The Mueller report is done!
Special counsel Robert Mueller has finished his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Mueller’s confidential report has been delivered to Attorney General William Barr, the Justice Department announced Friday.
Barr must now decide whether to release the report or parts of it to Congress or the public, or to instead release his own summary of Mueller’s findings.Yes it is, and it is NOT GOOD for Donald Trump
No collusion, no obstruction found. Nothing at all found on Trump, his family or his campaign.
What is not good about that? That you will now claim that the report was false, that there IS something somewhere?No obstruction? You either did not read or cannot read. Mueller lists ten different instances of obstruction that he asks Congress to apply obstruction laws to.
The Mueller report makes several things startlingly clear:
– the Russian government tried to help Trump win
– the Trump campaign was eager to benefit from hackings targeting Democrats
– Trump’s campaign advisers had a host of ties to Russia
– President Trump tried again and again to try to impede the Russia investigationHere is an annotated, copy and pastable version of the report:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … ument.htmlPretty hard to prove a negative, isn't it? Or, in this specific case, that there was no obstruction whatsoever.
Beyond that, Mueller is honest enough to state, for all to see, that he cannot read Trumps mind. Would that the rest of the country accepted that simple fact for themselves.
What action did Trump take that denied information to the investigation? That IS the definition of obstruction, you know; that Russia wanted him to win does not indicate obstruction and neither does talking to a Russian. As has been pointed out, there is no evidence that anything Trump or anyone else did obstructed the investigation in any manner. Do matter how much you wish it did, it did not happen.
Wow, your idiocy knows no bounds. Please go do some research on what constitutes obstruction of justice. Firing Comey and considering the Russia thing when doing is a clear case. The nine other examples Mueller listed would be others. But again, you lack the independent research skills to go find out what they are or why they qualify as crimes.
And for all you blind sheep out there saying no collusion, there was this little tidbit in the report:
Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort’s plan to win the election. That briefing encompassed the Campaign’s messaging and its internal polling data. According to [Rick] Gates, it also included discussion of “battleground” states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.
Guess where Russia targeted their social media campaign? Clearly collusion.You do tend to leave out key facts to put things in
perspective.
"firing Comey and considering the Russia thing"
The firing of Comey was recommended by Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866767
President Donald Trump was well within his rights as president to follow the recommendations of people serving in his cabinet.
"Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort’s plan to win the election. That briefing encompassed the Campaign’s messaging and its internal polling data. According to [Rick] Gates, it also included discussion of “battleground” states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota."
It's not illegal to share polling data. Anybody can get polling data. It's not like President Donald Trump and the RNC paid for a fake dossier on HIllary.Here's a more detailed account of the Comey firing within the report. The decision made was clearly Trump's and the reasons involved the Russia Investigation. Yes, Rosenstein was on board, but not for the reasons Trump wanted. No, did he bring up the idea to Trump.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 … eport.html
You keep saying no collusion. While your claim of sharing polling data as a legal argument may be true, that doesn't exclude it from being a clear example of the Trump Campaign working in concert (colluding) with the Russians to target Americans in an effort to sway the outcome.
Did you really just bring up the dossier that began as a GOP venture? The one that had nothing to do with the origins of the counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling. Please, please, read the report. You'll sound so much more intelligent if you understand the basic facts of it.So you think Trump is Lying when he said Rosenstein's memo was meaningless because he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation?? Did Trump lie when he said that on national TV or when he told the Russians that directly (while giving up a state secret from Israel)?
Yes it IS illegal for a campaign to share INTERNAL polling data with a foreign enemy. No you CAN'T get Internal polling data just anywhere, that is why they are Internal. Why do you keep putting out these very false statements?
Give me a break.Waiting to see the statute that covers illegal use of internal polling. Waiting.
Sigh, I guess you are incapable of googling. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20
Now Mike chooses to shut up his nonsense when presented facts. That's good.
So what? Was there Russian collusion? If not, these fishing expedition and process crimes means little.
If you were genuinely concerned about our country, you should have done more about Hillary and Obama and the crimes they committed. The same goes for the FBI and the DOJ, both have been corrupted just like the IRS when it went after conservative groups...
“Elections have consequences...” - famously said by Barack Obama.Keep it up and you will get more than you asked for. What is good for the goose is good for the gander...
To reply to your statements: "The Mueller report makes several things startlingly clear:
– the Russian government tried to help Trump win
– the Trump campaign was eager to benefit from hackings targeting Democrats
– Trump’s campaign advisers had a host of ties to Russia
– President Trump tried again and again to try to impede the Russia investigation
1. There is not a shred of evidence that the Russian government tried to help Trump win.
2. By "hackings," I suppose you are chiefly referring to the Wikileaks release of documentation of the DNC's nefarious doings. This was not a hack. William Binney documented that it could only have been a download to a device like a thumb drive or similar. As for this, as well as other incidents that appear to be hacks (such as the Podesta emails), it is perfectly reasonable, as well as legal, to make use of public information discrediting your political opponents.
3. "Volume I of the Mueller report, which deals with collusion, spends tens of thousands of words describing trivial interactions between Trump officials and various Russians. While it doubtless wasn’t Mr. Mueller’s intention, the sheer quantity and banality of details highlights the degree to which these contacts were random, haphazard and peripheral. By the end of Volume I, the notion that the Trump campaign engaged in some grand plot with Russia is a joke." Uh.... Heads of State conferring with other heads of State is actually part of the job description--as is US diplomats conferring with foreign diplomats. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04- … ler-report
4. Barr stated just yesterday that Trump fully cooperated with the investigation and never impeded it in the slightest.
Ergo: You are making shit up.Wow. The misinformation is strong with this one.
1.) You must have missed the Senate report that went into depth about everything the Russians did. Or Rosenstein's press conference detailing it when the indictments were handed down. Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlGm5tse8ek
2.) By hackings, I'm talking about sending phishing e-mails to members of the DNC looking to steal their passwords and compromise the security of their servers. Which is illegal and exactly what the Russians did. Maybe in your twisted world that kind of thing is legal, but in the real world, it is not.
3.) There's nothing trivial about Manafort meeting with Kilimnick to discuss the internal polling data of his campaign and detail his strategy of targeting the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Then having the Russians use their social media campaign mostly to target residents of those states. There's nothing trivial about campaign members meeting with members of the Russian government to secure damaging information, in violation of campaign finance laws.
Ergo: you are one highly misinformed Trump supporter.Re your third point, the legality of the Trump tower has undergone a quite thorough dissection in terms of its illegality: "Mueller’s team even considered charging Trump associates who participated with campaign-finance violations for the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. Was that meeting “a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban”? Was it “the solicitation of an illegal foreign source contribution”? Was it the receipt of “an express or implied promise to make a [foreign source] contribution”? The team considered that the law didn’t apply only to money—it could apply to a “thing of value.” Until investigators realized it might be hard to prove the “promised documents” exceeded the “$2,000 threshold for a criminal violation.” What the Mueller report documents here is an attempt to figure out some way in which the meeting broke the law--and concluded that there was none.
Further, what the Mueller report fails to mention is that the Trump tower meeting was a failed entrapment scheme; the two Russian were moles: "By the way, the Mueller Report failed to mention that the two Russians present in that August 2016 Trump Tower meeting, lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, were on the payroll of Hillary Clinton’s oppo research contractor Fusion GPS, and met with that company’s principal, Glenn Simpson, both before and after the meeting."
Re Manafort's meeting, I am having trouble imagining anything more inconsequential than "sharing polling data." Nothing Manafort did was illegal; he merely got caught in a perjury trap.
Re your first and second points, Rosenstein himself stated re the DNC hacking that,
"There is no allegation in this indictment that Americans knew that they were corresponding with Russia."
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.
"Today's charges include no allegations of knowing involvement by anyone on the campaign and no allegations that the alleged hacking affected the election result. This is consistent with what we have been saying financial."
Hence, the entire matter has nothing to do with Trump and in no way indicates that there was any collusion by Trump or any of his associates, nor is there any indication that it affected the election outcome. The whole issue is irrelevant.Your premise that Veselnitskaya was on GPS Fusion's payroll is false. Veselnitskaya had hired a D.C. law firm, which in turn hired Fusion GPS to help with her case in appellate court in 2016.
Second, not being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they could not establish a dollar amount for the value of the information that was offered hardly disqualifies the fact that Trump family members were more than willing to meet and work with Russians to help their campaign.
If you are unable to see where sharing polling data, as well as campaign strategy (this according to Rick Gates), with a well-connecting member of the Russian government, then having the Russians target the very strategies talked about with their social media campaign is not collusion, you're an idiot who lacks reasoning skills.
No Americans were involved in the hacking, that is true. Plenty of Americans in the Trump Campaign were involved in the dissemination of the illegally obtained material. The Trump Tower meeting participants and Roger Stone to name a few.
I'd be willing to bet that much of the disseminated e-mails led to many Bernie supporters having doubts about Clinton. For good reason, I will add. It would be the equivalent of Trump's illegal payments to porn stars having come out prior to the election. It would have sown dissent within the party. Saying that dissent didn't affect the election is another point of idiocy." If you are unable to see where sharing polling data, as well as campaign strategy (this according to Rick Gates), with a well-connecting member of the Russian government, then having the Russians target the very strategies talked about with their social media campaign is not collusion, you're an idiot who lacks reasoning skills."
This says that those that wrote the Report and stated they did not establish sufficient evidence that a crime of conspiracy/collision was committed are idiots lacking reasoning skills. Is that what you intended to say?
GAYou did catch the word collusion, right GA? If I had said conspiracy, then your statement might have a shred of accuracy.
We've always known that collusion is not a specific federal crime.
However, I hope most people are not okay with a presidential candidate and his campaign colluding with a hostile foreign government to sway an election, which was clearly shown to have occurred."We've always known that collusion is not a specific federal crime."
This feels like a message from the Twilight Zone. You always knew?
For almost two years the investigation and the charge focus has been collusion." We have even had multiple definitions of the crime of collusion, complete with cut & paste definitions, Wikis, and ...
I bet it would be a profitable effort to go back through these forum threads, and youtube clips of newscasts to see how many times the charge was emphasized to be "conspiracy" vs. "collusion."
I wonder how many headlines, concerning this issue, will be found using the word conspiracy instead of collusion.
It sure seems like collusion was a crime, and understood to be one by everyone, right up until the Report says it isn't a chargeable crime.
Now that the report is out, collusion is no longer a crime - and "we all knew" it wasn't all along, and two years worth of public perception, understanding, AG/DOJ statements can be discarded because it was wrong. I don't think so.
And even now, the charge is that even if it isn't a crime, Trump is still guilty of doing it ... because we know what collusion is when we see it!
Sorry, PrettyPanther, this wasn't all for you, you just happened to be my third response on this point, so I had time to warm-up. ;-)
But, there is a bright side for me. I get to smile as I watch the contortions and deflections that insist that I am either; defending Trump, (never my intention), ignorant because I haven't read the report, (damn, I was finally baited into reading vol. 1), or an idiot that lacks reasoning skills because I disagree. I think I am innocent of all three charges.
GASorry, GA, maybe you weren't paying attention.
Even DT knew. Ha!
(Obviously after Rudy went on and on saying it was ok if they did colluded.)yeah, I give up. I must have had a mental block these past two years, where every time I heard about the president and his campaign being guilty of conspiracy, and every time I heard of Mueller investigating conspiracy, and every time I heard the media say the investigation was about conspiracy or every time they presented evidence of conspiracy - my mind only heard collusion.
Maybe I can find a pill for that. Or, maybe I can devote as much time spent reading the damn Report these past days on an archival forum search to see if I really did hallucinate that folks here were calling it collusion when in fact they were saying conspiracy.
You see, that is why I try to avoid sarcasm. I am not good at it.
Do you think that archival search might show I really was hallucinating?
GAI don't think so. But it would show you that people (other than Trump supporters) were concerned about both.
I can see that Islandbites, - the concerned about both part. I just don't recall hearing "conspiracy" as the heart of their concerns.
ps. I just discovered that I can search each topic thread all the way back to Comey's firing. For my own mental health, (hallucinations can be disconcerting), I might dive into that archival search to see just how bad my hallucinations were. ;-)
GASee what I said before? For someone that don't mind reading a lot, even if just to (try) prove one wrong, you really resisted that report. LOL
Still waiting for some kind of outrage...
But I don't think I'll see it soon.
I'll help (your search) with one.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/341 … conspiracyFor the record Islandbites, I resisted reading the report because I saw it as just more fodder for the same pro and anti-Trump positions we have seen all along. I was only half-right.
We are still seeing the same declarative pro and anti-Trump exchanges - that was the half-right part, but now the Report has changed the balance of which side has more point-specific validity.
Reading the report has knocked me off the fence, but only to the ground beside the fence, not across the pasture to where Jake is.
As for your "research help...
My Esoteric -1 (conspiracy)
PrettyPanther +1 (collusion)
Wilderness +1 (collusion)
Ken Burns +1 (colluding and collusion)
Valeant +1 (colluded, collusion) -1 (conspiracy) *in same comment
Randy Godwin +1 (collusion)
Readmikenow -1 (qualified xollusion as meaning conspiracy)
Round #1 = +2 for collusion
GAReading the report has knocked me off the fence, but only to the ground beside the fence, not across the pasture to where Jake is.
I don't think he has company. Or at least, is not too crowded there.
Sigh...I have known, from the beginning, that collusion is not a crime, as was extensively and repeatedly explained by the news media.
Just because it's not, in and of itself, a federal crime, does not make it acceptable. And just because you apparently weren't paying enough attention to know it isn't a crime doesn't mean others weren't.
Why would anyone think a guy who colluded with a hostile foreign government to sway an election is fit to be President?
Sorry, but I'm already really sick of this crap. I can't believe people will so easily forget what their parents should have taught them about character, honesty, courage, and integrity.
Colluding with Russia is not a crime but it's sleazy, dishonest, and certainly putting oneself above country. That man is not fit to be President.Who is more guilty? The people who commit collusion / conspiracy or the voters who cheer them on?
I feel for your *sigh PrettyPanther,
"as I watch the contortions and deflections that insist that I am either; defending Trump, (never my intention), ignorant because I haven't read the report, (damn, I was finally baited into reading vol. 1), or an idiot that lacks reasoning skills because I disagree. I think I am innocent of all three charges.
Think back ... considering the exchanges of this thread, I can hear a quiet echo of "W." "If you aren't with us, you are against us."
GA
Yes, Panther, we have seen on here and elsewhere that collusion is not a specific crime. The real crime is conspiracy.
Unfortunately, many people are perfectly OK with a presidential candidate's campaign colluding with a hostile foreign government -- as long as their candidate wins the election.
They:
- Use mockery (tsk tsk) and rhetorical gymnastics to change the subject.
- Claim the investigation was only about collusion when the authorization letter says otherwise.
- Claim Russians didn't interfere when dozens of them got indicted.
- Claim there was no collusion when a half dozen Trump aides got indicted for lying about their Russian contacts among other crimes.
Have you been peeking at my exchanges with Don? Tsk. Tsk.
Here's a relevant excerpt from the latest:
"The report clearly explained why it chose conspiracy as its avenue of investigation. It also clearly explained that the legal "conspiracy" track was equated with both the public's and AG's understanding of the issue being pursued as "collusion."
You seem to be agreeing that a charge of conspiracy was not found supportable, but a charge of "collusion" was not determined. Of course, you are strictly technically correct, but for all other purposes of understanding - the primary purpose of communications, you are doing nothing more than what I have heard called, (and was sometimes guilty of), 'sharpshooting'"
You are welcome to your semantics defense Valeant. I freely admit that semantically you are correct. But in the context of the discussion, I believe the message was settled - whether it was called collusion or conspiracy. I don't think your semantics clarification changes that.
With so many other legitimate points of complaint, why are you hanging your hat on this one?
GABecause I believe there to be an important difference between what they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt (conspiracy) and what clearly occurred (collusion).
The bigger question to many of us is why does a hostile foreign government helping to elect their preferred candidate not concern you? Why does Trump changing the GOP platform to benefit that country not concern you? Why when he eases sanctions on their oligarchs does it not concern you? Why when Trump believes the word of Putin over every one of his Intelligence Services are you not concerned? Why does Trump erode, and isolate us from, every alliance we have had for the past fifty years not concern you?
What everyone seems to misunderstand about the Trump tower meeting is that the Russians were talking about adoptions. That was a key component to the Magnitsky Act sanctions Russia had implemented against US parents in 2012 in retaliation. What they were there to negotiate was the relaxing of sanctions pertaining to Magnitsky in exchange for Clinton dirt. That is the quid pro quo that no one seems to have put together.
The Trump supporters are running a smokescreen about how the investigation was started, which was clearly explained in the report and justifiable, while ignoring every one of those scenarios that actually puts our country in real danger.
Got any justifiable answers to those questions above?Valeant, you and a couple of other posters in this thread, should consider what you think you are reading in my responses.
I say that timidly because I have looked back and just can't find any comments that would support such impressions as I am seeing. It seems so obvious it can only mean I am missing something.
"The bigger question to many of us is why does a hostile foreign government helping to elect their preferred candidate not concern you?
What did I say to give you that impression?
"Why does Trump changing the GOP platform to benefit that country not concern you?"
What did I say to give you that impression?
Let's just do a bulk quote:
"Why when he eases sanctions on their oligarchs does it not concern you? Why when Trump believes the word of Putin over every one of his Intelligence Services are you not concerned? Why does Trump erode, and isolate us from, every alliance we have had for the past fifty years not concern you?
Look back to where our exchanges started Valiant, I don't think you will find any obvious, (or even semi-obvious), words or implications that I was unconcerned with any of your listed actions? What did I say to give you that impression?
Could it only be because I haven't joined you in your affirmations?
I sort of gave a couple heads up! in earlier responses Valeant, but considering the questioning tone of this response, and your closing remark:
Got any justifiable answers to those questions above?
You are bordering on being unsupportably rude. Which is much worse than being able to support rudeness. Both are still rude, but at least one is also right.
First, it was I should just stay out of the discussion, then it was something like I wasn't capable of judgment, (or something like that), and now its snarkily, (sorry if that wasn't the intention, but that is how it came across. And I think correctly so): "Got any justifiable answers to those questions above?"
To offer justifiable answers would be hard because you have posed then as a negative; "not."
Here'a a deal: You find any of my responses in this exchange that says, (or even strongly implies), that I am not concerned about any of the points you asked about, and I will be glad to offer, and justify, my answers to your questions. I will also change my rudeness consideration from "unsupported" to "supported."
*That "W" echo is louder here: "If you ain't with us, you are against us ..."
GA ;-)You come into this thread to wonder why many of us liberals and the liberal media are up in arms over the report's conclusions. The questions I posed relate directly to why we're up on arms. If you cannot see why there is a great cause for concern for our country based upon the actions taken by Trump and the Russians surrounding the 2016 election, actions I asked in those questions, many of us view your devil's advocateness in defense of Trump.
And why not answer those questions? Why not let us know your stance? Do you see concern or do you buy Trump's lies?"... many of us view your devil's advocateness in defense of Trump."
Then many of you have made incorrect assumptions.
"And why not answer those questions? "
Because so far, we haven't even agreed on what we are talking about, so what should I answer; a response to a position I hadn't taken, a rebuttal to a claim I hadn't made, or a guess about something I hadn't confirmed? Are we talking about conspiracy/collusion, or obstruction?
I will offer my view on the collusion thing. From the beginning the Report's avenue of investigation was "conspiracy" which was the legal version of the "collusion" charge everyone else had focused on until the report made the legal distinction.
I think it fair to say that the "collusion" we all had in mind prior to the Report, was, at the least, coordinated collusion.
To this point I agree with the Report's conclusion that the requirement of evidence of coordination was pivotal to a determination of conspiracy/collusion. I reject the pickiness of insisting collusion and conspiracy were two different things in all our minds before the Report's release. We may have had the mechanics of conspiracy in our minds, but we were thinking collusion. This is the point where I got caught in the bog of semantics.
I didn't read anything in Vol I that makes me think the Report's conclusion was wrong.
Now, back to collusion as a non-legal concept, as an action alone, and as you keep saying; you know it when you see it.
I agree, there were multiple incidences of apparent collusion, however you might define it, but I also agree that in many of the same instances there are distinctions that would deny collusion.
Look at the big one, the Trump Jr./Trump Tower meeting. It could be said that just agreeing to look at an offer is collusion, but that is all that is there. There was no effort of coordination. There was no reciprocal plan of; 'you do this and I will do that," or "if you can do this I can do that." I don't think it impossible for someone to view it as nothing more than taking advantage of an out-of-the-blue opportunity.
As a noun, I can see collusion in the meeting, but in a legal or law-related sense, I do not.
Finally, yes I see a concern, and no, as a broad generalization,
I don't "buy Trump's lies."
GA
Well, GA, when you consistently focus on what you say the investigation didn't find, while not once expressing concern over the damning details meticulously laid out in the report, it paints a very one-sided picture.
I'm starting to think you fell off the fence a long time ago and landed on the side containing a giant pile of bull$hit. ;-)And there you go thinking again. I know mama told you about that.
You condemn me for not talking about all details instead of just the ones pertinent to my comments. I bet that would make for a hard discussion to follow.
It doesn't paint a one-sided picture PrettyPanther, it paints an incomplete picture. And it seems that just like a brain will synthesize some missing component of something it sees because it recognizes that the missing component should be there, it seems some political brains are completing that incomplete picture with what they expect to be there - even when it isn't.
GA
If you are willing to ignore:
1. Multiple indictments of Trump aides for lying about Russian contacts, among other crimes.
2. Proof of multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents.
3. Dozens of indictments of Russians for interferring in our election to help elect Trump.
4. Damning evidence that stops Mueller from "exonerating" Trump.
Then yes, the whole issue is irrelevant.
