Author Topic: The Meuller Report  (Read 13528 times)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #300 on: May 01, 2019, 12:33:57 PM »
LR, I intend to go into detail on each of those events.  My conclusion is literally that you don't know what you're talking about.

Go read the report in the collusion section on the Trump Tower meeting, there's plenty of detail there describing the legal flaws with any theory of criminality.  The statute requires knowledge of illegality - which they actually believed wasn't present (both as in the people in the meeting didn't believe it was illegal and because they couldn't prove it would have been illegal), requires a value judgement that they said they couldn't have made and they mentioned and glossed over that there were substantial constitutional issues with an attempt (never before made in law) to construe obtaining factually true information as an illegal activity.

The fact is this report was written to mislead smart people without a legal background.   You sir are a partisan, and its specifically designed to feed your fury so it's not at all surprising you read it that way.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #301 on: May 01, 2019, 05:58:00 PM »
The best legal writing a Special Counsel's Office impaneled and staffed by Democratic Lawyers could do against The Orange Man(TM).

I think Mueller probably got entrapped in some major groupthink on that one.

Also likely Barr did "force" it to wrap up.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #302 on: May 01, 2019, 06:44:03 PM »
Seriati,

There were 6 absolutely clear slam dunk cases of obstruction of justice that would have been charged had DoJ policy allowed it.  Your suggesting that there wasn't any case to bring is beyond absurd.
 
Similarly the Trump Tower meeting wasn't charged as a crime because they couldn't establish criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt - all other aspects of the crime were there.

As someone who has also completely read the report - your interpretations and conclusions are so divorced from reality that it is pointless to try and discuss it with you.

You gotta quit relying on Quora for legal analysis, they’re really screwing you up.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #303 on: May 01, 2019, 06:48:05 PM »
BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier?

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

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

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

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

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

That’s from a highly biased source and can be dismissed without another thought.


Man, that’s easy enough to do! Wow, I guess I understand why you do it nearly every post now. Really convenient.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #304 on: May 01, 2019, 06:54:27 PM »
He's never gonna buy that.  This particular item is the linchpin for the entire "witch hunt" narrative.

See my previous post where I totally destroy his post. Maybe you should start calling me “Wayward Crunch”.  :o

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #305 on: May 01, 2019, 11:44:11 PM »
BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier?

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

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

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

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

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

That’s from a highly biased source and can be dismissed without another thought.


Man, that’s easy enough to do! Wow, I guess I understand why you do it nearly every post now. Really convenient.

That made me bother to check where the report came from. Politifact. Okay, carry on citizen, I'm not going to dispute your claim.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #306 on: May 02, 2019, 11:07:32 AM »
LR, I intend to go into detail on each of those events.  My conclusion is literally that you don't know what you're talking about.

When even Napolitano admits there was obstruction you have to start to wonder how far gone your reasoning ability is to try and claim otherwise.  If there were any possibility of even a slight doubt of obstruction - Napolitano would latch onto it.  He is a extreme and blatant Republican partisan and has consistently been a Trump admirer and defender.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-andrew-napolitano-mueller-report-shows-classic-obstruction-of-justice

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2019/04/trump-admirer-judge-andrew-napolitano-seems-pretty-sure-trump-obstructed-justice/

If you can't admit that Trump obstructed justice, then it is pointless to discuss this topic with you.  You've simply gone off the deep end where reality doesn't matter anymore.

Regarding the Trump tower meeting - as I said the only defense is claiming ignorance of the law - something it is essentially impossible to believe that a seasoned political operative like Manafort wouldn't know was illegal.  As to the value - that would have to be determined by a jury whether it was a felony or misdemeanor level - do you honestly believe that a jury could be convinced that the information they expected to get was worth less than the amount needed to establish a felony?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #307 on: May 02, 2019, 11:30:38 AM »
Report short version:
Our hands are tied.  WE cannot do anything.  Here's everything YOU need to do YOUR job.  It's not a slam dunk, you cannot hide behind someone else.   It's on you to live up to your Constitutional duties. 
The End

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #308 on: May 02, 2019, 11:33:57 AM »
Regarding the Trump tower meeting - as I said the only defense is claiming ignorance of the law - something it is essentially impossible to believe that a seasoned political operative like Manafort wouldn't know was illegal.  As to the value - that would have to be determined by a jury whether it was a felony or misdemeanor level - do you honestly believe that a jury could be convinced that the information they expected to get was worth less than the amount needed to establish a felony?

