Trump's Russian Collusion

[old salt]

Whether the investigation was properly predicated or not, there's no way to justify or rationalize the leaks, & the melding of oppo & media reports with legit intel.

Absent the leaks, Comey would still be on the job & Mueller would still be in private practice.

The leaks, + Comey's insistence of including the dossier in the IC report & Trump's in-briefing + Comey's refusal to publicly state that Trump was not a target, are what lead to this entire fiasco. A closed Crossfire Hurricane report, the Steele dossier, & the Page FISA warrants should be locked away in the classified dead file, having never been the subject of media reporting.

Again, typical.
All sorts of quite unjustified accusations and obfuscations.

Do you really think Wray and/or the IG isn't capable of investigating 'leaks'?

Do you really think Trump wasn't a subject (not target) of the intelligence investigation?
Why the heck would any FBI Director go out in public and lie or mislead?

He could have honestly said: "Trump is not yet individually a 'target', however he is a 'subject', and members of his family and campaign staff and other Americans in the Trump orbit are "subjects," and some are or may become 'targets' of an ongoing investigation into Russia's efforts to influence the election on behalf of the Trump Campaign...but, gee that would be pretty darn inappropriate too, right?

Who cares whether the investigation was properly predicated, indeed very, very justified?
It's "spying"!!

Wray or the IG haven't got the leakers yet. I'm not holding my breath.

You're playing the "subject" vs "target" weasel word game. Remember, McCabe told us that Trump didn't become a target until he fired Comey.
Strzok texted Lisa "there's no there, there". 2 years later, Mueller concluded the same.

I can understand why you were happy to see garbage oppo like the Steele dossier acted upon as if it were legit intel & leaked to the MSM hype machine.
It served your purpose & furthered your preferred narrative.
You can't bring yourself to admit you were duped (again) by the Clintonistas acting through Fusion GPS.

[get it to x]

A closed Crossfire Hurricane report, the Steele dossier, & the Page FISA warrants should be locked away in the classified dead file, having never been the subject of media reporting.

Because tyrants, dictators and strongmen like to work in secret, protected by anonymity and non-disclosure and protected from accountability by working their bullshirt in the shadows.

..

Tyrants?

Yeah, can we tone down the melodramatics? Trump is 1000% more transparent than the last administration. Trump isn't spying on the AP or other reporters. He stops and takes a few questions more than anyone since Clinton. Other than a perjury trap interview Mueller wasn't denied anything he asked for.

Don't clutch those pearls too tight or the string might break.

[wahoomurf]

Good news.

Perhaps the scrutiny and power to ask questions some of us have been hoping for since this mess began.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... -firestorm

"Durham has a reputation for nonpartisanship and investigating sensitive national security matters, including leading a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which are now widely viewed as torture, on terrorist suspects starting in 2008 under the appointment of then-Attorney General Eric Holder. He also helped prosecute Connecticut’s former Gov. John Rowland, who is a Republican."

Yup, these questions haven't been asked!

Not by the IG, not by FBI Director Wray, not by anyone!

Heck, why don't we reopen Benghazi?
Just 10 investigations; questions haven't been asked!

Lock her up! Lock her up!

For the sane among us, here's the good news: Durham is doing a "review", not a prosecution. No subpoena power. Barr is also doing a 'review' with the heads of the various IC agencies. We already know that Wray has seen zero evidence of any illegal surveillance, etc. We already know that the IC is 100% clear that the attack by Russians was real and is continued, not Fake News nor Deep State conspiracy.

While I don't think Barr deserves an ounce of trust any more, not a smidgen of benefit of the doubt, this 'review', if honestly done (and there's no reason yet to doubt Durham) is highly likely to repeat and confirm that the investigation into the Russian attack, including possible connections to the Trump Campaign, which the Russians were supporting, was properly 'predicated' and done by the book.