Here is a link that covers quite a few of the allegations some have listed above--51 instances in which the mainstream media has published lies, which is where most of the statements above originate. In many cases (I didn't click on all 51 of these), these false statements were either later retracted or directly contradicted by Mueller. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04- … spread-msm
To Promisem: Perhaps you are unaware that an indictment is not the same thing as a conviction; you have to have evidence to get a conviction, and Mueller, when faced with the (unexpected) result of having to present a case against some indicted Russians (Concord), folded like a cheap lawn chair. The reason this was unexpected was because Mueller was confident that he would never have to make a case in court against Russian nationals and thus need not concern himself about his lack of any real evidence.
Re the matter of contacts between those involved in the Trump campaign and Russian agents, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with anyone having "contacts" with Russian "agents." There were also concerted efforts on the part of people/organizations connected with Clinton to draw various people connected with the Trump campaign into such contacts. Papadopuolos has recently spoken at some length about efforts to draw him into compromising contacts. https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaki … te-player/
The basis for most, and probably all, of the statements you above are making are based on MSM lies that have since been corrected/retracted--or on purely frivolous claims.You are posting links from right-wing websites that distribute propaganda rather than news. They have no credibility except to people who want to believe their propaganda.
Yes, as someone with quite a bit of legal experience, I'm fully aware of the difference between an investigation and an indictment. Mueller investigated Trump's guilt AND innocence because he stated as such in his report.
Mueller could prove neither.
Since when don't we indict people simply because we might not be able to capture them?
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with anyone having "contacts" with Russian "agents.
I don't believe we should commit treason with our most dangerous enemy of the last 75 years just to get our candidate elected to the Oval Office.
The basis for most, and probably all, of the statements you above are making are based on MSM lies that have since been corrected/retracted--or on purely frivolous claims.
No, I simply read the Mueller report. Did you? I have a copy on my desktop if anyone wants me to share it.Well, I wondered how long it would take until someone turned "no collusion, no obstruction found" into treason instead.
A little longer than expected, but then it is a tremendous stretch of credibility.I wonder how long someone would respond with made-up "facts". Please actually read the Mueller report that Trump now calls "total bullshit"
Please don't make up a quote that doesn't exist in the report. Repeat after me:
1. Trump was NOT exonerated.
1. Trump aides and Russian spies had repeated and ADMITTED contacts.
2. Trump aides have been INDICTED for lying about the contacts.
3. Dozens of Russians have been INDICTED for trying to elect Trump.
Otherwise, since when is it not treason to seek the help of our worst enemy to elect a President?
When it suits the spin of zealots?It is probably safer to stick with "no collusion" and hold back on that "no obstruction" thought Wilderness. Even I have to admit that the Report does not say there was no obstruction. That the Report does not state a conclusion of obstruction does not equal a finding of no obstruction.
I find many of those "10 points" of obstruction investigation to not be obstruction - as it was defined in the report. But I also find too many that clearly are. Or at least they appear to be true obstruction efforts.
I suppose the next argument will be whether obstruction efforts had to be successful to be obstruction. My guess is that they don't.
GA
Right wing web sites are not to be trusted... main stream media can print and report all kinds of fake news unchallenged. No wonder our country is screwed up and you are part of the problem. How can you not see the double standard?
You really, really need to learn more about how newspapers work.
You won't learn it from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Newspaper articles have to go through multiple layers of fact checking up. They also often have to go through legal review to make sure the facts are correct and attributed to reliable sources.
It's astonishing how some people on here make wildly inaccurate claims simply because they got their "facts" from a radio talk show host.I actually read the NYT...and wrote about their inherent bias...I know how newspapers suppose to work and it is not working now and has not been working for about over a decade. The reason we have such divide in our country is partly fueled by the biased media.
You don't learn how newspapers work simply by reading one.
Do you know how nuclear power plants work simply by turning on a lightbulb?You are being silly. You don’t need to be a fly on the wall to know how a newspaper is put together, what articles gets printed and what goes on the front page...
You are also being cute with nuclear power...
In your approach to things, we are all idiots except for our own profession.
How insane is that?
I am an engineer by training. I also have a brain and common sense.
I can find out things you can as well if you put the effort.
Here is one more news for you. If you find out you’ve been lied to for 2 years, any reasonable thinking person would have a huge problem with the sources...Apparently not you...you choose to defend the news organizations say we just don’t know how they are run.Really? Prove it. Tell me the exact process for getting an article on the front page of the New York Times.
It can take anywhere from hours to months, so I'm sure you'll have quite a long answer.Not a thing. You're the one who keeps making extravagant claims about the media, Mueller, Trump opponents, etc. So feel free to back them up.
For example, you said, "You don’t need to be a fly on the wall to know how a newspaper is put together."
If it's that easy, your reply will be brief after all.
Better yet, you can prove with your answer that all media is lying except for Limbaugh, Hannity and Breitbart.
This notion that there is something weird or wrong about diplomats, heads of state, and their representatives having "contacts" with foreign diplomats, heads of state, and their representatives is among the most ridiculous of the talking points promulgated by the Left. Such contacts are part of their job description.
It is of course clear that your own preferred sources of information are MSM sources--controlled by only five major corporations and a mere handful of elites. All of these MSM news sources have an absolutely staggering history of lying to the public. While the "weapons of mass destruction" narrative comes to mind, I also remember the run-up to the financial crisis of 2008--which of course, "Nobody could have seen that coming." Alternative news sources were on this years in advance. Mainstream news sources were pumping real estate right into the teeth of the collapse, and the massive financial frauds committed by the banks were hushed up by the MSM. The MSM is a vast industry that traffics almost exclusively in lies and distortions in the service of the interests of the elites, the MIC, and foreign national interests. It is rather telling that you prefer them to independent journalists.This notion? It's the law, specifically the Logan Act. Only those in official government position should be having contacts with foreign agents to represent the interests of the United States. The fact that so many contacts occurred from the Trump Campaign with the Russian government prior to the election is the issue.
I thought it had been decided that those contacts were about building a tower, which could then be used in the emoluments clause to jail Trump rather than using collusion to jail him.
Either way, surely multiple contacts with Russians is clear proof of criminal activity, right? LOLDo you know why the Russians were talking adoptions during the Trump Tower meeting? That was something their government instilled in retribution against the citizens of the United States for our government passing the Magnitsky Act. That sure sounds like non-elected officials discussing policy to me.
Well, I don't have a problem with high level politicians (including Trump) talking policy with foreign governments. Is there a law about that, precluding anyone not "authorized" (whatever that means) talking with foreign citizens or governments about what they'd like to see done? For sure, this has been done since the country was created, after all, and Pelosi had trips set up to do just that (was she "authorized" to talk policy, and by whom?).
You are right in the actions of Pelosi perceived as issues under the Logan Act, as well as John Kerry's talks with Iran pertaining to the deal in 2018. Both, along with candidate Trump campaign aides having talks with members of Russia prior to being elected are great examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
It's clear proof of the need for an investigation to make sure laws are being followed.
Do you want our intelligence agencies to respect U.S. laws? I hope so.
I would be grateful if you would respond to my comments instead of using deflection.
A Presidential campaign having multiple contacts with our most dangerous enemy is hardly "weird" except for voters who have no understanding of ethics or law.
I simply prefer journalist who follow standards. That includes newspapers but does not include right-wing blogs with anonymous owners."A Presidential campaign having multiple contacts with our most dangerous enemy is hardly "weird" except for voters who have no understanding of ethics or law." Fact - DNC paid for a dossier that was made up of information given by Russians... The Trump campaign did not pay for any information from Russia, the Mueller report stated no Americans concluded with Russia to interfere with the election.
+100%, some people will never accept the obvious. Hence, TDS...
The pattern is clear. When Trump supporters have no rational answer, they simply make a personal attack and claim that childish TDS.
Yes - we've got some of those...on both sides of the aisle.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my point and completely distorts the Mueller report.
But it is an excellent example of deflection.
There is not a shred of evidence that the Russian government tried to help Trump win.
Have we not learned that no matter how much evidence you lay out, Trump supporters will just ignore it? The Mueller report is remarkably clear. Trump obstructed justice and attempted to obstruct justice, but may ultimately not be charged because his staff didn't carry out his most egregious orders, like firing Mueller.
And have we also not learned that Trump is a habitual liar? He will say whatever he needs to - true or not - if he thinks it advances his agenda. Almost nothing he says is true, so I'm mystified that people who support him tolerate that. Certainly, people support their politicians when they lie in general, but we've never seen anything of this magnitude. I wonder how Trump can ever win more supporters or sway anyone by lying as much as he does.
Perhaps its like being a murderer. Whether you've killed one or a hundred, you're still a murderer. So telling one lie or a hundred makes no difference to some people.The fact that he TRIED is enough to convict on obstruction, so long as the other elements of proof are also present. He doesn't need to succeed to be guilty, he just needs to have the intent and Trump clearly has plenty of that, according to Mueller.
Even if true (as stated), how does this have anything to do with Trump or Trump's supposed "collusion"?
The "social media campaign" was stunningly insignificant--a little boiler-room operation: "Shane and Mazzetti have constructed a case that is fundamentally false and misleading with statistics that exaggerate the real effectiveness of social media efforts by orders of magnitude." https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10- … 6-election
Mueller indicted 13 Russians over this, secure in the knowledge that he would never have to take the case to court.
Mueller also indicted Concord for its presumed role in funding "troll farms," presuming that here, too, he would never have to make his case in court. Concord surprised him by turning up in court in response to the summons, and Mueller has been trying to find a way to avoid presenting an actual court case ever since. (A court case would involve discovery.)
There was no Russian intrusion into the Clinton campaign. The information released by Wikileaks was not a hack but an inside job--a download to (most likely) a thumb drive, as established by William Binney's analysis. Most likely scenario: Seth Rich downloaded the documents to a thumb drive and delivered them to Wikileaks through an intermediary--and was murdered for it by...guess who?
Of course, the truth as to all this could easily be established by examining the DNC's servers, but--surprise!--the DNC refused to allow the FBI to examine its servers. I am guessing that such an examination might well have revealed who did the download. This might well have led to a murder investigation if indeed the person who most probably did the download immediately turned up dead.
You also kind of think that maybe the Mueller investigation might have included an examination of the DNC's servers by the FBI.But that wasn't your point, eh?
You can spin. Or you could read the report.
Ha. Suuure."The "social media campaign" was stunningly insignificant-" - LOL. And here we have another conservative to refuses to read the Mueller report for fear of being educated to the TRUTH.
Blue also, apparently, didn't read the DOJ IG report about the Clinton investigation. I say that because of the comments in the last paragraph were addressed by the IG and found no issue. SURPRISE!
It's my hope that the report will be released in full. It's clear there have been no leaks on the final report, so we are still on hold... I think this all needs to be put to rest one way or the other. Actually, it is already pretty clear that some Dems in Washington have moved on to their own investigations. Much of the media is also concentrating on other ongoing investigations into president Trump's business dealings before he became president. Makes me disgusted and sad... Just have to stop and wonder about our society as a whole.
Your first three sentences are about the only rational ones I have seen on here from a Trump supporter.
If Trump has nothing to hide, he should want the same thing. He can use the truth for once as both a defense and a way to attack the Democrats.As a rule, I don't predict. However, I predict that the Dems in Washington will rue the day they made the decision to continue down the "investigation path". In general, people are tired of the true obstruction in Washington, that being our Congress. And I have a feeling the Inspector General Horowitz is going to shine a spotlight on the true problems that occurred during the 2016 election with his lengthy investigation. The "House Of Obama" is going to be brought to its knees with proof of real crimes.
So, odd media has put Horowitz on a back burner? They may want to ignore Horowitz's investigation, but he will at sometime soon hand down his findings. It will come down at a critical time, right as 2020 presidential really starts to collect steam.
I would think the Dems in Washington would dial down the "look foolish facture". Seems they continue down such a destructive path. I have never witnessed such destructive behavior. It seems they have lost all political common sense.
Or let's just burn it like Nunes asked for.
Democrats would be wise to pull back at this point and Republicans should be overjoyed at all the talk of more investigations because it's ultimately going to hurt the Democrats.
However, all this talk of TDS is so ridiculous it's literally its own form of insanity. Why are Democrats going nuts over this? Well, because Republicans were going nuts investigating Hillary Clinton and going nuts accusing Obama of not being born here and being a Muslim.
So, tit for tat. That's the way it is in Washington.
Any claim that somehow Democrats are doing anything Republicans weren't doing is partisan bs. Both parties do the same thing.Best summary so far...this is a long piece.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagat … -a-million
Matt Tiabbi is no right wing nut...That was a good read jackclee, thanks for the link.
I must add a caveat; I think it was an excellent piece because it confirms what I believe, so, I have marked it for some fact-checking to be sure I am not just a victim of that famous malady--confirmation bias.
Here's a kicker ... in the spirit of discussion, how about a challenge to some of the anti-Trump members here; Check it out folks, you won't like it. It points the 'fake news' finger. (lots of them)
GAI skimmed the article and will read more later. However, I don't have to be convinced that the media is out of control in every direction and is one big reason why Trump was elected.
That doesn't mean Trump is not a self-serving dotard whose only skill is as a con man.We found a point of common ground hard sun. I too think the media is out of control.
GAYes, they are. This remind me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrTf6CaTTc0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=timvZTKr5HQAin't life great, idiots for everybody.
Now just imagine the scandal if Pres. Obama had not been wearing that bike helmet. What the hell kind of example would he be setting for our chillldren.
I heard a rumor that Hannity was offered a guest appearance on 'Home Improvement's Tool Time' (*chest thump, chest thump, unhh-unhh-unhh)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rNjzSga6yE
GA
Then neither of you understand "the media". The term is so broad it's meaningless.
And to say "the media" is out of control is a generalization.
It's like saying all Republicans or all Democrats are idiots.I think of the "media" as all commonly accepted news outlets promisem. That would include outlets such as CNN, Fox, MSNBC etc. Web sites like The Drudge Report, Slate, etc. print sources like the NYT or WaPo, etc., but I would not include Joe's Blog or cable channel 9999 playing 3am - 6am only, etc. etc. etc.
So what is the "media" that you say I don't understand?
Of course, you are right that it was a generalization. The ills attributed to the "media" were also a generalization. I think there is plenty of fodder to discuss specifics if you want to start a thread. I will bring along jackclee's link as a starting point.
GAI may jump in on such a forum as I do have some beefs with the press that arose before Trump came along, and I think I could find some specific examples. Most people here know what I think about Trump, and I blame much of the media, and the Democrats, for making Trump possible.
However, I don't think any of this excuses the great mistake that people made in voting for the pompous know nothing blow hard. Trump took the wedge that so many were screaming that Obama made and drove a broad ax straight through the middle. I don't think many Americans are sincere about bringing the nation together.
Personally, I think we could have done much better on immigration, gun issues,foreign policy etc. with someone who could conduct him or herself in a manner that would at the least be becoming of a middle-schooler.
We needed someone with a little of Trump's "America First" ideology, but with a whole lot more charisma, sincerity, and intellectual ability that could bring real results.
Jacklee's link and Islandbites videos are examples of out of control "media." And, yes the media is very broad but as GA states, we can narrow it down to the major players in a discussion."Personally, I think we could have done much better on immigration, gun issues,foreign policy etc. with someone who could conduct him or herself in a manner that would at the least be becoming of a middle-schooler.
We needed someone with a little of Trump's "America First" ideology, but with a whole lot more charisma, sincerity, and intellectual ability that could bring real results."
I agree with virtually everything you said here. Sadly, we've put ourselves in a corner by encouraging the establishment of a two party system, which ensures that we MUST choose one of two candidates, and in recent years, it's been one of two exceptionally crappy candidates.Except, none of the past Presidents, with the exception of Reagan has been able to accomplsh so much in two years, even with the cloud of a Special Consel investigation...
However you disagree with Trump’s style, the substance is what matters.
I personally did not vote for him and preferred Carson and Cruz...
But, as I witness how he has government, I am convinced he is the only one who can survive this onsluaght by Democrats and the biased media.I'm not seeing the results and I'm in the middle of Trump country. I'm seeing stagnant wages, meth everywhere, crumbling infrastructure, the world laughing at Trump, and a country that's more divided than it was under Obama.
We need a leader who acts like a man with some type of morals or he will never have the respect it takes to get anything of consequence done. I don't think Trump really understands how government works.So Much????
Take away the Tax Scam, what has Trump done. Add in the Tax Scam and what has Trump done that was actually great for the middle-class?
I can't think of a single major thing.Here are 289 things Trump accomplished in his first 2 years...
I guess your media has been hiding it from you.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash … se-keepingOf course depending which political party you belong to, one person’s accomplishment is another’s disaster...
Yes. A valid third party would be good. And, I still think we need something other than a first past the post system, at least for the House and Senate. It could encourage more third party votes and thus a more representational system.
Not sure I would include Drudge.
There are two parts of today's visual media (as opposed to Walter Conkite's day) One is news reporting, which ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC and the like all do fairly well.
Then you have the "analysis" which I think CNN does particularly well and FOX does not. (I don't watch the others, so I can't comment)
Finally (OK, I know I said two), there is the opinion piece (think Hannity or Cuomo) In those cases, I am aware of their bias so I listen to see how much supporting evidence they provide. In Hannity's case, he is just a Trump mouthpiece and is full of fake news, CNN is not, IMO and I would love anybody to prove they do not tell the truth, biased as it might be)That is a fair assessment My Esoteric. In your first point, I wouldn't be so generous as to say "fairly well," but I could offer, grudgingly, an 'okay most of the time'.
I also agree with your "analysis" point. With the caveat that even that better analysis isn't frequently colored by an obvious bias.
On your "fake news" point, although I would also rank Fox above CNN, it is not my perception that CNN's hands are clean, so again I wouldn't be as generous as you.
Hannity? Of course, it is only a personal opinion, but there are two people on Fox that force me to change channels; Hannity and Ann Coulter. I think that puts me in agreement with that point also.
GA
Well, it is out of control and the media is part of the problem.
The only one that got it right was Fox News... where is the apology to Fox news?
The mantra that I received over the last two years here on HubPages forum is that Fox news is not real news. It is a right wing propaganda machine...it is a pro Trump network, populated with hosts that are friends of Trump...
Well, they were right and they got the news right. They got the news from the source, unlike the rest of the main stream media.
Time to revisit journalism school...
GA, those people will never admit to anything.
I find it disturbing that there are many people in the middle who claims that the left and the right are just the same two sides of the same coin...
What I have seen and experienced, that is not the case.
The left is the one on the wrong side of history...and uses facist tactics to attack their opponents and accuses them of doing the same things they do.Those who never bought into picking a side, buying in, or taking up a cause for one political extreme or the other I think will come to a similar conclusion, if they somehow didn't a long time ago.
It was long ago clear that CNN was nicknamed the 'Clinton News Network' for good reason. MSNBC's bias is just as strong, and Fox while being watered down since the election, and the jettisoning of Bill O'Reilly and others, is still the bastion of the Republicans and Conservatives.
Whether its NPR, PBS, CNN, FOX, etc.... they are all politically charged and biased institutions that push their agendas upon their viewers/listeners.
It takes some effort to find moderate relatively neutral news sources... sticking to the likes of the WSJ and the Economist, while any given writer appearing in their pages may be biased, those institutions on the whole are not.
As that article states:
"Imagine how tone-deaf you’d have to be to not realize it makes you look bad, when news does not match audience expectations you raised. To be unaware of this is mind-boggling, the journalistic equivalent of walking outside without pants."
I really don't understand how anyone has been able to take anything the likes of CNN says seriously or founded on reality... ever since they long ago pushed the storyline that the Benghazi time-framed riots in parts of the Middle East were caused by a YouTube video, (and I have to shake my head when I think about not long after that President Obama stood in front of the UN assembly and pitched it to them... that a YouTube video was the cause of anything so encompassing in the Middle East is beyond absurd, the suspension of disbelief required to believe that is monumental)… but this is where we are at today … reality has become something as malleable to our media sources, and our politicians, as Silly Putty.
It has not only led to the rise of Trump, and the tens of millions of Americans that cling to him as a bastion of sanity in a world of media hyped insanity... but worse is to come, because the other side is producing the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, making their voices and ideas mainstreamed and acceptable by more and more Americans every day.James Howard Kunstler sums it up pretty well:
After two years of gaslighting the public while it blew smoke up America’s ass, the Jacobin news media enjoyed its final feeding frenzy with the release of the 400-page Mueller report. They expected 1000 pounds of raw filet mignon, but it turned out to be tofu fried in olestra. The ensuing fugue of hyperventilating hysteria was also duly expected and William Barr stoically endured their hebephrenic peevings at the release ceremony — a press conference which itself offended the media.
The threats and raving continued all the livelong day and far into the peeper-filled night with CNN’s Chris Cuomo blustering “It’s time to rumble,” and the lugubrious hack David Gergen muttering soulfully, “This was not fake news,” and The Times’ Maggie Haberman fuming that the White House had played the “Nazi anthem” Edelweiss — very fake news, it turned out, since the tune was written for Rodgers’ and Hammerstein’s 1959 Broadway show, The Sound of Music (and sung by the anti-Nazi hero Baron von Trapp). Meanwhile Rachel Maddow had the balls to confab in prime time with disgraced former FBI mandarin Andy McCabe, officially identified as a liar by his own colleagues at the agency. What a circus of perfidious freakery!
