The Mueller report is done!

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 78 discussions (1034 posts)
  1. IslandBites profile image87
    IslandBitesposted 5 months ago

    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.

    1. jackclee lm profile image79
      jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Finally, the truth will be out...

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Yes it is, and it is NOT GOOD for Donald Trump

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. Valeant profile image96
            Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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 investigation

            1. IslandBites profile image87
              IslandBitesposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              https://hubstatic.com/14496589.jpg

              1. Don W profile image85
                Don Wposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Here is an annotated, copy and pastable version of the report:

                https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … ument.html

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Pretty 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.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Valeant profile image96
                Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Readmikenow profile image96
                  Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Valeant profile image96
                    Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

            3. blueheron profile image96
              blueheronposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Valeant profile image96
                Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. blueheron profile image96
                  blueheronposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Valeant profile image96
                    Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. promisem profile image98
                    promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  3. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Pure fancy.

                2. blueheron profile image96
                  blueheronposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. promisem profile image98
                    promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

              2. IslandBites profile image87
                IslandBitesposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                There is not a shred of evidence that the Russian government tried to help Trump win.
                lol



                https://hubstatic.com/14497550.jpg

                1. crankalicious profile image91
                  crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                2. blueheron profile image96
                  blueheronposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. IslandBites profile image87
                    IslandBitesposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    But that wasn't your point, eh?

                    You can spin. Or you could read the report.

                    Ha. Suuure.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    "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!

    2. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. promisem profile image98
        promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Sharlee, the Democrats didn't launch the investigation. Trump's own attorney general did at the Department of Justice.

            And they used a Republican to lead it.

    3. PhoenixV profile image63
      PhoenixVposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Maybe Wikileaks will post the report.

      1. IslandBites profile image87
        IslandBitesposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Or let's just burn it like Nunes asked for.

    4. crankalicious profile image91
      crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Best summary so far...this is a long piece.
        https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagat … -a-million
        Matt Tiabbi is no right wing nut...

        1. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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)

          GA

          1. hard sun profile image85
            hard sunposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            I 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.

            1. GA Anderson profile image93
              GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              We found a point of common ground hard sun. I too think the media is out of control.

              GA

              1. IslandBites profile image87
                IslandBitesposted 4 months agoin reply to this
                1. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Ain'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

              2. promisem profile image98
                promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. IslandBites profile image87
                  IslandBitesposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Some people have no problem with that. smile

                2. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  GA

                  1. hard sun profile image85
                    hard sunposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    I 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.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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)

                3. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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...

          2. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image91
              Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. blueheron profile image96
                blueheronposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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/

                1. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Holy cow! Jake has a Republican twin.

                  GA

                  1. Valeant profile image96
                    Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Seriously.  We found the far left and the really far right.

                  2. blueheron profile image96
                    blueheronposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Kunstler is a lifelong Democrat.

                    1. My Esoteric profile image91
                      My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

                    2. GA Anderson profile image93
                      GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      That is even worse. It means they have two of them, and they're Bi-polar.

                      GA

                2. Readmikenow profile image96
                  Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  James Howard Kunstler  is excellent.

                  1. Valeant profile image96
                    Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Not surprising at all that you buy into that far right-wing conspiracy theory.

                    1. blueheron profile image96
                      blueheronposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      Kunstler is a lifelong Democrat. Every point he makes has been proven by actual evidence.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                3. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Another closed-minded arch-conservative that can't understand what he is reading because it disagrees with his pre-conceived notions, I see.

            2. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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.

        2. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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...

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              You won't get any of it. The Republican Senate already voted to quash a public release of the report.

              1. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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...

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  I don't know. You will have to ask members of the Republican Senate who voted to block the release.

          2. PhoenixV profile image63
            PhoenixVposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Thanks for letting us know if they post the report. Both sides need to know the full truth.

              1. PhoenixV profile image63
                PhoenixVposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Lol

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Why is that funny? Am I making a mistake in being civil?

                  1. PhoenixV profile image63
                    PhoenixVposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                    1. promisem profile image98
                      promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

        3. Live to Learn profile image83
          Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Totally agree.

          1. hard sun profile image85
            hard sunposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

      2. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this
      3. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        And 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.

