old salt wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 3:17 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 3:12 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 12:36 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 12:32 pm
Well for heaven's sake, no one actually has a copy of the report, old salt.
You don't need TDS to say "hey, I'd like to read the report before I draw any conclusions".
It doesn't matter what Mueller's report said. It won't convince the TDS zombies there's no kompromot.
He just couldn't find it. They just told us so. Trump's guilty, no matter what the report says.
Huh? "They just told us so" as in Barr tells us that Mueller says he didn't find any kompromat???
Where does Barr say that?
He said there's not enough evidence to indict Trump or others for conspiracy in the Russian election meddling. E.G. Americans didn't do the hacking, there wasn't sufficient evidence of other intentional conspiracy. We don't know (yet) what the 'bar' (pun intended) was for that determination, whether the substantial circumstantial evidence was simply not sufficient to indict... from the prosecutors' POV (much like the determination about HRC and her servers, lots of circumstantial, but not enough direct evidence of criminal intent to indict), given the stakes involved.
That sounds likely. Huge stakes in both situations, gotta have intent be slam dunk proven, in order to indict. And intent is super hard to prove.
But nowhere does Barr suggest Mueller didn't find kompromat.
Anything the Russians knew was a lie, yet Trump or others were lying about it and would be afraid to have come out, is, by definition, kompromat.
Being subject to kompromat is not an indictable offense.
But it sure as heck is an ethical one and it can very well be a very serious security risk.
Barr makes no such claim that Trump wasn't compromised by his lying.
Where's the kompromot, other than in your fevered imagination.
Show us proof, not conjecture.
If Mueller found evidence of kompromot, you think he'd clear Trump of collusion ?
Sure, as I said, being subject to kompromat is not an indictable offense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompromat
Anything material that the Russians knew about Trump but which he wanted to remain hidden, makes him subject to kompromat, blackmail or other influence.
So, what was Trump lying about again and again. No business deals with Russians, no meetings by his campaign with Russians? The Moscow deal alone was hugely subject to kompromat, as it would have been highly material to the election, and may well prove to be going forward.
The willingness to meet with the Russians to receive dirt on Clinton certainly made Trump and those around him subject to kompromat (had they gone to the FBI right away, no sweat, but instead they chose to cover it up and lie about it, even deep into the Presidency.)
Those are just 2 really easy ones. We don't need to speculate about others as these are big ones all by themselves.
Just because there's no indictment of Trump for conspiracy does not mean that Trump is not guilty of 'collusion' (maybe yes, maybe no). The bar for provable criminal intent is much higher than 'did he know the Russians were meddling and did he report it, or, instead, did he lie about it and cause others to lie about it? If just to the American people, lying is not a prosecutable crime, so no indictment. But no indictment sure isn't enough to 'clear' or 'exonerate' Trump.
And it certainly doesn't mean that he wasn't (nor isn't) subject to kompromat.
But you're not this dense, Salty.