Understand that the Mueller Report itself was the mendacious conclusion to a deceitful investigation, the purpose of which was to conceal the criminal conduct of US government officials meddling in the 2016 election, in collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign, to derail Mr. Trump’s campaign, and then disable him when he managed to win the election. Mr. Mueller was theoretically trying to save the FBI’s reputation, but he may have only succeeded in injuring it more gravely.
The whole wicked business began as a (failed) entrapment scheme using shadowy US Intel “assests” Stefan Halper and Joseph Mifsud to con small fish Papadopoulos and Carter Page into incriminating themselves (they declined to be conned) and moved on to ploys like the much-touted Trump Tower meeting to ensnare Trump Junior and then to several efforts (also failed) to flip Paul Manafort, and Michael Cohen — the final product of which was an epic failure to find one instance of real chargeable criminal collusion between anyone connected to Mr. Trump and Russia.
By the way, the Mueller Report failed to mention that the two Russians present in that August 2016 Trump Tower meeting, lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, were on the payroll of Hillary Clinton’s oppo research contractor Fusion GPS, and met with that company’s principal, Glenn Simpson, both before and after the meeting — just one example among many of the Mueller Team’s shifty tactics, but a move that speaks volumes about Mr. Mueller’s actual intent, which was to keep his prosecutorial circus going as long as possible to interfere with Mr. Trump carrying out his own duties.
The Special Prosecutor’s main bit of mischief, of course, was his refusal to reach a conclusion on the obstruction of justice charge. What the media refuses to accept and make clear is that a prosecutor’s failure to reach a conclusion is exactly the same thing as an inability to make a case, and it was a breach of Mr. Mueller’s duty to dishonestly present that failure as anything but that in his report — and possibly an act of criminal prosecutorial misconduct.
Like any tantrum, the media’s frenzy will run out of steam (and credibility) and now they will be whipped like dogs for betraying their public trust. There is a counter-narrative to the “Resistance” narrative, and it is a true crime story. That suppressed story is finally going to roll out in the implacable workings of actual (not fake) justice and it is going to crush a lot of people who concocted this epic political hoax, including some members of the press who knowingly and dishonestly abetted it.
Many criminal referrals have already been made on the likes of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr, and a big net has been cast to pull in the figures who have been hiding in the thickets lo these two-and-a-half-years of smoke and gaslight: Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, William Brennan, James Clapper, Nellie Ohr, Samantha Power, Bill Priestap, Jim Rybicki, James Baker, Mike Kortan, John Carlin, Mary McCord, Josh Campbell and more. Some of these are going to jail and some have already flipped. The fetchings should reach the Obama White House. Mr. Mueller himself, even in his majestic granitic silence, will be liable for failing to inform his boss, the Attorney General, that the predicate document for his witch hunt was known to be a fraud back in 2016, and was used anyway to spy on a presidential candidate. https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation … -bullshit/Seriously. We found the far left and the really far right.
I highly doubt that Blue, but if he is a Democrat, he is one of the very few nut-job conservatives left in the party. All the rest became Republicans.
That is even worse. It means they have two of them, and they're Bi-polar.
GA
Not surprising at all that you buy into that far right-wing conspiracy theory.
Kunstler is a lifelong Democrat. Every point he makes has been proven by actual evidence.
'Understand that the Mueller Report itself was the mendacious conclusion to a deceitful investigation, the purpose of which was to conceal the criminal conduct of US government officials meddling in the 2016 election, in collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign, to derail Mr. Trump’s campaign, and then disable him when he managed to win the election. Mr. Mueller was theoretically trying to save the FBI’s reputation, but he may have only succeeded in injuring it more gravely.'
This point is clearly all conspiracy theory. There is no democrat who would even try to argue for it as we're all aware that the investigation started when Popodapolous bragged to an American ally that he had been offered the hacked e-mails from the DNC.Since there is no evidence that supports Kunstler's view, that is impossible.
Kunstler appears to be an articulate Rush Limbaugh wanna-be with the same inability to reason logically and prone to much hyperbole and false statements.
Another closed-minded arch-conservative that can't understand what he is reading because it disagrees with his pre-conceived notions, I see.
GA - here is an example of the author's bias (or lack of research). He states accurately that in 'a' poll (Suffolk/USA) that:
"As Baker notes, a full 50.3% of respondents in a poll conducted this month said they agree with Trump the Mueller probe is a “witch hunt.”
That leaves a certain negative impression about the character of the investigation. WHAT he doesn't tell you (on purpose?) is what the question being asked was (it is a terrible survey question, btw) -
"President Trump has called the Special Counsel’s investigation a “witch hunt” and said he’s been subjected to more investigations than previous presidents because of politics. Do you agree?"
Hell, even I would have thought about answering that question 'Yes', because of the highlighted part.
That SHOULD have been a two-part question and the author, if he was going to be fair, should have pointed that out!
To be a proper question that measured true feelings the Trump statement should have been given followed by two questions.
1) Do you think Trump is correct that the investigation is a witch-hunt?
2) Do you agree that Trump has been investigated more than any other president for political purposes?
I am not sure how I would have answered the second question because of the "political purposes" phrase.
There is enough real evidence out there to strongly suggest that Trump is a criminal (white-collar) and so any investigation, based on probable cause, is appropriate, regardless of who does it and for what purpose.
So, because of this failing of the author, I now suspect the rest of his claims as not being fair.
BTW - you know all of those stories the NYT and WP ran about what Trump did which he called "Fake News"? Well, the Mueller report proved they were the real truth like most of America thought.
Democrats are following a tactic that will settle this once and for all: they are demanding the release of the full report except for the classified parts.
I am a conservative and I want the same thing...I want a full discolsure of what went on and how this investigation got started and an account of all the players...what they did? What was said is closed testimony...
I want to see what Adam Schiff saw...
I want to know about Clapper and Brennan and Comey and McCabe and their involvement in all this.
I want to see the FISA warrants...You won't get any of it. The Republican Senate already voted to quash a public release of the report.
Why not? Adam Schiff can release what evidence he found can he? He can leak it just like Comey did?
I am waiting for Michael Horowitz’s report...
It will reveal a lot of behind the scene misdeeds...
I follow Wikileaks Twitter feed. If they post it I will let you know. Right now I am concerned at how to accept that msm in concert, ran with a Trump/ Russia / Collusion hoax, conspiracy theory and domestic propaganda story for 2 years. The 2018 Elections are not legitimate imo.
Thanks for letting us know if they post the report. Both sides need to know the full truth.
Why is that funny? Am I making a mistake in being civil?
A lot of reasons: an admission that Wikileaks is
an accepted source of accurate information. That you would have no qualms at all about getting information from them.My qualms about Wikileaks are related to who gave the information to Wikileaks and for what reason, such as Russia putting their preferred candidate into the Oval Office.
My apologies for being civil. I won't let it happen again.I accept your gracious apologies. The last thing I would ever want is to be accused of sowing discord on social media.
PS. Fox was right. Everyone else pushed a bogus narrative/hoax conspiracy theory for 2 years with the imo intention of manipulating 2018 Elections. Care to join me in resisting those specific democrats?I would rather join you in banning the Democratic party and putting all liberals and other undesirables in concentration camps.
Why don't we work on an armband design together? I have some great ideas from historical photos.I understand completely. The Mueller Report must feel like a holocaust this morning for you.
Sincerely,
Deplorable in the Midwest.Not at all. I'm happy he proved the Russians elected your Führer and indicted 37 people and companies.
I will be happier when I see the full report and discover why Mueller couldn't prove Trump's innocence.
Sincerely,
Enlightened in the mid SouthA die hard...
Guilty until proven innocent...
How unAmerican? And you are accusing Trump of being a Nazi.
Look in the mirror.Isn't this what Trump's people taught us about Obama and Hillary? Two wrongs don't make a right, but, pointing out one without acknowledging the first is even more wrong IMO.
Also, I have a hard time thinking you wouldn't be stating the same thing as Promisem if Obama's AG released a summary instead of an entire report.Geez, read my posts more carefully.
Have you read how many times I have said Trump is innocent until proven guilty, just like I said about Kavannaugh? Will you say the same about Hillary?
No, I didn't say Trump is a Nazi. But yes, he is a fascist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FascismI will not say Hilary is innocent because she is not.
She has been gaming the system and using the government in a way it was never intended.
Her private email server is just one glaring example.
Power corrupts...absolute power corrupt absolutely.
Hillary is the poster girl for corruption going back to Whitewater...and all through Bill Clinton’s administration and then with Benghazi...
She is guilty and the fact that so many people defends her and protected her including our own DOJ and FBI illustrate the depth of her corruption.In other words, you have one standard for Republicans -- innocent until proven guilty -- and another for Democrats -- guilty until proven innocent.
That is the Democrat and the media standard...not my.
I go by where the evidence leads me.
I was not born yesterday.
Here is the problem in a nut shell.
You have a person who is corrupt to the core.
She has gained substantial political power and klout.
She believes she is entitled and she is above the law...
She convinced all that she is going to the the first women president.
All the Washington insiders bought this narrative and act accordingly...including the head of the DOJ and the FBI.
Under such environment, tell me how is anyone to be proven guilty let alone charged with a crime?
The fix was in from day one, and you are part of that problem...because you and your party elevated the Clintons to this status.
No Republican did.And yet, Bush did pretty much the same thing and face the same outcome. Except he also ignored Congressional subpoenas about the issue.
So the standards are the same, but you just choose to ignore them to see conspiracies abound.Bush was not corrupt.
Which crime are you referring to?
If you are talking about the WMD, every intellegence agency and all Democrat leaders all believed the same intelligence.
If you believe the standard is the same, I have a bridge to sell you.
The double standard has been in play for a long time. Democrats gets a pass, Republican don’t.
Here is the shocking truth...
If Bernie Sanders had been selected as the Democratic candidate in 2016, and ran against Trump, He may be President today.
We have crooked Hillary to thank for dodging that bullet.I'm talking about Bush and most of his cabinet using a private server housed at the Republican National Committee headquarters. I'm talking about the 10 million e-mails he deleted , many pertaining to the war in Iraq. I'm talking about his disobeying a Congressional subpoena pertaining to that issue. I'm talking about him not being charged in the case.
How do you not know about any of this? Didn't they have it in the history section of your conspiracy theory sites?
The Democrats and media think the Democrats are guilty until proven innocent?
Wow.
Concentration camps for liberals? I thought it was the liberal who wanted those for conservatives.
It's probably be too costly to build separate ones. Maybe they could each put their undesirables in there together. Which would be pretty much the majority of Americans since both ends seem like twin sons of different mothers to most of us.
I agree also. At this point, unless there is some real evidence that Bar didn't disclose the gist of the report, Dems need to move on. There will be other investigations into Trump affairs, and some likely as a result of Mueller report findings but let the courts handle those.
I just find it demoralizing to our nation that our President cannot acknowledge an attack on our Democracy and actually defends the likely orchestrator. We may know the truth years from now, but the Dems lost the short game here. The damage to our credibility is irreparable due to this and due to Trump being a dotard.
The Dems are also going to at least attempt to show they are serious about immigration in order to when back some of the states Trump took. That's another matter though. A wall is not serious.
Apologies all around...
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house … dent-trumpAnd now there is this from the Mueller Report:
"Instead of the "total exoneration" Trump had proclaimed earlier, the report portrayed the President as deceitful and paranoid, encouraging his aides to withhold the truth and cross ethical lines in an attempt to thwart a probe into Russia's interference in US elections -- his "Achilles heel," according to one forthcoming adviser.
Perhaps more angering to a leader who detests weakness -- but doesn't necessarily mind an amoral reputation -- were the number of underlings shown ignoring his commands, privately scoffing at the "crazy sh**" he was requesting and working around him to avoid self-implication.
Now, those close to him say Trump is newly furious at the people -- most of whom no longer work for him -- whose extensive interviews with the special counsel's office created the epic depiction of an unscrupulous and chaotic White House. And he's seeking assurances from those who remain that his orders are being treated like those of a president, and not like suggestions from an intemperate but misguided supervisor."
AS IF Trump's behaviour, as Republican Mitt Romney made clear, is sickening enough - even more so is that his supporters, as evidenced on this forum, find his behaviour just fine and an example for all Americans to follow.Attention is now being drawn to the massive holes in the Mueller investigation. To those who have been hollering "Russia, Russia, Russia" for the duration of the investigation, one of the notable holes is that NO attempt was ever made to investigate that the key Russia-related claims actually occurred at all.
For example, "On the DNC leak, Mueller started with the prejudice that it was “the Russians” and he deliberately and systematically excluded from evidence anything that contradicted that view.
Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.
There has never been, by any US law enforcement or security service body, a forensic examination of the DNC servers, despite the fact that the claim those servers were hacked is the very heart of the entire investigation. Instead, the security services simply accepted the “evidence” provided by the DNC’s own IT security consultants, Crowdstrike, a company which is politically aligned to the Clintons."
"Mueller’s identification of “DC Leaks” and “Guccifer 2.0” as Russian security services is something Mueller attempts to carry off by simple assertion. Mueller shows DNC Leaks to have been the source of other, unclassified emails sent to Wikileaks that had been obtained under a Freedom of Information request and then Mueller simply assumes, with no proof, the same route was used again for the leaked DNC material. His identification of the Guccifer 2.0 persona with Russian agents is so flimsy as to be laughable. Nor is there any evidence of the specific transfer of the leaked DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0 to Wikileaks. Binney asserts that had this happened, the packets would have been instantly identifiable to the NSA.... So here we have Mueller omitting the key steps of independent forensic examination of the DNC servers and hearing Bill Binney’s evidence."
The link from which these statements are drawn goes into considerably more detail. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05- … te-scandal
The bottom line is that Mueller never even attempted to investigate the claims of Russian interference in the most key and relevant matters at issue--which those of us who have actually been following this have long been aware was debunked from the get-go.
The entire Mueller "investigation" was focused on this: "The charges all relate to entirely extraneous matters dug up, under the extraordinary US system of “Justice”, to try to blackmail those charged with unrelated crimes turned up by the investigation, into fabricating evidence of Russian collusion."
This was properly not even an investigation, as the key evidence and testimony was never sought--or was actively excluded.Who knows if Crowdstrike ever even got any hardware. Nobody. Gufficer is a serial confessor. I would be surprised if he hasnt confessed to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, yet.
The entire story is ludicrous.You have hit the nail on its head. This investigation was never about getting at the truth but to undermine Trump.
Robert Mueller just gave a final news conference. This is the end of this whole affair as far as he is concerned. How nice? Yet, there are still many unanswered questions about Russian collusion, with regard to the Hillary campaign, and with the Steele dossier...and with all his compromised investigators of Storzk and Page...and Comey and McCabe...all disgraced FBI and DOJ officials..
My problem with Mueller is many. One of them is his timing.
He should have given this news conference the day the report came out. Not month later...I am hopeful that the promised declassification will take place. It has often been remarked that the Mueller "investigation" never presented any evidence whatsoever of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election. There was never any forensic analysis of the DNC servers by LE at any level, nor were any relevant witnesses called. Mueller simply presented the "Russian hacking" story as a given.
There has long been enough evidence available to the public to conclude that the FISA warrants themselves were so egregiously politically motivated and phonied-up as to amount to treason.- You guys obviously watch Faux News to have the opinion Trump is off the hook. It's only just begun...…
Unfreedom of the press - a best seller by Mark Levin explains everything you want to know about what is going on now.
Mark Levin?
He's as qualified as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity to opine on anything political. What office has he held, Jack?He is a Constitutional attorney who understand our laws. He has written numerous best selling books about our culture, our courts and our political climate and the toxic media. Read the book and you will at least understand the political divide.
You don’t have to agree with him, but he gives you insight...Or perhaps just read his wiki link, which is not exactly flattering...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_LevinHere is everything you need to know about this affair with relations to the Clintons...
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house … es-americaJack, did the Clinton's foundation get closed down like Trump's? Or his fake University? Did Bill spend $25,000 of the charity's donations to have a portrait of himself painted? Or use the funds to pay for one of his golf courses? Why is Trump and his family prohibited from being involved in any charity for many years?
Compare this with your wacko link.My wacko links???
You are so off the grid, you are about the only one left defending the Clintons...good luck with it.The Clintons and Obama are the most corrupt politicians in American history. That is why we are so screwed up as a nation...
They have politicized our justice system, the FBI, the IRS and the NSA...Remind me now of what they were convicted of, Jack?
None. She committed the crime, and was exonerated by a corrupt FBI Comey. That is the problem. Meanwhile, her foundation took in millions of donations and did very little in charity. A pay for play scheme and not one of our intelligence agency would look into it. That is also a huge problem.
Finally, she corrupted the DOJ and used our own system to undermine a duly elected president...creating a fake Russian collusion narrative...
Need I say more...you can deny it all you want but unfortunately for you, truth is on my side.So many lies.
She was exonerated in much the same way George Bush was who destroyed 22 million e-mails from a private server he and much of his cabinet used at the RNC. That's called a precedent.
Her foundation was audited and they found that over 80% of funds that were raised were used on charitable causes. Try doing some research. And what were the actions Hillary took in her role that benefited people that donated to her foundation. And don't give me that Uranium-1 crap that seven other cabinet members had to sign off on to make happen.
She corrupted the DOJ? How exactly did she do that? Where is any kind of proof she had a hand in the DOJ investigating the Russian interference?
Here's the real criminal... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … impeached/Storzk, Page, Comey, mcCabe...mueller...all Clintonistas...
So by your logic, we can convict Donnie with colluding with the Russians and obstructing justice, eh Jack? You and I can be Judge, jury, and executioner for both of them.
But then, I'll wager you consider yourself much more able to render a verdict than I.
No, Trump was investigated for 2 years. By a corrupt System that was stacked with Democratic attorneys and still they were not able to find anything on the false narrative of Russian collusion... Trump was not the criminal here but an out of control DOJ and FBI senior officials.
The apple is rotten from the core. The media which you follow every word is complicit in pushing this lie on the American public. Read “Unfreedom of the Press” and you will understand...Coming from someone who believes Limbaugh and Hannity are real journalists, this is the height of absurdity, Jack. Prove the system was corrupt other than what the Fox talking heads opine. You're spreading the same old BS the Fox talking heads do.
And yes, Trump is the criminal here as you will find out.I don’t have to prove anything...
You are biased and will not believe the evidence anyway.
Anyone who defends the most corrupt Clintons have nothing good to say.
You are the problem and not the solution.
Have a nice day.Because you cannot prove your claims, Jack! Just like the idiots you get your misguided info from. Don't make claims you cannot back up with proof and you won't have this problem.
Watch for the IG report to come out soon. michael Horowitz will expose the wrong doings at the FBI and the DOJ and CIA...
The truth is the truth and no amount of spin can change it.Cannot wait for it, Jack! And no spin can change it as you said. But you seem to want to ignore the Mueller report which shows obstruction of justice by your boy.
Well said. Not sure why some can't except that there are three pending investigations in regards to why the Trump investigation was started, when it was started, and who had their dirty little fingers in the pie... The FEC is now in the hot seat. It gets more crooked daily.
https://ijr.com/fec-faces-suit-failure- … paign-dnc/Although I've never heard of this site, the article points out this is simply another attempt to distract from Trump's problems. Good luck with that, Shar.
Randy, there are several pending investigations into this entire dossier mess as well as the part the FBI, CIA, and the Clinton campaign had in the investigation into Trump's campaign. Barr actually told Congress during questioning that he has an investigation into the mess? Not sure why you are not aware that Horowitz has been looking into it for over a year? May 22, 2019, the FEC was served with a lawsuit for dragging their feet on the decision on whether the DNC and the Clinton campaign broke several campaign laws with their Russian created dossier. Hopefully, we get the facts from Horowitz. He has kept his investigation leak free.
https://ijr.com/fec-faces-suit-failure- … paign-dnc/Not worried about the Horowitz report, Shar. And as for those instigated by Barr at the behest of Donnie? Not worried about those either. Barr was already known as a toady when he served as AG under Walker Bush and his very telling audition memo--18 pages--said exactly what he would do if hired and now he's refusing to be questioned under subpoena to the House.
So any investigation by Barr is already tainted by his previous actions under Bush and now Trump.Hopefully, Barr will present lots of documents. To bad Mueller could not present any real evidence against Trump. Yeah, documentation would be wonderful. I look forward to the results of all three investigations. And Hopefully, they will expose those that did break laws during the 2016 election. I went out on a limb and said Mueller would not find any evidence on Trump. I will go out on a limb and predict many from the last administration broke laws, and will be exposed, and hopefully
be charged accordingly.It's amazing how Trump zealots think everyone else has broken the law but not Trump.
By "everyone else" I mean only Democrats, of course.
I wonder how many decades we have to wait for the alleged evidence.Hopefully, Barr will finally release the underlying evidence in the Mueller report as he promised, Shar. The contempt threat seemed to encourage him to do so.
And your limb wasn't strong enough to support your "no evidence" claim as Trump would be indicted if he wasn't POTUS.
Did any one watch the mueller hearing?
What did you think?
It gave me a new and different perspective on Mueller.
I don’t think he was in charge of the investigation.
He was just a figure head.You aren't alone:
https://www.newsweek.com/who-wrote-muel … on-1451193
In a letter to House and Senate judiciary leaders, Attorney General William Barr tells them, “I may be in a position to advise you of the special counsel’s principal conclusions as soon as this weekend.”
Waiting for the tweets...Besides the actual report, more answers should be forth coming from the DOJ and the FBI. How did we get to this point in our government?
How did the investigation get started? What role did Senator McCain and others in the government play in advancing this theory of “Russian collusion”?
I don’t think we can just close this chapter and be comfortable that justice has prevailed.Yes, we all should be uncomfortable with:
- 37 indictments.
- Numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives.