      4. blueheron profile image96
        blueheronposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. PhoenixV profile image63
          PhoenixVposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          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.

        2. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          You have hit the nail on its head. This investigation was never about getting at the truth but to undermine Trump.

      5. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        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...

        1. blueheron profile image96
          blueheronposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            lol You guys obviously watch Faux News to have the opinion Trump  is off the hook. It's only just begun...…   yikes

            1. blueheron profile image96
              blueheronposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              Indeed it has....

              1. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Unfreedom of the press - a best seller by Mark Levin explains everything you want to know about what is going on now.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Mark Levin?  lol lol lol He's as qualified as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity to opine on anything political. What office has he held, Jack?

                  1. jackclee lm profile image79
                    jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    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...

                    1. Valeant profile image96
                      Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                      Or perhaps just read his wiki link, which is not exactly flattering...

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin

      6. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

    5. IslandBites profile image87
      IslandBitesposted 5 months ago

      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...

    6. IslandBites profile image87
      IslandBitesposted 5 months ago

      https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/digital-images/w_900/8092dcc5-dbf8-479d-9e3d-f37ab213381b.jpg

      1. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            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...

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              What did I say in my post that isn't factual?

              "You will never be satisfied" with the truth. Only denial and deflection.

              1. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                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?

              2. blueheron profile image96
                blueheronposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                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.

          2. MizBejabbers profile image89
            MizBejabbersposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.)

        2. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            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.pdf

            1. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Keep 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.

              1. promisem profile image98
                promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                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.

        3. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            "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?

        4. blueheron profile image96
          blueheronposted 3 months agoin reply to this
    7. IslandBites profile image87
      IslandBitesposted 5 months ago

      No further indictments from the special counsel, senior Justice official says. (Not official yet.)

    8. GA Anderson profile image93
      GA Andersonposted 5 months ago

      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.

      GA

      1. tsadjatko profile image54
        tsadjatkoposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Haven’t you wondered why Hiliary and the rest of her cohorts haven’t been investigated?

        Well this is interesting.

        https://youtu.be/kzcqOLxJaBQ

        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          How many more times do Republicans in power have to "investigate" Hillary without proving anything?

          1. Sharlee01 profile image86
            Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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=55574089

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              That 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.

        2. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          No, I haven't been wondering that,

          GA

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            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?

            1. GA Anderson profile image93
              GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              GA

              1. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                So, is he on the right track?
                Is CNN a respected source of News?
                Are you an unbiased observer?
                Or are you a Never Trumper?

                1. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  GA

                  1. promisem profile image98
                    promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Well said.

                    1. jackclee lm profile image79
                      jackclee lmposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                      So what news source do you subscribe? Just curious...

      2. promisem profile image98
        promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Jake's alter ego has hijacked your account!

        1. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          That's one heck of an insult.

          When has GA been anything but rational and grounded?

          Something the other has never been.

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image91
              Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
                JAKE Earthshineposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                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:

                1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                  Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. promisem profile image98
                    promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    "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.

                  2. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
                    JAKE Earthshineposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    https://hubstatic.com/14463989.jpg

                    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:

                2. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
                    JAKE Earthshineposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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 … CWOMMLkuBQ

                    1. Live to Learn profile image83
                      Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      You two slay me on this one. If you are being bullied someone redefined bully while I wasn't looking.

              2. promisem profile image98
                promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

        2. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          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. ;-)

          GA

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            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.

            1. GA Anderson profile image93
              GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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

              1. promisem profile image98
                promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                "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.  smile

                1. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  GA

                  1. promisem profile image98
                    promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Again, "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.

      3. dianetrotter profile image66
        dianetrotterposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        GA it looks like things are more screwed up now than ever.  Friendships broken, Mueller reputation assaulted, FBI under investigation, yada yada.

        1. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          You are right Diane,  or at least that is what the pundits are saying.

          GA

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            More is coming and the Democrats and Obama are quaking in their boots...

