It's a technical way of somehow tying his election to Russia no matter what other evidence is on the table. In my opinion this is poisoning the well, and if any discussion is going to be had about Russian interference (which is fair play) it should be stricken from any connection with conversations about Trump's behavior, collusion, or criminality in other regards.

It hasn't even been established that "interference" is illegal, much less even outrageous, given how much the U.S. interferes in foreign elections, politics, regimes, and so much more. If realpolotik suggests that one can use sheer might to enforce "laws for thee but not for me" that's perhaps how this world works, but needn't worm its way into more intelligent discussions.

So you're saying, Fenring, that if Iran mounted a propaganda campaign similar to Russia's, and convinced a large number of independent voters to vote Democrat in the next election, you'd have no problem with that? 

If Russia did the same for Trump, letting him know beforehand that they won't do it unless he changed certain policies, that you'd have no problem with that?

If China let it be known that they would spread lies and disinformation about any candidate that didn't explicitly denounce all tariffs, now or in the future, that would be "fair play" and we should just accept it?

But, what if they didn't convince a single voter? SMH.  See how easy it is to destroy the "what if"? Just show the truth that the "what if" is nothing more than fear mongering.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 25, 2019, 04:38:07 PM
So you're saying, Fenring, that if Iran mounted a propaganda campaign similar to Russia's, and convinced a large number of independent voters to vote Democrat in the next election, you'd have no problem with that?

Are you suggesting that free speech itself about American politics is what should be banned, and that people of foreign citizenship (government or otherwise) should be debarred from making convincing arguments about politics that might sway people? Or are you talking strictly about doing so under the guise of being someone local, like a fake Twitter account? Or do you mean employing intelligence operatives to do actually illegal activities? All of these may be implied by what you say, and based on past discussions it sounds like "interference" can mean literally anything wherein foreign people stick their noses in American affairs. But the matter is far more difficult than that, because if completely legal speech can affect American political results, isn't that exactly what freedom is supposed to achieve? Or do you mean that if you don't like who's doing the speaking their speech should be silenced?

Now, I completely sympathize with not wanting 'bad guys' as it were to mess up stuff in America. But a careful line has to be drawn between speech you don't like, activities that actually break terms of service on sites like Twitter or FB, and activities that are actually illegal and for which the CIA and NSA should already be employed to police. But the basic idea that when something is done by the UK that's ok, and the same thing coming from Iran or Russia is treated criminally - that's pretty messed up to me.
I have no problem (well, little problem :) )if foreign countries endorse one candidate or another, so long as they do it up-front.

What I do have a problem with is when a country uses lies and deceit to do so.  When they commit crimes to do so.  When they contact the candidate's campaign and tell them they are going to do so, implicitly or explicitly letting them know that the candidate will owe them.  When the campaign provides information to them that might be helpful.  That's when corruption can creep in.  That's when a President's loyalty can be undermined.

Free speech is fine.  Campaign help, especially illegal help, is not.


Quote
Opening up our elections to any subterfuge by any foreign country to  influence our elections is a very, very bad idea.  Because by influencing our elections, they influence our foreign policy the way they want, which may be detrimental to our best interests.

What you're pointing out isn't a weakness in American security, but rather a weakness in democracy itself. It goes without saying that people can be swayed against their own interests. We can see this plainly enough in local American politics. That you would prefer certain interested parties to be doing this rather than others is an opinion, but the concept of sheltering people from damaging ideas is a real non-starter. Maybe the right move should be to bolster cohesion among Americans rather than setting up ideal grounds for foreign entities to divide and conquer. Both American parties and their powerful special interests are to blame for creating easy pickings for the likes of Russia.
[/quote]

No reason we can't do all of the above.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 25, 2019, 05:45:46 PM
It might anger me, if the Trump people weren't constantly lying about their contacts.

Multiple investigations confirm: No collusion. No obstruction.

With the Mueller investigation explicitly not being one of them. :)
You have to use a lot more emoticons to make that true, maybe a 1000 since it's so far from true.

Hey, don't blame me.  Blame the guy who wrote this:

Quote
f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.

Quote
From Rolling Stone:
Quote
There was no Trump-Russia conspiracy, that thing we just spent three years chasing. The Mueller Report is crystal clear on this.

He didn’t just “fail to establish” evidence of crime. His report is full of incredibly damning passages, like one about Russian officialdom’s efforts to reach the Trump campaign after the election: “They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect.”

Not only was there no “collusion,” the two camps didn’t even have each others’ phone numbers!

No collusion. Ever. Trump campaign officials and the Russians didn't even know how to contact each other.

Wow!  Guys who never even had each other's numbers sure talked a lot to each other.  How do you think they did that?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 25, 2019, 05:48:35 PM
The word "interference" is so nebulous, lacking in quantitative value, and deliberately obscure, that it can literally mean anything and be tied to anyone. One can say that Trump wasn't guilty of colluding, but benefited from "interference". It's a technical way of somehow tying his election to Russia no matter what other evidence is on the table. In my opinion this is poisoning the well, and if any discussion is going to be had about Russian interference (which is fair play) it should be stricken from any connection with conversations about Trump's behavior, collusion, or criminality in other regards.

It hasn't even been established that "interference" is illegal, much less even outrageous, given how much the U.S. interferes in foreign elections, politics, regimes, and so much more. If realpolotik suggests that one can use sheer might to enforce "laws for thee but not for me" that's perhaps how this world works, but needn't worm its way into more intelligent discussions.

So you're saying, Fenring, that if Iran mounted a propaganda campaign similar to Russia's, and convinced a large number of independent voters to vote Democrat in the next election, you'd have no problem with that? 

If Russia did the same for Trump, letting him know beforehand that they won't do it unless he changed certain policies, that you'd have no problem with that?

If China let it be known that they would spread lies and disinformation about any candidate that didn't explicitly denounce all tariffs, now or in the future, that would be "fair play" and we should just accept it?

But, what if they didn't convince a single voter? SMH.  See how easy it is to destroy the "what if"? Just show the truth that the "what if" is nothing more than fear mongering.

What if they did?  Are you willing to take that chance?  Are you willing to have the election go to the Democrat because of an illegal ad campaign by the Iranians, the Chinese, or the Russians?

Trump won by around 100,000 votes.  How successful did the Russians need to be to turn that many votes?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 25, 2019, 06:46:07 PM
It might anger me, if the Trump people weren't constantly lying about their contacts.

Multiple investigations confirm: No collusion. No obstruction.

With the Mueller investigation explicitly not being one of them. :)
You have to use a lot more emoticons to make that true, maybe a 1000 since it's so far from true.

Hey, don't blame me.  Blame the guy who wrote this:

Quote
f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.

So what? Is it guilty until proven innocent? No, it's not. Mueller is saying they could not prove obstruction, they didn't have evidence that supported the charge of obstruction. That's all. There was no obstruction.


Quote
From Rolling Stone:
Quote
There was no Trump-Russia conspiracy, that thing we just spent three years chasing. The Mueller Report is crystal clear on this.

He didn’t just “fail to establish” evidence of crime. His report is full of incredibly damning passages, like one about Russian officialdom’s efforts to reach the Trump campaign after the election: “They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect.”

Not only was there no “collusion,” the two camps didn’t even have each others’ phone numbers!

No collusion. Ever. Trump campaign officials and the Russians didn't even know how to contact each other.

Wow!  Guys who never even had each other's numbers sure talked a lot to each other.  How do you think they did that?
Are you sure they talked to each other? No obstruction.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 25, 2019, 06:49:15 PM
The word "interference" is so nebulous, lacking in quantitative value, and deliberately obscure, that it can literally mean anything and be tied to anyone. One can say that Trump wasn't guilty of colluding, but benefited from "interference". It's a technical way of somehow tying his election to Russia no matter what other evidence is on the table. In my opinion this is poisoning the well, and if any discussion is going to be had about Russian interference (which is fair play) it should be stricken from any connection with conversations about Trump's behavior, collusion, or criminality in other regards.

It hasn't even been established that "interference" is illegal, much less even outrageous, given how much the U.S. interferes in foreign elections, politics, regimes, and so much more. If realpolotik suggests that one can use sheer might to enforce "laws for thee but not for me" that's perhaps how this world works, but needn't worm its way into more intelligent discussions.

So you're saying, Fenring, that if Iran mounted a propaganda campaign similar to Russia's, and convinced a large number of independent voters to vote Democrat in the next election, you'd have no problem with that? 

If Russia did the same for Trump, letting him know beforehand that they won't do it unless he changed certain policies, that you'd have no problem with that?

If China let it be known that they would spread lies and disinformation about any candidate that didn't explicitly denounce all tariffs, now or in the future, that would be "fair play" and we should just accept it?

But, what if they didn't convince a single voter? SMH.  See how easy it is to destroy the "what if"? Just show the truth that the "what if" is nothing more than fear mongering.

What if they did?  Are you willing to take that chance?  Are you willing to have the election go to the Democrat because of an illegal ad campaign by the Iranians, the Chinese, or the Russians?

Trump won by around 100,000 votes.  How successful did the Russians need to be to turn that many votes?

Ohhhh, I get it. What if they did? Jesus, I guess I really missed that framing.

What. If. They. Did.

When you put it that way, it's literally like they actually did! I mean, hypothetically speaking, it was literally done, wasn't it? 50% of the time, they turned votes 90% of the time.

LMAO, this is so weird. What an absurd "what if" fantasy.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 26, 2019, 08:10:04 AM
Quote
Senior Republican chairmen submitted a letter Thursday to Department of Justice Attorney General William Barr revealing new texts from former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok to his paramour FBI Attorney Lisa Page showing the pair had discussed attempts to recruit sources within the White House to allegedly spy on the Trump administration.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Charles Grassley and Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson revealed the information in a three page letter.

Turns out, the Strzok and his mistress, Page, we’re recruiting informants within the Trump administration. They were running an intelligence operation.  The FBI was conducting an operation against Trump.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 26, 2019, 03:59:40 PM
Quote
So what? Is it guilty until proven innocent? No, it's not. Mueller is saying they could not prove obstruction, they didn't have evidence that supported the charge of obstruction. That's all. There was no obstruction.

That's very high-minded of you, Crunch.  Basically saying that, if there wasn't enough evidence of obstruction to charge a person, then that is the same as the person did not do any obstruction at all.  Legally, that is perfectly true.  Practically, we know it isn't, since the bar for charging a person is higher than just there being evidence.  Especially for the President, where the Justice Department has a policy of not charging a sitting President with crimes, but leaves that up to Congress.

I would be impressed, if I believed for one millisecond that you believed it. :)

Don't fool yourself or us.  You know you completely believe that people can be guilty of crimes without there being sufficient evidence to convict them.  And if you read the report, there are many instances of Trump trying to stop or impede the investigation--ordering Corey Lewandowski and Don McGahn to fire Mueller, asking K.T. McFarland to write a letter denying that Trump had directed Flynn to contact the Russian ambassador about sanctions, firing Comey, etc.  All actual evidence of obstruction.

In fact, read what Mueller wrote yourself (https://www.washingtonian.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/searchable-mueller-report.pdf):

Quote
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.
Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.
Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
(Emphasis mine.)

After reading that, can you state with a good conscience that Mueller completely, utterly exonerated Trump of obstruction??  :o

Many things can be said about the Mueller report.  That the report says there was no obstruction is not one of them.

Quote
What. If. They. Did.

When you put it that way, it's literally like they actually did! I mean, hypothetically speaking, it was literally done, wasn't it? 50% of the time, they turned votes 90% of the time.

LMAO, this is so weird. What an absurd "what if" fantasy.

Whether the Russian attempts to illegally influence our elections were successful or not is beside the point.  They very well may have been, and definitely could have been, successful.  Even if they failed this time, what makes you think they won't next time?  Or the time after that?  Or Iran, or China, or North Korea, or any other nation that doesn't like us and wants us to either fail or change our policies?