- Massive proof of Russian interference in our elections.
Unless, of course, you are a Trump supporter and happy to have that interference.Those 37 indictments are process crimes or related to events happened before the Trump administration and unrelated to Russian collusion...
Hence the investigation did not come up with one iota of evidence that Trump did anything wrong here. You will never be satisfied. The sad truth is you were the one misled by a few corrupt officials at the FBI and the DOJ and the CIA for two years. If is just hard to believe you’ve been lied to...What did I say in my post that isn't factual?
"You will never be satisfied" with the truth. Only denial and deflection.I did not deflect anything. What did I say that was not true?
You have this “belief” based on the stuff you read at the main stream media and it is contrary to what I read or watched in the alternative media...one of us is got to be wrong. There are no grey zone here.
Which is it?
By the way, it is almost the exact same thing with Hillary. Based on my media sources, she was guilty of having a private email server and should have been indicted. You on the other hand thinks she has been investigated fully and exonerated.
The facts are the facts...
Our oppposite opinions are a result of what we read and watch and “belief”...
Again, we both can’t be right. Which is it?Well, your first two points, while factual, are irrelevancies. As jackclee noted, the indictments were for process crimes "or related to events happened before the Trump administration and unrelated to Russian collusion." "Process crimes" are essentially the FBI's method for pulling a "crime" out of its ass where none exists. Their actual purpose was to apply pressure to the accused in hopes "turning" them--using threats in hopes of forcing them to produce something injurious to Trump. Or as stated in the above link, "The charges all relate to entirely extraneous matters dug up, under the extraordinary US system of “Justice”, to try to blackmail those charged with unrelated crimes turned up by the investigation, into fabricating evidence of Russian collusion." One might call this extortion.
The notion that there is anything inappropriate in Trump (or anyone else) having contacts with Russians is pure horseshit. Someone elsewhere on this thread claimed that such contacts would violate the Logan Act. Also pure horseshit. The Logan Act prohibits a citizen from "conferring with foreign governments against the interests of the United States." There is zero proof or even indication that these contacts involved any such thing. For the last two or three years, the Left has been alleging that anyone who was seated next to a Russian at a state dinner party was engaged in treasonous "contact."
There is no "massive proof of Russian interference in our elections." The FBI was never allowed to examine the DNC's servers to investigate the alleged "hack"--which William Binney exposed as a leak, most probably done by downloading to a thumb drive. Mueller never made any attempt to force the DNC to ante up the servers for forensic examination, or to show evidence of any actual "Russian interference." His indictment of a few Russians for claimed interference was a dog a pony show: He felt assured that, as many of the accused were foreign nationals, he would never have to present any actual evidence in an actual court. When some of the accused actually showed up in court in response to the subpoena, he backpedaled as fast as he could and is STILL trying to duck out of presenting a case against them in court, suggesting that either he has no case or that the discovery process could become highly embarrassing, or both.
And as one commentator put it, "after Barr put his finger on the scales of justice...." So somebody else thought there was something rotten in Denmark (Washington in this case.)
The investigation was to target collusion, with Russia. They found none. That is what the summary will conclude.
How the investigation into Trump and his supporters was begun on fabricated and false collusion accusations is another matter entirely.
Don't expect the truth on that to ever be 'officially' produced.That's utterly false and a typical claim by Fox News. The exact authorization from Trump's own DOJ said Mueller should investigate:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
Mueller did exactly what he was authorized to do. Nor can anyone on here claim they know what's in the report.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume … pecial.pdfKeep the dream alive...
You are exactly proving that TDS is real, alive and well and those afflicted are grasping at straws that will never die.
Good luck reading the redacted report.Huh?
There is no authorization letter from Trump's Department of Justice? Mueller didn't investigate "links" or matters that "may arise directly from the investigation"? There aren't 37 indictments?
Trump is innocent until proven guilty. But let's not make wild claims about a report that none of you have read or pretend the Russians haven't interfered in our elections.
Read the report Jack, and you will see why. As to legal conspiracy, Mueller was not able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump, or someone in his Campaign, conspired with the Russians to throw the election to him. It does, however, if this were a civil case (and that is what Congress is), provide the necessary "preponderance of the evidence" needed to convict.
How did it get started? Read the second paragraph in the report, it makes it very clear.
According to Sen Graham, McCain's good friend, Graham was more responsible than McCain."It does, however, if this were a civil case (and that is what Congress is), provide the necessary "preponderance of the evidence" needed to convict."
You know this how? You sat on the jury in the civil trial of collusion?
No further indictments from the special counsel, senior Justice official says. (Not official yet.)
And so it starts. CNN has been wall-to-wall pundits, all day, talking about how Mueller finding no collusion is just one aspect. Now all are talking about getting the full report so it can be combed to see what other things they might investigate the president for.
One pundit even commented that there may be stuff that could be used to embarrass the president.
Now, who was it that predicted, (long ago), that even if the investigation found no collusion the Democrats wouldn't be satisfied. That if the report didn't find collusion they would argue the report didn't go far enough, and that there must be something in there to impeach the president for. Well, it seems impeachment has yielded to just anything for embarrassment, but the prediction seems right.
Yes, it was bull-headed, (by some folk's declarations), Wilderness.
Now we can sit on the edge of our seats waiting for the Democratic show. Somebody get the foot bandages ready.
We will also see if those forum members that said they would accept the Mueller report--whichever way it went--stand by their words.
GAHaven’t you wondered why Hiliary and the rest of her cohorts haven’t been investigated?
Well this is interesting.
https://youtu.be/kzcqOLxJaBQHow many more times do Republicans in power have to "investigate" Hillary without proving anything?
The man who investigates the investigators, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz Yesterday "Catherine Herridge" reported she has good sources that say Inspector General Michael Horowitz is ready to submit his report on a host of goodies. This is the one I have been waiting for, and look forward to hearing all about the host of crooks that really tried o throw the election. So funny how no one has much even knew about this investigation?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/man-inv … d=55574089That article is from June 2018 and says he was only looking for an alleged "spy' in the Trump campaign.
Catherine Herridge is a Fox flunky. A rumor about a possible report is hardly news compared to Russian interference in our elections.
The timing of the report is simply Faux trying to make Trump supporters feel better about their emperor.
Here is adam schiff -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … p;ito=1490
Who will stop at nothing to jump down the rabbit hole...
How did he get elected to Congress?Mr. Schiff's comments on CNN were essentially what I was speaking to in my initial comment.
Your link summed-up what was on CNN all night from almost all of their pundit guests.
GASo, is he on the right track?
Is CNN a respected source of News?
Are you an unbiased observer?
Or are you a Never Trumper?jackclee I couldn't imagine your questions were addressed to me, but when you asked if I was a "Never Trumper" I had to assume they were. So I will answer them.
If I understand correctly what you mean by "Never Trumper," my past forum participation should provide a clear answer; of course not.
Whether his, (Shif), point(s) is the right track, or not, wasn't something I spoke to. My comment was to the point that his "track" is the one being broadcast non-stop on CNN and similar sources.
Can any of us be unbiased sources? I do not think so. But for clarification, I don't use CNN, (or any single source), as a news source, I watch it for news topics, then I go hunting for the details of the topic myself.
If CNN or Fox said it was raining I would stick my head out the door to find out for myself.
GASo what news source do you subscribe? Just curious...
My friend Google of course. She gives me dozens and dozens of choices. I don't have a news feed, so I guess I don't subscribe to any particular source.
However, I do have one newsletter I have been enjoying recently, and from my perception of your political leanings I think you might like it too.
Take a look at Dan Mitchell's International Liberty blog
GAThanks, Iwill check it out.
I also subscribe to the Soufan newsletter for international news.
A frind of my give me this suggestion.
That's one heck of an insult.
When has GA been anything but rational and grounded?
Something the other has never been.It's exactly what GA said to me on a post I made a few weeks ago.
But that's different, right?
"Something the other has never been."
Odd coming from someone who has been banned in response to someone who has never been banned.My banning occurred because I called out the arrogant and instigative attacks by one poster against another.
When I get banned for pointing out the blindly biased who choose to attack another poster for having a different opinion, I really have no problems with that.
Whatever GA said, I am sure was balanced and meant with good intent or humor, if it was not taken that way, the issue is with the reader of that post, not GA.I'm not sure WHY I get dragged into these things but in case anyone hasn't noticed, "alt-right nationalists" who actually drool over weirdos like Mr. Trump are getting BANNED all over social media and it's about time: If they're interested in a hate filled, lame lily white "White Nationalist Neo-Supremacist" state, maybe they should pack up their little "MAGA" caps, confederate flags, portraits of Benito Mussolini and move elsewhere because the USA no longer tolerates this anti-American Civilization, pro Communist Republican Socialism Agenda nonsense:
Vladimir Putin's "BREXIT" Scheme fell apart at the seems and will never happen and Donald Trump will soon be imprisoned if we STILL have laws in this country and that's just that:BREAKING BIG NEWS - Inspector General Michael Horowitz due to release his report on Hillary and her friend Obama, and their cohorts from FBI, DOJ, and CIA. WOW! I think there will be lots of indictments that will result from the Horowitz report... Guess we will have to wait a few weeks, but I think, just my opinion this investigation will be tax dollars well spent. Unlike the Mueller investigation. I find it so odd the media has tucked the Horowitz investigation on a back burner? I guess they could not produce any leaks? Maybe they just did not want to cover it, due to being bias in regards to an investigation that involved Hillary, Obama, and all the other characters they pulled in? Buckle up Jake, get ready for some really big news.
"I find it so odd the media has tucked the Horowitz investigation on a back burner?"
I find it so odd that Fox News makes a big deal about nothing RIGHT WHEN THE MUELLER REPORT COMES OUT.
I'm sure the timing is only a coincidence.
Horowitz Investigation? Can't be too important or legitimate if I've never heard of it: Where was it conducted? Within the creepy confines of "Fox Fantasy Bubble for Zombies" over in star system "Lies & Distractions R US"?
Sharlee01: I don't know what it will take to get through to the last few remaining Trump followers, but Vladimir Putin's Grand "BREXIT" scheme to weaken our once close European Allies which would have severely negated the power of the USA is no more and thank GOD for that, just like "tiny hands" Trump's pseudo-presidency which has led us unwillingly into nothing more than an abominable nightmare:
You get dragged into it because you post provocative and sometimes inflammatory liberal views.
A handful of angry "conservatives" (in name only) love your posts because you give them a chance to vent at liberals like you.
Eventually you will get tired of being mocked and bullied and leave like most of the other liberals. That's why so few people post here anymore.
I put up with it because I don't like bullies and propagandists.I simply post the truth and if alt-righter nationalists who actually don't even belong on the internet, don't like it that's the way it goes:
uh oh, Buckle Up Sharlee01 & promisem because it looks like they've ONLY just begun: Just reporting, just the messenger here:
"SDNY Makes a Major Move to Prosecute the Trump Crime Family"
"Now that Bob Mueller has delivered his report to William Barr, the fight against Donald Trump and his criminal family and businesses will move to the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York (SDNY).
Not coincidentally, the SDNY has just made a major new hire, bringing in one of the top lawyers in the country with experience in prosecuting mob figures and white collar criminals."
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/03/23 … CWOMMLkuBQYou two slay me on this one. If you are being bullied someone redefined bully while I wasn't looking.
To GA: "I also wasn't that offended by your Jake comment. I just repeated it to tease you a bit."
You aren't reading my comments or you aren't reading them with a clear and rational mind.
If you aren't being clear and rational: If GA says it, you think it's fine. If I say the exact same thing, you think I'm a bad person.
How double standard of you.
And nice rationalization of your own vicious personal attacks that got you banned.
Do you really think so? I didn't intend any of my comment to be hyperbole or rhetoric. I was just noting what CNN had been running all day long, (after the end was announced). If you would point out the Jakisms I will be glad to schedule an exorcism. ;-)
And today is even worse. CNN is still running pundit after pundit proclaiming there must be something in the report that can be further investigated - if they can just get their hands on it. NPR has also jumped on the "but there must be something..." bandwagon.
Don't be misled by my comment. I am not defending Pres. Trump, or waving the "I told you so" flag, I am simply, (and vigorously), bashing the Democrats, (as represented by the words of both Democrat politician guests and Democrat-leaning pundits.
[ADDED] I saw your later explanation that you were repeating that Jake line as I had made it to you. If that was your intent I'm cool with it. No worries. I will cancel the exorcism. ;-)
GANot that much, GA. I think your comments were a little too favorable to Republicans and did not put enough weight on how they will behave in the days and weeks ahead.
I think it's fair to say that both parties will act badly.
I also wasn't that offended by your Jake comment. I just repeated it to tease you a bit.
That said, I had to chuckle when I saw Ken accusing me of insulting you when I was using your same line.Republicans weren't germane to my comment promisem. Given my topic I wouldn't have taken it to be "anything" to the Republicans - much less favorable.
Your response sounds a lot like whataboutism, which I am sure I have seen you complain about before.
Surely you don't feel that is an appropriate response to my comment just because it is Democrats, (actually CNN and its Left-leaning pundits - does that mean CNN is a Democrat organ now), being criticized?
GA"I think it's fair to say that both parties will act badly."
My response was about balance.
Anti Democrat was germane to your comment, so that made pro Republican germane as well.
Your last comment seems to take my previous post much more seriously than it was intended. I thought you were going to ban the exorcism.
Hi there promisem.Once I learned I wasn't possessed I did cancel the exorcism.
My original comment wasn't about balance, it was an observation. For you to think it required balance still seems like you are offering a whataboutism rationalization.
Do you feel the same way when someone addresses an anti-Trump, (or Republican) comment with a what about Hillary response?
To your point about both sides acting badly, that may happen later when the report is made public, but for now, the Republicans are fairly silent. Even Pres. Trump's Twitter account is asleep.
But the Left isn't silent. Bouncing from source to source, a fair summation might be that; We didn't get him this time, but we got a bunch of his buddies, (a repetition of your 34/37 indictments), and we will surely find something in the report to nail him with. Plus we have five other ongoing investigations, Plus the report details will certainly lead to more financial and family member potential crimes to investigate.
Some of the pundits are pushing for a full release of Mueller's work papers because ... maybe he didn't dig deep enough, we need to be sure he didn't miss anything.
I don't see any defense for what is playing out promisem. The report didn't give them what they wanted so now they are proclaiming that they will carry the battle forward. That sure seems to define the Democrat purpose of the investigation to be something other than finding "collusion."
Adding caveats about potential Republican misbehavior wouldn't do anything to mitigate the impression conveyed, (at least to me), by the public statements of the Democrat politicians, (particularly Schiff), and the Left-leaning talking heads.
GAAgain, "I think it's fair to say that both parties will act badly."
How in the world is that whataboutism?
I hear leading politicians on the left mostly saying they want to see the entire report except for the classified parts -- like the majority of the country. Schiff saying there is still evidence of collusion is a sideshow and an exception.
If Trump is innocent, he should want the same thing and say it to the public. But he is remarkably silent.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump
Trump and Republicans are silent for an obvious reason. They are still worried about what the report might say. The possibility they are somehow being more responsible than the Dems is not credible.
I don't see how any non-biased observer can claim that one side is or will handle this better or worse than the other.
GA it looks like things are more screwed up now than ever. Friendships broken, Mueller reputation assaulted, FBI under investigation, yada yada.
You are right Diane, or at least that is what the pundits are saying.
GAMore is coming and the Democrats and Obama are quaking in their boots...
Not really. Russian interference was proven. Russian contacts with the Trump campaign were proven. Those two things warranted an investigation. Trump obstructed justice over the investigation, just not indicted for it.
None of us is very worried. We know Trump administration will fabricate some version of the truth to try and turn his supporters even more rabid and hateful towards anyone not in their own party.No, the whole investigation was started by a false predicate. The Steele dossier was paid for by the DNC and it is a piece of Op Research. The FBI has a lot to answer for... Comey and others are in trouble and the Democrats knows it. That is why they are trying to discredit Barr.
Deleted
The Mueller report is tainted... he spent 2 years on a topic that was resolved in the first 6 months. Why???
If you go back and read about the 4-year Whitewater investigation, you might get an answer to your question.
Yes, but there was an alleged crime that they were investigating with Whitewater. There is no crime in the Mueller investigation.
Is not collusion with a foreign entity to fix an election a crime? It was certainly alleged to have happened - we just couldn't find any evidence of it.
But you're also right that the major crimes found in the election (there are many) came only when the thrust left the original purpose and spread to finding anything on anyone connected with Trump. At that point, well, ALL of us have committed crimes of one sort or another in our lives.Relative to your last thought Wilderness, you should check out the Google search behind this blurb:
"Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate calls his new book "Three Felonies a Day," referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws."
Three Felonies A Day
It is not exactly the same as your investigation point, but ...
GA
TRump and Putin are emboldened. The more than one hour phone call yesterday, with no mention of, Russian interence should bring pause.
Would you expect Trump to make a phone call about something else (you didn't say what was discussed) and bring up Russian interference? Interference that Putin has denied but we are positive happened (and Putin knows we know) and are taking steps to limit such actions in the future?
What would be the purpose of bringing it up? Would it help with whatever the purpose of the phone call was? Or would be just an argument, "He said, she said" without any conclusions? If so, why bring it up at all?" . . . and are taking steps to limit such actions in the future?"
That's an interesting statement.
There are still questions around whether the current president is compromised by a foreign government due to his business dealings. Do you know if that's true?
There are still questions around whether Russian oligarchs connected to the Kremlin have compromising information about the President they could use to influence policy. Do you know if that's true?
If not, then how do we know exactly what steps need to be taken to limit such interference in the future?"There are still questions around whether the current president is compromised by a foreign government due to his business dealings."
Yes there are, in the minds of Trump haters. Those questions will never go away, for when one is proven wrong (such as collusion) another will be made up. It will not end as long as Trump is in office.
Which causes me to wonder why I would care WHAT those people come up with and imagine to be true. And the answer is, "I don't". When it has become that obvious that they will forever be finding something else to cry about, something else that will end the world, well, there just isn't a reason to be concerned.There's a difference between spurious allegations, and those based on evidence which warrant further investigation. The above questions are in the latter category. The Mueller report says:
"On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, "Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know . . . ""(1)
I, and many others, would like to know what that is all about. Does compromising material on the current president exist or not? Is it being investigated? By who? Obviously that's relevant to knowing how to limit Russian interference, which you agree is an important goal.
Likewise, there are multiple sources that indicate the Russian oligarchs have leverage over the current president due to his business dealings. Again I, and others, want to know, is that true? And if so to what extent? Again that's relevant to limiting Russian interference.
You and the Republicans in Congress may not want answers to these questions, and you are entitled to your apathy. But congress doesn't just represent you. It also represents people who do want answers to those questions.
The blanket refusal of Congressional subpoenas the current administration seems to have put in pace, does not just stop Democrats from asking questions. It effectively denies everyone in the country who want those answers, from having a voice in Congress. Or put another way, it denies Congress the ability to represent all its Constituents.
Those constituents have a right to be represented in Congress, and Congress has the right (and the authority) to look into these matters on those constituents behalf.
So the issue is bigger than the daily political soap opera wilderness. If you support a blanket refusal to comply with Congressional subpoenas, then you are essentially removing Congressional oversight of the Executive, and supporting the notion that only people who support the sitting president can be represented in Congress.
I hope you can see how dangerous that is.
To bastardize Voltaire, I did not like the loaded questioning in the Benghazi hearings that Republicans engaged in, which I believe was partisan politics, but I would defend to the death the right of those members of Congress to ask the Executive those questions.
Sometimes it's about more than just cheerleading for you favorite "team" wilderness. This is one of those times.
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … g-page-239It's dad that we can't just discuss the findings.
Dad had nothing to do with it. It was mom that said we couldn't discuss them while Uncle Ralph was here.
GASee how unreasonble you are? I mean Step-dad!!!
Oh sure, that is even worse. Blame it on the step-dad, the guy that tries to step up and do the right thing.
GAOh buggers! I didn't know you were referring to that step-dad.
GA
The mainstream media will perform magic by disappearing the topic of Russia interfering in the election once we find out nothing happened.
I don't think 37 indictments so far means that nothing happened.
Nor do I think we should jump to conclusions about:
- A report that none of us have read.
- The dozens of sealed indictments that are remaining.
- The other ongoing investigations.It's called "Treachery, Conspiracy, Intent to Receive Stolen Property" etc etc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b71f2eYdTc
I find it hard to believe that 37 indictments and proof of Russian interference in our elections (hence most of the indictments) is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Then again, Trump supporters obviously welcome Russian interference in getting Trump elected.
Party first, country second.I'm not a Trump supporter, I just hate seeing tax dollars being wasted on trumped up charges that lead to nowhere. Republicans don't mind Russian interference in elections just like Democrats don't mind Mexican interference in our elections, so stop pretending like you are sitting on some kind of moral high horse.
I'm not sitting on a high moral horse. I simply have a consicence and a brain.
You jump to the conclusion that I'm a Dem or that I want "Mexican interference in our elections" (whatever that means) because I oppose fascists.
Quite the opposite. I have voted for more Repubs than Dems in my lifetime.
I just happen to respect the Constitution a lot more than the far-right zealots on here.You are calling Trump a fascist without any proof to back it up. And he's doing the same exact stuff that Obama did. Now that the investigation has produced zero proof of collusion aren't you the least bit upset at the people who deliberately deceived you for an entire year? Particularly the news media?
Oh, followup question about Mr. Fascist; During WWII were the Jews trying to illegally enter Germany, or were they trying to get the hell out? After all Trump is Hitler, and Mexicans are the proverbial Jews.I suggest you read a lot more history about the conditions that lead to fascism.
