The Meuller Report

[scifibum]

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:

“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.

[cherrypoptart]

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?

[Seriati]

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):

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

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. 

[Seriati]

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."

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.

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.

[D.W.]

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.   

[Seriati]

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?

[D.W.]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[scifibum]

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.

[Crunch]

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.

[D.W.]

They've found nothing.

   

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. 

[Seriati]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[NobleHunter]

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.

[scifibum]

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?

[Wayward Son]

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." 

[Seriati]

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. 

[NobleHunter]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Seriati]

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.

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.

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.

[Seriati]

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." 

[NobleHunter]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[TheDrake]

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?

[NobleHunter]

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.

[D.W.]

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…

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.

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).

[D.W.]

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...

[Seriati]

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/

Or everyone's favorite crazy lady Maxine Waters 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.

[Wayward Son]

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.

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

Then what was this??

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?

[D.W.]

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". 

[TheDeamon]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

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

Then what was this??

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

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.

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[Wayward Son]

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).  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.

[Wayward Son]

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."

[TheDrake]

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.

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. 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?

[Crunch]

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.

[Wayward Son]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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...... 

[Seriati]

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.

[Crunch]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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?