30,000 deleted e-mails from several years ago just sent you a postcard.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #309 on: May 02, 2019, 03:44:25 PM »
Quote
The conversation at a London bar in September 2016 took a strange turn when the woman sitting across from George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, asked a direct question: Was the Trump campaign working with Russia?

The woman had set up the meeting to discuss foreign policy issues. But she was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation. The F.B.I. sent her to London as part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the Trump campaign's links to Russia.

The American government's affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it "Spygate."

The decision to use Ms. Turk in the operation aimed at a presidential campaign official shows the level of alarm inside the F.B.I. during a frantic period when the bureau was trying to determine the scope of Russia's attempts to disrupt the 2016 election, but could also give ammunition to Mr. Trump and his allies for their spying claims.

Could also give ammunition to Mr. Trump and his allies for their spying claims ... Gee, ya think?   The FBI sent a spy to work on Trump campaign officials, that's kind of the definition of spying.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #310 on: May 02, 2019, 04:21:15 PM »
Well, hang on

Quote
The NYT piece confirming the Obama admin's global spy operation against Trump admits one of its spies used a fake name, lied about her job, doesn't appear to work for the FBI, works and lures targets overseas, and yet had authority over a foreign spy op. Sounds kinda like CIA.

But then we've known all along that the Obama Admin's CIA and FBI agents ran the intelligence operation against the Trump campaign and the current president of the United States.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2019, 04:24:47 PM by Crunch »

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #311 on: May 03, 2019, 04:26:51 PM »
Regarding the Trump tower meeting - as I said the only defense is claiming ignorance of the law - something it is essentially impossible to believe that a seasoned political operative like Manafort wouldn't know was illegal.  As to the value - that would have to be determined by a jury whether it was a felony or misdemeanor level - do you honestly believe that a jury could be convinced that the information they expected to get was worth less than the amount needed to establish a felony?

30,000 deleted e-mails from several years ago just sent you a postcard.

The FBI recovered the emails (both from her server but also from inboxes of recipients) - the vast majority they were found to have been of a personal nature.   There were some small percentage of innocous work related emails included amongst those deleted.  The deletion of the emails by her lawyers wasn't a crime.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #312 on: May 04, 2019, 02:57:49 AM »
The deletion of the emails by her lawyers wasn't a crime.

Are you referring to the hatchet job she had her private tech team do after the files were ordered to be turned over, and for which that same team infamously turned to Reddit to ask how to totally erase the files with no trace left?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #313 on: May 04, 2019, 08:50:41 AM »
Quote
In its most detailed account yet, the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington says a Democratic National Committee (DNC) insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help.
In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort’s dealings inside the country, in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.


Chalupa later tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort's Russian ties on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign, the ambassador said.

Chaly says that, at the time of the contacts in 2016, the embassy knew Chalupa primarily as a Ukrainian-American activist and learned only later of her ties to the DNC. He says the embassy considered her requests an inappropriate solicitation of interference in the U.S. election.


...


Chaly's written answers mark the most direct acknowledgement by Ukraine’s government that an American tied to the Democratic Party sought the country's help in the 2016 election, and they confirm the main points of a January 2017 story by Politico on Chalupa’s efforts.

So we have clear collusion to work with a foreign power in an attempt to influence the election. My guess is all you Russian collusion conspiracy guys are perfectly ok with this. Certainly we won’t see demands for multiple investigations from the media.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #314 on: May 04, 2019, 08:55:15 AM »
So we got Hillary and the DNC hiring a foreign intelligence agent to work with Russian assets and DNC officials working directly with Ukraine, all with the goal of influencing the election. We don’t need an investigation to prove this, the facts are in the open.

All while the Obama administration had the FBI and CIA conduct spying operations against the Trump campaign.