And comparing the Jews of Nazi Germany to the Mexicans of today is utterly ridiculous.
I don't think it takes any money to know the Russians are meddling in our elections. They meddle in any election they can. Unfortunately, just as we do.
So, on that note, we probably did waste taxpayer money. No collusion was found, it appears, and I think we should look to those responsible for the lies and false information that got this rancid ball rolling.If Donald Trump Jr., Roger Stone, Paul Manafort and other Trump aides met with Russians during a Presidential election cycle, why shouldn't people be suspicious and call for an investigation?
Those are not lies. They all admitted as much.
Even Fox News admits it.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/donald … at-to-know
It seems to me that we will see the parts of the report that Trump's guy wants us to see.
"Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller and oversaw much of his work, analyzed the report on Saturday, laboring to condense it into a summary letter of main conclusions." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/b … estigation
This is all in the name of following Justice Dept protocol, which was not followed with Hillary Clinton.
It's impossible to accept the results of an investigation of which we see only a cherry picked summary.
This is just beginning. Although, personally, I just want to get to the 2020 elections.The more they hide, the more someone else will leak.
The GOP establishment will want to leak the most damaging parts to Trump to undermine his re-election campaign and get the nomination to Pence.If the summary states that Mueller did not find any indictable collusion offenses, (perhaps even quoting Mueller) and that Mueller did not find any collision evidence that warrants further indictments, (again, perhaps quoting Mueller), you would not be able to accept that?
The investigation was started as an investigation into collusion, (yes, I know the scope broadened, but that was the original purpose), yet if it states there was none you would find such summations to be cherry-picked and couldn't accept them. That doesn't sound like you are interested in justice hard sun, it just sounds anti-Trump.
GAEven if Mueller can't prove Trump or his aides committed a crime involving the election, the investigation still leaves huge ethical questions for our country. Is it OK for:
1. A Presidential candidate or his aides to meet and communicate with Russian operatives about our elections?
2. That candidate to receive Russian campaign funds funneled through third parties such as the NRA?
3. That campaign to receive hacked emails from Russian operatives or their surrogates?
4. That President with investments and other financial connections to Russia to act in ways that seem to benefit Russia and undermine our allies?Well stated promisem--This is a sad day for our nation, and the above are the main reasons why IMO. Our President stated he believed Putin when he said they did not attempt to interfere. Yet, the report states "There were two main Russian efforts to influence the election." That is even with the AG "summary" of the report. Clearly, Trump could not care less whether the Russian's helped him, and wanted him to win for some reason, even if he somehow doesn't know that reason.
We are a banana Republic as long as Trump is President. But, the kook aid must taste really good, so we reap what we sow.What I find sad is the left loves this conspiracy theory so much that a special council report calling it false can't squelch the furor.
But, as I've said before, the right wasn't going to accept Obama's birth certificate, no matter what. So, this was to be expected.But, Trump can't defend us against intrusions upon our Democracy? That has nothing to do with collusion either way. Just take a step back and think about how our President invited and cheered on foreign interference in our elections and then denied that interference happened despite all the evidence continually presented.
I agree with your statement about Obama and his BC. Let's say Obama appointed an attorney general to summarize report findings. How would the right react?
Like I said before, I'm just looking forward to 2020. We will likely never know the truth about Russia and the Trump administration, and it doesen't matter in my book. All that matters is Trump doesn't care that the Russians interfered and says Putin is honest.Here is the whole timeline on Russian interference of US elections...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … 009e71e7de
President Obama did next to nothing to stop it...That is kind of crazy talk. Any statement Trump made has no influence on what Russia did,or didn't do. Unless it is your contention that Russia would not have meddled had Trump said nothing.
And, I firmly believe had the doctor who delivered Obama made a public statement there would be those still claiming he wasn't born here. But, the crazies on the right who wouldn't let it go pale in comparison to how many on the left just can't accept any amount of information showing their theories are wrong.
And, from everything I can tell and have heard the policies of the Trump administration toward Russia are much less favorable to Russia than Obama's were. Whatever you think of Trump it isn't playing out in policy."Any statement Trump made has no influence on what Russia did,or didn't do. Unless it is your contention that Russia would not have meddled had Trump said nothing."
That wasn't my point. The point is, he continued to deny any interference. How can you fight interference from a foreign entity when you deny it? Does he know why they interfered or does he simply put himself above our country? I don't know. Either way, it's not good
I think the crazies on the left and the right are about equal at this point and the right's inability to see Trump's inaction on Russian interference speaks to this point.So that means he can't acknowledge the Russians interfered with our election? The attorney general he appointed acknowledged this much.
Trump thinks he owns everything, even GM.Trump does not think he owns everything. I think you've got him confused with Obama.
Okay then, cool.
So, Trump cannot acknowledge Russian interference because he doesn't own FB?I have no idea why the man won't acknowledge interference.
But, honestly? If people are going to be led by bs they read online we are in trouble. The DNC getting hacked was inevitable. Hillary was pretty much in control of the DNC at the time and I think we all know she doesn't understand security.
The only thing I saw that came out of the hack was some antisemitic chatter and proof the nominating process had been corrupted. Were I donating money I'd be glad the truth came out and irritated that my party had betrayed me and I'd walk away once I'd seen their anti-semitism.I'm still trying to understand why Trump has never acknowledged Russian interference....I don't care about Hillary, and I think Trump supporters are about the only ones who do nowadays.
The reason Hillary is important is that she is why Trump got elected, she is behind the corrupt beginning of this entire episode.
You wonder why Trump won't say 'interference' I wonder why democratic supporters can't see everything, from beginning to end, has everything to do with Hillary's insane belief we owed her the White House."She is behind the corrupt beginning of this entire episode."
Is that your conspiracy theory? If so, prove it. Isn't she innocent until proven guilty like Trump? If it's so obvious, why isn't she in jail?
Mueller's "illegal witch hunt" proved Russian interference that led to 34 indictments of Russians and Russian companies.LOL. Trump, according to democrats, is guilty and cannot be proven innocent.
We both have access to the same information. You think it damns Trump. I think it damns Hillary, Obama and a corrupt FBI.
Trump was just a guy running for president. No political power, no ability to manipulate the system. Hillary was a person with all of the ability to manipulate, all of the power to use the system with an unhealthy belief we owed her the presidency.
Seems to me common sense would cause us to raise a suspicious eyebrow in that direction considering all of the evidence unearthed, thus far. Considering that the accusations remain unproven, after millions of dollars spent trying to nail a coffin that maybe shouldn't have been built in the first place.
The President of the US will not acknowledge an attack on our sovereignty and all his supporters can say is but Hillary. I never liked Hillary, so what? I'm just saying, it doesn't make sense.
An attack on our sovereignty? What was done is little more than our government does in foreign elections. I don't blame the Russians for what governments do. I blame weak minded people who may have let themselves be so easily manipulated, I blame the DNC for a lack of security, I blame a corrupt system in place which allowed politics to tarnish the reputation of the FBI. I blame the left for ignoring big problems and having such a singular focus on what boils down to inane minutia.
Trump should just admit Russian attempt at interference but there are many greater problems than Trump's refusal to utter a few little words.And you said I had some "crazy talk." The weak minded people are those that refuse to see that Trump doesn't care about our elections. He tore down the process from the very beginning. I'm not from "the left" but Trump supporters are the poster children for easily manipulated.
The President of our nation attacks our democratic process and makes a mockery of our intelligence agencies...yet, he's a hero, and we should not blame foreign government for interfering in our elections??? Yet...America first?
A true America first philosophy cares MUCH more about what others do to our elections as opposed to making excuses for the enemy.
Yes, there are other issues, but that's not the discussion...deflection is not addressing the very serious matter.It seems to me that the "intelligence community" should have known there was no collusion, long before Mueller.
I suspect the intelligence community has been watching too much cnn the last 2 years.The intelligence agencies never stated the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. They stated Russia interfered with our election, which is what Bar's summary states.
Trump said he believed Putin. Trump said our elections were rigged, and then he won.Please quit posting facts. It upsets some people on here.
So for 2 years, regarding whether or not Trump Colluded with Russians the intelligence community was as useful as a Magic 8 Ball.
Meanwhile msm pushed the narrative 24/7/700.
Imo
All that resisting was sedition and the 2018 Elections are illegitimate.
What evidence do you have that 'Trump tore down the process'?
The only thing I see are the democrats attempting to tear down the process. I'm beginning to think the sour grapes you guys are eating have turned into magic mushrooms while you weren't looking.
I think you are mistaken about something else, though. The earliest American tradition was when the founders said no more to tyranny. What Trump represents, for me, is a political outsider who gave us the opportunity to see how clearly corrupt our government has become. And how average people just keep getting led by those forces.
If you ignore facts which exonerate a person accused falsely, of course facts don't matter. You can pretend, to yourself, that I'm deflecting but what you are basically saying is it's wrong to question our government. Which I think is wrong.I'm not sure how you're making inferences about not questioning the government. Trump stated again and again that our elections are rigged...and he won..I think we should question that. Trump wants tyranny and that's clear through his words and actions when he chums up to dictators and disparages democracies.
We didn't get the Special Counsel report. We got a Trump ally's statement pertaining to what he believes the report says. I trust that about as much as if Devin Nunes had weighed in on the subject.
I eventually gave up believing the birthers could be reasonable. I suppose it's time to give up on thinking the left can return to it.
"Trump could not care less whether the Russians helped him."
Yep, which is why he hasn't condemned the interference. It's that kind of behavior that keeps inflaming 60% of the country.
The topic is the Democrat's reaction to the ending of the Mueller report - without nailing the president. It appears you are saying Mueller's conclusions don't matter because you know Pres. Trump is guilty. Is that right?
GANo, this thread is about the investigation and you asking someone to accept the report conclusions.
No, I didn't say that. Please don't put words into my mouth.
Please don't deflect my post.Damn promisem, you are right. I mixed-up the threads, this one is about the investigation - which makes my comment senseless.
I will go back and find your comment and correct my inadvertent "deflection."
GABetter hold on to that thanks promisem, there is an update.
GA
Big oops!
In going back to correct my above-mentioned mistake, I discovered I was mistaken about being wrong. (this happened once before, back in '78) I did not mix-up threads. I just mixed-up the aspect of the thread topic I was discussing. Here is my original comment, (which was the basis for my referenced comment to you).
I wrote:
"And so it starts. CNN has been wall-to-wall pundits, all day, talking about how Mueller finding no collusion is just one aspect. Now all are talking about getting the full report so it can be combed to see what other things they might investigate the president for.
One pundit even commented that there may be stuff that could be used to embarrass the president.
Now, who was it that predicted, (long ago), that even if the investigation found no collusion the Democrats wouldn't be satisfied. That if the report didn't find collusion they would argue the report didn't go far enough, and that there must be something in there to impeach the president for. Well, it seems impeachment has yielded to just anything for embarrassment, but the prediction seems right.
Yes, it was bull-headed, (by some folk's declarations), Wilderness.
Now we can sit on the edge of our seats waiting for the Democratic show. Somebody get the foot bandages ready.
We will also see if those forum members that said they would accept the Mueller report--whichever way it went--stand by their words."
That is why I initially responded to your comment as I did.
Our exchanges essentially followed around that point. And my responses followed your point in this statement: "Not that much, GA. I think your comments were a little too favorable to Republicans and did not put enough weight on how they will behave in the days and weeks ahead. "
There is more, but our exchanges generally followed that vein of thought - until you responded to my response to hard sun.
So maybe my above comment wasn't so senseless. Perhaps my error was misstating the topic of the thread instead of directing you to the genesis of our exchanges.
Now, to where you, (relative to my response to hard sun), think I deflected:
You wrote:
"Even if Mueller can't prove Trump or his aides committed a crime involving the election, the investigation still leaves huge ethical questions for our country. Is it OK for:
1. A Presidential candidate or his aides to meet and communicate with Russian operatives about our elections?
2. That candidate to receive Russian campaign funds funneled through third parties such as the NRA?
3. That campaign to receive hacked emails from Russian operatives or their surrogates?
4. That President with investments and other financial connections to Russia to act in ways that seem to benefit Russia and undermine our allies?"
I didn't take those as actual questions promisem. I think your responses would be affirmative, (why else would you pick those to ask), so I viewed them as rhetorical. Was that wrong?
To answer them ...
1. To say that is not okay must assume that you mean the communications can only be for nefarious reasons. Has that been proven?
2. Once again, have the "Russian campaign funds" allegations been proven?
3. This one I don't know the answer to: Did the campaign receive the hacked emails from Wikileaks, or did they just get them from the Wikileaks public release like everyone else did?
4. "act in ways that seem?" Isn't that one of those 'eye of the beholder' interpretations? Is it your contention that the "benefit" and "undermine" can be seen in no way other than as you see them?
Two apologies are due promisem. One for being too quick to reply in my first response, (my little great nephew was rushing me to help him color), and the second for this lengthy reply. (he's taking a nap now)
Here is a challenge for you: Consider jackclee's link, (relative to your 4 questions), before replying: It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD
GAYes, those questions were rhetorical. They were meant to illustrate why people who oppose Trump can't simply accept the Barr letter and assume everything is OK.
The major point of my questions was the remaining ethical issues and perceptions. That's my primary answer while the questions were secondary points.
Regardless, I'll briefly address your questions, but I'm not going to get into 800 posts with other Trump supporters who want to argue ad nauseum about the details.
1. No. It has been clearly established that Donald Trump Jr. met with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary. Even neutral political experts and intelligence officials have gone on record saying the perception alone made it a stupid move.
2. Yes. The long list includes money laundering through Trump real estate holdings including the $100 million "mansion" that Trump sold to a Putin friend and that was so dilapidated that it had to be torn down.
3. Possible. They do know again that Don Jr. among other Trump people had multiple direct contacts with Wikileaks.
4. No. This is a widely reported complaint in this country and other countries.
I tried jackclees's link and saw it's something called "The Hate". It takes the pro-Trump stance that Trump is innocent and that the whole thing is the media's fault. The Barr letter said no such thing.
With respect, why do you say the media is out of control but defer to a right-wing media site called "The Hate"?We could argue the four questions, but it wouldn't be productive, so I will answer your last question.
I didn't refer to a site: Hate Inc., (which is the single-purpose title site of a serial book publishing platform, not a news source site or blog), I referred to the article.
In my first mention of my thoughts on the article--to jackclee--I did include the caveat that I intended to look further into the claims. I did briefly check out the article's author and although he is no choir boy, he does have a history of mainstream publishing credentials, and he is not a Right-wing flak. His first published book was The Clown President. (guess who the clown is)
In addition, he at least linked to the articles and folks he criticized, so an interested reader, (I was), could follow-up and decide for their self if he was full of stuff, or not.
GA
What else could anyone expect from Donald Trump but a "Cover-Up" of the report pertaining to a MASSIVE "Cover-Up":
That's alright, because the REAL Investigations by the state of New York and our Great American Righteous BLUE Democratic House of Representatives have just begun and they will get to the bottom of this unprecedented cesspool corruption:
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." - Mueller's report
Hardly a ringing endorsement of guilt or innocence.Mueller is a hack and cannot allow himself to admit they were wrong about Trump from the start.
A sad end to a chaptet in American history. I am glad it ended but not happy with the result that none is held accountable in the DOJ or the FBI for what they did in the course of this whole affair. If this was done to a Democratic president? Head would role by now...Don't you mean a Republican hack appointed by a Trump attorney general?
That would be more accurate.Yes, a hack is a hack. He is part of the establishment which both party have a vested interest. I place Pelosi, Schumer, Ryan and McConnell, Comey, McCabe, Sessions...all in the same boat.
Our government is broken because of these career politicians se king power rarher than doing what is right by the people that elected them.How is he a hack if he is a Republican appointed by Trump's own AG?
Because he is doing the bidding of the Washington insiders...
They are making an example of Trump, an outsider who is proving them incompetent. They want to demonstrate they can take anyone down with smears and inuendos and using the system to do it...hence the Mueller investigation...has a dual purpose. Take down Trump, and also protect the people that were doing all these illegal activity.If Mueller was appointed by the Trump administration, then he is doing the bidding of the Trump administration.
No , that is just the point. He appointed Mueller on advice from his staff, who thanks to the NYT, has published op ed about the resistence campaign within his rank...
That was on the investigation of obstruction. No collusion was found so there was nothing to obstruct.
That's a nice use of logic, but if no collusion was proven, why wouldn't Mueller exonerate him of obstruction of justice if the two are directly connected?
I think that was addressed in the document we both read. Most of Trump's actions were in the public sphere. No attempt to hide, nothing clandestine, no proof that any action resulted in obstruction.
"No proof that any action resulted in obstruction" is not what the letter said.
"The report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as 'difficult issues' of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.
"The Special Counsel states that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'"I suspect that the report couldn't exonerate or condemn Trump because Mueller had no means of determining the motives/intentions behind Trump's actions. So the actions themselves don't condemn him - that's as far as Mueller could go.
Motives and intentions behind what might be considered legitimate actions on the surface can't simply be assumed.Excellent points about motives. Unfortunately, Mueller's inability to prove Trump's guilt or innocence has left us with a political mess that will last much longer.
If the full report comes out, I wouldn't be surprised to see some information that favors Trump and some that hurts him. Both sides will cherry pick the parts they like, just as they are doing now.
It will be interesting to see who really favors releasing the full report and who opposes it instead of making meaningless public statements.
The responses on this thread is proof as to how accurate this story is in regards to the Mueller Report.
“Here’s what we know for certain about the Mueller report: no matter what it contains, opposition to President Trump will continue full stop. Trump Derangement Syndrome will continue to fuel resistance not only from Democrats but also from conservative Never-Trumpers. Animosity from the former group is expected; from the latter, it is unforgiveable.
The end of the Mueller probe will not call a halt to the Democrat-led inquisitions of President Trump in Congress. House Committee Chairs Adam Schiff, Elijah Cummings, Jerry Nadler et al are far too invested in destabilizing the Trump White House (and boosting their own visibility) to rein in their attack dogs.”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/end-of- … r-trumpers
As long as conspiracy theorists in the public are cheering them on, you're right.
It was doubtful that collusion was going to be provable since the two biggest points of contact, Manafort and Stone, refused to cooperate.
Trump admitted the obstruction, twice. But Comey gave him enough cause with his handling of the Clinton investigation during the campaign to justify his firing. Much like Sally Yates' firing came directly after she went to the White House about Michael Flynn's false statements, but her refusal to enforce the Muslim ban gave Trump cause. Both stink of collusion, but neither beyond a reasonable doubt.
For those questioning the reasons behind the investigation, foreign interference in our elections should be something taken seriously. And that idiotic meme posted about the cost make me laugh considering the monetary seizures will likely yield a profit.
As for Trump being exonerated, the Mueller report will do nothing to erase the two crimes Trump has already been proven to have committed in getting elected. The felony campaign violations for the hush money payments and illegally using his foundation's charity funds for personal enrichment and on his campaign.
As for the findings in the Mueller report, let's wait to hear what Mueller says in his public hearings. Barr's credibility is under question because he was appointed by the guy wrapped up in the investigation, after he raised doubts about said investigation. Not sure why anything he says on the issue should be believed.Mueller has indicted other people for other things during the course of the investigation. If Trump's actions did, indeed, constitute a felony it would be mentioned in that report; which it wasn't that we have heard of.
Maybe, your grasp of the law isn't as firm as you'd hope.Barr's letter clearly shows that whether Trump committed felonies was inconclusive and clouded by "difficult issues of law".
"This report ... does not exonerate him."
Direct quote from Barr's letter.I've read through that document multiple times and that statement only relates to the investigation into obstruction. No collusion was found, as stated in the document. I honestly think you are grasping on this one. The document also states that there is insufficient evidence to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that obstruction occurred.
I don't have to grasp. Barr's own letter is damning enough. Mueller could prove neither guilt nor innocence.
Interference: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government."
Obstruction: "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Context, it's a bitch when ignoring it doesn't support your conspiracy theory. But, it was talking about obstruction, that was it. It clearly said no evidence of collusion.
Did I not tell you already that Trump is innocent until proven guilty? And what conspiracy on my part do you mean? I have never used that word on here.
Sounds like you're putting words into my mouth.
The lack of any MORE indictment doesn't resolve the issue of multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians. -- all of which has been admitted by the people who got indicted for other crimes.
The fact that Mueller couldn't prove that Trump's aides broke existing campaign laws still leaves seriously unethical conduct.
Maybe, but then why did the Southern District of New York conclude he violated the law and forced Trump to terminate his foundation.
Why did Cohen implicate Trump as the one who directed him to make the felony campaign finance hush money payments, then provide audio tape of Trump actually do so?
Maybe it's more likely that you believe Trump to be above our laws as long as he represents your interests.Did you have the same concerns regarding The Clintion Foundation?
Focus. We are discussing Trump's proven guilt here. Your whataboutism has no relevance to the crimes Trump committed in regards to his foundation.
Yes, there is relevance. Too bad you don’t see it. We are tired of the double standards you place on us. Clinton was the start of this all. You chose to ignore his crimes and acquited him when he was impeached and even celebrate him... now with Trump, your fake outrage is disingenuous.
Why is Clinton Foundation off the table and Trump Foundation under scrutiny?So the Clinton Foundation used their funds on Hillary's campaign? She used the funds raised for charity to pay her personal legal bills or buy paintings of herself? Can you prove they misused the funds? That's the relevance here.
Double standards? Like all that golfing Trump wasn't going to do? Or all those pesky executive orders Trump wasn't going to use? Or how the deficits were so high under Obama?
