Trump's Russian Collusion

[Typical Lax Dad]

Um. Yes, I read what I post. Are you giving me the same courtesy?

Letsee here. The title of the report, which you obviously didn't click on, is:

" A review of various actions by the FBI and the DoJ in advance of the 2016 election".

Is this not the exact timeframe and the exact agencies you want investigated? What did I miss?

That was in relation to Mid Year Exam. No mention of Crossfire Hurricane.

You know this. You're just being willfully obtuse & argumentative to waste my time.

So no. This isn't enough.

Ok.

Been in DC too long. Can’t get a simple or straight answer.

[Chips O'Toole]

Does anyone know whether there is another letter out there signed by a large, nonpartisan group of former federal prosecutors saying "eh . . . nothingburger" or something to that effect?

[RedFromMI]

Does anyone know whether there is another letter out there signed by a large, nonpartisan group of former federal prosecutors saying "eh . . . nothingburger" or something to that effect?

Nope - just a bunch of Fox/Breitbart/Daily Caller pundits echoing the administration line. Even Judge Napolitano on Fox thinks there is bad stuff in the report...

[wahoomurf]

NaCL Boy:Whether Trump is a dishonest liar & cheat is irrelevant. He was elected, legally, IAW our Constitution.
I don't care what Trump says. I care what Mueller found.
(1) Did Trump or his supporters conspire with agents of the Russian government, or not ?
(2) Were the powers of our intel & law enforcement agencies abused, or not ?
We waited 2+ years for Mueller to answer (1).
It should not require a SC or take that long to answer (2).

Trump was elected,legally? I'll take your word for that.Agree wholeheartedly that an inquiry shouldn't take that long.Perish the thought.Unprecedented.Any person who is sworn to uphold the rule of law are quite often, deemed officers of the court .Folks such as Attorney's General,Federal Prosecutors, Congresspersons, Supreme Court Justices,Justices of the Peace,Defense Attorneys and the like,are usually fall under the OOC rubric.

Is that no longer the case?

[seacoaster]

I know that the GOP toadies don't much care, but we are up in the 700s now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 3016f11bdd

"The signers included some left-leaning lawyers who have gained prominence from their frequent TV appearances, but also a significant number of career prosecutors and high-profile conservatives who bristle at the suggestion they were motivated by anti-Trump bias.

A handful interviewed by The Post on Tuesday said they hoped for little else than to make public their view that Attorney General William P. Barr had mischaracterized Mueller’s report in asserting it laid out insufficient evidence to make an obstruction case. They said they did not sign hoping to spark impeachment proceedings.

The group’s views stand in stark contrast to those of Barr’s — who has offered detailed defenses of his decision that there was not a case to be made — and to many Republican lawmakers. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) declared in a speech Tuesday that Democrats should move on from the investigations into Trump, asserting bluntly, “case closed.”

Mueller himself left the question open, saying a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted prevented him from saying even in a confidential report whether he believed the president committed a crime.

....

Jeffrey Harris, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in New York and longtime friend of Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, said he first saw the letter when it was blasted out to an email group for former federal prosecutors. He said he signed because if he had a case involving even one of the incidents Mueller described, “I would have clearly prosecuted that person or persons, and I can tell you, when Rudy was a prosecutor, he would’ve done the same thing.”

“Whether to prosecute this kind of conduct was not a close prosecutorial call,” Harris said. “This was a no brainer.”

Harris served as Giuliani’s top deputy when Giuliani served as the No. 3 Justice Department official in the Reagan administration and said the two once socialized regularly, though they haven’t been in touch in recent years, Harris said. Giuliani said in a text message: “I would not bring a case where there is no underlying crime and nothing actually obstructed. Jeff was a Dem, I believe, and I doubt he voted for Trump. Indeed I’m not sure any of them, Rs or Ds. supported Trump. What prosecutors would offer a gratuitous opinion on a case they didn’t investigate.”

He said while he has “great affection” for Harris, his former colleague was ignoring critical aspects of Mueller’s report. For example, Giuliani said, Mueller’s assertion that he could not “exonerate” Trump was “a perversion of the 2,000 year old burden in any case.”

“Prosecutors don’t exonerate,” he said.

“That requires proving a negative that most often is impossible.”

Harris said he is a longtime Republican but registered as a Democrat to vote in primary elections when he moved to Washington, which picks most of its officeholders in primaries because its voters are overwhelmingly Democratic.

Harris said the letter already seems to have accomplished its main mission, alerting the public “that there are a large number of former professional prosecutors and Department of Justice attorneys who think that the public statements of Barr and Giuliani and the like that there’s nothing to see here is absolutely wrong.” He said he is ambivalent about the letter’s potential impact on possible impeachment efforts — because he knows the Senate would not vote to remove Trump from office.

“I would like to see this guy leave office at the soonest opportunity by any legal means. Do I think impeachment is going to accomplish that? I don’t. Do I think this will help in the next election cycle? I hope it does,” Harris said.