But they’re democrats so it’s apparently ok.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2019, 09:01:28 AM by Crunch »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #315 on: May 04, 2019, 01:38:43 PM »
So many levels of indirection. You may be right, but Hillary didn't send Chelsea to me with Ukrainians in a building with her name on it.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #316 on: May 07, 2019, 06:04:12 PM »
Out of curiosity, at what point in this discussion did participants look up the legal elements of. "Obstruaction of justice?

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #317 on: May 07, 2019, 06:12:08 PM »
Anyone notice the parallel between Trump's "I hope" statement

https://static.theintercept.com/amp/obstruction-of-justice-heres-the-legal-definition.html&ved=2ahUKEwirg5vrtoriAhVEdt8KHXvxACcQFjAUegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1quta690GLp_MRKYiVJCXo&ampcf=1

And Henry Plantagenet's remark in front of his knights regarding the Archbishop of Canterbury ?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #318 on: May 08, 2019, 03:07:57 PM »
Quote
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec’s written account of her Oct. 11, 2016, meeting with FBI informant Christopher Steele shows the Hillary Clinton campaign-funded British intelligence operative admitted that his research was political and facing an Election Day deadline.

And that confession occurred 10 days before the FBI used Steele’s now-discredited dossier to justify securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and the campaign’s ties to Russia.

Steele’s client “is keen to see this information come to light prior to November 8,” the date of the 2016 election, Kavalec wrote in a typed summary of her meeting with Steele and Tatyana Duran, a colleague from Steele’s Orbis Security firm. The memos were unearthed a few days ago through open-records litigation by the conservative group Citizens United.

Quote
One member of Congress transmitted the memos this week to the Department of Justice’s inspector general, fearing its investigation of FISA abuses may not have had access to them.

Nonetheless, the FBI is doing its best to keep much of Kavalec’s information secret by retroactively claiming it is classified, even though it was originally marked unclassified in 2016.

Quote
Interestingly, one legal justification cited for redacting the Oct. 13, 2016, email is the National Security Act of 1947, which can be used to shield communications involving the CIA or the White House National Security Council.

The three sentences visible in her memo show that U.S. officials had good reason to suspect Steele’s client and motive in alleging Trump-Russia collusion because they were election-related and facilitated by the Clinton-funded Fusion GPS founder, Glenn Simpson.

Quote
For the first time, we have written proof the U.S. government knew well before the FBI secured the FISA warrant that Steele had a political motive and Election Day deadline to make his dossier public.

And we know that information was transmitted before the Carter Page FISA warrant to one or more people whose job is so sensitive that their identity had to be protected. That means there is little chance the FBI didn’t know about Steele’s political client, or the Election Day deadline, before requesting the FISA warrant.

Documents and testimony from Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr, whose wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS, show he told the FBI in August 2016 that Steele was “desperate” to defeat Trump and his work had something to do with Clinton’s campaign.

No collusion, no obstruction. Just the FBI and CIA trying to manipulate the election on behalf on Hillary and the DNC.

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #319 on: May 09, 2019, 02:20:36 PM »
Good grief.

The Fusion GPS research was initiated by Republicans.

The FISA application noted specifically that the dossier came from efforts to discredit the Trump campaign. This Nunes narrative that this was hidden from the FISA court is 100% nonsense, and the above quotations treating this information as some kind of bombshell that was just confirmed are totally wacky.

You'd think if the FBI was trying to elect Hillary they'd have written a letter in the week before mentioning the open investigation. Oh wait, they did. It was a letter about their Hillary email investigation.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #320 on: May 09, 2019, 02:34:00 PM »
To be fair - not that I know anything about this - there is nothing inconsistent with saying that both the Republicans as well as Hillary's campaign were trying to find dirt on Trump to tank his campaign. Even after Trump became the GOP nominee it wouldn't surprise me to learn that certain Conservative elements were still against him covertly.

scifi, it's probably safe to say that "the FBI" isn't a single entity that works entirely in concert, but has divided elements within it. From what I heard concerning Comey's statements about Hillary this was very much the case, where the Bureau was not at all on the same page.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #321 on: May 09, 2019, 02:36:33 PM »
Good grief.

The Fusion GPS research was initiated by Republicans.