The Mueller report outlines specific illegal acts that Russia did to influence the 2016 election.  We should not excuse or ignore such acts just because there were other, legal methods of influencing our elections.   And even if they didn't work the last time, they may work the next time.  And what will you do then?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on May 01, 2019, 10:20:16 AM
I have not had a chance to read the report in whole and my initial reaction from the executive summaries is that it looks like a hit job.

I've finished the report, every word and footnote, and my initial reaction was correct.  I find this report to be incredibly troubling, and I plan to do some detailed dives as to why but here's my "summary" of what I saw.

Part I on "collusion" (ie, conspiracy).  This part of the report should have been about 5 pages long.  Mueller went into extremely large and completely irrelevant detail.  It appears that, notwithstanding that he conclusively could not make the case, he wanted to pretend that he had.  It's 100% clear that they thought they had bad people, and couldn't find the proof.  Therefore they kept at and at it.  They had to know early on that they didn't have a case, hence the "pivot" to obstruction, and that means what I've said all along is true.  They continued this investigation and left the collusion argument open solely for political purposes, to cast shade over the President and prevent him from legitimate exercises of his authority, and ultimately with the intent to influence the midterms.

They structured the report by detailing bad acts by Russians, then talking about how some people knew a Russian, then saying in loaded terms they couldn't establish evidence of a connection.  This is classic manipulative structure.  We found a big fire, we couldn't put the defendant in the vicinity but we have decisive proof that he knows how to use a book of matches.  Draw your own conclusions. 

Against this background, and their open and blatant attempts to construe any and everything in the worst possible light, the fact that the couldn't find conspiracy is 100% decisive.  It didn't happen.

It appears that the predicate for his appoint, which is still unclear, boils down to Papadapolous.  That may have been enough to do a counter-intell operation, it's not remotely clear it's enough to do a criminal investigation, or to have handled it in a manner that did not warn the campaign of the risk (which is literally what they've done in such cases in the past). 

Part II - Conspiracy.  This part is an absolute travesty.  Meuller declined to make a judgment and I can tell you why.  His theory of liability is utter nonsense.  Read the last section about how he believes conspiracy law works, and read Barr's memorandum on the theory he's pursuing.  If you accept Meuller's theory - and really it's one theory - you are literally accepting that the a prosecutor has the power to upend the government in pursuit of thought crimes.  Meuller's asserting that a legal act that a person (including the President) takes, legally consistent with the terms and intent of their office, is subject to the judgement of a prosecutor as to whether they exercised that judgement in a permitted manner.  When you read Mueller's summary ask yourself how he could differentiate say defending yourself in a criminal case, if you apply his theory consistently every defendant - guilty or not - could be charged with obstruction of justice simply for defending themselves.

This entire section is premised entirely on believing every word Comey said (and they go to great lengths at times to defend Comey where what he said is the least likely thing that occurred), every useful word Cohen said, construing every discussion on any topic by Trump as the worst possible version of what was said (and in fact reconstrueing statements that didn't have any effect as events that could have had an effect (even if there's no clear reason the effect would be interference) if they had been carried out).  Effectively, if Trump considered firing the Special Counsel - which he's literally empowered to do and is obligated to do if say the Special Counsel was himself acting corruptly (an inescapable conclusion of Meuller's own theory) he's inherently guilt.  Ergo if Trump did his job, or even discussed doing his job, then a Special Counsel is entitled to infer guilt.

Repeatedly, the Special Counsel lays out statements that establish non-corrupt intent and then discards them, even though it's clear they were in fact what was being consider.

Heck, if you accept Meuller's theory then Nadler should watch out, because his corrupt intent was established by his conversation on the train, and everything he's doing could be construed as interfering with investigations that could be filed by the Dept (and yes, Meuller's theory also claims that interfering with non-existing potential actions is criminal).  As is each person requesting financial records of Trump - clearly intended to signal intimidation.  As is the special prosecutors office if it can be asserted by another prosecutor that they had a corrupt intent in offering plea deals (this is an obvious application).  Honestly, if you buy his theory then every state official that has adopted sanctuary city polices or enforced them is also potentially already guilty of obstruction and it's only up to the DOJ to take them out.

Other things.

The special counsel's investigation was leaking like a sieve.  It's a flat lie - and collusion with the media - that made it appear not to be.  Every single change or redirection of the investigation immediately and accurately appeared in the media.  Want to know why the Dems were outraged by Barr's summary?  Cause they already knew what Meuller said.  In fact, it's quite possible that there should be charges coming out of the leaks as I doubt they did a good job with protecting grand jury testimony.

Mueller doesn't give two figs about privilge - my guess is he sees using attorneys as obstruction of justice.  He deliberately used and included privileged information that he obtained from Cohen, and even put in a footnote that it may be privledged and unusable in court.  So much for due process.

Meuller was remarkably uninterested in Comey's motivations.  Even as he detailed acts that had one of two likely purposes:  blackmailing a President or framing a President that Comey engaged in, he went out of his way to not only pretend they were for noble reasons but to try to cleanse them.  Whether he was doing this because of personal friendship (which is a disqualifying fact and corrupt) or because he was hired to protect the prior acts and actors of the DOJ is unclear (in part because he refused to look at it).

Rosenstein either did not exercise any level of appropriate oversight or was part of the problem.  The DOJ should have forced Mueller to present his conclusion on conspiracy and proffer his argument for obstruction at a much earlier date.  It's completely clear that they kept the investigation open in the hopes that Trump would do something they could charge as obstruction - if he'd issued a pardon for example.

There was no obstruction.

Quote
The one thing I do know, is this report was not written to end the controversy.  I can't imagine how you could write a report to generate more partisan discord, than to fail to make a case for obstruction (ergo, no corruption charges), yet still write out a report that shows you really wanted to bring those charges.

This is 100% true, and now I will add that its 100% clear that Meuller's intent was to cause discord.  I can tell you why he didn't bring charges, he knows it too, his case was a complete loser and that's without considering any impact of executive immunity.  His theory was extreme, he admits in the write up that it has not been successful asserted in court and Barr's memo utterly destroys it.  Heck, Meuller even found it necessary to address the legislative history of the specific obstruction statute because on top of every thing else it completely contradicts his theory on how to interpret the section. 

Then when you get into the executive powers analysis he completely misconstrues the actual state of the law.  For example, it's a clear rule that Congress has to expressly include the President for a rule of general applicability to apply to the President (separation of powers).  His statute doesn't have that expression, so he digs deep for an argument as to why that doesn't matter (never mind that the rule hasn't been construed as he wants in a non-Presidential context and the fact that it is literally only useful to him if you mis-construe it so broadly that it swallows every other conspiracy law).

He also bizarrely asserts that what he's done does not have significant impact on the President fulfilling his Constitutional duties - keep in mind he cites in his own evidence that the President was prevented from handling international relations - including with Russia - as he deemed fit because of this, was interfered with in the administration of justice and was prevented from focusing on policy.  Literally, Mueller just lied to get over this hump.

Mueller didn't bring charges, not because of some high minded confusion, he didn't bring them because they were grossly legally flawed and he would have been destroyed in court (and possibly even sanctioned to be honest).  He dumped to Congress with the intent that they would continue to ignore due process and the actual law.  This was completely political from day one.

I'd like to see an investigation into the special counsels office.  I want to know how they ended up with such a partisan bias where it was illegal to consider politics.  I want to know why they permitted to leak information in violation of justice department policies.  I want to know what the specific crime they were empaneled to pursue was.  I want to know the exact date they knew there was no collusion.
 
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on May 01, 2019, 12:00:10 PM
Whether the Russian attempts to illegally influence our elections were successful or not is beside the point.  They very well may have been, and definitely could have been, successful.  Even if they failed this time, what makes you think they won't next time?  Or the time after that?  Or Iran, or China, or North Korea, or any other nation that doesn't like us and wants us to either fail or change our policies?

The Mueller report outlines specific illegal acts that Russia did to influence the 2016 election.  We should not excuse or ignore such acts just because there were other, legal methods of influencing our elections.   And even if they didn't work the last time, they may work the next time.  And what will you do then?

Guess who just made the same point!

Quote
Lindsey Graham, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Russia interfered with the 2016 US election — and insisted that they are "still doing it."

"The Russians interfered in our election," Graham said. "I would like to do more to harden our infrastructure because the Russians did it. It wasn't some 400-pound guy sitting on a bed somewhere. It was the Russians. And they're still doing it."
Graham said the US needs to do more to "defend democracy" from Russia and other "bad actors."

"It could be the Chinese or somebody next. My take away from this report is that we've got a lot of work to do to defend democracy against the Russians and other bad actors," he said.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on May 01, 2019, 12:21:04 PM
Seriati,

There were 6 absolutely clear slam dunk cases of obstruction of justice that would have been charged had DoJ policy allowed it.  Your suggesting that there wasn't any case to bring is beyond absurd.
 
Similarly the Trump Tower meeting wasn't charged as a crime because they couldn't establish criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt - all other aspects of the crime were there.

As someone who has also completely read the report - your interpretations and conclusions are so divorced from reality that it is pointless to try and discuss it with you.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on May 01, 2019, 12:33:57 PM
LR, I intend to go into detail on each of those events.  My conclusion is literally that you don't know what you're talking about.

Go read the report in the collusion section on the Trump Tower meeting, there's plenty of detail there describing the legal flaws with any theory of criminality.  The statute requires knowledge of illegality - which they actually believed wasn't present (both as in the people in the meeting didn't believe it was illegal and because they couldn't prove it would have been illegal), requires a value judgement that they said they couldn't have made and they mentioned and glossed over that there were substantial constitutional issues with an attempt (never before made in law) to construe obtaining factually true information as an illegal activity.

The fact is this report was written to mislead smart people without a legal background.   You sir are a partisan, and its specifically designed to feed your fury so it's not at all surprising you read it that way.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on May 01, 2019, 05:58:00 PM
The best legal writing a Special Counsel's Office impaneled and staffed by Democratic Lawyers could do against The Orange Man(TM).

I think Mueller probably got entrapped in some major groupthink on that one.

Also likely Barr did "force" it to wrap up.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 01, 2019, 06:44:03 PM
Seriati,

There were 6 absolutely clear slam dunk cases of obstruction of justice that would have been charged had DoJ policy allowed it.  Your suggesting that there wasn't any case to bring is beyond absurd.
 
Similarly the Trump Tower meeting wasn't charged as a crime because they couldn't establish criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt - all other aspects of the crime were there.

As someone who has also completely read the report - your interpretations and conclusions are so divorced from reality that it is pointless to try and discuss it with you.

You gotta quit relying on Quora for legal analysis, they’re really screwing you up.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 01, 2019, 06:48:05 PM
BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier? (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/19/eight-times-mueller-report-shows-trump-white-house/)

Quote
The Mueller report confirms it was the actions of Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that triggered the investigation in July 2016.

Mueller’s report corroborates previous reporting in the New York Times about the sequence of events that set the probe in motion. Papadopoulos told a high-ranking Australian diplomat at an upscale London bar in May 2016 that Moscow had "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. (The Mueller report does not identify Australia, however.)

In late July — days after WikiLeaks’ dumped thousands of internal Democratic National Committee documents that proved damaging to Clinton — U.S. law enforcement became aware of Papadopoulos’ claim.

"Within a week of the (WikiLeaks) release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign," said Mueller’s report (p. 6, volume 1). "On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign."

The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used, to some extent, to persuade a U.S. foreign intelligence court to authorize surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But that wasn’t until October 2016 — several months after Papadopoulos’ actions started the investigation.

That’s from a highly biased source and can be dismissed without another thought.


Man, that’s easy enough to do! Wow, I guess I understand why you do it nearly every post now. Really convenient.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 01, 2019, 06:54:27 PM
He's never gonna buy that.  This particular item is the linchpin for the entire "witch hunt" narrative.

See my previous post where I totally destroy his post. Maybe you should start calling me “Wayward Crunch”.  :o
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on May 01, 2019, 11:44:11 PM
BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier? (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/19/eight-times-mueller-report-shows-trump-white-house/)

Quote
The Mueller report confirms it was the actions of Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that triggered the investigation in July 2016.