Paul Rosenzweig, who served as senior counsel to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, said he signed the letter to present a “counterpoint” to the narrative Barr had advanced that the evidence was insufficient to accuse Trump of obstructing justice.

Rosenzweig — a longtime member of the conservative Federalist Society group who said his “views on substantive issues are as far from liberal as you can imagine on most things” — said while he supported Bill Clinton’s impeachment, he was not in as strong a position to judge whether lawmakers should pursue the same result for Trump.

Signing the letter, he said, was “more about the public, and it was more about correcting what I think was the erroneous record that was created by the attorney general.”

“I don’t have any hopes,” he said. “I think it’s important to say that Trump’s conduct violated criminal law, and that if he were another person, he’d be prosecuted.” He added he hopes people “take that into account when they cast their next ballot.”

[dislaxxic]

Does anyone else agree that one of the MAIN reasons the Clinton Impeachment left such a terrible taste in the mouths of the American voting public, the reason the Republicans suffered so mightily for doing it, was that - at its core - the process in that case was so totally frivolous and unnecessary?

Clinton came out of it with very glowing approval ratings. The GOP got sent to electoral purgatory. The GOP DID, however, manage to paint Clinton as such a schmuck that they rode, and are STILL riding, Clinton Derangement Syndrome to electoral victories.

In the current case, there are MUCH more compelling reasons that the tool our government has - to try and then potentially remove a POTUS that has committed high crimes and misdemeanors - really SHOULD be used in this instance. To NOT do it because it is somehow "bad politics"...bad tactics...just cheapens the rule of law ever more, making such behaviors all the more likely in the future.

Donald Trump is, was, and will be a total Con Man. There simply is no denying this fact. We use this label, understand it to our core so much, that it has almost become a trite cliche...like...SO WHAT if he's a Con Man, he won the election!

Trying to say they're ALL Con Men (politicians) misses the mark completely when it comes to this exact example. First of all, he was/IS not a "politician" in the sense we understand that term. He was elected by (conning us) making us believe he was some sort of Very Serious Genius and terrific businessman. Remember when we used to say "maybe he'll pivot to behaving like a genuine public servant ready to serve his country?

Biden has used the term "Clown" in an attempt to find a nickname that will stick, ala "Crooked Hillary". I think Joe and the others need look no further than "Don The Con" to have a true label applied to this guy.

..

[MDlaxfan76]

"much of the public"?

What % think Trump is dishonest, a liar and a cheat?

What % think Mueller is honest?

What % think Trump is telling the truth about the Russian interference in the 2016 election, or about his dealings with the Russians?

If by "much of the public" you mean the 37%, then sure, otherwise the "crybaby sore losers"...in 2018...are the Trumpist Republicans. Boo hoo, Der Leader faces ethical questions and constitutional oversight. Boo hoo.

Whether Trump is a dishonest liar & cheat is irrelevant. He was elected, legally, IAW our Constitution.
I don't care what Trump says. I care what Mueller found.
(1) Did Trump or his supporters conspire with agents of the Russian government, or not ?
(2) Were the powers of our intel & law enforcement agencies abused, or not ?
We waited 2+ years for Mueller to answer (1).
It should not require a SC or take that long to answer (2).

yeah, sure.

[seacoaster]

This is my favorite:

"Whether Trump is a dishonest liar & cheat is irrelevant."

Like going to Cooperstown or the Smithsonian or the Library of Congress, it's just one of the moments of pride in our nation. Well done.

[old salt]

This is my favorite:

"Whether Trump is a dishonest liar & cheat is irrelevant."

Like going to Cooperstown or the Smithsonian or the Library of Congress, it's just one of the moments of pride in our nation. Well done.

That's right. He was elected. What are you going to do about it ?
It's irrelevant to the matter under discussion.
It has nothing to do with the lack of proof of conspiring with Russians.
It does not excuse the actions of his enemies who tried to subvert a duly elected President.
The country still needs to function. The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

[a fan]

It does not excuse the actions of his enemies who tried to subvert a duly elected President.

Buffalo bagels. To this point, not one single one of "Trump's enemies" has broken a law. Important detail that you keep ignoring. Everything that they have done to date is legal. How do I know? No indictments. If and when I see a conviction, I'll change my tune.

As I shake my head at your surreal and silly defenses of this man, you're really going to be an utterly pointless poster when we get a new President.

Every complaint you make will get the same ridiculous responses you get here. Lied about Benghazi? So what? He was elected. What are you going to do about it?

Are you not aware you're doing this? Do you remember other posters giving you this nonsense when Obama and his little D was in office?

No. They, instead, respected your complaints and opinions, and had a discussion.

[a fan]

Btw, you just lost your ethical battle on leaking of FISA documents.

Trump just asserted Executive privilege on, you know, the Mueller report on his and his crews behavior.

So now it's clear as day why it was the responsible thing to do to leak wrongly classified documents. You can't classify information that's embarrassing. It's illegal to do that.

Part of the obvious reason for that law, is that it keeps the Hoover types from blackmailing powerful Americans.