This is nothing more than an attempt to throw up a smoke screen. Yes, Republicans initially hired Fusion GPS to do some oppo research. Then, they fired Fusion GPS. After that, Hillary and the DNC hired Fusion GPS. There is no free pass here.

The FISA application noted specifically that the dossier came from efforts to discredit the Trump campaign. This Nunes narrative that this was hidden from the FISA court is 100% nonsense, and the above quotations treating this information as some kind of bombshell that was just confirmed are totally wacky.

You'd think if the FBI was trying to elect Hillary they'd have written a letter in the week before mentioning the open investigation. Oh wait, they did. It was a letter about their Hillary email investigation.

Again, you are not stating the facts.

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #322 on: May 09, 2019, 06:13:55 PM »
You're welcome to deny the truth!

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #323 on: May 24, 2019, 07:43:33 AM »
Quote
President Trump on Thursday night issued a memo giving Attorney General William Barr the authority to declassify any documents related to surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016.

Trump also ordered the intelligence community to cooperate with Barr. The memo read: "The heads of elements of the intelligence community... and the heads of each department or agency that includes an element of the intelligence community shall promptly provide such assistance and information as the Attorney General may request in connection with that review."

The left is starting to really freak out now.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #324 on: May 24, 2019, 07:50:43 AM »
Quote
NBC News’ Peter Alexander brought up a Trump tweet wherein he said spying on his campaign constituted “treason,” and asked who specifically he believes committed treason.

“Who specifically are you accusing of treason?” Alexander asked.

“Well, I think a number of people,” the president replied. “You look at [Former FBI Director James] Comey, if you look at [Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe, if you look at people — hot people — probably higher than that, if you look at [Former FBI Agent Peter] Strzok, if you look at his lover, [Former DOJ Lawyer] Lisa Page.”

“[Strzok] talked about the ‘insurance policy’ just in case Hillary loses, and that didn’t work out too well for them,” he continued, referencing private texts between Strzok and Page. “‘Should she lose, we’ll have an insurance policy, we’ll get this guy out of office.’ That’s what they said and that’s what they meant. That’s treason. That’s treason.”

Burn them all.

ScottF

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #325 on: May 24, 2019, 10:02:59 AM »
This is definitely going to be fascinating. Sunlight is nature's disinfectant. I'm all for revealing how we got here, from all angles.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #326 on: May 24, 2019, 12:08:26 PM »
Quote
President Trump on Thursday night issued a memo giving Attorney General William Barr the authority to declassify any documents related to surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016.


Most Transparent President Ever!

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #327 on: May 24, 2019, 12:21:36 PM »
This is definitely going to be fascinating. Sunlight is nature's disinfectant. I'm all for revealing how we got here, from all angles.

Hopefully Trump won't stare directly at the sun without safety glasses.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #328 on: May 24, 2019, 01:55:50 PM »
BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier?

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

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

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

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

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

That’s from a highly biased source and can be dismissed without another thought.


Man, that’s easy enough to do! Wow, I guess I understand why you do it nearly every post now. Really convenient.

I can see now why you're such an ardent Trump supporter:  you gloss over all subtleties.  ::)

As I tried to tell you in my other posts, the reasons I ignore some of your more fringe sources is based on easy-to-do demagoguery techniques of cherry-picking, strawmanning and such.

Gathering instances showing that Democrats always do X or Y is easy.  Just ignore every instance when they don't.  Similarly, showing instances where liberals are segregating is easy.  Just re-define segregation so that it fits your desired outcome.  When sites are likely, or obviously, doing so, I'm not going to waste my time reading them.

My assertion, however, is much simpler.  Did the Mueller investigation start because of the Steele dossier?  The answer to that does not lie in omitting valid information or redefining terms.  It has to do with a very simple fact:  did the investigation start before the Steele dossier was used?

According to Politifact, Mueller stated that an FBI investigation started on July 31, 2016 because of Papadopoulos' contact with the Russians.  That this investigation did not include the Steele dossier until October of that year.  And that this investigation became Mueller's investigation when Comey was fired.