Mueller’s report corroborates previous reporting in the New York Times about the sequence of events that set the probe in motion. Papadopoulos told a high-ranking Australian diplomat at an upscale London bar in May 2016 that Moscow had "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. (The Mueller report does not identify Australia, however.)

In late July — days after WikiLeaks’ dumped thousands of internal Democratic National Committee documents that proved damaging to Clinton — U.S. law enforcement became aware of Papadopoulos’ claim.

"Within a week of the (WikiLeaks) release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign," said Mueller’s report (p. 6, volume 1). "On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign."

The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used, to some extent, to persuade a U.S. foreign intelligence court to authorize surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But that wasn’t until October 2016 — several months after Papadopoulos’ actions started the investigation.

That’s from a highly biased source and can be dismissed without another thought.


Man, that’s easy enough to do! Wow, I guess I understand why you do it nearly every post now. Really convenient.

That made me bother to check where the report came from. Politifact. Okay, carry on citizen, I'm not going to dispute your claim.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on May 02, 2019, 11:07:32 AM
LR, I intend to go into detail on each of those events.  My conclusion is literally that you don't know what you're talking about.

When even Napolitano admits there was obstruction you have to start to wonder how far gone your reasoning ability is to try and claim otherwise.  If there were any possibility of even a slight doubt of obstruction - Napolitano would latch onto it.  He is a extreme and blatant Republican partisan and has consistently been a Trump admirer and defender.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-andrew-napolitano-mueller-report-shows-classic-obstruction-of-justice

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2019/04/trump-admirer-judge-andrew-napolitano-seems-pretty-sure-trump-obstructed-justice/

If you can't admit that Trump obstructed justice, then it is pointless to discuss this topic with you.  You've simply gone off the deep end where reality doesn't matter anymore.

Regarding the Trump tower meeting - as I said the only defense is claiming ignorance of the law - something it is essentially impossible to believe that a seasoned political operative like Manafort wouldn't know was illegal.  As to the value - that would have to be determined by a jury whether it was a felony or misdemeanor level - do you honestly believe that a jury could be convinced that the information they expected to get was worth less than the amount needed to establish a felony?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on May 02, 2019, 11:30:38 AM
Report short version:
Our hands are tied.  WE cannot do anything.  Here's everything YOU need to do YOUR job.  It's not a slam dunk, you cannot hide behind someone else.   It's on you to live up to your Constitutional duties. 
The End
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on May 02, 2019, 11:33:57 AM
Regarding the Trump tower meeting - as I said the only defense is claiming ignorance of the law - something it is essentially impossible to believe that a seasoned political operative like Manafort wouldn't know was illegal.  As to the value - that would have to be determined by a jury whether it was a felony or misdemeanor level - do you honestly believe that a jury could be convinced that the information they expected to get was worth less than the amount needed to establish a felony?

30,000 deleted e-mails from several years ago just sent you a postcard.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 02, 2019, 03:44:25 PM
Quote
The conversation at a London bar in September 2016 took a strange turn when the woman sitting across from George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, asked a direct question: Was the Trump campaign working with Russia?

The woman had set up the meeting to discuss foreign policy issues. But she was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation. The F.B.I. sent her to London as part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the Trump campaign's links to Russia.

The American government's affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it "Spygate."

The decision to use Ms. Turk in the operation aimed at a presidential campaign official shows the level of alarm inside the F.B.I. during a frantic period when the bureau was trying to determine the scope of Russia's attempts to disrupt the 2016 election, but could also give ammunition to Mr. Trump and his allies for their spying claims.

Could also give ammunition to Mr. Trump and his allies for their spying claims ... Gee, ya think?   The FBI sent a spy to work on Trump campaign officials, that's kind of the definition of spying.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 02, 2019, 04:21:15 PM
Well, hang on

Quote
The NYT piece confirming the Obama admin's global spy operation against Trump admits one of its spies used a fake name, lied about her job, doesn't appear to work for the FBI, works and lures targets overseas, and yet had authority over a foreign spy op. Sounds kinda like CIA.

But then we've known all along that the Obama Admin's CIA and FBI agents ran the intelligence operation against the Trump campaign and the current president of the United States.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on May 03, 2019, 04:26:51 PM
Regarding the Trump tower meeting - as I said the only defense is claiming ignorance of the law - something it is essentially impossible to believe that a seasoned political operative like Manafort wouldn't know was illegal.  As to the value - that would have to be determined by a jury whether it was a felony or misdemeanor level - do you honestly believe that a jury could be convinced that the information they expected to get was worth less than the amount needed to establish a felony?

30,000 deleted e-mails from several years ago just sent you a postcard.

The FBI recovered the emails (both from her server but also from inboxes of recipients) - the vast majority they were found to have been of a personal nature.   There were some small percentage of innocous work related emails included amongst those deleted.  The deletion of the emails by her lawyers wasn't a crime.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on May 04, 2019, 02:57:49 AM
The deletion of the emails by her lawyers wasn't a crime.

Are you referring to the hatchet job she had her private tech team do after the files were ordered to be turned over, and for which that same team infamously turned to Reddit to ask how to totally erase the files with no trace left?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 04, 2019, 08:50:41 AM
Quote
In its most detailed account yet, the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington says a Democratic National Committee (DNC) insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help.
In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort’s dealings inside the country, in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.


Chalupa later tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort's Russian ties on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign, the ambassador said.

Chaly says that, at the time of the contacts in 2016, the embassy knew Chalupa primarily as a Ukrainian-American activist and learned only later of her ties to the DNC. He says the embassy considered her requests an inappropriate solicitation of interference in the U.S. election.


...


Chaly's written answers mark the most direct acknowledgement by Ukraine’s government that an American tied to the Democratic Party sought the country's help in the 2016 election, and they confirm the main points of a January 2017 story by Politico on Chalupa’s efforts.

So we have clear collusion to work with a foreign power in an attempt to influence the election. My guess is all you Russian collusion conspiracy guys are perfectly ok with this. Certainly we won’t see demands for multiple investigations from the media.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 04, 2019, 08:55:15 AM
So we got Hillary and the DNC hiring a foreign intelligence agent to work with Russian assets and DNC officials working directly with Ukraine, all with the goal of influencing the election. We don’t need an investigation to prove this, the facts are in the open.

All while the Obama administration had the FBI and CIA conduct spying operations against the Trump campaign.

But they’re democrats so it’s apparently ok.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on May 04, 2019, 01:38:43 PM
So many levels of indirection. You may be right, but Hillary didn't send Chelsea to me with Ukrainians in a building with her name on it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Pete at Home on May 07, 2019, 06:04:12 PM
Out of curiosity, at what point in this discussion did participants look up the legal elements of. "Obstruaction of justice?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Pete at Home on May 07, 2019, 06:12:08 PM
Anyone notice the parallel between Trump's "I hope" statement

https://static.theintercept.com/amp/obstruction-of-justice-heres-the-legal-definition.html&ved=2ahUKEwirg5vrtoriAhVEdt8KHXvxACcQFjAUegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1quta690GLp_MRKYiVJCXo&ampcf=1

And Henry Plantagenet's remark in front of his knights regarding the Archbishop of Canterbury ?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 08, 2019, 03:07:57 PM
Quote
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec’s written account of her Oct. 11, 2016, meeting with FBI informant Christopher Steele shows the Hillary Clinton campaign-funded British intelligence operative admitted that his research was political and facing an Election Day deadline.

And that confession occurred 10 days before the FBI used Steele’s now-discredited dossier to justify securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and the campaign’s ties to Russia.

Steele’s client “is keen to see this information come to light prior to November 8,” the date of the 2016 election, Kavalec wrote in a typed summary of her meeting with Steele and Tatyana Duran, a colleague from Steele’s Orbis Security firm. The memos were unearthed a few days ago through open-records litigation by the conservative group Citizens United.

Quote
One member of Congress transmitted the memos this week to the Department of Justice’s inspector general, fearing its investigation of FISA abuses may not have had access to them.

Nonetheless, the FBI is doing its best to keep much of Kavalec’s information secret by retroactively claiming it is classified, even though it was originally marked unclassified in 2016.

Quote
Interestingly, one legal justification cited for redacting the Oct. 13, 2016, email is the National Security Act of 1947, which can be used to shield communications involving the CIA or the White House National Security Council.

The three sentences visible in her memo show that U.S. officials had good reason to suspect Steele’s client and motive in alleging Trump-Russia collusion because they were election-related and facilitated by the Clinton-funded Fusion GPS founder, Glenn Simpson.

Quote
For the first time, we have written proof the U.S. government knew well before the FBI secured the FISA warrant that Steele had a political motive and Election Day deadline to make his dossier public.

And we know that information was transmitted before the Carter Page FISA warrant to one or more people whose job is so sensitive that their identity had to be protected. That means there is little chance the FBI didn’t know about Steele’s political client, or the Election Day deadline, before requesting the FISA warrant.

Documents and testimony from Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr, whose wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS, show he told the FBI in August 2016 that Steele was “desperate” to defeat Trump and his work had something to do with Clinton’s campaign.

No collusion, no obstruction. Just the FBI and CIA trying to manipulate the election on behalf on Hillary and the DNC.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on May 09, 2019, 02:20:36 PM
Good grief.

The Fusion GPS research was initiated by Republicans.

The FISA application noted specifically that the dossier came from efforts to discredit the Trump campaign. This Nunes narrative that this was hidden from the FISA court is 100% nonsense, and the above quotations treating this information as some kind of bombshell that was just confirmed are totally wacky.

You'd think if the FBI was trying to elect Hillary they'd have written a letter in the week before mentioning the open investigation. Oh wait, they did. It was a letter about their Hillary email investigation.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on May 09, 2019, 02:34:00 PM
To be fair - not that I know anything about this - there is nothing inconsistent with saying that both the Republicans as well as Hillary's campaign were trying to find dirt on Trump to tank his campaign. Even after Trump became the GOP nominee it wouldn't surprise me to learn that certain Conservative elements were still against him covertly.

scifi, it's probably safe to say that "the FBI" isn't a single entity that works entirely in concert, but has divided elements within it. From what I heard concerning Comey's statements about Hillary this was very much the case, where the Bureau was not at all on the same page.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 09, 2019, 02:36:33 PM
Good grief.

The Fusion GPS research was initiated by Republicans.

This is nothing more than an attempt to throw up a smoke screen. Yes, Republicans initially hired Fusion GPS to do some oppo research. Then, they fired Fusion GPS. After that, Hillary and the DNC hired Fusion GPS. There is no free pass here.

The FISA application noted specifically that the dossier came from efforts to discredit the Trump campaign. This Nunes narrative that this was hidden from the FISA court is 100% nonsense, and the above quotations treating this information as some kind of bombshell that was just confirmed are totally wacky.

You'd think if the FBI was trying to elect Hillary they'd have written a letter in the week before mentioning the open investigation. Oh wait, they did. It was a letter about their Hillary email investigation.

Again, you are not stating the facts.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on May 09, 2019, 06:13:55 PM
You're welcome to deny the truth!
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 24, 2019, 07:43:33 AM
Quote
President Trump on Thursday night issued a memo giving Attorney General William Barr the authority to declassify any documents related to surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016.

Trump also ordered the intelligence community to cooperate with Barr. The memo read: "The heads of elements of the intelligence community... and the heads of each department or agency that includes an element of the intelligence community shall promptly provide such assistance and information as the Attorney General may request in connection with that review."

The left is starting to really freak out now.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 24, 2019, 07:50:43 AM
Quote
NBC News’ Peter Alexander brought up a Trump tweet wherein he said spying on his campaign constituted “treason,” and asked who specifically he believes committed treason.

“Who specifically are you accusing of treason?” Alexander asked.

“Well, I think a number of people,” the president replied. “You look at [Former FBI Director James] Comey, if you look at [Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe, if you look at people — hot people — probably higher than that, if you look at [Former FBI Agent Peter] Strzok, if you look at his lover, [Former DOJ Lawyer] Lisa Page.”