            1. Valeant profile image96
              Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Valeant profile image96
                  Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Deleted

                  1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
                    Wesman Todd Shawposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    Deleted

                    1. Valeant profile image96
                      Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                      Deleted

              2. dianetrotter profile image66
                dianetrotterposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                TRump and Putin are emboldened.  The more than one hour phone call yesterday, with no mention of, Russian interence should bring pause.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  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?

                  1. Don W profile image85
                    Don Wposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    " . . . 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?

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                      "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.

    9. StevenHall4646 profile image72
      StevenHall4646posted 5 months ago

      The mainstream media will perform magic by disappearing the topic of Russia interfering in the election once we find out nothing happened.

      1. promisem profile image98
        promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        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.

      2. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
        JAKE Earthshineposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        It's called "Treachery, Conspiracy, Intent to Receive Stolen Property" etc etc:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b71f2eYdTc

    10. IslandBites profile image87
      IslandBitesposted 5 months ago

      I like this Mueller report; 22hrs without tweets! LOL

      1. promisem profile image98
        promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Silence with a purpose. They're looking for bombshells in the report.

    11. Onusonus profile image77
      Onusonusposted 4 months ago

      Thanks for wasting our tax dollars on nothing.
      https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/55476707_10218859879467633_5713283316682063872_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_eui2=AeH4zcOGCB52HijeVJyrQAmSEbzupDjpYxGoUEsdFB9jW9JxNLPZoEGvP6sfIWWLtr0n5EwSPjNn38xWcBh0FCGQJjNXk1CUtMnb0yuqZ7MCJQ&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=5016d3882895c459dd00c5417da59f86&oe=5D162949

      1. promisem profile image98
        promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Onusonus profile image77
          Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Onusonus profile image77
              Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. promisem profile image98
                promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Onusonus profile image77
                  Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  I know. I just wish liberals would stop doing it.

          2. crankalicious profile image91
            crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Like Benghazi? Like Pizzagate?

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              But that's different. Hillary really did murder 4 U.S. diplomats and ran a child prostitution ring out of a NY pizza parlor. They just didn't prove it.

        2. Live to Learn profile image83
          Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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

    12. hard sun profile image85
      hard sunposted 4 months ago

      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.

      1. promisem profile image98
        promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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.

      2. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        GA

        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. hard sun profile image85
            hard sunposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Live to Learn profile image83
              Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. hard sun profile image85
                hard sunposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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...

                  1. hard sun profile image85
                    hard sunposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    And Trump denied it even happened. So? Obama is no longer President.

                2. Live to Learn profile image83
                  Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. hard sun profile image85
                    hard sunposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    "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.

                    1. Live to Learn profile image83
                      Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      Trump doesn't own Facebook.

              2. Valeant profile image96
                Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Live to Learn profile image83
                  Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

            2. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              "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.

          2. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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?

            GA

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              No, 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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image93
                GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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."

                GA

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Thank you, GA.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image93
                    GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Better hold on to that thanks promisem, there is an update.

                    GA

                  2. GA Anderson profile image93
                    GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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

                    GA

                    1. promisem profile image98
                      promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      Yes, 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"?

                      1. GA Anderson profile image93
                        GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                        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

        2. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
          JAKE Earthshineposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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:

      3. IslandBites profile image87
        IslandBitesposted 4 months ago
        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          "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.

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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...

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Don't you mean a Republican hack appointed by a Trump attorney general?

              That would be more accurate.

              1. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  How is he a hack if he is a Republican appointed by Trump's own AG?

                  1. jackclee lm profile image79
                    jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                    1. promisem profile image98
                      promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      If Mueller was appointed by the Trump administration, then he is doing the bidding of the Trump administration.

                      1. jackclee lm profile image79
                        jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                        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...

          2. Live to Learn profile image83
            Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            That was on the investigation of obstruction. No collusion was found so there was nothing to obstruct.

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. Live to Learn profile image83
                Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  "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.'"

                  1. profile image76
                    Hxprofposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                    1. promisem profile image98
                      promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

      4. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 4 months ago

        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

        https://hubstatic.com/14464193.jpg

        1. Live to Learn profile image83
          Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          As long as conspiracy theorists in the public are cheering them on, you're right.