A lot of people got paid a lot of money to conduct an instigation. The results are exactly what you'd expect when someone has been subjected to focused instigation, and reacted with the full knowledge that it can not possibly be anything more than an instigation. The investigation was successful in that the instigation failed.
Yes Hillary, this means that you really were that bad of a candidate.
Actually, Bozo trump didn't beat Hillary the Russian Operatives who hacked into our voting system did: Trump could never beat any Democrat without illegal assistance from another hostile nation and this image of Bozo's tiny little inauguration crowd proves it:
The cover-Up of the Mueller report was expected for many different reasons and 'we the people" will NEVER see the Damning Evidence if Bozo Trump, Republican Shill Bill Barr and CONservatives get their way which is unacceptable:
Let the congressional hearings begin so we can get to the truth before the USA crumbles completely to the ground:"Actually, Bozo trump didn't beat Hillary the Russian Operatives who hacked into our voting system did: Trump could never beat any Democrat without illegal assistance from another hostile nation"
Trump won because Hillary was such an incredibly poor candidate, and that's it. Nothing that Russians did on Facebook accomplished anything for Trump - it was a nominal, poorly funded effort.
Someone hacked into our voting system?? What does that mean anyway?Only a fool would think someone hacked our voting system.
Someone hacked a mock election.
Again, come on. Aren't you one of those insisting illegals couldn't possibly vote in an election?
You guys can't have it both ways. Either the process is secure or it's not. The sky can't be halfway falling.You didn't read the entire article. The databases were set up like the real ones.
And you are putting words into my mouth again. Where did I say anything like "illegals couldn't possibly vote in an election"?
I have asked for proof of illegals voting in the election. Not even Trump's own commission could do it. What do you know that they don't know?
Only a fool thinks state election databases are unhackable when many major corporations have already been hacked.
The false accusations keep flying ...Ok. You want proof illegals vote. I need proof a state election was hacked.
Gaphoa qrgouwqne hoobweb.
Ah, got rid of those words that were shoved into my mouth again.
All I said was, "Only a fool thinks state election databases are unhackable when many major corporations have already been hacked."
Anyone who thinks state governments are safe from hacking while major corporations are not doesn't know much about state governments.
You seem quite ready to take the gloves off again. So much for attempts at civility.
It is painfully clear the DTS is a serious problem on the liberal left. So sad.
That's FALSE and I'm pretty sure you know it readmikenow: Bozo Trump's Russian Comrades did indeed HACK into our 2016 election to help Donald and it was without a doubt the GREATEST infiltration scheme in our history: Moreover, over 2 years later and Donald STILL has yet to be exonerated as expected by those who have eyes and ears:
Did you honestly believe someone who looked and acted like Trump could have been victorious in a legitimate election? Seriously?
Here's the TRUTH in case you're interested:
"The Russian government interfered[Note 1] in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political discord in the United States. Russia's covert activities were first reported by the United States Intelligence Community in October 2016, and confirmed by the Director of National Intelligence office three months later. U.S. intelligence officials have stated that the operation was ordered directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Former FBI director Robert Mueller led the Special Counsel investigation into the interference from May 2017 to March 2019.[5][6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_i … _electionsI wonder if we could work with health care professionals to get assistance to all those who suffer with DTS? It is so sad when those who suffer such a debilitating mental dysfunction try to cope with reality. I feel sorry for them. Their senseless, mindless, delusional ramblings can be entertaining at times, but I think we should begin to feel sorry for them. We need to hope they get the help with this mental condition that they obviously need.
The REALITY is Russian Spies did indeed assist Bozo Trump in the 2016 election and that's a well proven FACT: I understand the last remaining trump followers are hesitant to venture outside the Fox Fake News BUBBLE for fear of the truth, but of course that's their choice and prerogative to remain within the confines of an alternate, comfortable space:
Perhaps someday we'll see a definitive cure for "TWD" "Trump Worship Disorder":
I hope individuals are wise enough to understand that somebody like Donald Trump could NEVER win an election without Russian infiltration: READ if you dare:
"The Russian government interfered[Note 1] in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political discord in the United States. Russia's covert activities were first reported by the United States Intelligence Community in October 2016, and confirmed by the Director of National Intelligence office three months later. U.S. intelligence officials have stated that the operation was ordered directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Former FBI director Robert Mueller led the Special Counsel investigation into the interference from May 2017 to March 2019.[5][6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_i … _electionsThere are no wll proven facts in your post, despite you claim. Russian attempts at interference do not prove they had any affect. Well, they did. They sent the left into a spiraling tantrum with no evidence they will grow up and put their big girl panties on anytime soon.
He claims he got 63 million legitimate votes in the 2016 election, where the heck are they? SORRY, but this sure doesn't look like an inauguration crowd for somebody who got 63 million legitimate votes to me:
Jake, all I can say is thank you for proving me point.
You mean the astounding point that over 2 years later Bozo Trump has yet to be completely exonerated and it appears we are now bearing witness a MASSIVE Communist Republican Cover-Up of the Trump Criminal Investigation which was based upon a MASSIVE Cover-Up of Corruption and International Entanglements?
So far 'we the people' have received 4 measly pages from CONservative Operative Bill" Barr containing a few measly words quoted directly from Robert Mueller: If he's innocent, WHY are Republicans so afraid to release ALL the EVIDENCE ?????:
So, how long until pardon #1?
Btw, I would like to know about 6(e) material and which matters are occurring before a grand jury.Well, actually, the unredacted report is available for viewing in a SCIF by any member of Congress who wishes to read it.
For another thing, it would be illegal for Barr to publicly release the unredacted report, since the redacted portions deal with (among other things) ongoing investigations and legal proceedings; hence, making this information public would compromise these.
Barr won't declassify the final 2% of the Mueller report because he can't...it is the law.
This is exactly why Trump cannot get a break...he is damned either way...
That is why he is uniquely qualified to survive this attack. If it was any other GOP in the White House, he would be forced to resign in shame...
How dare someone challenge the FBI?Given his disgraceful public behavior, the only thing Donald seems to be UNIQUELY Qualified for is probably a Straight Jacket:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUADeleted
Jack, this article is all about you: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog … aslighting
This paragraph especially:
In the case of narcissistic personality disorder, narcissists feel they are totally okay, and think that everyone else has a problem. This is called ego-syntonic behavior. It is very difficult to get a narcissistic gaslighter to get help through counseling — because they think you have the problem, not them.
We're here for you. We can get you help.You crack me up...
Here we have been discussing this for over two years...
The final evidence came out and proofs me correct and you accuse me of being narcistic...
Sure...you can believe whatever you want.
Too bad you have been deceived by all your news sources...
Now they all have egg on their faces and I am laughing...Jack, please realize the liberals are going through the stages of loss. Everything they thought they knew and believed about President Donald Trump has been shown to be false. Please realize the first stages with this type of loss is denial. The next stage is anger. We've seen them go through this since President Donald Trump was elected. Maybe we need to be a bit patient with them and their fragile mental and emotional state at the moment.
I get it...the 5 stages of grief...thanks for the warning.
I just laugh it off anyway.
I find it refreshing that I am once again able to criticize the president without being labeled a racist or a bigot. It lets us know that we are not under the control of a dictator. Obama, on the other hand, was heavily guarded by a fanatical liberal media. It is a rare thing to have and we almost lost it completely over the previous administration, you should embrace it.
I think Cobert sums up Barr's memo pretty nicely around the seven minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont … _7wPf9geSM
Colbert is a hack and not a very funny late night comedian.
I much prefer Johnny Carson or Jay Leno...
I certainly would not trust him to be the political genius...
The Justice Department will release special counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Russia investigation to Congress and the public by "mid-April, if not sooner," Attorney General Bill Barr said Friday.
Barr said Friday the report is "nearly 400 pages long," not including appendices and tables, and "sets forth the Special Counsel's findings, his analysis, and the reasons for his conclusions."I'm looking forward to reading it to formulate my own conclusions about the 2016 election.
The big D is already saying that maybe they wont make it public. So will see if it happens.
This reminds me of the Kavanaugh nomination to the SCOTUS...
I have a few friends who refused to make an opinion unless the case was investigated fully by the FBI...
After 2 weeks, when the result came in, as expected, no new info. They said OK...I still think he was guilty...
What do you expect to read in the redacted report that you don’t know today?
There was NO Russian Collusion!!!
The bottom line is, if you hate Trump before, you will still hate him.
No matter what the report say or don’t say.
Am I right or wrong?
BTW, these friends of my claim they are unbiased and will only go where the evidence leads them...they say this with a straight face and I believe them.Fully is such an incorrect term for what the FBI did in regards to Kavanaugh. There were many witnesses not interviewed and the thing took a week. It was a joke, much like this latest diversion off topic you are trying to make.
So we need another 5 to 10 years to "fully" investigate. And when we do that and still find no conclusion we'll need another 20 years.
The definition of futility; trying to convince a Trump hater that he has not committed whatever foul deed they have concocted out of their imagination and and concluded he must have committed. It cannot be done.The evidence of collusion was spelled out beautifully by Adam Schiff in his congressional rebuttal to GOP members asking for his resignation. Whether Mueller was able to prove conspiracy was a different matter that we'll have to wait to see in his report, not Trump-ally Barr's four-page summary of nearly 400 pages of material.
What futility is, is how many times we've had to explain to you the various crimes already proven Trump committed to get elected. It's like talking to a brick wall. It has nothing to do with hate, it has to do with defending the rule of law. Something you seem very comfortable with ignoring.Did you feel the same about Bill Clinton during his impeachment?
I rest my case. Of all the indictments, not a single one was against Trump and not a single thing he did was found to be criminal. Yet he just has to be guilty, somehow, somewhere, in some manner. I rest my case.
Like I said, no matter how many times those of us here try to walk you through his crimes, you are just ignorant to the reality. It aptly demonstrates the blind, cult-like loyalty you have to a criminal. I feel sorry for you.
Wilderness,
Some of the people can be fooled all of the time... and for those who believe anything spilling out of CNN as truth or fact, one should consider that those people have literally been brainwashed into believing a 'false reality'. They fairly represent the 'fooled all of the time' crowd.
Under today's current Mental Health rules/laws we literally have millions, probably tens of millions, of people with severe 'behavior' issues that not only engage in discussions across the internet, but vote and are active in politics.
We see this in our very politicians... how many of them have you watched thinking 'this person is truly insane, and totally out of touch with how the world is'?
Did you peruse the actual details of 'The Green New Deal'?
The Green New Deal was filled with wonderful things like "guaranteed" federal jobs, "universal health care," and "food security" along with a "zero-carbon electricity grid" and a "zero-emissions transportation system"...
Those things would be great, wonderful, I would love to see it.
But we are already running Trillions in deficit every year just to maintain what benefits and infrastructure we have now, so where does all this money to make that happen come from?
This is the problem with the Democrats today, they promise things that cannot work in the real world, and they blame the people who are holding this country together and keeping it from falling into economic collapse for standing in their way of bringing the people all the "free" stuff they are promising.
The Democratic Party has become filled with politicians who are either depraved and delusional, or are selling out the Nation and peddling delusional promises to their 'faithful' while filling their bank accounts with hundreds of millions of dollars. Its a bad combination, the totally delusional and the criminally corrupt.
It will be 'End Times' for our economy when the Democrats get control again and try to implement their next version of the "Green New Deal'.
The same goes for the incessant attacks on Trump, they have been told for three years by CNN and other like-minded institutions that he is worse than Hitler, that he is a Russian Agent, that he is the most corrupt and sexist person to ever walk the earth... this is what they have preached to the 'faithful' for three years now, so anything or anyone that says otherwise is either a Trump loving conspirator or worse.Classic fearmongering. Now if you could support how the economy has suffered with the Democrats in charge, that would be great. Was that surplus Clinton left when he actually balanced the budget bad? Was the record number of months of job growth bad under Obama? Was doubling the Stock Market so bad? Was slashing the unemployment rate in half terrible? All this growth with some protections for the environment. We call that balance.
I do agree that government spending is out of control. However, if you're going to blame one party and not both, that's just disingenuous. The budget deficits that were approved by Trump, under a strong economy nonetheless, were pure idiocy. Bravo to guys like Rand Paul who stood up and fought against such spending.
But I agree that many of the representatives in our party are promoting big spending without talking about cuts. They buy into respected economists from Harvard and Berkeley who agree that the ideal tax rate on the wealthy should be between 50-70% of their income to maximize the economy. God forbid they look to reduce spending for once. It's why a guy like Hickenlooper should get a long look during the primaries, he ran a solid Colorado economy.
The authorization letter from Trump's Department of Justice did not say investigate Trump. It authorized investigating the Trump campaign, which resulted in 37 indictments.
Barr's letter did not say Trump or his aides were innocent or guilty. It left open either possibility:
Interference: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government."
Obstruction: "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Trump supporters see Barr's letter (not the full report) as a victory for Trump. His opponents see only negative.
Barr's letter is neither one.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are blocking the release of Meuller's report. I wonder why.I want it out too...for perhaps different reason. I want to know what Mueller was looking for in the two years and found nothing...
I want to know what those 37 indictments have to do with Russian collusion.
You are proving exactly what I was talking about. There are others like you who thinks the FBI can do anything. I have news for you. Unless they have a time machine, no one can go back 30 years to investigate a sex crime when there was no sex, no DNA no nothing but hearsay. Do you even remember what you did last week?
So for you to think they can get to the bottom of the charges against Kavanaugh is just insane.There were at least three instances submitted to the FBI of impropriety in Kavanaugh's history. Two were ignored by the FBI, and the main witness that was neither accused or accuser to the main incident was not called before Congress to testify under oath. It was a joke. In the case, you have to take the word of the accuser or the word of the accused. What many believed was that the accuser was credible.
Are you listening to yourself? Are you so deranged that you think a 40 years old incident is credible? Even if it was, so what? How many people you know can pass your high standard of behavior? Especially when we are talking about a high school student who may be drunk or under the influence? Are you saying this would preclude him of being a supreme court justice? Can the other 8 justices survive similar scrutiny? Can you?
You seem to be only focused on the single incident and completely ignore the other complaints. If a pattern of drunkenness and lewd behavior had been thoroughly investigated and established, yes, I would have an issue with someone like that getting a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Why you would not speaks to your own morality, or lack of, due to your partisanship. You cannot seem to grasp the fact that there were multiple complaints against him that were ignored because they needed to rush his nomination through prior to the midterm elections because there was a risk of losing one or both chambers.
Do I actually believe his post-college actions pertaining to mentorship of women and minorities was a strength? I do. He has conducted himself well in those areas during that time frame. But, I would have liked to have seen the whole picture of who the man was and that inquiry into all of the allegations was a sham due to timing.There is no proof or evidence of Kavanaugh having done anything wrong. In the words of a famous prosecutor 'Just because she said it's so, don't make it so."
All but one of his accusers have recanted their testimony.
Again, you would have to understand the concept of proof and evidence to realize this man was railroaded by the shameless Democrats in the Senate.
"Investigators got in touch with her over the phone and Munro-Leighton admitted she wrote the email after seeing the "Jane Doe" letter in news reports. She said she claimed to be Jane Doe so the letter would gain attention, "I was angry and I sent it out," the woman told investigators, according to Grassley's letter, but in fact did not write it.
Grassley said the false allegation diverted resources on a time-sensitive matter. It's unclear whether the true author was located or whether the individual came forward."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 863210002/
From the second letter Barr sent to Congress:
Also, I am aware of some media reports and other public statements mischaracterizing my March 24, 2019 supplemental notification as a "summary" of the Special Counsel's investigation and report. For example, Chairman Nadler's March 25 letter refers to my supplemental notification as "a four-page summary" of the Special Counsel's review." My March 24 letter was not, and did not purport to be, an exhaustive recounting of the Special Counsel's investigation or report. As my letter made clear, my notification to Congress and the public provided, pending release of the report, a summary of its "principal conclusions"- that is, its bottom line. The Special Counsel's report is nearly 400 pages long (exclusive of tables and appendices) and sets forth the Special Counsel's findings, his analysis, and the reasons for his conclusions.
March 29 Barr Letter
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … etter.html
What does that mean? There are other conclusions, I guess? Why the clarification? Thoughts?Seems pretty clear to me. It was intended to be a summary of principal conclusions and folks twisted it to represent a summary of the entirety of the report.
It seems to simply be a clarification of a misperception. I don't think it means any of the principal conclusions will change, I just think it means a fuller summary is coming.
GASeems like much ado about nothing. His summary report will be released in two weeks with the proper redactions...
End of story. These media and Democrats will not accept the results...
They will not MOVEON like what they told the rest of us after the Clinton impeachment. Double standard.No prosecutor writes 400 pages to absolve someone.
Really? then you are guilty until proven innocent.
That is not how our justice suppose to work.
You do realize what you accuses of Trump, he can do the same against you or your party...
Anyone can be put under the scrutiny by the FBI and be indicted.
Do you want our justice system perverted just so you can remove Trump?
What if it happens to a democrat President next time around?
Will you cry foul?
Wait till the next Supreme Court nomination.Our justice system isn't supposed to let the accused choose their preferred judge either, but that's what happened in this case. The accused got to put someone in charge of a report he was part of. That's why Barr should have recused himself and let Rosenstein handle the summary, because Barr publicly stated his position prior to taking the job. It's why his 4-page summary of 400-pages of material has zero credibility to anyone except those who have conceded an alternate reality to Trump.
That is your logic? You don’t trust the AG? You might as well move to Russia...who do you trust?
For two years Mueller and his hand picked 18 attorneys came up with no real evidence. Wrote a 400 page report to show they left no stones unturned and you cannot accept their findings. What else? Maybe you can look into Trump’s high school year book?Trust a guy selected by the guy under investigation? The guy who has lied to the American people over 8,000 times in two years. Of course I'm going to be hesitant to trust him. The fact that you don't displays how deep you've devolved into Trump's cult.
A 4-page summary by a Trump ally of 400-pages of findings is not proof of no real evidence, as you claim. And you pushing that narrative is another example of your idiotic stances pertaining to this presidency.
You're going to hate the NY Times tomorrow when their story comes out that Barr's summary wasn't accurate about what was found in the Mueller report.
Lol!!!! Who doesn’t hate the NY Times already? Who believes the NY Times?
Valeant you are a hoot. You missed your calling, you’re a natural born comedian!
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video … _joke.htmlOh, that's right. You only believe things from the guy who can't even remember where his own father is born, so he makes up a lie about it. Yeah, you're a bastion of knowledge.
As with all things from the agenda-driven New York Times, you can't take it too serious. They are way short on providing sources. They have a history of alleging things they can't prove. The NYT also has to publish many corrections for their stories.
Here is a story about it from CNN. I only use this source because I know how liberals would react to a story from Fox even if it said the same thing. So...here it is.
"Those interviewed by the Times declined to fully explain why the Mueller investigators believe their findings were more damaging to Trump than Barr disclosed. Mueller's team is comprised of 19 lawyers, about 40 FBI agents and other personnel, and the Times notes it is unclear how prevalent the frustration is among the team."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/03/politics … index.html
Until they can come up with something more concrete...I'm going to have put it in the ignore this BS file.And Mike, that explains why Valeant’s comment is so hilarious.
I’d like to know exactly what lie Trump has ever told that has hurt him or this country - like a comedian he is good at making things up, he missed his calling!I respect your use of a quote for the sake of some objectivity.
That said, why do you think Trump and the Republicans are so determined to keep the full report from the public? It gives some support to what the NYT published.
After all, even a majority of Republican voters want the full report released.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/ … ll-1188068It is the law... if your name was one of those people being investigated, and you did not break any laws, would you want all the information about you released to the media and to Adam Schiff?
For that reason, they will not release the full Mueller report.
Even though, I personally want to see it too.
For very different reasons and perspective.
I want to know what Mueller and his top team spent 2 years doing?That, jacklee, is what I understand as well. Innocent people were called in to testify, and unless what they had to say related directly to whatever was being investigated, there's no legal basis for ANYONE to know it. All kinds of personal information is contained therein. They have a right to privacy.
That doesn't mean they can't release the report. They already have said they will redact certain information.
Yes of course. How long do you think it will take to redact 400 pages...?
"Yes of course."
But you already said Barr won't release the report because of a "law".No, that is not what I said. I said he won’t release the whole report the Democrats leaders called for. You see how a small word can change the whole meaning. You read into my response what you wanted to read.
No, you didn't say anything about Democratic leaders until now. I suggest you are reading from me what you want to read.
For example, “Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own,” Barr said. Are you claiming he didn't say that?
Regardless, I'll try to meet you halfway:
We apparently are talking about two reports: a public one and a confidential one that may have classified information. As I said before, they can redact the report for public consumption.
But the full report should go to an investigative committee of Congress that includes both Republicans and Democrats.
If it does not, the letter from the Trump-appointed Attorney General has zero credibility.
It will only prove that Trump and Republicans are hiding something.Well if that is the case, I have no problem with it. It is the law that these officials on the committee must abide by confidentiality agreements. If any damaging information is leaked out as a result, we know who to blame don’t we?
Fine, then we will see who got the short end of the stick.
Look at all those never Trumper republicans that left office...Flake, Corker just to name a few...Look at all of those Trump appointees who have fled his Cabinet and other posts (including the ones who have been indicted).
He has already had at least 6 communication directors in just 2 years.
He can't even persuade someone to be his permanent chief of staff.
What law says our government can't release a report that we paid for?
No, you made the claim, you provide the proof. Even Barr said he was going to release the report:
“Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own,” Barr wrote in a letter sent last Friday to lawmakers.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/ … on-1254861
Jack, we need to read the liberal responses the the Mueller Report while listening to the theme from the Twilight Zone. Only then does it make sense. Of course playing "They're Coming To Take Me Away" by Napoleon XIV also puts their delusional rants into perspective. Mental Health experts should volunteer to provide help to all the liberals suffering from DTS. It is a terrible thing to watch. I wonder what will happen when President Donald Trump gets reelected? I don't really care, but I wonder.