What facts were omitted that would change this line of reasoning?  What re-definitions did I do?  You say that the investigation started with the Steele dossier.  I say it started before the Steele dossier was mentioned.  I have facts and dates that prove it.  Does it matter where these facts come from?  Can you, or anyone, not easily verify these facts from another source?

The bottom line here is that, in this instance, it doesn't matter who came up with the facts.  Finding a fact that shows that the FBI investigation which became the Mueller investigation started before the Steele dossier was used proves that the Steele dossier was not the reason the investigation was started.  Unless you wish to dispute those facts, disputing the site where I found those facts is an obvious ad hominem.  You're just trying to cloud the issue with it.  And sully my reputation along the way.  :P

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #329 on: May 24, 2019, 02:18:08 PM »
Actually, Washington Post puts the timeline at Jul 5 for his first meeting with FBI agents. Jul 19 is when the allegation about Carter Page came into play.

link

I don't know which Politifact article you were working from, but this one says:

Quote
We can’t say what motivated the FBI to begin an investigation into Page, but the reporting that Foley said traced the genesis of the Page investigation to the Steele Dossier isn’t cut-and-dried.

They are characterizing it as ambiguous. As far as I know, nobody has any actual proof. Conservative partisans have connected the two dots with a straight line, and Liberal partisans have denied the dots have any connection.

Other than the timeline, we do have all the statements by the agents involved, but if you think they are all lying traitors looking to take down Trump and protect their own jobs and reputations, you can easily ignore all of that. Having that point of view is kind of like Descartes trying to figure out if his table is real, but that's what you're dealing with when you debate a believer in the deep state conspiracy.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #330 on: May 24, 2019, 02:30:41 PM »
What facts were omitted that would change this line of reasoning?  What re-definitions did I do?  You say that the investigation started with the Steele dossier.  I say it started before the Steele dossier was mentioned.

One possible area of ambiguity here is the term "investigation". That word can mean different things depending on fervor, severity, amount of people on the job, reliability that there is something to find, and of course political current.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #331 on: May 24, 2019, 02:35:04 PM »
Politifact is a biased source and can be disregarded. Any argument relying on data from Politifact may be summarily dismissed as not true.

You know, it really is a lot easier to do this. I get why you guys do it nearly 100% of the time.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #332 on: May 24, 2019, 03:26:06 PM »
So for what its worth, and I haven't had time to do the big parse I really want to do, my take from actually reading the report is that it made it clear (though it didn't repeat it much) that the report about Papadapoulos is what triggered the "official" counter intelligence investigation (though, there are plenty of hints, some of which are being investigated, that it started in advance of that point).  The "official" investigation is what ultimately became Mueller's investigation.

It means, notwithstanding Shiff's claims, there was absolutely nothing of much merit that was not known to the public that justified the investigation.  I think the Papadapolous question did justify an investigation, but there's no reasonable way it justified the one we got.  It certainly didn't justify a Special Counsel.

I'm most curious in when Meuller knew that there was no collusion.  Keep in mind, we'll never get the real answer, even if he answers the question in committee hearings, it'll be a soft pedal about how it couldn't be rule out until the very end.  But it would be very telling at what point 95% of time started focusing on obstruction issues.

I'm still 100% convinced that the appointment of Barr is what stopped the probe - and not in a bad or unethical manner.  Mueller couldn't think of any way he could claim they were still investigating collusion to Barr, effectively the gig was up.

I'm still heavily confused by Rosenstein. 

The biggest difference between the Mueller report and me has to do with Comey.  Mueller gave him enhanced credibility, and I on the other hand see most of his actions as criminal.  It all comes down to his bizarre practice of documenting all his interactions with Trump.  He did it from the first time they met, which he had never done before (and it's not like he wasn't involved with other questionable people in the past, who gave him orders that he viewed as violating his duty).  Mueller thinks he was acting honestly and treats these as the best records of what happened, including where they contradict real time statements by Trump about Trump's motive, even where those were public, repeated and entirely plausible, and, on the other hand, think Comey deliberately created those records to be damning and likely false record, because he was already planning to try and implicate Trump with something.