      5. Valeant profile image96
        Valeantposted 4 months ago

        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.

        1. Live to Learn profile image83
          Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Live to Learn profile image83
              Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. promisem profile image98
                promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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."

            2. Live to Learn profile image83
              Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. promisem profile image98
                promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

          2. Valeant profile image96
            Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Did you have the same concerns regarding The Clintion Foundation?

              1. Valeant profile image96
                Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Focus.  We are discussing Trump's proven guilt here.  Your whataboutism has no relevance to the crimes Trump committed in regards to his foundation.

                1. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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?

                  1. Valeant profile image96
                    Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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?

      6. FitnezzJim profile image80
        FitnezzJimposted 4 months ago

        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.

      7. Onusonus profile image77
        Onusonusposted 4 months ago

        https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/54520449_2104530689769422_4638264031969280_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=2aecdfbac8ac2bec316c71490b90a6b2&oe=5D0AF6F5

        1. profile image76
          Hxprofposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Well, that does SEEM to be what's going on.

      8. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 4 months ago

        https://hubstatic.com/14464931.jpg

        1. profile image76
          Hxprofposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Yes Hillary, this means that you really were that bad of a candidate.

        2. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
          JAKE Earthshineposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          https://hubstatic.com/14465204.png

          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:

          1. profile image76
            Hxprofposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            "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?

            1. Live to Learn profile image83
              Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Only a fool would think someone hacked our voting system.

              1. promisem profile image98
                promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this
                1. Live to Learn profile image83
                  Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  yikes

                  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.

                  1. promisem profile image98
                    promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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 ...

                    1. Live to Learn profile image83
                      Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      Ok. You want proof illegals vote. I need proof a state election was hacked.

                      1. promisem profile image98
                        promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                        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.

      9. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 4 months ago

        It is painfully clear the DTS is a serious problem on the liberal left.  So sad.

        1. hard sun profile image85
          hard sunposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Thanks Obama

      10. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 4 months ago

        https://hubstatic.com/14465276.jpg

        1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
          JAKE Earthshineposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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 … _elections

          1. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            I 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.

            1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
              JAKE Earthshineposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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 … _elections

              1. Live to Learn profile image83
                Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                There 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.

                1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
                  JAKE Earthshineposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  https://hubstatic.com/14465415.png

                  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:

              2. Readmikenow profile image96
                Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Jake,  all I can say is thank you for proving me point.

                1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
                  JAKE Earthshineposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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 ?????:

                  1. Live to Learn profile image83
                    Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    lol lol lol

              3. profile image76
                Hxprofposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Just like China helped Clinton, right?

            2. hard sun profile image85
              hard sunposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Thanks Obama

      11. IslandBites profile image87
        IslandBitesposted 4 months ago

        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.

      12. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 4 months ago

        https://hubstatic.com/14465680.jpg

      13. Onusonus profile image77
        Onusonusposted 4 months ago

        https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/55539151_1058408801031821_2500426919170801664_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=a4e2f9ac0b51611449dbf74177ececc5&oe=5D0F21B9

        1. Valeant profile image96
          Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          https://hubstatic.com/14466919.jpg

          1. blueheron profile image96
            blueheronposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Don W profile image85
              Don Wposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              "Well, actually, the unredacted report is available for viewing in a SCIF by any member of Congress who wishes to read it."

              I haven't heard that. Do you have a reliable source to share?

        2. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
            JAKE Earthshineposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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=PX9reO3QnUA

            1. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Deleted

              1. Valeant profile image96
                Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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...

                  1. Readmikenow profile image96
                    Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                    1. jackclee lm profile image79
                      jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      I get it...the 5 stages of grief...thanks for the warning.
                      I just laugh it off anyway.

          2. Onusonus profile image77
            Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              I agree 100%

      14. Valeant profile image96
        Valeantposted 4 months ago

        I think Cobert sums up Barr's memo pretty nicely around the seven minute mark:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont … _7wPf9geSM

        1. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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...

