Author Topic: The Meuller Report  (Read 13767 times)

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #250 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?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #251 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?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #252 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!"   ::)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #253 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.

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #254 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.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #255 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.

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #256 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.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #257 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.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #258 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?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #259 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.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #260 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."

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? ;)

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #261 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?

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.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #262 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. 

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #263 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?

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.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #264 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?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #265 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.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #266 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?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #267 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.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #268 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.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #269 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

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #270 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

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #271 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.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #272 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.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #273 on: April 25, 2019, 02:09:42 AM »
It might anger me, if the Trump people weren't constantly lying about their contacts.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #274 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.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #275 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.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #276 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?

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #277 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.


Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #278 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.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #279 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.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #280 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.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #281 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?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #282 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.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #283 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. :)

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #284 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? ;)

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #285 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.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #286 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.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #287 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. ::)

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #288 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.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2019, 03:59:29 PM by Crunch »

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #289 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.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2019, 04:07:56 PM by Crunch »

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #290 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.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #291 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?

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #292 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?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #293 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.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #294 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.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #295 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.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #296 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:

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?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #297 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.
 

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #298 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.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #299 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.