Comey's actions around leaking information (documented) and around his meeting with Trump on the dossier that could be interpreted as an attempt at blackmail (which it turns out was actually discussed and Comey decided to ignore in taking the meeting, among other things, heavily call into question his motive (and lest you think this is unreasonable speculation, the lengths they went to ignore Trump's obvious and stated motives in favor of imputations of nefariousness, make this look like a complete lock).  In addition, AG Lynch has directly contradicted material statements related by Comey (i.e., that he was directed not to call the MYE an investigation) and Brennan (one of the two and maybe both are lying). 

If you want an official version, Comey said that he was closing the Clinton investigation and that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against Clinton, yet we didn't know until last month when Lisa Page's testimony was publicaly released that the DOJ specifically ruled out charging Clinton based on gross negligence - not that she wasn't grossly negligent, just that they would refuse to prosecute on that basis notwithstanding the law.  If you recall we had a big argument about why she was guilty based on the statute and how her conduct was grossly negligent, and that Comey was wrong as a matter of law. It turns out they just refused to apply that law as written (which I would be okay with if they had come out and said that was what they were doing).  instead, Comey pretty much told us she was exonerated.

Either Comey was the only honest person involved and was an incredibly naive person because of his honesty engaged in illegal leaks and open manipulation, or else he was completely unethical.  Given that Comey's influence on the election was a 1000 times bigger than the Russians, and he's the trigger for wasting 2 years of time on an investigation he should be called into question.

if you discount Comey, instead of relying on him completely, most of the Mueller report falls apart.

I'm also of the view that part of the reason the special counsel was appointed and carried on so long was to prevent honest people at the DOJ from digging through anything related to what happened to bring those actually guilty to account.  Pretty much Mueller's entire theory would have been that anyone that sought such information to say, put Comey in jail, would be guilty of obstructing Mueller's investigation. 

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #333 on: May 28, 2019, 07:22:13 PM »

It’s starting to crack.

Quote
Now that the Russia collusion allegations have evaporated, the long knives are out and President Trump’s antagonists are watching their backs. They have moved from accusing him of treason to pushing revisionist narratives that try to shift the blame for the debunked probe onto others.

This effort is expected to accelerate following Trump’s decision Thursday to empower Attorney General William Barr to declassify CIA, Pentagon, and Director of National Intelligence documents as necessary to access “information or intelligence that relates to the attorney general’s review” of the Russia probe.

In other words, he’s gaining the authority needed to investigate the investigators.

And that means it’s time to start throwing people underthe bus! Looks like Comey is the easy target:

Quote
A "former CIA official” has told Fox News that two of Trump’s most high profile accusers – former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Director of the CIA John Brennan – didn’t want anything to do with Steele’s opus. It was former FBI Director James Comey, the source said, who was pushing to use the dossier in the official Intelligence Community Assessment, issued in the final days of the Obama administration. Having failed at that, thanks to Clapper and Brennan’s diligence (or so the story goes), Comey went rogue and confronted President-elect Trump with the salacious highlights produced by Steele.

Even the peripheral players are doing their best to shift blame. Former FBI General Counsel James Baker – who is under criminal investigation for leaks –  recently went on the Skullduggery podcast to assert that  he and other bureau officials were “quite worried” that  Comey’s meeting with Trump would look like a page out of J. Edgar Hoover’s playbook – invoking  the legendary FBI director who stockpiled damaging information to blackmail politicians. Would Comey be wrong to interpret Baker’s comments as an offer to testify against his former boss in exchange for a deal on the leaks investigation?

Loretta Lynch is on board:
Quote
Comey has no shortage  of adversaries, partly because old rivals he thought he had dispatched — such as former Attorney General Loretta Lynch —  are back in the mix, and he is possibly sensing his vulnerability. It was in June 2017 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that Comey tossed Lynch under the proverbial bus. Now she’s showing she can climb out from under the motor coach and dust herself off.

In September of 2015, Lynch and Comey were preparing to testify on Capitol Hill and expected to be asked about the Hillary Clinton email probe — code-named the Midyear Exam — which at that point had not been officially acknowledged. “I wanted to know if she [Lynch] would authorize us to confirm we had an investigation,” Comey told lawmakers. “And she said yes, but don't call it that; call it a 'matter.' And I said why would I do that? And [Lynch] said just call it a ‘matter.’” Comey says he reluctantly went along with Lynch’s demand, even though it gave him “a queasy feeling.” He worried “that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity, which was inaccurate.”