      15. IslandBites profile image87
        IslandBitesposted 4 months ago

        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."

        1. Valeant profile image96
          Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          I'm looking forward to reading it to formulate my own conclusions about the 2016 election.

          1. IslandBites profile image87
            IslandBitesposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            The big D is already saying that maybe they wont make it public. So will see if it happens.

          2. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Valeant profile image96
              Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Valeant profile image96
                  Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image79
                    jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Did you feel the same about Bill Clinton during his impeachment?

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                    1. Valeant profile image96
                      Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

                    2. Ken Burgess profile image91
                      Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

                      1. Valeant profile image96
                        Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                        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.

                      2. jackclee lm profile image79
                        jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                        Agree 1000%

                    3. promisem profile image98
                      promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

                      1. jackclee lm profile image79
                        jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                        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.

              2. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Valeant profile image96
                  Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image79
                    jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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?

                    1. Valeant profile image96
                      Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

                      1. Readmikenow profile image96
                        Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                        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/

      16. IslandBites profile image87
        IslandBitesposted 4 months ago

        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?

        1. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          GA

        2. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Seems 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.

          1. Valeant profile image96
            Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            No prosecutor writes 400 pages to absolve someone.

            1. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Valeant profile image96
                Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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?

                  1. Valeant profile image96
                    Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

      17. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 4 months ago

        https://hubstatic.com/14477539.jpg

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Love it..

        2. Valeant profile image96
          Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. tsadjatko profile image54
            tsadjatkoposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.html

            1. Valeant profile image96
              Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Oh, 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.

              1. Readmikenow profile image96
                Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. tsadjatko profile image54
                  tsadjatkoposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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!

                2. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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-1188068

                  1. jackclee lm profile image79
                    jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    It 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?

                    1. profile image76
                      Hxprofposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

                      1. promisem profile image98
                        promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                        That doesn't mean they can't release the report. They already have said they will redact certain information.

                    2. promisem profile image98
                      promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      What law says our government can't release a report that we paid for?

                      1. jackclee lm profile image79
                        jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                        It is grand jury testimony...look it up?

                    3. Readmikenow profile image96
                      Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

          2. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            "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.

            https://hubstatic.com/14478591.png

            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_Times

            1. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Even a broken clock is right twice a day...haha

      18. IslandBites profile image87
        IslandBitesposted 4 months ago

        Mueller report to be released Thursday a Justice Department spokesperson said.

        1. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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?

          GA

          1. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            I 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.

            GA

            1. GA Anderson profile image93
              GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Wait, I get it now. CNN, (and the Democrats), are setting the stage for a 'jury nullification.

              GA

            2. IslandBites profile image87
              IslandBitesposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              You should watch Fox now and then.


              Btw, page 8 of the conclusions.

              1. GA Anderson profile image93
                GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Oh, so you want me to watch the amateurs instead of the pros?

                GA

                1. IslandBites profile image87
                  IslandBitesposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  That's funny, GA.

                  Sometimes you can't hide it.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image93
                    GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    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

          2. IslandBites profile image87
            IslandBitesposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. GA Anderson profile image93
              GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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)

              GA

              1. Valeant profile image96
                Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                I 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.

                1. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  So he is still guilty even if all that firepower couldn't prove it? Are appearances, for you, now more credible than proof?

                  GA

                  1. Valeant profile image96
                    Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    This 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.

                    1. GA Anderson profile image93
                      GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      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?

                      GA

                      1. Valeant profile image96
                        Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                        The 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?

              2. IslandBites profile image87
                IslandBitesposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                "You say". Nope. I quoted, Mueller said.

                Btw, have you read the report?



                They can't charge collusion.

                1. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  GA

                  1. hard sun profile image85
                    hard sunposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    If 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.

                    1. GA Anderson profile image93
                      GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

                      GA

                      1. Valeant profile image96
                        Valeantposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                        You 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.

                  2. Don W profile image85
                    Don Wposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    "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.

                    1. GA Anderson profile image93
                      GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      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.

                      GA

                      1. IslandBites profile image87
                        IslandBitesposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                        I 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).

                      2. Don W profile image85
                        Don Wposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                        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)