“[Strzok] talked about the ‘insurance policy’ just in case Hillary loses, and that didn’t work out too well for them,” he continued, referencing private texts between Strzok and Page. “‘Should she lose, we’ll have an insurance policy, we’ll get this guy out of office.’ That’s what they said and that’s what they meant. That’s treason. That’s treason.”

Burn them all.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: ScottF on May 24, 2019, 10:02:59 AM
This is definitely going to be fascinating. Sunlight is nature's disinfectant. I'm all for revealing how we got here, from all angles.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on May 24, 2019, 12:08:26 PM
Quote
President Trump on Thursday night issued a memo giving Attorney General William Barr the authority to declassify any documents related to surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016.


Most Transparent President Ever!
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on May 24, 2019, 12:21:36 PM
This is definitely going to be fascinating. Sunlight is nature's disinfectant. I'm all for revealing how we got here, from all angles.

Hopefully Trump won't stare directly at the sun without safety glasses.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on May 24, 2019, 01:55:50 PM
BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier? (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/19/eight-times-mueller-report-shows-trump-white-house/)

Quote
The Mueller report confirms it was the actions of Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that triggered the investigation in July 2016.

Mueller’s report corroborates previous reporting in the New York Times about the sequence of events that set the probe in motion. Papadopoulos told a high-ranking Australian diplomat at an upscale London bar in May 2016 that Moscow had "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. (The Mueller report does not identify Australia, however.)

In late July — days after WikiLeaks’ dumped thousands of internal Democratic National Committee documents that proved damaging to Clinton — U.S. law enforcement became aware of Papadopoulos’ claim.

"Within a week of the (WikiLeaks) release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign," said Mueller’s report (p. 6, volume 1). "On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign."

The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used, to some extent, to persuade a U.S. foreign intelligence court to authorize surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But that wasn’t until October 2016 — several months after Papadopoulos’ actions started the investigation.

That’s from a highly biased source and can be dismissed without another thought.


Man, that’s easy enough to do! Wow, I guess I understand why you do it nearly every post now. Really convenient.

I can see now why you're such an ardent Trump supporter:  you gloss over all subtleties.  ::)

As I tried to tell you in my other posts, the reasons I ignore some of your more fringe sources is based on easy-to-do demagoguery techniques of cherry-picking, strawmanning and such.

Gathering instances showing that Democrats always do X or Y is easy.  Just ignore every instance when they don't.  Similarly, showing instances where liberals are segregating is easy.  Just re-define segregation so that it fits your desired outcome.  When sites are likely, or obviously, doing so, I'm not going to waste my time reading them.

My assertion, however, is much simpler.  Did the Mueller investigation start because of the Steele dossier?  The answer to that does not lie in omitting valid information or redefining terms.  It has to do with a very simple fact:  did the investigation start before the Steele dossier was used?

According to Politifact, Mueller stated that an FBI investigation started on July 31, 2016 because of Papadopoulos' contact with the Russians.  That this investigation did not include the Steele dossier until October of that year.  And that this investigation became Mueller's investigation when Comey was fired.

What facts were omitted that would change this line of reasoning?  What re-definitions did I do?  You say that the investigation started with the Steele dossier.  I say it started before the Steele dossier was mentioned.  I have facts and dates that prove it.  Does it matter where these facts come from?  Can you, or anyone, not easily verify these facts from another source?

The bottom line here is that, in this instance, it doesn't matter who came up with the facts.  Finding a fact that shows that the FBI investigation which became the Mueller investigation started before the Steele dossier was used proves that the Steele dossier was not the reason the investigation was started.  Unless you wish to dispute those facts, disputing the site where I found those facts is an obvious ad hominem.  You're just trying to cloud the issue with it.  And sully my reputation along the way.  :P
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on May 24, 2019, 02:18:08 PM
Actually, Washington Post puts the timeline at Jul 5 for his first meeting with FBI agents. Jul 19 is when the allegation about Carter Page came into play.

link (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/steele-timeline/?utm_term=.fbd0ee94a4a7)

I don't know which Politifact article you were working from, but this one (https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2018/jan/05/elizabeth-foley/taking-closer-look-steele-dossier-and-carter-pages/) says:

Quote
We can’t say what motivated the FBI to begin an investigation into Page, but the reporting that Foley said traced the genesis of the Page investigation to the Steele Dossier isn’t cut-and-dried.

They are characterizing it as ambiguous. As far as I know, nobody has any actual proof. Conservative partisans have connected the two dots with a straight line, and Liberal partisans have denied the dots have any connection.

Other than the timeline, we do have all the statements by the agents involved, but if you think they are all lying traitors looking to take down Trump and protect their own jobs and reputations, you can easily ignore all of that. Having that point of view is kind of like Descartes trying to figure out if his table is real, but that's what you're dealing with when you debate a believer in the deep state conspiracy.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on May 24, 2019, 02:30:41 PM
What facts were omitted that would change this line of reasoning?  What re-definitions did I do?  You say that the investigation started with the Steele dossier.  I say it started before the Steele dossier was mentioned.

One possible area of ambiguity here is the term "investigation". That word can mean different things depending on fervor, severity, amount of people on the job, reliability that there is something to find, and of course political current.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 24, 2019, 02:35:04 PM
Politifact is a biased source and can be disregarded. Any argument relying on data from Politifact may be summarily dismissed as not true.

You know, it really is a lot easier to do this. I get why you guys do it nearly 100% of the time.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on May 24, 2019, 03:26:06 PM
So for what its worth, and I haven't had time to do the big parse I really want to do, my take from actually reading the report is that it made it clear (though it didn't repeat it much) that the report about Papadapoulos is what triggered the "official" counter intelligence investigation (though, there are plenty of hints, some of which are being investigated, that it started in advance of that point).  The "official" investigation is what ultimately became Mueller's investigation.

It means, notwithstanding Shiff's claims, there was absolutely nothing of much merit that was not known to the public that justified the investigation.  I think the Papadapolous question did justify an investigation, but there's no reasonable way it justified the one we got.  It certainly didn't justify a Special Counsel.

I'm most curious in when Meuller knew that there was no collusion.  Keep in mind, we'll never get the real answer, even if he answers the question in committee hearings, it'll be a soft pedal about how it couldn't be rule out until the very end.  But it would be very telling at what point 95% of time started focusing on obstruction issues.

I'm still 100% convinced that the appointment of Barr is what stopped the probe - and not in a bad or unethical manner.  Mueller couldn't think of any way he could claim they were still investigating collusion to Barr, effectively the gig was up.

I'm still heavily confused by Rosenstein. 

The biggest difference between the Mueller report and me has to do with Comey.  Mueller gave him enhanced credibility, and I on the other hand see most of his actions as criminal.  It all comes down to his bizarre practice of documenting all his interactions with Trump.  He did it from the first time they met, which he had never done before (and it's not like he wasn't involved with other questionable people in the past, who gave him orders that he viewed as violating his duty).  Mueller thinks he was acting honestly and treats these as the best records of what happened, including where they contradict real time statements by Trump about Trump's motive, even where those were public, repeated and entirely plausible, and, on the other hand, think Comey deliberately created those records to be damning and likely false record, because he was already planning to try and implicate Trump with something.

Comey's actions around leaking information (documented) and around his meeting with Trump on the dossier that could be interpreted as an attempt at blackmail (which it turns out was actually discussed and Comey decided to ignore in taking the meeting, among other things, heavily call into question his motive (and lest you think this is unreasonable speculation, the lengths they went to ignore Trump's obvious and stated motives in favor of imputations of nefariousness, make this look like a complete lock).  In addition, AG Lynch has directly contradicted material statements related by Comey (i.e., that he was directed not to call the MYE an investigation) and Brennan (one of the two and maybe both are lying). 

If you want an official version, Comey said that he was closing the Clinton investigation and that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against Clinton, yet we didn't know until last month when Lisa Page's testimony was publicaly released that the DOJ specifically ruled out charging Clinton based on gross negligence - not that she wasn't grossly negligent, just that they would refuse to prosecute on that basis notwithstanding the law.  If you recall we had a big argument about why she was guilty based on the statute and how her conduct was grossly negligent, and that Comey was wrong as a matter of law. It turns out they just refused to apply that law as written (which I would be okay with if they had come out and said that was what they were doing).  instead, Comey pretty much told us she was exonerated.

Either Comey was the only honest person involved and was an incredibly naive person because of his honesty engaged in illegal leaks and open manipulation, or else he was completely unethical.  Given that Comey's influence on the election was a 1000 times bigger than the Russians, and he's the trigger for wasting 2 years of time on an investigation he should be called into question.

if you discount Comey, instead of relying on him completely, most of the Mueller report falls apart.

I'm also of the view that part of the reason the special counsel was appointed and carried on so long was to prevent honest people at the DOJ from digging through anything related to what happened to bring those actually guilty to account.  Pretty much Mueller's entire theory would have been that anyone that sought such information to say, put Comey in jail, would be guilty of obstructing Mueller's investigation. 
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 28, 2019, 07:22:13 PM

It’s starting to crack (https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/05/25/trump-russia_the_knives_are_out.html).

Quote
Now that the Russia collusion allegations have evaporated, the long knives are out and President Trump’s antagonists are watching their backs. They have moved from accusing him of treason to pushing revisionist narratives that try to shift the blame for the debunked probe onto others.

This effort is expected to accelerate following Trump’s decision Thursday to empower Attorney General William Barr to declassify CIA, Pentagon, and Director of National Intelligence documents as necessary to access “information or intelligence that relates to the attorney general’s review” of the Russia probe.

In other words, he’s gaining the authority needed to investigate the investigators.

And that means it’s time to start throwing people underthe bus! Looks like Comey is the easy target:

Quote
A "former CIA official” has told Fox News that two of Trump’s most high profile accusers – former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Director of the CIA John Brennan – didn’t want anything to do with Steele’s opus. It was former FBI Director James Comey, the source said, who was pushing to use the dossier in the official Intelligence Community Assessment, issued in the final days of the Obama administration. Having failed at that, thanks to Clapper and Brennan’s diligence (or so the story goes), Comey went rogue and confronted President-elect Trump with the salacious highlights produced by Steele.

Even the peripheral players are doing their best to shift blame. Former FBI General Counsel James Baker – who is under criminal investigation for leaks –  recently went on the Skullduggery podcast to assert that  he and other bureau officials were “quite worried” that  Comey’s meeting with Trump would look like a page out of J. Edgar Hoover’s playbook – invoking  the legendary FBI director who stockpiled damaging information to blackmail politicians. Would Comey be wrong to interpret Baker’s comments as an offer to testify against his former boss in exchange for a deal on the leaks investigation?

Loretta Lynch is on board:
Quote
Comey has no shortage  of adversaries, partly because old rivals he thought he had dispatched — such as former Attorney General Loretta Lynch —  are back in the mix, and he is possibly sensing his vulnerability. It was in June 2017 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that Comey tossed Lynch under the proverbial bus. Now she’s showing she can climb out from under the motor coach and dust herself off.

In September of 2015, Lynch and Comey were preparing to testify on Capitol Hill and expected to be asked about the Hillary Clinton email probe — code-named the Midyear Exam — which at that point had not been officially acknowledged. “I wanted to know if she [Lynch] would authorize us to confirm we had an investigation,” Comey told lawmakers. “And she said yes, but don't call it that; call it a 'matter.' And I said why would I do that? And [Lynch] said just call it a ‘matter.’” Comey says he reluctantly went along with Lynch’s demand, even though it gave him “a queasy feeling.” He worried “that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity, which was inaccurate.”

Comey, it was all Comey. Heh. That guy better start building his legal team.

For those that care, the article details how we are now on the third version of events to explain how the investigation started. Guess who is implicated in version 3 ... come on, you must see which way the wind is blowing.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 28, 2019, 07:26:37 PM
FYI, this is what obstruction looks like:

Quote
The former British spy who produced a dossier describing alleged links between Donald Trump and Russia will not cooperate with a prosecutor assigned by U.S. Attorney General William Barr to review how the investigations of Trump and his 2016 election campaign began, a source with knowledge of the situation said.