Comey, it was all Comey. Heh. That guy better start building his legal team.

For those that care, the article details how we are now on the third version of events to explain how the investigation started. Guess who is implicated in version 3 ... come on, you must see which way the wind is blowing.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #334 on: May 28, 2019, 07:26:37 PM »
FYI, this is what obstruction looks like:

Quote
The former British spy who produced a dossier describing alleged links between Donald Trump and Russia will not cooperate with a prosecutor assigned by U.S. Attorney General William Barr to review how the investigations of Trump and his 2016 election campaign began, a source with knowledge of the situation said.

Christopher Steele, a former Russia expert for the British spy agency MI6, will not answer questions from prosecutor John Durham, named by Barr to examine the origins of the investigations into Trump and his campaign team, said the source close to Steele’s London-based private investigation firm, Orbis Business Intelligence…

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #335 on: May 28, 2019, 09:46:51 PM »
Quote
Now that the Russia collusion allegations have evaporated
Repeating something silly over and over won't make it magically become more believable...

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #336 on: May 28, 2019, 10:17:16 PM »
Hilariously ironic.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #337 on: May 29, 2019, 07:48:08 AM »
Comey is feeling the heat. He writes an opinion piece to try and defend himself. It’s basically a whining effort to say they had no choice but to spy on the Trump campaign.  The rest is how it’s all so dumb and all lies.

Awesome. I’m looking forward tothe 4 AM raid on his home by heavily armed law enforcement agents - like they did to Roger Stone. I hope we get video of his perp walk.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #338 on: May 29, 2019, 08:22:35 AM »
"You come at the king, you best not miss."


Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #339 on: May 29, 2019, 10:13:21 AM »
Mueller is doing a presser today, very exciting! Wonder what he'll say.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #340 on: May 29, 2019, 11:42:17 AM »
Anticlimatic -  he announced that he was officially closing the investigation and returning to private life.  That the report should stand for itself and that testifying before congress would add nothing new.  Then he repeated a few bits from the report - the major sections and what the investigation was about.  Also that had the investigation exhonorated the President they would have said so; that they didn't make an investigative finding; and that DOJ policy prohibited indictments or even sealed indictments against a sitting President.


Quote
And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

The introduction to the volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.

A special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

Here is the transcript,

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/29/robert-mueller-statement-russia-investigation-text-transcript-1346453
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 11:50:11 AM by LetterRip »

ScottF

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #341 on: May 29, 2019, 11:45:34 AM »
Consider these two statements:

"If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
or
"If we had confidence the president committed a crime, we would have said so."

Are they equal?

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #342 on: May 29, 2019, 11:49:00 AM »
Consider these two statements:

"If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
or
"If we had confidence the president committed a crime, we would have said so."

Are they equal?

No.  The second is prohibited by DOJ policy.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #343 on: May 29, 2019, 12:20:06 PM »
Consider these two statements:

"If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
or
"If we had confidence the president committed a crime, we would have said so."

Are they equal?

No.  The second is prohibited by DOJ policy.

Is that right? All that's been mentioned so far is that the DOJ can't/won't indict a sitting President, which is much different from making the claim that they believe he committed a crime. For instance in Hillary's case the FBI basically said outright that she committed gross negligence but also that no prosecutor in his right mind would bring a case against her (for whatever reason). Although she's not a sitting President, they basically did release a statement saying she committed a crime but that they wouldn't prosecute, so why couldn't they say something just like that about Trump and leave it to the Congress whether to impeach based on that?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #344 on: May 29, 2019, 12:57:06 PM »
In other words, Mueller doesn't think it would add anything to explain why he selected partisans from one side of the investigation to handle it.  He doesn't think it would add anything to explain why his theory of obstruction is so broad (and it's broader than has been enforced previously) that Jerry Nadler is technically guilty of obstruction.  He doesn't want to directly answer the question of whether he was actually obstructed - as he knows the implication that he could have been obstructed is more powerful. 