But in any event, our Constitution isn't set up to investigate the head of the Executive Branch. That's why we've had all these problems. And our intel forces acted rationally. Today shows just how rationally. The system is not designed properly to handle a weasel like Trump.

[dislaxxic]

As I shake my head at your surreal and silly defenses of this man, you're really going to be an utterly pointless poster when we get a new President.

Every complaint you make will get the same ridiculous responses you get here. Lied about Benghazi? So what? He was elected. What are you going to do about it?

Are you not aware you're doing this? Do you remember other posters giving you this nonsense when Obama and his little D was in office?

No. They, instead, respected your complaints and opinions, and had a discussion.

This notion applies to most of our Trumpist friends around here. This one used to have some level of cred. No more. He's been reduced to simple trolling.

..

[old salt]

So now that your TDS collusion conspiracy has crumbled & the Deep State bad actors are being outed, it's time to attack the messenger.

Sad. ...more bad news headed your way.

[dislaxxic]

So now that your TDS collusion conspiracy has crumbled & the Deep State bad actors are being outed, it's time to attack the messenger.

Sad. ...more bad news headed your way.

Nope, not even close. Collusion happened, Obstruction happened. Don the Con and his cabinet-level henchmen are clearly continuing the obstruction. Simple question: If it "totally exonerates" him, why is he bawlin' like a baby, so pissin' scared about releasing it?

Simple answer: he's a criminal obstructionist. It's going to fun to watch the slow drip of him going down in flames, and likely taking the republican party with him. It'll take awhile, because he and Mitch are Masters of the Slow Roll, Run Out The Clock-Style Obstruction.

Watch yourself Randy. Although some may disagree it's happening, you should think about the political corner you're painting yourself into.

..

[old salt]

So now that your TDS collusion conspiracy has crumbled & the Deep State bad actors are being outed, it's time to attack the messenger.

Sad. ...more bad news headed your way.

Nope, not even close. Collusion happened, Obstruction happened. Don the Con and his cabinet-level henchmen are clearly continuing the obstruction. Simple question: If it "totally exonerates" him, why is he bawlin' like a baby, so pissin' scared about releasing it?

Simple answer: he's a criminal obstructionist. It's going to fun to watch the slow drip of him going down in flames, and likely taking the republican party with him. It'll take awhile, because he and Mitch are Masters of the Slow Roll, Run Out The Clock-Style Obstruction.

Watch yourself Randy. Although some may disagree it's happening, you should think about the political corner you're painting yourself into. ..

Yeah. ...been hearing that same old, same old for 3+ years now. All smoke, no fire. The public is tuning out.

[dislaxxic]

Au Contraire Mon Ami. The more the House D's trot out for the cameras, the more the worm will turn on Don the Con. His days are numbered.

Watch for him and the Rogue Mustache to start a shooting war with Iran, you know, to "change the subject"...

..

[old salt]

Azra :
An Arabic name meaning "pure, chaste." A Turkish name meaning "virgin."

Azra Turk ? That's the name our super spy catchers came up with ? ..

[a fan]

Yeah. ...been hearing that same old, same old for 3+ years now. All smoke, no fire. The public is tuning out.

100% true.

The problem, obviously, is that we've been hearing that same old, same old for 3+ years now on your Deep State. All smoke, no fire.

But you think "this is different". I don't get it.

[old salt]

Yeah. ...been hearing that same old, same old for 3+ years now. All smoke, no fire. The public is tuning out.

100% true.

The problem, obviously, is that we've been hearing that same old, same old for 3+ years now on your Deep State. All smoke, no fire.

But you think "this is different". I don't get it.

Everything I cited from the first time I used the term " Deep State " (long before you heard it on FNC) has come true

Remember my calling foul on the NSA intercept of Flynn's call, leaked to the WP ? The Farkas video plea to the leakers ? GG's Intercept article ? Eli Lake's article -- "Flynn's the appetizer, Trump's the entree" ? The trail markers were all there.

Now that Mueller has reported out, we'll be getting the rest of the story.
As I've repeatedly said -- I just want an accounting of what was done.
If our govt officials acted within their guidelines. If their "spying" was with adequate "predicate", they'll be ok.
Clapper, Brennan, Comey & McCade have been on tv for months, making their case (in advance).
They'll be shielded by a phalanx of their MSM handmaiden colleagues.
Let's get the facts out & let the chips fall where they may.
Remember when I asked -- who paid Halper, Mifsud, ...& Azra Turk.
Now others are asking. Wrestle with these questions :

[seacoaster]

"So now that your TDS collusion conspiracy has crumbled & the Deep State bad actors are being outed...."

Another favorite: fall back on the "Oh, you're all hysterical, TDS-riven crazies." How about we love the country that once had two parties who, for all of their many and predictable faults, believed that the rule of law, separation of powers, and system of checks and balances mattered. Now, criminal conduct is "irrelevant," and something to "get over." At least I know you aren't Howard Baker from the Grave.