Christopher Steele, a former Russia expert for the British spy agency MI6, will not answer questions from prosecutor John Durham, named by Barr to examine the origins of the investigations into Trump and his campaign team, said the source close to Steele’s London-based private investigation firm, Orbis Business Intelligence…
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: DonaldD on May 28, 2019, 09:46:51 PM
Quote
Now that the Russia collusion allegations have evaporated
Repeating something silly over and over won't make it magically become more believable...
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 28, 2019, 10:17:16 PM
Hilariously ironic.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 29, 2019, 07:48:08 AM
Comey is feeling the heat. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-no-treason-no-coup-just-lies--and-dumb-lies-at-that/2019/05/28/45f8d802-8175-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8894934d1999) He writes an opinion piece to try and defend himself. It’s basically a whining effort to say they had no choice but to spy on the Trump campaign.  The rest is how it’s all so dumb and all lies.

Awesome. I’m looking forward tothe 4 AM raid on his home by heavily armed law enforcement agents - like they did to Roger Stone. I hope we get video of his perp walk.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 29, 2019, 08:22:35 AM
"You come at the king, you best not miss."

Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 29, 2019, 10:13:21 AM
Mueller is doing a presser today, very exciting! Wonder what he'll say.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on May 29, 2019, 11:42:17 AM
Anticlimatic -  he announced that he was officially closing the investigation and returning to private life.  That the report should stand for itself and that testifying before congress would add nothing new.  Then he repeated a few bits from the report - the major sections and what the investigation was about.  Also that had the investigation exhonorated the President they would have said so; that they didn't make an investigative finding; and that DOJ policy prohibited indictments or even sealed indictments against a sitting President.


Quote
And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

The introduction to the volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.

A special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

Here is the transcript,

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/29/robert-mueller-statement-russia-investigation-text-transcript-1346453
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: ScottF on May 29, 2019, 11:45:34 AM
Consider these two statements:

"If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
or
"If we had confidence the president committed a crime, we would have said so."

Are they equal?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on May 29, 2019, 11:49:00 AM
Consider these two statements:

"If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
or
"If we had confidence the president committed a crime, we would have said so."

Are they equal?

No.  The second is prohibited by DOJ policy.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Fenring on May 29, 2019, 12:20:06 PM
Consider these two statements:

"If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
or
"If we had confidence the president committed a crime, we would have said so."

Are they equal?

No.  The second is prohibited by DOJ policy.

Is that right? All that's been mentioned so far is that the DOJ can't/won't indict a sitting President, which is much different from making the claim that they believe he committed a crime. For instance in Hillary's case the FBI basically said outright that she committed gross negligence but also that no prosecutor in his right mind would bring a case against her (for whatever reason). Although she's not a sitting President, they basically did release a statement saying she committed a crime but that they wouldn't prosecute, so why couldn't they say something just like that about Trump and leave it to the Congress whether to impeach based on that?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on May 29, 2019, 12:57:06 PM
In other words, Mueller doesn't think it would add anything to explain why he selected partisans from one side of the investigation to handle it.  He doesn't think it would add anything to explain why his theory of obstruction is so broad (and it's broader than has been enforced previously) that Jerry Nadler is technically guilty of obstruction.  He doesn't want to directly answer the question of whether he was actually obstructed - as he knows the implication that he could have been obstructed is more powerful. 

He doesn't want to answer how a Special Prosecutor was investigating obstruction for a crime he could not charge.  Sure he claims that departmental policy allows investigation of matters to preserve the record, but the Special Counsel statute does not (that's a big difference from the abuses of the Independent Counsel law that Congress deliberately allowed to expire).

He doesn't want to answer when he knew collusion was a bogus charge.

He doesn't want to explain why he treated Comey as credible against all indications he wasn't.

Or why for example, McGann was allowed to testify for 30 hours if Trump's conversations with him were really intended to obstruct justice.  Or why a President that is complaining about clear conflicts of interest (Mueller's pre-existing friendship with Comey - which by the way clearly influenced how they saw Comey's credibility) and trying to get his White House counsel should be reconstrued as a nefarious attempt to obstruct justice.  It's legal to remove Mueller for conflicts.  It's legal to fire Mueller.  Failure to recuse with conflicts is a removable offense.  What was Mueller's motive in not recusing himself (why is that off the table when he's making up a motive for Trump notwithstanding having multiple real time reports of Trump's actual motives).

Why did he reconstrue a factual statement - that the Special Counsel's appointment would end his Presidency, as nefarious?  It is a fact, it's hampered the DOJ for over two years, it's hampered the President's ability to act for over two years, and it's aftermath will certainly continue for two more.

Why is it "unfair" to charge a crime when the President can't defend himself in court, but not unfair to write a book report that would get laughed out of court with large portions of it dismissed in summary judgment from which there can be no defense not unfair?  That more than anything tells me that Mueller is a story teller with a story to tell and little concern for the truth.

Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 29, 2019, 02:22:52 PM
So, I’m the end Mueller restated his report’s conclusion that there was no evidence to support the collusion narrative.

As for obstruction, he’s trying to play it coy with the idea he can’t charge the president with a crime and play the we couldn’t prove a negative with “If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so”. This is really dishonest and borders on prosecutorial misconduct.

First, he affirmed to Barr multiple times that the charging of a president was not a factor. Now, he wants to imply that it is. Pretty dishonest.

Second, this can’t prove a negative thing is utter horse*censored*. That’s not what prosecutors do not is it the standard of a prosecution. What if I said, “If I had confidence the you did not commit a crime, I would say so. But I’m not so....”. That’s not how this works, you don’t have to prove innocence.

What we saw was Mueller’s last ditch effort to keep this hoax rolling.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on May 29, 2019, 02:36:41 PM
I almost forgot, I tend to believe him that he knew he wasn't going to charge obstruction, I just think that's because he has no case.  It's just gravy that he can blame it on the DOJ policy and imply that Trump was guilty "but for" the policy.

I think I called this over a year ago when they raided Cohen's office.  That raid and the seizure of privileged communications killed any ability to make a legal case stick.  The fact that Mueller openly included privileged materials in the report further demonstrated that he never intended a to prosecute a case.  The whole point was to illegally seize information and kick it to Congress where illegally seized information can be used.

The guy's honor is highly suspect.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on May 29, 2019, 03:09:22 PM
FWIW, I don't think prosecutors always exonerate people they don't indict. Jussie Smollet comes to mind.

As for the report, it needs to be dropped. Impeachment can't go anywhere because the Senate would probably not convict Trump if he shot someone in Times Square, let alone this report. What would be best for the country would be if Republicans and Democrats moved on. Currently, it seems more likely that Republicans will keep this going now that they have the stronger case.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on May 29, 2019, 03:12:50 PM
You guys need to chill out.  No collusion, no obstruction.  Trump already told us.  Geez, take a note from the Dems and mellow out about the Meuller report.  ;)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on May 29, 2019, 03:40:01 PM


BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier? (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/19/eight-times-mueller-report-shows-trump-white-house/)

Quote
The Mueller report confirms it was the actions of Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that triggered the investigation in July 2016.

Mueller’s report corroborates previous reporting in the New York Times about the sequence of events that set the probe in motion. Papadopoulos told a high-ranking Australian diplomat at an upscale London bar in May 2016 that Moscow had "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. (The Mueller report does not identify Australia, however.)

In late July — days after WikiLeaks’ dumped thousands of internal Democratic National Committee documents that proved damaging to Clinton — U.S. law enforcement became aware of Papadopoulos’ claim.

"Within a week of the (WikiLeaks) release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign," said Mueller’s report (p. 6, volume 1). "On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign."

The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used, to some extent, to persuade a U.S. foreign intelligence court to authorize surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But that wasn’t until October 2016 — several months after Papadopoulos’ actions started the investigation.

That’s from a highly biased source and can be dismissed without another thought.


Man, that’s easy enough to do! Wow, I guess I understand why you do it nearly every post now. Really convenient.

OK, Crunch, if you want to ignore PolitiFact, how about this source (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4365340/Read-the-GOP-memo.pdf):

Quote
The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016...

So there was an on-going FBI counterintelligence investigation months before the Steele dossier was mentioned in October 2016.  Or do you have some problem with this source, too? :)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 29, 2019, 03:47:55 PM
You guys need to chill out.  No collusion, no obstruction.  Trump already told us.  Geez, take a note from the Dems and mellow out about the Meuller report.  ;)

Fenring can rely on Fenring.  ooohhhhmmmm. Fenring can rely on Fenring. ooohhhhhmmmm

It kind of helps.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on May 29, 2019, 03:54:33 PM
As a aside. Is it a reasonable position to want to leave the Mueller report for history to figure out - deal with it when Trumps two terms are over?
Or is it important to take a stand on now - assuming your truly believe Trump is guilty of something
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 29, 2019, 04:01:14 PM
As a aside. Is it a reasonable position to want to leave the Mueller report for history to figure out - deal with it when Trumps two terms are over?
Or is it important to take a stand on now - assuming your truly believe Trump is guilty of something

I think for today's left, they don't see a tomorrow available. Trump is already remaking the judiciary at all levels and he's gonna probably get 2 more Supreme Court Justices in the next term. They gotta get him now.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on May 29, 2019, 04:01:31 PM
I still believe the DNC will pull its head out of its ass and they will nominate someone who can win, but...

It's a pragmatic position.  I think if the house believes they can nail down one or more impeachable offenses, it's their duty to do so.  Even if the senate will shoot it down.  (and they would)

So you're left with potentially alienating independents by "wasting our time when you should be governing" or even thrusting them into Trump's base vs alienating your own base by failing to provide oversight when some believe it matters most.

If as you say we're "leaving it to history to figure out" I'd rather the party I support stood for what they believed to be right and do what they believe they were elected to do.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: rightleft22 on May 29, 2019, 04:20:45 PM
I'm torn on this one

Sometimes a retreat in required before victory can be won. My gut says that a trying to beat Trump through the investigation works against victory
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on May 29, 2019, 04:27:21 PM
It's amazing that even though Mueller certainly COULD HAVE expressed an opinion about whether Trump obstructed justice, and he was so concerned about the potential unfairness of doing so that he interpreted the OLC guidance as preventing him from even arriving at an opinion, that ya'll conspiracy nuts still think he was out to get Trump from the beginning and chose this path to hurt him worse. 

It's funny to see you guys believing ALL the spin you are getting from right wing commentators. Right down to the illegal spying on the campaign, right down to thinking Mueller chose his team because they hated Trump.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on May 29, 2019, 04:52:12 PM


BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier? (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/19/eight-times-mueller-report-shows-trump-white-house/)

Quote
The Mueller report confirms it was the actions of Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that triggered the investigation in July 2016.

Mueller’s report corroborates previous reporting in the New York Times about the sequence of events that set the probe in motion. Papadopoulos told a high-ranking Australian diplomat at an upscale London bar in May 2016 that Moscow had "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. (The Mueller report does not identify Australia, however.)

In late July — days after WikiLeaks’ dumped thousands of internal Democratic National Committee documents that proved damaging to Clinton — U.S. law enforcement became aware of Papadopoulos’ claim.

"Within a week of the (WikiLeaks) release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign," said Mueller’s report (p. 6, volume 1). "On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign."

The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used, to some extent, to persuade a U.S. foreign intelligence court to authorize surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But that wasn’t until October 2016 — several months after Papadopoulos’ actions started the investigation.

That’s from a highly biased source and can be dismissed without another thought.


Man, that’s easy enough to do! Wow, I guess I understand why you do it nearly every post now. Really convenient.

OK, Crunch, if you want to ignore PolitiFact, how about this source (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4365340/Read-the-GOP-memo.pdf):

Quote
The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016...