Given the politics, the review will also likely confirm at that there were quite a few top IC officials, law and order and national security focused types, who had a visceral distaste for Trump’s rampant dishonesty, constantly on display, and were highly suspicious of the clear coziness of Trump and so many in his orbit with a known adversary.

The latter will be spun by the Trumpists as evidence of bias against Trump, while the majority of folks will say, yup, experienced, serious professionals saw Trump and his cronies accurately.

So here we are on page 242 of this thread and without even looking I can guarantee that no left of center poster, or even those who claim to be Republican, have called for the Meuller Investigation to be called off because we have too many investigations.

I guess you're also saying no need to have Don, Jr. show up for the Senate hearing. No?

Huh? I don't have a problem with investigations nor oversight.

The point is that the IG already has investigated, the new heads of each IC, all R's appointed by Trump, have reviewed.
Need more?

Sure, Don Jr should respond positively to a subpoena. He refused to be interviewed by Mueller, he lied in his previous testimony to Congress, he previously claimed 'parental privilege' in avoiding answering (what the heck!), and he was at the center of two of the most important interactions between Trump and Co with the Russians, and also a first hand witness to at least part of the obstruction, the lying about the Trump Tower meeting.

Yes, but none of them have the power to issue indictments like Mueller did. "Sauce for the goose....". Also, Haspel and Coates are working with Barr on this, so apparently there is more left to review. Let's get everything into the open so we can get a full accounting of what went on, and in some cases, is still going on.

Sure, and let's start with the unredacted Mueller report and a separate report on the IC investigation into Trump-Russia.

Agree. If the former IC officials have nothing to hide why object to an investigation?

The decision to let the oldest of the COOO's legitimate children pick and choose which questions he will and won't answer, is FABULOUS NEWS!Sure to be stored away for later use by every criminal defense lawyer extant.He no longer has a wife but he''ll always have the 5th amendmarnt

This process now applies to EVERY US CITIZEN! Kinda like ordering food on a menu.About dang time by golly! Felons rejoice!

[laxman3221]

House Democrats to read Mueller report out loud: 'It's what we have to do'

"The event will feature 20 Democrats reading the 448-page redacted report from Thursday to early in the morning Friday in the Capitol’s House Rules Committee Room. The reading will be livestreamed and later available as an audiobook."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... t-loud-it/

Best the Ds can come up with.

[get it to x]

House Democrats to read Mueller report out loud: 'It's what we have to do'

"The event will feature 20 Democrats reading the 448-page redacted report from Thursday to early in the morning Friday in the Capitol’s House Rules Committee Room. The reading will be livestreamed and later available as an audiobook."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... t-loud-it/

Best the Ds can come up with.

Who is going to help them with the big words?

[old salt]

House Democrats to read Mueller report out loud: 'It's what we have to do'

"The event will feature 20 Democrats reading the 448-page redacted report from Thursday to early in the morning Friday in the Capitol’s House Rules Committee Room. The reading will be livestreamed and later available as an audiobook."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... t-loud-it/

Best the Ds can come up with.

Who is going to help them with the big words?

.. ...I caught a little bit of it this afternoon on CSPAN radio while driving home. It was brutal.
Poor Jan Schakowsky was struggling understanding & pronouncing words like "redacted" = red acted.
Based on the stumbles & mispronunciations, it indicated a total cluelessness of the subject matter.

[seacoaster]

Walter Dellinger in the Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... bc810b7753

"I have become increasingly concerned about how the country has received the Mueller report. The Republican talking point is that it exonerated the president. The message from the Democratic House, meanwhile, is that the report is inconclusive. Those responses, one mendacious, one tepid and both erroneous, have shaped public understanding. They have not only allowed the president falsely to claim vindication but also left the public without a clear understanding of just how damning the report is.

Most Americans, understandably not having read the 448-page (redacted) report, may be influenced by how the principal parties have responded. If the report were, as the Republicans insist, an exoneration, one might demand to know how this unwarranted investigation got started in the first place, which is exactly how the GOP has proceeded to turn the conversation.