"Lol!!!! Who doesn’t hate the NY Times already? Who believes the NY Times?"
Fortunately, we still have intelligent people in the U.S. who don't believe the propaganda that spews out of Fox News (which tells its mindless viewers that all media is liberal and wrong except for Fox News).
The stock price and number of subscriptions to the New York Times has skyrocketed since Trump's election. Some people prefer facts and not Russian propaganda.
Here is a list of just the Pulitzer Prizes the paper has won. They must be doing something right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_P … York_TimesEven a broken clock is right twice a day...haha
Mueller report to be released Thursday a Justice Department spokesperson said.
AG Barr had his press conference this morning: 4/18/2019 at 9:30 am ET
First thoughts... I watched the AG Barr press conference. I thought it was favorably handled - relative to Pres. Trump, (they are probably popping the champagne now), but I also found it to appear to be straight forward in the explanations, and reasoning for the original 4-page conclusion that was released
I also think it would be nuts for Barr to make that public presentation if the facts of the soon-to-be-available report don't support his statements.
CNN and various Democrats are going crazy. Barr should be burned at the stake for being a Trump lackey and sycophant. They are already, (10:30 am), saying it doesn't matter if no criminality was found--almost anywhere--because the President is guilty by perception because it doesn't look legal. (it just ain't right)
They will be ecstatic if they can find contestable redactions, and will orgasm if the report does prove any of their contentions.
And that could happen. But how are they going to show their face if the report doesn't support any of their claims; about the investigation results, or about AG Barr? Will Mueller's capabilities now become the focus?
GAI am struggling against a 'Jake' moment here.
It's now only 11:30 am. The report has been available for about 30 minutes. CNN has its copy and is running with a panel of their 9 most relative pundits.
Apparently, their copy isn't going to help them - yet. So now the words are being parsed; "I read what he said, but what he was really saying is this..."
And... those 10 obstruction issues that couldn't be found to be prosocutably criminal - well hell, there were 10 of them. That's grounds for a Congressional impeachment action.
And ... Mueller may not have been able to draw a conclusion of criminality, but the committees and legal opinions of Congress could certainly see these in a different light.
Folks, Mueller just became the Jr. Varsity -- the "smart" folks of the varsity team will take over. I don't think they make shovel handles long enough for this hole.
Wait! Wait! BREAKING NEWS!!!!!! CNN pundit just said that even though there is no evidence of "legal" collusion, there is plenty of evidence--by definition--of collusion.
GAWait, I get it now. CNN, (and the Democrats), are setting the stage for a 'jury nullification.
GAYou should watch Fox now and then.
Btw, page 8 of the conclusions.Oh, so you want me to watch the amateurs instead of the pros?
GAThat's funny, GA.
Sometimes you can't hide it.But you know I do try. ;-)
I confess I am gleefully watching what I see as an embarrassing spectacle, and almost salivating for all bullseyes being tossed out.
And that glee has nothing to do with Pres. Trump. It is the glee of watching these folks step on their cranks trying to spin the report into proof they were right all along. All this time, effort, money, and pontifications, and ...
"Damn! Mueller failed us. How could he not bring charges, the proof is right there. Here, let me explain it to you."
GA
On "Collusion"
"The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit form a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released fro Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its elections interference activities...
A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."
(And his point about coordination is gold.)
And that's just page 1 and 2.
I guess they (CNN) are.Stop Islandbites. Don't go there. It can't turn out well for you.
You just said that the investigation "... did not establish , (I completed your emphasis), that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its elections interference activities..."
And then you say; "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."
I think it fair to interpret that as saying; Mueller, with his career experience and legal credentials, and, his cadre of lawyers and experts either; didn't do their job - don't you think they tried to find evidence to establish those facts, or, weren't qualified to do their job - with all their resources and talent they couldn't find what you imply is obvious; even though they didn't find the evidence, there must be evidence somewhere because even if the report didn't say so, you know it's there.
When is the last time you accepted a failure to prove a negative as proof of anything?
How can that not be interpreted as saying the investigation failed in its efforts to fulfill its primary mandate - investigate collusion? It said it didn't find evidence for a charge of collusion, yet you, (generic you), say the evidence is there, they just didn't find it or understand it.
And you say that is just the first couple of pages. Some folks will probably be knotting the noose by the time they get to page 10 and forming in the street by page 100.
(I think I saw, (as they were cutting to commercial), the CNN panel pass around the tissues to dry the drool)
GAI don't believe the Trump Campaign was involved in the hack of the DNC or the social media campaign to support Trump's election.
What I believe is that he encouraged both to continue, his campaign staff was willing to use resources being supplied by Russia to damage Clinton, and he changed the GOP platform to reward that cooperation.So he is still guilty even if all that firepower couldn't prove it? Are appearances, for you, now more credible than proof?
GAThis is an OJ situation for all of us. You either know OJ did it or you're gullible enough to believe the glove did not fit.
When Mueller lays out the scenario that three members of his campaign staff met with Russians knowing they were offering dirt on Clinton, then lied about it after, I count that as coordinating with a hostile foreign nation to get elected to the highest office. Whether they are charged or not, does not change the fact that they met with Russians to knowingly get resources to defeat Clinton.Yep, that is what I said - "jury nullification."
Mueller laid it all out for us. Right there in black and white. You know that is collusion, even if he doesn't.
Do you understand that your message appears to be that you know better than Mueller? That what you believe to be fact is more factual than what a special investigation views to be a fact?
GAThe facts are there and not in dispute. What Mueller felt he could gain a criminal conviction on and what actually happened are what you are arguing.
What is not in dispute is that members of the Trump campaign (Jr., Manafort, and Kushner) met with Russians to secure damaging information on Clinton. Why do you not see that as an issue? Are you a Russian mole, by chance?No Valeant, I am not arguing that at all. What I am arguing is the denial of the report's conclusions and the insanity that every talking head is enough of an expert to know better than all that firepower that conducted the investigation.
`Something else, also not in dispute is that the investigation did not bring charges of collusion, and it did not bring charges of obstruction.
The investigation looked at least 10 points they felt were important, and did not bring charges of obstruction.
Their numbers looked something like this, (just guessing from what I recall hearing): 2800 witnesses, 280 subpoenas or something, 500 something else, 19 staff lawyers, and Mueller.
Yet they missed what is so obvious to you, and should have found guilt wherever they found inconclusiveness.
That is why I do not see that as an issue. A lot of very smart and determined professionals investigated this for two years. If they couldn't determine guilt that warranted charges it would be pretty damned egotistical of me to think I can see what they couldn't.
GAMueller pushed the issue to Congress, as he stated in his report. Since a sitting president needs to be impeached before he can be charged. A conclusion Barr then hijacked.
What? What planet are you from? Why did we need a special counsel?
If they want to impeach Trump, just go ahead and just do it...
If Democrats wants to go down this road, I say good luck.
If Clinton, with all his crimes were able to beat the impeachment, Trump will do so handily...You are correct; he pushed the matter away from the law and into the political arena, for disposal as politicians see fit. Which they will do, in the manner which benefits those politicians and is politically possible to do.
Which has zero to do with guilt, now does it?
The report makes it clear that Mueller thinks Trump is guilty of obstruction. But his hands are tied by the Office of Legal Council's opinion you can't indict a sitting president.
I have no doubt, based on what he wrote, had he been allowed, he would have.If I took the dive into however much of the report as would be needed to find and understand the context of that declaration; Mueller "thinks" Trump is guilty, would I find those words, or would those words be the summation of what the report words say?
Since I don't know, do I take your word for it, or check for myself? I would check for myself. However, I don't think I need to. I haven't said the report didn't say that.
But you did hook me. I would be interested in seeing Mueller's statements about his hands being tied. How about a hint so I don't have to thumb through hundreds of unnecessary pages. (*that wasn't intended to be snarky)
GA
"You say". Nope. I quoted, Mueller said.
Btw, have you read the report?
They can't charge collusion.oops! I missed that last pair of quotation marks. My bad.
No, I don't intend to read the report. I was prepared to accept it - whichever way it came down.
GAIf you don't read the report. You don't even know what you are accepting. We always knew Mueller was unlikely to bring charges against a sitting President.
I am not sure who your "we" is hard sun. If it includes a generalization for anyone but Democrats, I am not sure about that we always knew stuff.
As to what I am accepting? I am aware of the mandate of the investigation. I am aware of most of the basic charges leveled by the Democrats. I am also aware of the mental horsepower and determination of the investigative team. I have a belief that they really did try, (and I think succeeded), to be non-partisan in their efforts.
For those reasons I was willing to accept the report's verdict whichever way it went. I would not have been surprised if they had found grounds for an obstruction charge. I would have accepted it.
I am accepting the integrity of the investigation. What I am not accepting is almost everything coming from the army of talking heads.
GAYou can't accept something you refuse to read. Otherwise, you're relying on others to form your own opinion. In that case, you should be sitting this conversation out.
Of course, I am depending on information from others to form my own opinion Valiant. Isn't that what we all generally do when we aren't an expert in whatever it is that would affect our opinion?
It would take a bit of hubris to think I could look at the investigative complexities of those now-famous "10 points of issue" and compare the legal and proof-level considerations I see with the conclusive actions of those I do consider experts in these areas, and then declare I have read enough to know they are wrong.
Judging from your suggestion that I sit this one out, a lack of hubris isn't an obstacle to your considerations.
GA
"No, I don't intend to read the report. I was prepared to accept it - whichever way it came down. "
If this is a joke, it's one of the best deadpan deliveries I've ever seen. If it's not, it's one of the oddest comments from you I've ever seen.Ha! So I do still have a surprise, (or two) for you Don, because it wasn't a joke. I think my response to hard sun(?) will help explain it to you.
To elaborate I think you will agree that I have generally stayed out of pro or anti-Trump discussions. I think my seat on the fence has served me well. For almost two years we have heard every level of pundit; from forum dwellers to paid expert political analysts explain both sides.
Now the real experts have rendered their verdict. I trust them more than any of the mentioned pundits. So I see no reason to jump off the fence and pick a side now. I am not pro-Trump, so the report isn't a case of blindness due to confirmation bias. And I certainly can't take the anti-Trump's side--and reject the report's conclusions--because it would be nuts for me to think I am smarter than all the talent of the investigative team.
I am sure I will end up reading excerpts from the report just to be able to discuss points here, but I don't need to read the report to confirm my opinion of its authors.
GAI think the point is you have not read their verdict.
For someone who quite often research and read about any given theme just to participate in a discussion and/or prove others wrong, it is frankly disappointing that you decided not to read a report.
We're (or at least I'm) not expecting you to take an anti-Trump side. Just not to be like some other members that like to argue about things they haven't read (or know anything about).You are missing the point Islandbites. I haven't been arguing about the contents of the report. As you noted; I certainly would have checked out whatever point I was going to talk about - before talking about it.
All I have been discussing was the point stated in the OP; the "Left's" reaction to the report. And then secondarily, why I accept the report's conclusions.
And speaking of reading the report, I hear it is two volumes and 700+ pages? All those that say they have read the report have been really busy since 11 am today.
If you do see me weigh-in on a particular point in the report you can be assured I will have read about whatever that point might be. ;-)
GA
Well color me surprised, and still somewhat confused.
"Now the real experts have rendered their verdict"
What verdict do you believe has been rendered, and by whom? Do you mean Robert Mueller and his team? And by "rendered their verdict" do you mean the decision to prosecute/not prosecute?
If so, the Special Counsel explicitly says in the report that his team deliberately did not make a traditional judgement on whether to prosecute or not prosecute.
". . . a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."(1)
The reason given by the Special Counsel is that the opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel (part of the DoJ) that a sitting President cannot be criminally indicted, renders the Special Counsel (an attorney within the DoJ) unable to initiate or decline prosecution. In other words, an attorney in the DoJ can't claim prosecutorial jurisdiction over a sitting president, when the DoJ itself has said they have no such prosecutorial jurisdiction:
"The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations . . . this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction"(2).
But to be very clear, this determination does not mean there was insufficient evidence to charge the president with a crime. The Special Counsel is stating that he is unable to indict the president because of the DoJ's legal opinion.
So, even if the Special Counsel couldn't indict, why didn't he at least make a determination as to whether the President had committed a criminal offense?
The Special Counsel's report says that making such a determination would have been unfair. As charges cannot be brought against a sitting president by the Special Counsel, such a president would have no opportunity to clear their name by means of a speedy and impartial public trial:
"The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator."
For those with integrity, unfairness is a constraint.
However, even within the above constraints there is one determination the Special Counsel was free to make if the facts had supported it: that no criminal offense was committed. The Special Counsel explicitly states he has no confidence that is the case.
In other words, while the Special Counsel cannot say the President committed a crime due to constraints surrounding fairness and the OLC legal opinion outlined above, he makes clear that lack of comment on whether crimes were committed is not due to lack of evidence that crimes were committed:
" . . . 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".
This preempts the false conclusion you (and others) seem to be deriving from the lack of indictment. Let me make it explicitly clear by inserting the relevant context into the above quote:
"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime [because we are constrained from doing so by the opinion of the OLC on this matter, and the issue of fairness], it also does not exonerate him". I hope that makes it clearer.
Not exonerating the President, while laying out the reasons why, is pretty much the most the Special Counsel could do, given the constraints outlined above.
Given those constraints, the fact that the Special Counsel was unable to exonerate the president after thoroughly investigating the facts, is a damning outcome.
So I remain confused about as to what "verdict" you are referring to.
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … #g-page-12 (Introduction to Volume II, Vol. 2, p.1)
(2) ibid
(3) ibid (Introduction to Volume II, Vol. 2, p.2)Laid out so that maybe even the most confused among the Trumpsters can understand, I think. But they will likely prove me wrong.
Mueller was also constrained with the knowledge that his new boss, William Barr had already prejudged Trump (or any president) innocent of obstruction.
So, even if Mueller wanted to indict in spite of the OLC opinion, Barr would have stopped him. So he gave the ball to Congress.
What I don't understand is why Mueller didn't indict Manafort for conspiracy. From what I have read so far and unlike other individuals, that appears to be a slam dunk.I find it interesting that when Mueller team explained that, they made a specific point ("Second") saying this:
Second, while the OLC concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.You left out the part where no collusion was found, and the part where there was no obstruction of justice...just the appearance that there could have been if it actually occurred instead of being just considered and thought about.
The Trump haters have jumped all over this, determining in their own twisted reasoning that thinking about obstruction means that evidence was hidden or in some way denied the investigation. It didn't happen.And we've got a winner folks! I knew it would be Dan that is in complete denial about what was actually contained in the report.
I did not. It's been quoted. I was making a comment about that specific point that I find interesting.
Just breath, you guys are starting to melt.BTW - NOWHERE in the Mueller report does he say he found no COLLUSION. There are many, many examples of collusion. Save for one (that I have read so far) they just don't add up to Conspiracy.
Why Mueller didn't charge Manafort with Conspiracy is beyond me. He, far and away more than anyone else, actually coordinated with the Russians to help them attack America.
Yes, there are many signposts in the report for what is likely to come.
It seems to me that Mueller is recommending prosecuting Trump for obstruction AFTER he leaves office. I can live with that.
Damn, I am not going to make it, am I Don? I am going to be dragged into reading this thing after all. *sigh
The "verdict(s)" I am accepting is that the Report conclusions did not return a charge of conspiracy/collusion, and they did not offer a conclusion on an obstruction charge.
Also, when I say "verdict," I am not talking about the decision to prosecute or not prosecute.
Now, let me try one last escape effort before resigning to my fate.
Your quote; "...Given those constraints, the fact that the Special Counsel was unable to exonerate the president after thoroughly investigating the facts,"
... compared to a part of your report quote: "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him".
Isn't the Report's quote as accurate as yours? And doesn't it also support the "verdict(s)" I have been describing?
Caveat: I am handicapped in that I have not read the report. Whether I agree and support any part of its details, or, disagree and deny any part, is not yet an issue with me.
GA"The "verdict(s)" I am accepting is that the Report conclusions did not return a charge of conspiracy/collusion, and they did not offer a conclusion on an obstruction charge."
Neither of those are not verdicts. They are merely recognition of DoJ policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
That policy (established by the DoJ during the Nixon scandal and reaffirmed in 2000) is binding on all DoJ employees, of which the Special Counsel is one.
From this we can see the Special Counsel respects established policy and legal precedent. Nothing more.
Perhaps I'm being too subtle. So let be be crude.
If there was evidence Donald Trump murdered someone, he still could not be charged by the Special Counsel. He could be impeached by Congress, or removed from office under the 25th, but he could not be indicted for murder by Special Counsel, without violating DoJ policy.
So again, I'm still confused about why you seem to be basing your view on the lack of charges.
If a foreign diplomat commits a crime, but no charges are brought, that is not a "verdict" on whether the diplomat committed the crime. It simply means diplomatic immunity prevents charges being brought.
Donald Trump has Constitutional immunity. He was not charged by the Special Counsel because DoJ policy prohibits it. Only Congress can charge a sitting president; the process known as impeachment. Like the diplomat, a lack of charges is not a verdict, it simply means immunity prevented charges being brought.
What we can take note of, is what the Special Counsel did not say. He did not say he is confident no crime was committed. In fact he explicitly says:
". . . 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".
That awkward double-negative is the closest the Special Counsel can get to telling us the "legal standards" for obstruction of justice have likely been met, while complying with DoJ policy and maintaining the principle of procedural fairness.
Having read the report, all indications are that Donald Trump has not been charged with obstruction of justice, simply because he is currently the president. So again I'm not sure how that can be considered anything other than damning.What actions did Donald Trump take that you consider obstruction of justice, and what information was denied the investigation as a result of those actions?
You do realize that to "obstruct" and investigation (or anything else) there must have been a result of your actions that delayed or denied that investigation. What was that result and what was delayed or denied?Federal code identifies more than 20 different types of obstruction, so as usual, the two things you listed aren't even close to the actual facts. Do you tire of supplying horribly wrong information?
The Comey firing while he was investigating the Trump campaign, of which Trump was part of, and that he claimed he considered when doing the firing, is the most obvious example.I see you haven't read the report, Wilderness, have you. If you had, you wouldn't have made that comment.
Whew! Looks like I dodged the hook one more time. We don't need to argue semantics Don, "technically" you are right, but I believe you understood my intended message. What I mean is this; OP
Verdict as a legal jury edict - no. Verdict as a synonym; conclusion, consideration, determination, charges, sum, - yes.
If it was given that they could not make a prosecution decision, and they had no authority to bring charges, do you think that would preclude them from making conclusions?
They did offer one--no conspiracy--didn't they?
At the risk of also being crude...
The rest of your comment, after that line, worries me. In the vein and context of my previous comments, I would expect the message "verdict" carried to be nuanced by the thoughts, (mostly explained), portrayed in the discussion.
Anyway, I hope this explanation clears at least a little of the fog. I expect your response to the "preclusion" question will clear up a little more.
To avoid confusion I will abandon my use of verdict. Let's substitute "Conclusion(s)" for "Verdict" and offer it with an amendment to make it retroactive.
GAIn that case, GA, Mueller concluded
Conspiracy: there was no conspiracy because - with the evidence he was able to gather - he couldn't show "beyond a reasonable doubt" (and that is important) there was sufficient "coordination" between members of the Trump Campaign and the Russians to indict anyone.
He did present PLENTY of evidence of contact between the two AND that the Russians did offer help AND the Trump Campaign wanted their help but not to the level where he was convinced he could get a guilty verdict from a jury. (Having said that I am flabbergasted, from what I read, that he didn't bring Conspiracy charges against Paul Manafort - the crime is so clear.)
Mueller also made very clear his investigation was 1) obstructed by witnesses and 2) in some cases was physically unable to gather evidence. In the first case, witnesses pleaded the 5th, lied, destroyed evidence, or encrypted evidence. In the second case, some witnesses and material were out of reach of the investigation. Mueller makes no bones that had this other testimony and evidence been available, the likelihood that he would have actually charged someone. To me that says had this been a civil case, many people would have been indicted because only a preponderance of the evidence is needed.
Obstruction: Mueller made no conclusion for all of the reasons stated by Don. Because he follows the rules and is a straight-shooter, Mueller could not violate the DOJ rule about not indicting a sitting president. But, does he think Trump is guilty of obstruction? There is not doubt in my mind! He basically says that "while I am not allowed to indict Trump, I am laying out the evidence for 1) Congress to impeach, should they choose or 2) once Trump leaves office, then a future AG can prosecute him (the most likely outcome IMO) for obstruction.Your explanation looks like you are trying to have it both ways; he could offer a conclusion on the conspiracy/collusion part, but due to "... all the reasons Don mentioned," he couldn't offer a conclusion of the obstruction part.
Why doesn't the rationalization for the second also apply to the first?
GA
If it was given that they could not make a prosecution decision, and they had no authority to bring charges, do you think that would preclude them from making conclusions?
They did offer one--no conspiracy--didn't they?
First, Volume I (or the original probe) were the results of the investigation of Russian interference and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. The consideration of "presidential immunity" applies to the Volume II, which was a specific investigation of the President actions.
They do, however reached some conclusions.
In Volume I, the conclusion was that the investigation did not established coordination with Russia (making the clarification that it doesn't mean that there wasn't evidence of those facts).
Conclusions for Volume II (in which the immunity does applies) were that, based on the facts, they could not say Trump did not obstructed.All this 'parsing', (everyone's), is getting confusing Islandbites.