So there was an on-going FBI counterintelligence investigation months before the Steele dossier was mentioned in October 2016.  Or do you have some problem with this source, too? :)

Steele made his first contact with the FBI in July.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on May 29, 2019, 05:00:06 PM
It's funny that you think Mueller didn't express an opinion.  He violated the rules of professional conduct to get out there with his 'no exoneration' and 'we would have cleared him if we could' formulations.  His charge was to indict, not to impugn.  Yet, he did the exact same thing that Comey did with Clinton, listed out all of the faults (and some that are only imagined) of the "accused" in a manner designed to cause doubt and impugn his character, in a format and way that brooks no argument.

He didn't have to prove, for example that Trump fired Comey for a corrupt purpose, he just asserted it could have been one and listed it out as one of his grounds.  If he'd had to prove it, he would have lost badly, as there are plenty of real time statements that list out Trump's actual basis for firing him. 

It doesn't matter.  Pelosi has always intended to bring impeachment charges, and to impeach on largely a party line vote.  Her intent though, was to time it to maximize electoral impact, effectively to try and eliminate any response by the Senate to clear him, or to bring it so close in timing to the election to try and make the House's investigation the sordid story and not the Senate clearing him, which they'll paint as purely partisan.

All this does, to me, is act to force her to act too soon.

There's no real investigation required.  The banana court vote is already counted, but that won't stop the investigation from dragging for as long as possible to ensure that the House Dems and not the Senate holds the narrative.

There's no part of justice involved here at all.  The House, the Senate and the DOJ all cleared him of conspiracy/collusion.  The DOJ didn't establish facts sufficient for obstruction, and that's using a legal standard that was made up and far beyond what should be applied.  And it doesn't matter to the left that they have to burn the Constitution and all our legal protections to get their man, it doesn't matter than no crime was committed by Trump, or that the prosecutors violated the Constitution to build their "trumped" up case, so long as it gets the result they want.

In one way they were correct, Trump's election may be the end of our Democracy, only it's not be because of Trump it's because of the left.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on May 29, 2019, 06:04:16 PM
A little more food for thought.  The Mueller report is an internal DOJ document.  There is no legal standard that prevented him from stating that Trump obstructed justice.  He could have legally stated that there was sufficient evidence of obstruction but that he could not bring charges because of Departmental policy.

Why didn't he? 

It's clear that he lied when he said it would be unfair to label Trump without giving him an opportunity to respond.  He violated legal ethics to label him publicly, and specifically denied him the forum where Mueller would have to prove his case.

Gregg Jarrett said it best when he said, Mueller created a new standard that applies only to Trump, guilty until proven innocent.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on May 29, 2019, 06:45:09 PM
It's amazing that even though Mueller certainly COULD HAVE expressed an opinion about whether Trump obstructed justice, and he was so concerned about the potential unfairness of doing so that he interpreted the OLC guidance as preventing him from even arriving at an opinion, that ya'll conspiracy nuts still think he was out to get Trump from the beginning and chose this path to hurt him worse. 

It's funny to see you guys believing ALL the spin you are getting from right wing commentators. Right down to the illegal spying on the campaign, right down to thinking Mueller chose his team because they hated Trump.

To be fair, there’s a hell of a lot of evidence of this. There was admitted spying on the Trump campaign. The team mueller chose was overwhelmingly democrat and many  openly supported Hillary. Mueller said multiple times those guidelines were not part of his decision until now when he strongly implies that it was. Now, everyone involved is accusing the rest of lying.

There’s infinitly more evidence of illegal behavior by comey, clapper, et al than there ever was of Russian collusion.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on May 30, 2019, 11:24:15 AM
Fox News' legal analyst Andrew Napolitano spelled it out as clearly as one could. (https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-mueller-evidence-trump-similar-nixon-clinton-impeachment-1438750)

Quote
“The evidence he [Mueller] laid out is remarkably similar to the impeachment charges against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton,” Napolitano, who previously served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge, explained on Fox Business. He then drew direct comparisons between allegations against the former presidents and those laid out by Mueller against Trump, highlighting instances where all the heads of state had allegedly worked to obstruct justice.

“These facts that he laid out are so substantially similar to the matured allegations against Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, it’s clear where he was going,” Napolitano pointed out...

“Effectively what Bob Mueller said is we had evidence that he committed a crime but we couldn’t charge him because he’s the president of the United States,” Napolitano explained. “This is even stronger than the language in his report. This is also a parting shot at his soon-to-be former boss, the attorney general, because this statement is 180 degrees from the four-page statement that Bill Barr issued at the time he first saw the report.”

Fox Business host Stuart Varney then asked: “Is it that bad?”

“I think so,” Napolitano responded. “Basically he’s saying the president can’t be indicted, otherwise we would have indicted him and we’re not going to charge him with a crime because there’s no forum in which for him to refute the charges, but we could not say that he didn’t commit a crime, fill in the blank, because we believe he did.”

Then there was Fox's chief political anchor Bret Baier: (https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-anchor-mueller-collusion-obstruction-trump-1438599)

Quote
“I was struck by the tone and tenor of those remarks, as he [Mueller] laid out his case wrapping up this report,” Baier said Wednesday on America’s Newsroom after the special counsel’s comments were aired live. “This was not, as the president says time and time again, ‘no collusion, no obstruction.’ It was much more nuanced than that,” the anchor explained.

“He [Mueller] said specifically they couldn’t find evidence sufficient to move forward with a crime on the issue of conspiracy, on the collusion part of the investigation on the Trump campaign,” Baier pointed out. “He said specifically if they had found that the president did not commit a crime on obstruction, that they would have said that,” he said...

“It was not anywhere as clear cut as Attorney General Bill Barr [characterized the report],” the political anchor said. “In fact, it was almost exactly the opposite, not clear cut.”
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on May 30, 2019, 11:26:26 AM
Quote
Steele made his first contact with the FBI in July.

But it was clearly not the reason the FBI began investigating the Trump campaign in July.  If it were, then it should have been listed as one of the reasons for the investigation.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on May 30, 2019, 01:01:11 PM
Quote
Steele made his first contact with the FBI in July.

But it was clearly not the reason the FBI began investigating the Trump campaign in July.  If it were, then it should have been listed as one of the reasons for the investigation.

Unless the FBI lied about why it started the investigation. I don't subscribe to that theory, but the verified timeline simply doesn't make it impossible.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on June 07, 2019, 07:41:56 AM
Well, well, well.
Quote
Mueller left key information out of his report. He deceptively edited a phone call made by Trump’s attorney to make Trump and his attorney look worse. What else did Mueller and his team lie about?

The actual transcript of a phone call between Trump’s attorney John Dowd and Michael Flynn’s was released Friday night by court order. It is not the same transcript in the Mueller report. It was selectively edited to make the Trump team look worse and potentially guilty of obstruction.

No collusion. No obstruction.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on June 19, 2019, 04:14:17 PM
How do the omitted parts change the thrust of the conversation?  Even with the “without having to give up any…um confidential information. so, uhm, if it’s the former, then you know,” (https://www.independentsentinel.com/mueller-deceptively-edited-trumps-lawyers-call-to-make-them-look-worse/) the basic message seems to be the same to me:  tell us what they know.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on June 19, 2019, 06:13:00 PM
Ok, so selectively editing a conversation is perfectly acceptable is it?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on June 19, 2019, 06:20:23 PM
Didn't you read the junk they edited from the conversation?  Lots of "uh" and repeated words.  You may be used to hearing Trump speak, but most of us like clean sentences that get to the point and aren't stupid or redundant.

It if makes the text clearer, yes, edit out the useless words.  Of course, that does leave the person open to charges that he changed the meaning by doing so.  But you can always find out by reading the unredacted text.  So, again, did the edits change the meaning significantly?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on June 19, 2019, 06:23:42 PM
But we were not supposed to read the interacted texts. It was only exposed when a court order allowed it. This was, in fact, Mueller trying to deceive everyone. It did substantially change the meaning and intent of the conversation reported.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on June 19, 2019, 06:27:08 PM
So you say.

Let me reiterate:  how did it change the meaning and intent of the conversation?  Just saying so doesn't make it so.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on July 24, 2019, 10:26:53 AM
Who’s watching? Chris Wallace has the call:

Quote
This has been a disaster for the Democrats and a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller.

During his testimony, Mueller confirms his investigation was not curtailed, stopped, or hindered at any point.

No collusion. No obstruction.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on July 24, 2019, 11:02:58 AM
He (Meuller)  also said collusion was not a legal standard they looked into.

He has not said "no obstruction" only that they would not indite him.  (because of DOJ standards)  :)

This is why teachers can spot and grade harshly when someone only reads the cliff-notes version of a book.  (let alone plagiarizing a tweet)  :)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on July 24, 2019, 11:10:23 AM
Every part of this testimony is ridiculous and a waste of time. Republicans trying to trick Mueller into saying "no collusion". Democrats trying to trick him into saying that if he weren't the President he'd be indicted.

I'm proud of Mueller for not taking the bait, I'm sorry the Democrats are putting him through this.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on July 24, 2019, 12:33:36 PM
Indeed.  The bottom line is "We don't think enough people actually READ the report, so we need a media spectacle or else nobody will care."

It is kinda sad that this is the primary motivator, and more sad still that they may be correct.

TL;DR
Trump IS above the law.
You all know what your job is here.
RTFM
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on July 24, 2019, 01:02:13 PM
And even more sad that they think the spectacle changes anything. They aren't going to get one more voter, one more donation, or one more lawn sign by doing this. So even politically it is a waste of time. Within the party, not one more representative is going to say *facepalm* now I get it! I'm supporting impeachment!

It's not like Mueller is going to lose his cool, slip up, or otherwise provide them with a gotcha. He knows a thing or two about interrogations and careful language.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on July 24, 2019, 01:09:08 PM
Quote
Within the party, not one more representative is going to say *facepalm* now I get it! I'm supporting impeachment!
IDK about that.  It IS possible...  Still uncertain if it will help or hurt, but it does set them up for a fall by their own constituents if they do NOT press forward.  It should be (more) obvious to all, that it's on them to do something or not. 

Quote
It's not like Mueller is going to lose his cool, slip up, or otherwise provide them with a gotcha. He knows a thing or two about interrogations and careful language.
I don't know if they count as slips but there were two points in the first testimony that stood out to me.

R point:  he couldn't defend what seemed a pretty clear instance of him flipping presumption of innocence on its head.

D point:  he did answer that the guideline was what prevented the incitement.

I expect these will be the most important snips to be spun/highlighted/meemed
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on July 24, 2019, 01:15:48 PM
Interesting, he just backtracked in the 2nd session about my favorable Democratic point.  Or at least, more safely refined his answer.  So there goes that arrow from the quiver.   ;D
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on July 24, 2019, 02:28:32 PM
Yeah, weird that he walked that back. Mueller saying he didn’t know what Fusion GPS was seemed really strange too. It’s almost as if Mueller really wasn’t that involved in creating the report.

Whatever was left of the collusion and obstruction hoax/conspiracy theory just had the air totally suck out of it. Nadler must be fuming.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on July 24, 2019, 03:39:42 PM
Quote
Whatever was left of the collusion and obstruction hoax/conspiracy theory just had the air totally suck out of it.
Interesting take away...

I get that I'm viewing through the other end of the telescope and what seemed minimized (eliminated) to you is writ large by my perspective but...

The over all message seems to be:  Mueller CANNOT indite a sitting president.  CANNOT suggest impeachment as a course of action.  CANNOT state (or at least leave on record after having done so) that the only reason for the lack of that indictment was the guidelines. 

With all that stated, he (clearly) lays out all the reasons there should have been an indictment, were it not for those policies/directives/guidelines.

The fact that he seems to be leaving the door open on conspiracy with Russia is odd to me.  No clue what may still be outstanding that he cannot give a definitive answer. 

The obstruction seems factual, not ambiguous and in no reasonable interpretation, "a hoax".  Fortunately for Trump, that doesn't matter (as long as he's in office).


Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on July 24, 2019, 04:06:12 PM
Well, when even Chuck Todd, Michael Moore, and MSNBC agree on he disaster this was for Democrats, it was unbelievably bad. Social media is lit up with both sides agreeing that Mueller did more for Trump than ever thought possible

If you’re holding on to whatever is left of this meltdown, you’re a conspiracy theorist.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on July 25, 2019, 01:32:01 PM
What Chuck Todd, Michael Moore, and MSNBC have in common is that they're all in the entertainment business. They aren't serious commentators. It was an irrational fantasy that Mueller was going to go on TV and in some way deal a new, devastating blow to Trump. It's like they believed in the SNL version of Mueller.