And if you thought the report was merely inconclusive, your natural reaction would be that you need to know more. You would say something like what many House Democrats are repeating endlessly: “We need to see the redactions” and “hear from witnesses” — suggesting that there is as of yet no sufficient basis for judging President Trump’s conduct.

The more I review the report, the more absurd and misleading the we-need-to-know-more response seems to be. And the more it seems to have contributed to public misunderstanding. How different would it have been if a unified chorus of Democratic leaders in Congress and on the campaign trail had promptly proclaimed the actual truth: This report makes the unquestionable case that the president regularly and audaciously violated his oath and committed the most serious high crimes and misdemeanors.

Mueller’s extraordinary 2,800-subpoena, 500-search-warrant, two-year investigation fully established not merely crimes but also the betrayal of the president’s office: a failure to defend the country’s electoral system from foreign attack and acts of interference with justice that shred the rule of law. Congress doesn’t need to read more to announce what is obvious from what it should have read already.

I do not doubt that Congress’s investigatory oversight function is important, legitimate and firmly grounded historically. The president’s response that “we will fight all subpoenas” is unprecedented and ominous. Getting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and former White House counsel Donald McGahn to testify is a valid and important objective. And although it appears to me that most of the redactions were justified in the first instance, Congress is entitled to see most or all of them — particularly those in Volume One that would offer the most complete possible understanding of Russia’s influence and hacking operations. As the House resolution recommending contempt against Attorney General William P. Barr explains, without this detailed information Congress “is unable to fully perform its responsibility to protect the impending 2020 elections — and thus our democracy itself — from a recurrence of Russian interference.”

My concern is that the House’s focus on process — such as requesting redacted material — constitutes a strong, implicit suggestion that what we have seen from Mueller is not enough to assess the president. That is just false. The report lays out in detail specific acts of obstruction by the president, as well as the extensive evidence that backs up those claims. More than 900 former federal prosecutors (including Republicans and Democrats) have publicly declared that, if anyone else had committed those same acts, they would be under indictment."

[6ftstick]

Walter Dellinger in the Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... bc810b7753

"I have become increasingly concerned about how the country has received the Mueller report. The Republican talking point is that it exonerated the president. The message from the Democratic House, meanwhile, is that the report is inconclusive. Those responses, one mendacious, one tepid and both erroneous, have shaped public understanding. They have not only allowed the president falsely to claim vindication but also left the public without a clear understanding of just how damning the report is.

Most Americans, understandably not having read the 448-page (redacted) report, may be influenced by how the principal parties have responded. If the report were, as the Republicans insist, an exoneration, one might demand to know how this unwarranted investigation got started in the first place, which is exactly how the GOP has proceeded to turn the conversation.

And if you thought the report was merely inconclusive, your natural reaction would be that you need to know more. You would say something like what many House Democrats are repeating endlessly: “We need to see the redactions” and “hear from witnesses” — suggesting that there is as of yet no sufficient basis for judging President Trump’s conduct.

The more I review the report, the more absurd and misleading the we-need-to-know-more response seems to be. And the more it seems to have contributed to public misunderstanding. How different would it have been if a unified chorus of Democratic leaders in Congress and on the campaign trail had promptly proclaimed the actual truth: This report makes the unquestionable case that the president regularly and audaciously violated his oath and committed the most serious high crimes and misdemeanors.

Mueller’s extraordinary 2,800-subpoena, 500-search-warrant, two-year investigation fully established not merely crimes but also the betrayal of the president’s office: a failure to defend the country’s electoral system from foreign attack and acts of interference with justice that shred the rule of law. Congress doesn’t need to read more to announce what is obvious from what it should have read already.