Your first point seems to say that the conspiracy/collusion investigation would not have concluded any guilt on the Trump side because the investigation was only on the Russians and Trump's campaign.
I am recalling Jake's comments regarding the "private" meetings between Pres. Trump and Putin. Your point seems to say that if Mueller found Jake's version to be true he could say so, or even recommend charges because presidential immunity didn't apply.
Does Vol. 1 really say Pres. Trump's actions were not part of the "conspiracy/collusion investigation? If it didn't, then why wasn't presidential immunity also a consideration for that?
Remember, I have not read, (or dissected), the report, so I am not trying to be a hardhead. (more fun than "obtuse")
GAYou argue that they offered a "no conspiracy", why no "veredict" in obstruction. Volume I conclusions, as such, were possible (using your argument) because 1. It covered more than just the president (campaign, associates) 2. Mainly because they couldnt established it.
In obstruction, they can't say they that because it is not the case, is not true. Meaning it was established but president has immunity and saying so without the possibility of a trial (and his defense) won't be fair to a president in their opinion.
It is hard to explain a 400+ pages report.
DT should be very happy that "the crazy Mueller report written as nastily as possible by 13 (18) Angry Democrats who were true Trump Haters, including highly conflicted Bob Mueller himself" was done by non partisan people.You can relax Islandbites, I am not expecting you to explain a 400-page report. It sounds like what we, (or just me), are discussing is covered in the first couple of pages.
Your first sentence isn't clear to me, looks like there is a typo somewhere. Here is what I think was intended: "You argue that they offered a "no conspiracy", ]b][but ask][/b]why no "veredict" in obstruction.
If that was what you meant to say, then I don't think I asked that, (about no verdict).
Maybe a little "parsing of my own will show what point I am missing, or meaning I have misunderstood.
"Volume I conclusions, as such, were possible (using your argument) because 1. It covered more than just the president (campaign, associates) 2. Mainly because they couldnt established it."
To me, that reads to say they could reach a conclusion because the president was just one of many, and because they couldn't prove it.
If I read that right, then your logic would say they could not have returned a conclusion if the evidence on the president did prove it, and they could not have returned a conclusion if they were able to prove it?
Am I misreading that?You can relax Islandbites, I am not expecting you to explain a 400-page report. It sounds like what we, (or just me), are discussing is covered in the first couple of pages.
Your first sentence isn't clear to me, looks like there is a typo somewhere. Here is what I think was intended: "You argue that they offered a "no conspiracy", [but ask] why no "veredict" in obstruction.
If that was what you meant to say, then I don't think I asked that, (about no verdict).
Maybe a little "parsing of my own will show what point I am missing, or meaning I have misunderstood.
"Volume I conclusions, as such, were possible (using your argument) because 1. It covered more than just the president (campaign, associates) 2. Mainly because they couldnt established it."
To me, that reads to say they could reach a conclusion because the president was just one of many, and because they couldn't prove it.
If I read that right, then your logic would say they could not have returned a conclusion if the evidence on the president did prove it, and they could not have returned a conclusion if they were able to prove it?
Am I misreading that?
GAYup (to the typo).
I meant that if there were evidence enough to establish conspiracy, they could have say so because they were investigating people (other than the president) who are no covered by presidential immunity. But they could not established it, and they said so.
When it comes to obstruction, they were investigating Trump actions. From the beginning, they knew they couldn't possibly charged him if it was established he in fact did it. But they could have said he did not obstructed justice. They did not, because evidence proved he did. And they said so, even if not directly. They explained why they didn't (said it directly). In their opinion, to say Trump obstructed but with no charges (and no trial were Trump can defends himself) it would be unfair to DT. Then said is in the hands of the Congress what to do with the findings. They also said they preserved the evidence and that the president does not have immunity after he leaves office.
(Ugh. I detest using the phone for Hubpages forum purposes. Sorry if Im not clear enough.)I don't remember what we were arguing about. I know what I started out talking about, but this seems different.
Is it all because I said I accepted the Report's 'No conspiracy/collusion' conclusion, or because I also accepted the rest of the Report - both pro and anti?
To this point, nothing has changed from the point of my initial thread-revitalizing comment about the drool and mania on CNN - even before the report was released.
Look at the responses here, and on every news media outlet; parsing the words of the report, lining up multiple experts to interpret what the report really says, not just what the text says. And, like the media outlets, this thread's participants are racing from source to source and quoted section to quoted section to find the explicit linkages as well as the implied linkages, the plain-speak wording as well as the 'coded' wording, (that is supposed to really mean something besides what it actually says), and, of course, the parts of the Report that are clear confirmations of their beliefs - both side's beliefs.
Two years of this, now we have the Report - and it doesn't seem to matter.
I think I might get away without reading it if I can just stick to the salavations of some, (guess who I mean), anti-Trump pundits and politicians.
We might even end up with a new; "It depends on what the definition of "Is" is" moment.
So you see... you are wrong. I don't know what you are wrong about, but it doesn't matter because Mueller's report clearly says--even though it couldn't clearly say it sometimes, because of the rules that clearly had to apply differently depending on whether the president was involved--right there in plain words, that I am right.
GAGA, that was one of the best obfuscations to prove that you are right that I've ever seen. I'll give you an "A" over it. I have no idea what the original thought was either.
Sometimes you just have to punt. ;-)
And thanks for the "A" MizBeJabbers, my card could use all it can get.
GA
That's ok. LOL
I know it's better to ignore it so you can keep up the hope.On no you dinnent... Uh Uh girlfriend, you didn't want to go there
Just what am I ignoring and what hope do you think I am trying to keep alive?
GAMost of us believe that the entirety of the GOP is willing to ignore whatever crimes Trump commits, including those he used to get elected and the obstruction he committed to cover up Russia's involvement in the 2016 election.
Mitt Romney is the exception. He tore Trump a new one. I wonder if Collins, Murkowski, and Paul will follow suit?
Then why point that at me? Has my cover been blown?
GA
Ignoring the report (not reading it). You're a smart man so you'll understand what it says.
What's that you always say? Can't remember now.Not reading the report is not the same as ignoring it. Between the media and these forums, there probably are not many important points that I have heard quoted or seen excerpted.
I am doubtful that a serious point could be mentioned that hasn't been; described, examined, interpreted, counter-interpreted, and would require me to go re-read the text and see the context in the report.
But if one did, I kept your helpful link opened in a "special" tab.
[i]*I say so much stuff I am not surprised you can't remember. I usually don't either.
GA
Thanks for the clarification. I think we're close to lifting the fog completely. Here's a summary:
The offenses
The Special Counsel's report focuses on two offenses: conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
Both were considered in relation to the "framework of conspiracy law" and "the applicable legal standards" respectively.
The Constraints
To avoid violating the DoJ's policy that no sitting president can be charged with a crime other than by Congress, the Special Counsel drew no conclusions as to whether to prosecute/not prosecute.
To avoid procedural unfairness (directly accusing the president of committing a crime with no opportunity for him to "clear his name" with a public trial) the Special Counsel made no conclusions about whether crimes had been committed.
These constraints made it impermissible for the Special Counsel to express the key findings in certain ways, e.g. directly accusing the president of a crime even if the evidence supported it.
List of Permissible "Conclusions"
Here is a list of the "conclusions" the Special Counsel could have reported. Reporting other conclusions, or expressing them more directly would not have been permissible, given the constraints outlined above:
1. There was clearly no conspiracy
2. There was clearly no obstruction of justice
3. Conspiracy could not be established beyond reasonable doubt
4. Obstruction of justice could not be established beyond reasonable doubt
5. The Special Counsel has no confidence there was no conspiracy (as defined in the applicable legal framework)
6. The Special Counsel has no confidence there was no obstruction (as defined in the relevant legal framework)
Conclusions 1 and 2 would exonerate Trump. They would effectively say no crimes were committed.
Conclusions 3 and 4 would neither exonerate nor condemn Trump. They would effectively say that based on currently available evidence, and using the relevant legal frameworks, the Special Counsel believes those crimes could not be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusions 4 and 5 would be damning. They effectively say the investigation established, beyond reasonable doubt, that those crimes were committed. They say it indirectly because that is the only permissible way it can be said. These represent the highest degree of condemnation permitted for this investigation.
The Report's Findings
On conspiracy, the Special Counsel did not offer conclusion 1 as you are suggesting. He offered conclusion 3. The Special Counsel found that conspiracy could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore Trump was neither exonerated nor condemned for conspiracy.
On obstruction of justice, the Special Counsel offered conclusion 6. This is damning, as it means the Special Counsel believes obstruction of justice can be proven beyond reasonable doubt (but he simply cannot directly say so).
If this were a typical investigation with none of the above constraints, these findings would translate as follows:
Conspiracy: the prosecutor would decline to prosecute, as he is not confident of securing a conviction based on currently available evidence.
Obstruction of justice: the prosecutor would prosecute, as he is confident of a conviction based on currently available evidence.
In short, no aspect of the Special Counsel's findings exonerate Trump.
Not enough evidence to establish conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean no conspiracy. It means not enough evidence to establish conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the case of obstruction, there cleary is enough evidence to support a prosecution, so the Special Counsel tells us that indirectly, in a way that complies with both constraints.
The Special Counsel's report tells us that Donald Trump used the authority of the office of the President of the United States, to obstruct justice, and there is enough available evidence to prosecute him for that felony.
The reason a prosecution has not been initiated, is because he is currently the president. And the likely reason impeachment hasn't been initiated is because Democrats know (and let's face it we all know) that the Republicans in the Senate will ignore the facts reported by the Special Counsel, in favor of chearleeding their man (just as some in this thread have).
If anyone who reads the report does not think Donald Trump should immediately resign, then they have either not understood it, or they do not care about the rule of law, or both.Looks like clear sailing from here Don. I agree with your choice of #3 and #6 conclusions. (but you did get me to look at a first batch of pages to be sure I could say that).
However, I did find enough tidbits to allow me to hold my confidence in my statements that a conclusion of no established proof of conspiracy/collusion is accurate, and that the Report did have the authority and ability to provide conclusions, (verdicts?), when warranted.
And they did just that on the conspiracy/collusion aspect.
I considered pasting those tidbits, but then we would have no more than a "yeah, but..." link and quote war. They are almost never productive. If a discussion of concept can't affect a position, then a battle of counter-points almost never will.
Beyond my "conclusions" perspective, the rest of your comment(s) seem to be proving or defending points I haven't disputed.
GA"However, I did find enough tidbits to allow me to hold my confidence in my statements that a conclusion of no established proof of conspiracy/collusion is accurate".
Your use of "conspiracy/collusion" is inaccurate. The Special Counsel pointedly makes a distinction between "collusion" (which is not "a term of art in federal criminal law") and conspiracy (which is).
The former is morally questionable, but not a criminal offense. The latter is a criminal offense. The investigation considered conspiracy only, not "collusion".
But yes, the conclusion on conspiracy is clear. The Special Counsel believes available evidence "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". And reporting that conclusion was permissible within the relevant constraints. I don't think that's been disputed though.
What's not clear is what you take from that.
So for clarity, are you suggesting the actions of Trump and his cohort, as reported by the Special Counsel, are anything other than utterly shameful (and criminal in the case of obstruction of justice)?
And are you suggesting that on the basis of the facts reported by the Special Counsel, Trump should not resign immediately?Don, you are resorting to an argument of semantics. That isn't typically a strong position.
You say my use of "...conspiracy/collusion" is inaccurate. ", yet, I think you understand the point being conveyed. Just as I am sure you did when I first called it a verdict.
The report clearly explained why it chose conspiracy as its avenue of investigation. It also clearly explained that the legal "conspiracy" track was equated with both the public's and AG's understanding of the issue being pursued as "collusion."
You seem to be agreeing that a charge of conspiracy was not found supportable, but a charge of "collusion" was not determined. Of course, you are strictly technically correct, but for all other purposes of understanding - the primary purpose of communications, you are doing nothing more than what I have heard called, (and was sometimes guilty of), 'sharpshooting'
Sort of like saying the bank's vault was robbed. Which is strictly technically incorrect - even if the money was stolen from the vault.
Only a person can be robbed, the bank vault was burgled.
But does that change the message that money was stolen from the bank vault?
I can't see a benefit to answering your "clarity" questions. First, they are beside the point of our discussion, and secondly, if we are still hung up on what wasn't concluded then there isn't much hope we could make progress on your clarity questions in this exchange.
GAYour reference to the report's conclusions using a term explicitly discarded by the authors was confusing to me, and I make no apologies for that.
Terms used by the media and others are irrelevant, as it's the report we are considering. The report essential says the term "collusion" was not considered in relation to any of its conclusions. So that was not the best choice of words on your part, and it warranted some clarification and explanation.
Also, when the difference between one word and another is the difference between a criminal offense, or not, I think it's more than just a semantic issue.
Moreover, the content of this document could be the basis of impeachment of a president, or future prosecution of a former president. These are literally momentous events. I think those of us witnesses them can be forgiven for taking some time to scrutinize and clarify the terminology being used (as future historians no doubt will). I think characterizing that as "sharpshooting" is unjustified.
For me, those additional questions are very relevant, as they are an indicator of whether you are seeking to minimize the seriousness of the actions and behavior described in the report.
To avoid any confusion on where I stand, on the basis of the facts reported by the Special Counsel, I believe Trump should resign immediately. I also believe the facts uncovered by this investigation mean that every day Trump is in the White House the stain that is currently smearing the Office of the President of the United states, grows bigger and bigger.
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … l#g-page-9 (Introduction to Volume One, Volume I, p.2)"For me, those additional questions are very relevant, as they are an indicator of whether you are seeking to minimize the seriousness of the actions and behavior described in the report." [my quote, my emphsis]
No Don, my choice of words was not intended to minimize the Mueller Report's findings.
From, verdict, to charges, to conclusion, I have explained the intent of the message of those words, and substituted other words - yet kept the original intent of the message that substitute word was intended to carry.
It seemed, (although probably a misimpression now), at a point or two that you agreed you understood the intended message, but just sought to offer the technical correction.
Now, you imply you think my choice was to "minimize" the findings. (or the "acts"). Where did that come from?
I briefly looked back on our exchanges Don and other than my refusal to jump into a 'he did, or he didn't' camp. I don't see anything--beyond that refusal thing--that should have conveyed the impression you have.
and ...
"To avoid any confusion on where I stand, on the basis of the facts reported by the Special Counsel, I believe Trump should resign immediately. I also believe the facts uncovered by this investigation mean that every day Trump is in the White House the stain that is currently smearing the Office of the President of the United states, grows bigger and bigger."
How could I possibly reply to that? It certainly seems to confirm my point about your misimpression, So I will just leave it alone.
GA"Where did that come from?"
It comes from my not knowing what you think of the content of the report beyond our exchange about terminology (I haven't read the entire thread).
It comes from only seeing comments of yours about what wasn't established by the investigation, not what was.
And it comes from the fact that when I'm not sure about someone's views on something, I've found asking is a good solution.
So do you believe the report's conclusion on conspiracy is all that matters? Do you believe the report exonerates Trump and his associates? Both those views minimize Trump's actions in my opinion. Or do you believe neither of those things?
As I have said, on the basis of what's in the report, I think Trump should resign immediately. Where do you stand on the issue?From our first exchange Don: " I was prepared to accept it - whichever way it came down. " [my emphasis of course]
And although not addressed to you, (it was to hard sun), this was in the thread after our exchange began. I thought you would have seen it:
"As to what I am accepting? I am aware of the mandate of the investigation. I am aware of most of the basic charges leveled by the Democrats. I am also aware of the mental horsepower and determination of the investigative team. I have a belief that they really did try, (and I think succeeded), to be non-partisan in their efforts.
For those reasons I was willing to accept the report's verdict whichever way it went. I would not have been surprised if they had found grounds for an obstruction charge. I would have accepted it."
Observation can be as rewarding as asking. The Report's conclusion on conspiracy is all that I have been discussing with you.
I haven't read Vol II, so I can't comment on what was proven.
GAFYI, you have now been assigned, under the authority vested in no one anywhere, the official spokesperson of purple voters everywhere. You are therefore now the embodiment of Purple America. Just so you know.
Now we've established your new, completely legitimate role, it's time for some answers.
You accept the investigation was lawful, compliment the investigation team on its' "mental horsepower", believe it was successful in being non-partisan.
So I ask you, Purple America, why in the name of all that is good haven't you condemned Trump's behavior based on what's in the report? And don't give me that about not having read it. Not even you seemed convinced by that.
It wouldn't be the first time someone commented on a lengthy report based on a summary from a reliable source, and it won't be the last. So what's really going on?
Is the desire to stay on the fence so strong that it precludes calling out the most egregious abuses of presidential authority we've seen in decades? Or is there some other reason for your reticence?
If you've already condemned Trump's behavior in this thread and I missed it (some people have terrible powers of observation) I'll happily stand corrected, and offer my mea culpa in advance. But if not, what gives?
What are you (and by you I mean all of Purple America) thinking? Does Trump need to directly threaten the gin and vermouth supply to stir you into life? Have you been offered a judgeship and are practicing impartiality? I can't think of many other things that would make someone not find the actions outlined in the report to be a shameful display.So Don, what do you propose we deal with Trump? Given you don’t like him, or his policies, and now you find out he is a shady person and have don’t some bad things...but not illegal or criminal. What can you do legally at this point in time?
To answer my own question, as a citizen, you can decide to vote him out of office in 2020. As members of Congress, they can decide collectively ton impeach Trump and remove him from office.
We can agree to disagree that the obstruction of justice listed in the Mueller report is criminal and needs to be further investigated, which Trump is now looking to obstruct further by working to keep Don McGhan from testifying in front of Congress.
You can go down this road forever...or just moveon as we were told after the Clinton impeachment. In fact, a whole website and left wing org. was created called moveon.org
One got caught lying about an affair.
The other has done the same thing, albeit not under oath, but has lied about accepting help from a hostile foreign government and then got caught trying to impede the investigation into that interference. I see a small difference in severity there as it relates to our national security.
Trump: The great businessman and self proclaimed billionaire who hides his taxes
Trump: The hero who dodged service
Trump: The genius who hides his grades
Trump: The honest man who won't answer questions under oath
Trump: The philanthropist who steals from charities
Trump The champion for the party of family values who cheats on his many wivesAs bad as that sounds, it is not a crime...
Clinton did commit multiple crimes and yet survived impeachment...
I reject the claim Trump has done nothing illegal. The Special Counsel indicated (to the greatest extent he was able to within the constraints of DoJ policy) that Trump obstructed justice, which is a criminal offense.
In terms of what can be done legally about it. I think the choices are clear: impeach; continue the current Congressional investigations until they are concluded; some combination of the two; or neither. Trying to oust Trump via the 2020 election is obviously a given (though I wonder if Trump will be honest and name Vladimir Putin as his running mate this time round).
As much as I'd like to see Donald Trump impeached, I'm not in favor of impeachment at this time. Instead I think Congress must be given an unredacted version of the report, and should continue its Congressional investigations. Moreover it must be allowed to do so unobstructed by the Executive. And it must be made clear that any witness tampering, or retaliation against Congressional witnesses who testify against Trump, will not be tolerated (retaliation against witnesses is also a crime).
In general, removing someone from the presidency outside an election is difficult, and it's right that it should be (even if it's someone as appalling as Donald Trump).
What concerns me more is the fact that Trump seems bent on retaliation against anyone involved in the counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling. He also seems bent on obstructing Congress from fulfilling its Constitutional role providing oversight of the Executive. Both those are dangerous for the democratic processes of the country, and the country in general.I hope he would retaliate. It is the only way we can make sure this stuff does not happen again to any other president. Once it is established as precedence, and no accountability or consequence for this type of behavior, it will be repeated.
"I hope he would retaliate."
Me too:
"(e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1513
Yes Don, I have now read the entire report, and yes, I have subsequently commented in this thread.
I know my post-Report comments probably won't even register on the vitriol scale, but at least they indicate I have abandoned the fence.
As for representing Purple America; that's a tough one. I don't know how many shades of purple there are, and my own changes hue from issue to issue, so I don't know how representative I could be. But I do appreciate the honor and will do my best not to let you down. ;-)
My first Purple position statement: Purple Americans accept the Report's conclusion that there was no collusion.*
*conspiracy, coordinated collusion, legally defined collusion
ps. Yes! I will give Jake his address if he threatens my martinis. Such treasonous behavior cannot be allowed to escape punishment. True Americans just won't stand for it.
GA
You guys are too much.
Does this report have any relevance for 90% of Americans?
Making a mountain out of a mole hill.Dozens of indictments?
A special counsel who couldn't exonerate our President?
Twelve more ongoing investigations?
It has no relevance only to idiots and Trump supporters.No, it has no relevance to clear thinking Americans.
When they ignore the crimes committed by Clinton and Obama...it is hard to keep a straight face when whey go after Trump...Except they committed NO crimes, Jack, none, zilch, nada. Even the fake-investigation happy GOP didn't even try to investigate whistle clean Obama. And their fake investigation into Hilary for Benghazi ended up FORCING them to admit they had Nothing.
The only investigation that even came close was the FBI investigation into Clinton's emails came up empty-handed with Comey telling the world the obvious - Clinton was dumber than dirt for setting up that server, but nothing, nada, zilch criminal.
Why do you keep believing in the Fake Right-wing news and propaganda? You are smarter than that.
Get over it, Jack, and join the land of the thinking and leave your brainwashed friends behind.She was exonerated by Comey, a partisan hack who needs to be investigated, for leaking, and for incompetence.
Obama committed crime by using the IRS to go after conservative groups...one of many that he did was questionable and got away with...
The spineless GOP did not want to go down that road for fear of being accused of racism...