The reality (which was well-reported) was that Mueller didn't want to appear, didn't want to say anything that he didn't put in the report, and has always been careful and reserved in testimony before Congress. Nothing about his appearance yesterday should have surprised anyone, once you take into account his walking-back of the concession Ted Lieu appeared to get in the first hearing.

It's also not surprising that Trump and his media surrogates immediately trumpeted their total victory. It's their standard M.O., and it works for people who want to believe it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on July 25, 2019, 02:13:55 PM
I particularly liked how he wouldn't even read from the report.  And constantly made them cite which section.  Like he wanted everyone playing the home game to read along!  :D
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on July 25, 2019, 02:24:33 PM
I think it's even harder to credit theories that Mueller had anti-Trump aims when you take into account his avoidance of providing useful sound bites. He wouldn't read from the report because he doesn't want to be on video saying damning things about Trump. I'm sure he hates SNL Mueller as much as anyone.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on July 26, 2019, 08:17:51 AM
I particularly liked how he wouldn't even read from the report.  And constantly made them cite which section.  Like he wanted everyone playing the home game to read along!  :D

More like he had no idea what was in report, as if he’d never read it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on July 26, 2019, 12:34:10 PM
The conspiracy theory grows:
Quote
[Y]ou say Mueller fully understood your question. Doesn't Mueller's correction, which he later provided, prove otherwise?" Blitzer asked.

"This is what’s so odd about that exchange. Special counsel Robert Mueller agreed that the OLC opinion prevented a sitting president from being indicted, and then the Republican member after me asked him a series of questions to try to get him to walk it back, and he did not do that."

"And then it wasn't until there was a recess with the Intel committee that he started to walk some of it back," said Lieu.

"I don't know who got to him. I don't know who talked to him, but that was very odd, what he did.”

Blitzer asked Lieu, "What are you suggesting?"

Are you saying he only did that because of pressure from someone?"

I don't know," said Lieu, "but he clearly answered the way he answered to me, and then he had numerous times to walk that back by the next Republican member who asked him a series of questions on the exact same issue trying to get him to walk it back."

Mueller would have totally gotten Trump but someone got to Mueller.

Could it have been Putin?  LMAO. Jesus.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: scifibum on July 26, 2019, 01:53:21 PM
What Lieu is suggesting is that someone like Barr might have asked him to clarify from A to B.

A: I would have indicted if not for OLC guidance.
B: I did not try to arrive at a decision on whether a crime was committed because OLC prevents issuing an indictment.

B is what is in the report. A was a little surprising during the hearing.

I don't think anyone necessarily pushed him to clarify. He might have simply noticed, during the recess, that people noticed version A and realized it departed from what he was saying previously.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: D.W. on July 26, 2019, 01:54:37 PM
That is indeed silly.  There were obvious directives/guidelines or just plain old personal code, that meant he could not say outright certain things.  That the OLC guideline were the ONLY reason Trump was not indited was one of those things.  He miss stepped and DID say that. outright (instead of just implying the hell out of that point.)  That he later retracted it was consistent with the rest of his testimony.

If you wana get all conspiracy theory about it, the question is whether it was a mistake, or just a tactic to say what he wanted to, then "take it back", no harm no foul!   ;D
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 10, 2020, 05:31:28 PM
Information made public from Catherine Herridge at CBS news:

Quote
Developing @CBSNews obtains April 2 letter responding to @SenRonJohnson and @ChuckGrassley over four key footnotes IG Horowitz FISA report. Three declassified with minimal redactions, and fourth footnote blacked out citing “unique and significant concerns. Specifically, footnote 350 FBI effort to verify Steele Dossier “The (redacted) stated that it did not have high confidence in this subset of Steele’s reporting and ASSESSED that the referenced subset was part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate US foreign relations”

They knew the Steele Dossier was false, went with it anyway.

Herridge reports that AG Barr told her that former IG Atkinson went around normal protocols in order to start yet another open ended (and illegal) investigation into Trump, while hiding it from Trump.

John Solomon just confirmed, that multiple DC Grand Jury subpoenas have been issued on behalf of US Atty John Durham.

Lock’em up!
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 10, 2020, 08:03:52 PM
It also seems to back up the theory many of had back in late 2016/early 2017 that "the Russian Game Plan" was chaos without regard to who won the election in 2016.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 11, 2020, 08:46:16 AM
It backs up the theory that this was an intelligence operation by DNC loyalists within the CIA and FBI. They took misinformation from the Russians and presented it as true, fueling illegal investigations in an effort to take down the president.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 11, 2020, 03:51:03 PM
It backs up the theory that this was an intelligence operation by DNC loyalists within the CIA and FBI. They took misinformation from the Russians and presented it as true, fueling illegal investigations in an effort to take down the president.

It does that as well. The Russians created the conditions for "chaos" and accusations to be made without regard to which candidate won.

Trump just happened to make it very easy for the Democrats to want to buy into what the Russian intelligence services had been feeding them. Which made it very easy for the Russians to achieve their objective of sowing chaos in the American political system.

In light of the recent revelations, I'm just seriously hoping that the Republican's get control of the House so they can subject Adam Schiff to a House Ethics Committee investigation and run him through a wringer, and follow up on any significant bread crumb trails they find from there. Schiff is an even larger steaming pile of excrement than he initially presents himself as being.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: wmLambert on April 11, 2020, 07:29:43 PM
...Trump just happened to make it very easy for the Democrats to want to buy into what the Russian intelligence services had been feeding them. Which made it very easy for the Russians to achieve their objective of sowing chaos in the American political system.

As I recall, the Russian intrigue was solidly following Hillary, and not Trump - making a Russian attack on Trump just another example of projection.

Wasn't it Hillary who chaired the committee that gave away our Uranium to them and who's foundation received millions of dollars of donations from the Uranium company's owners? Wasn't it Hillary who had her illegal Server exposed to them? Wasn't it Hillary's husband who got huge "speaking fees" to say and do virtually noting? Wasn't it Hillary who made photo ops with her ludicrous "Restart Button?" And wasn't it Obama who told them to wait until he was re-elected so he could be more flexible? And wasn't it the Obama administration who were warned of possible Russian interference and did nothing until after Trump was elected?

Everything they claimed Trump did was examined under a microscope until he was prove totally innocent of all charges. Yet Hillary and Obama skated. Do not claim Trump brought it on himself.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: DJQuag on April 12, 2020, 05:31:28 PM
...Trump just happened to make it very easy for the Democrats to want to buy into what the Russian intelligence services had been feeding them. Which made it very easy for the Russians to achieve their objective of sowing chaos in the American political system.

As I recall, the Russian intrigue was solidly following Hillary, and not Trump - making a Russian attack on Trump just another example of projection.

Wasn't it Hillary who chaired the committee that gave away our Uranium to them and who's foundation received millions of dollars of donations from the Uranium company's owners? Wasn't it Hillary who had her illegal Server exposed to them? Wasn't it Hillary's husband who got huge "speaking fees" to say and do virtually noting? Wasn't it Hillary who made photo ops with her ludicrous "Restart Button?" And wasn't it Obama who told them to wait until he was re-elected so he could be more flexible? And wasn't it the Obama administration who were warned of possible Russian interference and did nothing until after Trump was elected?

Everything they claimed Trump did was examined under a microscope until he was prove totally innocent of all charges. Yet Hillary and Obama skated. Do not claim Trump brought it on himself.

To be fair, the Reptilians can be sneaky.

I really wouldn't put it past their ways. God. Do you think the Demoplaugerats are are in this? Could they be? PS I never got into BTFS
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: wmLambert on April 12, 2020, 07:43:38 PM
...Trump just happened to make it very easy for the Democrats to want to buy into what the Russian intelligence services had been feeding them. Which made it very easy for the Russians to achieve their objective of sowing chaos in the American political system.

As I recall, the Russian intrigue was solidly following Hillary, and not Trump - making a Russian attack on Trump just another example of projection.

Wasn't it Hillary who chaired the committee that gave away our Uranium to them and who's foundation received millions of dollars of donations from the Uranium company's owners? Wasn't it Hillary who had her illegal Server exposed to them? Wasn't it Hillary's husband who got huge "speaking fees" to say and do virtually noting? Wasn't it Hillary who made photo ops with her ludicrous "Restart Button?" And wasn't it Obama who told them to wait until he was re-elected so he could be more flexible? And wasn't it the Obama administration who were warned of possible Russian interference and did nothing until after Trump was elected?

Everything they claimed Trump did was examined under a microscope until he was prove totally innocent of all charges. Yet Hillary and Obama skated. Do not claim Trump brought it on himself.

To be fair, the Reptilians can be sneaky.

I really wouldn't put it past their ways. God. Do you think the Demoplaugerats are are in this? Could they be? PS I never got into BTFS

Reptillians? Demoplaugerats? Are you trying to be clever using nonsense words? At least learn how to spell Plagiarism, so the attempt at humor is at least discernible.

To answer the silly sneaky charge, anyone can be, but Trump is reactionary. He responds to attacks - he doesn't start it. If anything, he is the opposite of sneaky, throwing the spotlight back on the shadow dwellers who say dishonest things.

BTW, why mention next generation file-sharing protocol utilizing the TRON network and the BitTorrent ecosystem?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 12, 2020, 08:18:25 PM
The funnier thing, now that you've pointed out that he's using Reptillians as a placeholder for Republicans is that "Reptillians" has been, and probably still is, commonly referenced by the Coast to Coast AM "believer" crowd. They're the "bad aliens" that are trying to destroy humanity.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Crunch on April 13, 2020, 08:22:19 AM
The funnier thing, now that you've pointed out that he's using Reptillians as a placeholder for Republicans is that "Reptillians" has been, and probably still is, commonly referenced by the Coast to Coast AM "believer" crowd. They're the "bad aliens" that are trying to destroy humanity.

 i was feeling badly for the guy, clearly he’s slipped a gear so wasn’t gonna encourage it by engaging the ...whatever he’s going through.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 14, 2020, 06:58:22 PM
Quote
Quote
Developing @CBSNews obtains April 2 letter responding to @SenRonJohnson and @ChuckGrassley over four key footnotes IG Horowitz FISA report. Three declassified with minimal redactions, and fourth footnote blacked out citing “unique and significant concerns. Specifically, footnote 350 FBI effort to verify Steele Dossier “The (redacted) stated that it did not have high confidence in this subset of Steele’s reporting and ASSESSED that the referenced subset was part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate US foreign relations”


They knew the Steele Dossier was false, went with it anyway.

Am I reading your quote wrong, but doesn't it say that someone thought that some of the Steele's report was part of a disinformation campaign?  Not that the entire dossier was false.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 14, 2020, 08:17:39 PM
The "Delta File" on Michael Steele maintained by counter-intelligence, which should have been checked, indicated that US Intelligence believed Steele had been on the receiving end of a coordinated Russian disinformation campaign lasting for the better part of a year prior to the FBI submitting his Dossier to the FISA Court.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 21, 2020, 01:33:32 PM
I never cease to be appalled by the abuses that were engaged in by the DOJ and the FBI in connection with this spying campaign.  Again, this makes Nixon's actions look like a grade school prank, yet the consequences of it are effectively nothing on the guilty parties.

I just saw this one related to the Russian hoax today, https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/how-adam-schiff-secretly-thwarted-efforts-bring (https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/how-adam-schiff-secretly-thwarted-efforts-bring).

What's most striking is the literal claim that witness depositions included exculpatory evidence and that they have never been produced or released to the White House - apparently, solely for political gain of the DNC.  If seeking electoral advantage - on a vague and unproven basis - is an "abuse of power" because it's somehow in a round about manner almost connected to a Presidential Authority is really an impeachable offense as asserted by the DNC House, how then is deliberate abuse of secrecy related to depositions with exculpatory evidence, and almost immediate release, sometimes secret, of depositions with the appearance of politically damaging evidence, with no rational basis other than open political advantage not an abuse of power?  I suspect Adam Schiff should be in prison, but it's a certainty he should not be in office or have access to intelligence secrets.