I do not doubt that Congress’s investigatory oversight function is important, legitimate and firmly grounded historically. The president’s response that “we will fight all subpoenas” is unprecedented and ominous. Getting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and former White House counsel Donald McGahn to testify is a valid and important objective. And although it appears to me that most of the redactions were justified in the first instance, Congress is entitled to see most or all of them — particularly those in Volume One that would offer the most complete possible understanding of Russia’s influence and hacking operations. As the House resolution recommending contempt against Attorney General William P. Barr explains, without this detailed information Congress “is unable to fully perform its responsibility to protect the impending 2020 elections — and thus our democracy itself — from a recurrence of Russian interference.”

My concern is that the House’s focus on process — such as requesting redacted material — constitutes a strong, implicit suggestion that what we have seen from Mueller is not enough to assess the president. That is just false. The report lays out in detail specific acts of obstruction by the president, as well as the extensive evidence that backs up those claims. More than 900 former federal prosecutors (including Republicans and Democrats) have publicly declared that, if anyone else had committed those same acts, they would be under indictment."

Give it up already

from Mueller's executive summary

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

and buried in the Obstruction Volume Summary

Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct.

How about democrats try and legislate instead.

Cause obviously they're incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

And you go have a glass of wine with your elitist pals and relax.

[RedFromMI]

You are only quoting from the executive summary of part I of the report - about the Russian impact on the election, and whether the President or his team conspired with them. Not enough evidence to prosecute. However, in part II, the part about obstruction of justice, there is ample evidence of crimes, but a declination to prosecute, not due to lack of evidence, but both Justice Department policy prevents making a charge against the President while in office and stating that the President appears to be guilty would be unfair to him due to the fact that he would not (at the present time) be tried, and therefore unable to defend himself. Mueller specifically says that he cannot exonerate the president...And this is the section the many hundreds of prosecutors/former prosecutors have said contain sufficient evidence to charge.

[cradleandshoot]

House Democrats to read Mueller report out loud: 'It's what we have to do'

"The event will feature 20 Democrats reading the 448-page redacted report from Thursday to early in the morning Friday in the Capitol’s House Rules Committee Room. The reading will be livestreamed and later available as an audiobook."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... t-loud-it/

Best the Ds can come up with.

I wonder why they don't have their staff lawyers read the report for them?

[6ftstick]

You are only quoting from the executive summary of part I of the report - about the Russian impact on the election, and whether the President or his team conspired with them. Not enough evidence to prosecute. However, in part II, the part about obstruction of justice, there is ample evidence of crimes, but a declination to prosecute, not due to lack of evidence, but both Justice Department policy prevents making a charge against the President while in office and stating that the President appears to be guilty would be unfair to him due to the fact that he would not (at the present time) be tried, and therefore unable to defend himself. Mueller specifically says that he cannot exonerate the president...And this is the section the many hundreds of prosecutors/former prosecutors have said contain sufficient evidence to charge.

one more time

From part II

Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct.

Plus

Mueller’s team stated in the report (pdf): “We determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”

The team cited an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that the president could not be indicted or prosecuted while in office, but Barr said on Wednesday that Mueller had told him the office’s opinion was not a factor in his decision not to bring charges.

[OCanada]

Barr ??? Please.

[6ftstick]

Barr ??? Please.

Its ridiculous to think that any individual would seek to MISLEAD and misrepresent easily verifiable info while facing the withering scrutiny and criticism of congressional democrats and their media megaphone.

But collusion delusion does that to people!

[OCanada]

A liar who is working for a liar and has lied to Congress. Not at all credible.

[6ftstick]

A liar who is working for a liar and has lied to Congress. Not at all credible.

Proof

[a fan]

Barr ??? Please.

Its ridiculous to think that any individual would seek to MISLEAD and misrepresent easily verifiable info while facing the withering scrutiny and criticism of congressional democrats and their media megaphone.

But collusion delusion does that to people!

That’s what we told you about your Deep State, remember? Did you listen to us? Nope.

[MDlaxfan76]

Whether the investigation was properly predicated or not, there's no way to justify or rationalize the leaks, & the melding of oppo & media reports with legit intel.

Absent the leaks, Comey would still be on the job & Mueller would still be in private practice.