He doesn't want to answer how a Special Prosecutor was investigating obstruction for a crime he could not charge.  Sure he claims that departmental policy allows investigation of matters to preserve the record, but the Special Counsel statute does not (that's a big difference from the abuses of the Independent Counsel law that Congress deliberately allowed to expire).

He doesn't want to answer when he knew collusion was a bogus charge.

He doesn't want to explain why he treated Comey as credible against all indications he wasn't.

Or why for example, McGann was allowed to testify for 30 hours if Trump's conversations with him were really intended to obstruct justice.  Or why a President that is complaining about clear conflicts of interest (Mueller's pre-existing friendship with Comey - which by the way clearly influenced how they saw Comey's credibility) and trying to get his White House counsel should be reconstrued as a nefarious attempt to obstruct justice.  It's legal to remove Mueller for conflicts.  It's legal to fire Mueller.  Failure to recuse with conflicts is a removable offense.  What was Mueller's motive in not recusing himself (why is that off the table when he's making up a motive for Trump notwithstanding having multiple real time reports of Trump's actual motives).

Why did he reconstrue a factual statement - that the Special Counsel's appointment would end his Presidency, as nefarious?  It is a fact, it's hampered the DOJ for over two years, it's hampered the President's ability to act for over two years, and it's aftermath will certainly continue for two more.

Why is it "unfair" to charge a crime when the President can't defend himself in court, but not unfair to write a book report that would get laughed out of court with large portions of it dismissed in summary judgment from which there can be no defense not unfair?  That more than anything tells me that Mueller is a story teller with a story to tell and little concern for the truth.


Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #345 on: May 29, 2019, 02:22:52 PM »
So, I’m the end Mueller restated his report’s conclusion that there was no evidence to support the collusion narrative.

As for obstruction, he’s trying to play it coy with the idea he can’t charge the president with a crime and play the we couldn’t prove a negative with “If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so”. This is really dishonest and borders on prosecutorial misconduct.

First, he affirmed to Barr multiple times that the charging of a president was not a factor. Now, he wants to imply that it is. Pretty dishonest.

Second, this can’t prove a negative thing is utter horse*censored*. That’s not what prosecutors do not is it the standard of a prosecution. What if I said, “If I had confidence the you did not commit a crime, I would say so. But I’m not so....”. That’s not how this works, you don’t have to prove innocence.

What we saw was Mueller’s last ditch effort to keep this hoax rolling.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #346 on: May 29, 2019, 02:36:41 PM »
I almost forgot, I tend to believe him that he knew he wasn't going to charge obstruction, I just think that's because he has no case.  It's just gravy that he can blame it on the DOJ policy and imply that Trump was guilty "but for" the policy.

I think I called this over a year ago when they raided Cohen's office.  That raid and the seizure of privileged communications killed any ability to make a legal case stick.  The fact that Mueller openly included privileged materials in the report further demonstrated that he never intended a to prosecute a case.  The whole point was to illegally seize information and kick it to Congress where illegally seized information can be used.

The guy's honor is highly suspect.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #347 on: May 29, 2019, 03:09:22 PM »
FWIW, I don't think prosecutors always exonerate people they don't indict. Jussie Smollet comes to mind.

As for the report, it needs to be dropped. Impeachment can't go anywhere because the Senate would probably not convict Trump if he shot someone in Times Square, let alone this report. What would be best for the country would be if Republicans and Democrats moved on. Currently, it seems more likely that Republicans will keep this going now that they have the stronger case.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #348 on: May 29, 2019, 03:12:50 PM »
You guys need to chill out.  No collusion, no obstruction.  Trump already told us.  Geez, take a note from the Dems and mellow out about the Meuller report.  ;)

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Meuller Report
« Reply #349 on: May 29, 2019, 03:40:01 PM »


BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier?

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

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

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

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

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

That’s from a highly biased source and can be dismissed without another thought.


Man, that’s easy enough to do! Wow, I guess I understand why you do it nearly every post now. Really convenient.

OK, Crunch, if you want to ignore PolitiFact, how about this source:

Quote
The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016...

So there was an on-going FBI counterintelligence investigation months before the Steele dossier was mentioned in October 2016.  Or do you have some problem with this source, too? :)