Is there ever going to be any Mea Culpa in respect of anyone on the left for not only believing unfounded lies, but promoting them and then covering up the exposures of such lies and the truth?

It's one thing to claim Trump lies, and quite another to deliberately suppress or support the suppression of the truth in favor of your own political beliefs.

Trump was never guilty of Russian collusion.  Obama/Biden oversaw the single biggest abuse of power in our modern history, where they unleashed multiple government agencies to trample the civil rights of their  political opponents.  These are the actual facts that really occurred. 
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: wmLambert on April 21, 2020, 02:27:40 PM
...Obama/Biden oversaw the single biggest abuse of power in our modern history, where they unleashed multiple government agencies to trample the civil rights of their  political opponents.  These are the actual facts that really occurred.

The similarities with Watergate are educational. Nixon put together the Plumbers, because the Democrats had suborned the Department of Justice and the Intel Community, and he needed some way to safeguard the country. If Liddy hadn't bungled the break-in, they may have come away with the proof needed to throw the Democrat leaders into prison.

Subsequent GOP leaders took the wrong lesson from Watergate. Bush 43 thought Nixon resigned out of guilt and never realized as Jude Wannisky wrote to Charlie Rangel, that he resigned "...because he knew a Senate trial would take a year of the nation’s energy at a time when our economy was falling apart underneath him and we were at a point in the Cold War in which the Soviet Union seemed to be winning. Nixon resigned to spare the country this ordeal, prepared to allow history to judge him fairly instead of risking the fate of the nation in order to save his immediate skin. This is why he never "apologized" for the cover-up, as his prosecutors demanded. He knew in his heart he was not guilty."

Bush should have realized the media was never going to exonerate his legacy, the same way they never exonerated Nixon. It seems Trump was bright enough to see that.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 23, 2020, 01:36:24 PM
At least a Republican-led Senate panel has unanimously concluded that Russia didinterfere in the 2016 presidential election to assist Donald Trump's candidacy. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/us/politics/russian-interference-senate-intelligence-report.html)  Like Mueller emphasized in talking about his report.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Seriati on April 23, 2020, 02:44:40 PM
Lol, I'll read it when I have some time.  Still sounds like a nothing burger.  Whether Russia tried to help Trump or undermine confidence in the election doesn't have anything to do with whether Trump conspired with Russia. 

That's the fun lie that the left keeps selling, the mere fact that you see the report as relevant on that exposes how deep the selling of that lie  has ingrained itself into people's consciousness.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: DonaldD on April 23, 2020, 03:26:16 PM
Just another example of cognitive bias where the right cannot admit that Russia interfered with the US election, because that could be used to call into question Trump's legitimacy, and by such refusal, the right must refuse to respond to foreign threats against US democracy.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: ScottF on April 23, 2020, 03:36:49 PM
Just another example of cognitive bias where the right cannot admit that Russia interfered with the US election, because that could be used to call into question Trump's legitimacy, and by such refusal, the right must refuse to respond to foreign threats against US democracy.

I've never heard anyone on the right claim that Russia wasn't actively trying to and/or succeeding with interfering with the election. Maybe we have a different definition of the right.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: DonaldD on April 23, 2020, 04:21:33 PM
I've never heard anyone on the right claim that Russia wasn't actively trying to and/or succeeding with interfering with the election. Maybe we have a different definition of the right.
I doubt our definition of "right" (wing/leaning) is significantly different.  I think it far more likely that you weren't paying attention.

Poll: Langer Research (https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1186a3Russia.pdf)
Quote
Leaders in both parties in Congress have said the evidence establishes that Russia tried to influence the election. Yet just 38 percent of leaned Republicans and 32 percent of strong conservatives believe this to be the case
As of April, 2017, 68% of strong conservatives either strongly or somewhat disputed that Russia interfered (or had no opinion). 

Oh, and if it wasn't obvious - my earlier response was more than a little tongue in cheek - I was responding to a post generalizing the left by a poster whose partisan shields are consistently set to maximum.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: wmLambert on April 23, 2020, 04:25:49 PM
Everybody believes Russia wanted to interfere with the 2016 election. Oh wait. The Obama administration didn't. They had all the notice beforehand and probably thought any meddling would be pro-Hillary, because she was the anointed one already bought and paid for by Russia. They did nothing.

Believing that Russua ever favored Trump is the conspiracy theory that no one thinks is true. There is no one Left or Right who don't believe they did try to stick their thumbs on the scale, but everyone also knows their best interest always rested with Hillary.

Can the tongue-in-cheeker possibly answer this without smirking and more projection?
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: yossarian22c on April 23, 2020, 04:30:40 PM
There is no one Left or Right who don't believe they did try to stick their thumbs on the scale, but everyone also knows their best interest always rested with Hillary.

Wow - wow just. Assuming they were supporting Hillary ignores most of what their online social media accounts were doing at the time. Other than the ones that tried to get opposing groups to show up at the same place on the same day - the pure chaos play.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: DonaldD on April 23, 2020, 04:47:30 PM
Believing that Russua ever favored Trump is the conspiracy theory that no one thinks is true.
You mean, no one aside from the Republicans currently in the Senate (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/us/politics/russian-interference-senate-intelligence-report.html)?
Quote
There is no one Left or Right who don't believe they did try to stick their thumbs on the scale
You mean, no one aside from the 68% of strong conservatives who admitted to not believing that Russia did try to interfere with the election (https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1186a3Russia.pdf)? 

Really, people just provided evidence of these two things in the past few hours, yet you ignore those referenced pieces of evidence and blindly stride forward.  The weird thing is you probably still won't be able to process what you just misrepresented, even after your nose is rubbed in it.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: fizz on April 23, 2020, 05:50:30 PM
Believing that Russua ever favored Trump is the conspiracy theory that no one thinks is true. There is no one Left or Right who don't believe they did try to stick their thumbs on the scale, but everyone also knows their best interest always rested with Hillary.

Personally witnessed true story: between 2012 and 2017 I had a lot of business negotiations with Russians because they were interest in doing a potentially really big project based on one of our products (it ended in nothing after a lot of wasted money... I started out having nothing against Russians in general, even finding them mildly sympathetic, and I ended with a strong distrust and dislike of any self-styled Russian businessman or politician, but that's another story).

Anyway, I had a lot of dealings, included drunken dealings (because sometimes stereotypes are that for a reason) with some quite top tier Russians (and ex-soviet republics) politicians and businessmen.
All the Russians I talked with talked a lot when drinking, and loved to boast and express their very unsubtle political opinions. During these one-sided discussions, it was quite evident that all of them hated with a fiery hate both Obama and Hillary.
On the contrary, they were all absolutely delighted by the idea of Trump getting elected.

At some point, it came out the news that one Russian billionaire living in the US that they dealt with had edged his bets by donating to Hillary campaign too in addition to Trump campaign, and they were all gleefully commenting how this would have trashed his political support back in Moscow (they were happy because now that guy would have needed them to get back in good graces at home).

Oh, even if they loved to imply how they were controlling or influencing this or that, I don't believe the ones I was in contact with really knew or were involved in any way in such maneuvers, and if they had been they would not have talked for sure with me about that. One thing I learned about that kind of people is how much they love to brag and outright lie.

But their feelings? Those were very very clear: Obama was the devil, Hillary was the arch-devil, and once they knew Trump had won they were in heaven.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Aris Katsaris on April 23, 2020, 09:43:08 PM
There is no one Left or Right who don't believe they did try to stick their thumbs on the scale, but everyone also knows their best interest always rested with Hillary.

I, for one, don't know that "their best interest always rested with Hillary", so that disproves your claim that "everyone" knows it.

You guys have all seen the Trump-Putin mural, right? (https://time.com/4336396/lithuania-mural-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-kiss/ )

This was created in Lithuania back in 2016, many months before Trump's election. People were talking about the love that Trump and Putin had for each other from way back then -- they weren't talking about the love between Hillary and Putin.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Wayward Son on April 24, 2020, 04:59:05 PM
Just another example of cognitive bias where the right cannot admit that Russia interfered with the US election, because that could be used to call into question Trump's legitimacy, and by such refusal, the right must refuse to respond to foreign threats against US democracy.

I've never heard anyone on the right claim that Russia wasn't actively trying to and/or succeeding with interfering with the election. Maybe we have a different definition of the right.

Quote
"First of all, I want no help from any country, and I haven't been given help from any country,” Trump told reporters Tuesday... (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-maintains-russian-interference-2020-election-sanders-reelection/story?id=69201889)
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: wmLambert on April 24, 2020, 06:34:34 PM
I see. Plenty of first-hand parochial beliefs that some Russian businessmen hated Obama and Hillary - yet never addressed the fact that they also believed they had both of them bought and paid for. Isn't it worse to despise those you think you have on your own team?

It wasn't just one oligarch who gave millions of dollars to Hillary, it was many who invested in her winning. There is no disjointing that came from trying to get into Hillary's emails. That is just more blackmail material that puts her deeper into their debt ...or ownership.

Trump was not the guy who was in charge of the committee that allowed our uranium to go to Russia. Quid. Pro. Quo.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDrake on April 25, 2020, 08:14:55 AM
I see. Plenty of first-hand parochial beliefs that some Russian businessmen hated Obama and Hillary - yet never addressed the fact that they also believed they had both of them bought and paid for. Isn't it worse to despise those you think you have on your own team?

It wasn't just one oligarch who gave millions of dollars to Hillary, it was many who invested in her winning. There is no disjointing that came from trying to get into Hillary's emails. That is just more blackmail material that puts her deeper into their debt ...or ownership.

Trump was not the guy who was in charge of the committee that allowed our uranium to go to Russia. Quid. Pro. Quo.

Lie. Clinton was not in charge of that committee. And it wasn't "our" uranium it was a joint venture between Canada and South Africa, and also who cares? It's not like Russia didn't have any plutonium before.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Kasandra on April 25, 2020, 11:23:58 AM
Don't confuse him.  He's dealing with enough bad information already.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: wmLambert on April 25, 2020, 02:57:39 PM
...Lie. Clinton was not in charge of that committee. And it wasn't "our" uranium it was a joint venture between Canada and South Africa, and also who cares? It's not like Russia didn't have any plutonium before.

Are you serious? Hillary had veto power on that committee. "...Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.

But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.

Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered." https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Kasandra on April 25, 2020, 04:31:20 PM
Quote
Are you serious? Hillary had veto power on that committee.

No, she didn't.  You're misinformed. Everything else you allege is speculation, no matter how fervently you believe every shred of innuendo and inference.  The NY Times article raises interesting points about possible conflicts of interest, but doesn't draw any conclusions or make any accusations.  I'm surprised you don't talk about the pizza parlors, because QAnon has basically PROVEN that she's still running that operation.

Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: LetterRip on April 26, 2020, 03:59:12 PM
I think ScottF is saying that wearing PPE such as a mask in your own car with noone else in it is not protecting anyone and thus is 'panic' rather than rational.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: Kasandra on April 26, 2020, 05:35:20 PM
I think ScottF is saying that wearing PPE such as a mask in your own car with noone else in it is not protecting anyone and thus is 'panic' rather than rational.

Mebbe, but even though it looks odd some people are doing it out of "an abundance of caution".  That's not something to be disparaged.
Title: Re: The Meuller Report
Post by: TheDeamon on April 27, 2020, 03:53:18 AM
I think ScottF is saying that wearing PPE such as a mask in your own car with noone else in it is not protecting anyone and thus is 'panic' rather than rational.

Mebbe, but even though it looks odd some people are doing it out of "an abundance of caution".  That's not something to be disparaged.

Or because, as I mentioned, they're going to be back out of the car in a few minutes and wearing the mask again, so it's not worth the hassle of taking the thing off(in a safe manner) only to put it right back on again(safely).