The leaks, + Comey's insistence of including the dossier in the IC report & Trump's in-briefing + Comey's refusal to publicly state that Trump was not a target, are what lead to this entire fiasco. A closed Crossfire Hurricane report, the Steele dossier, & the Page FISA warrants should be locked away in the classified dead file, having never been the subject of media reporting.

Again, typical.
All sorts of quite unjustified accusations and obfuscations.

Do you really think Wray and/or the IG isn't capable of investigating 'leaks'?

Do you really think Trump wasn't a subject (not target) of the intelligence investigation?
Why the heck would any FBI Director go out in public and lie or mislead?

He could have honestly said: "Trump is not yet individually a 'target', however he is a 'subject', and members of his family and campaign staff and other Americans in the Trump orbit are "subjects," and some are or may become 'targets' of an ongoing investigation into Russia's efforts to influence the election on behalf of the Trump Campaign...but, gee that would be pretty darn inappropriate too, right?

Who cares whether the investigation was properly predicated, indeed very, very justified?
It's "spying"!!

Wray or the IG haven't got the leakers yet. I'm not holding my breath.

You're playing the "subject" vs "target" weasel word game. Remember, McCabe told us that Trump didn't become a target until he fired Comey.
Strzok texted Lisa "there's no there, there". 2 years later, Mueller concluded the same.

I can understand why you were happy to see garbage oppo like the Steele dossier acted upon as if it were legit intel & leaked to the MSM hype machine.
It served your purpose & furthered your preferred narrative.
You can't bring yourself to admit you were duped (again) by the Clintonistas acting through Fusion GPS.

Ok, you think Durham is going to catch the leakers When wray and the IG haven't?? (assuming they haven't)

There's nothing 'weasel' about the difference between those words. But it would have been misleading to tell the American public that Trump wasn't a 'target' when he was undoubtedly a 'subject', as if he and his campaign folks hadn't done anything wrong vis a vis the Russian interference. They had done a lot wrong.

Again, it's super clear that, absent the Steele info, there was more than ample predicate for an investigation way back in the summer of 2016; I never read the Steele stuff, so definitely wasn't "duped" nor were the IC folks. They had lots of other basis, the Steele stuff was clearly subordinate. And indeed, we've learned that there was all sorts of lying about contacts with Russians, lots of signaling with Russians, potential kompromat as well. Read the Mueller Report.

But if you're saying that I'm biased in thinking, well before anything about Russian interference, that Trump is a disgusting, dishonest human being, a fraud, a con man, I'll plead guilty...but that opinion was based on actually knowing a lot about him away from the political scene. It's actually true.

I'm not at all surprised that law and order types at the FBI who paid even just a little attention to finding out the truth about him would quickly reach that conclusion as well. Because it's true.

Likewise, I'm not at all surprised that the experts in the IC who pay attention to Russian cyber, killing of reporters and political adversaries, and other activities would be horrified by Trump's embrace of Putin and denial that the Russians had interfered at all, much less in his support.

[6ftstick]

Barr ??? Please.

Its ridiculous to think that any individual would seek to MISLEAD and misrepresent easily verifiable info while facing the withering scrutiny and criticism of congressional democrats and their media megaphone.

But collusion delusion does that to people!

That’s what we told you about your Deep State, remember? Did you listen to us? Nope.

The difference being the deep state is buried deep within the government apparatus and BARR Is out front in the eye of the storm.

[OCanada]

You clearly have not read the full report or if you did do not comprehend both the report and the law. I doubt you would understand any explanation of it either

Barr has lied to Congress and the public before and will again. Frankly that required more effort than it deserves

[MDlaxfan76]

You clearly have not read the full report or if you did do not comprehend both the report and the law. I doubt you soul understand any explanation of it either

Barr has lied to Congress and the public before and will again. Frankly that required more effort than it deserves

It's indeed difficult to even have these conversations.
The denial of reality is pervasive among the Trumpists.