Trump's Russian Collusion

[6ftstick]

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.

I posted Mueller's own Words. His own fn words. But I'm the one in denial.

[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."

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.

Sorry, I posted this opinion piece because I thought it was interesting and stated the opinion pretty clearly. At risk of being too candid, I didn't post it for the reading pleasure of the jaundiced blind bats like you who willingly -- and with a toadying character hard to believe -- support a President who is plainly a loathsome gang leader. You and Drooping Ice Cream Boy aren't my intended audience.

[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.

Sorry, I posted this opinion piece because I thought it was interesting and stated the opinion pretty clearly. At risk of being too candid, I didn't post it for the reading pleasure of the jaundiced blind bats like you who willingly -- and with a toadying character hard to believe -- support a President who is plainly a loathsome gang leader. You and Drooping Ice Cream Boy aren't my intended audience.

Sorry I read it. Nevermind.

[CU88]

Some interesting reading and questions that SC should be asked, and answer, in a public forum:

https://www.justsecurity.org/64137/what ... testifies/


13. Do you believe that Congress, including the Gang of Eight, has been adequately informed by your team and other parts of the intelligence community with respect to any counterintelligence assessments of Americans who may have been acting wittingly or unwittingly on behalf of the Russian government? Do you believe Congress, including the Gang of Eight, has been adequately informed by your team and other parts of the intelligence community with respect to other counterintelligence information that has come out of your and related investigations into Russian interference in the American political process and public and private institutions? If not, what have been the obstacles to Congress being adequately informed?

[CU88]

The Post: What, as you understand it, is the current status of that investigation into the president?

Schiff: The short answer is: We don’t know. Just as a reminder, this all began as an FBI counterintelligence investigation into whether people around then-candidate Trump were acting as witting or unwitting agents of a foreign power. So it began as a counterintelligence investigation, not as a criminal investigation. Now obviously a criminal case — many criminal cases — were spun off of this but we don’t know what happened to the counterintelligence investigation that James Comey opened.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... f12090b17e

And, interestingly, when, the year after Michael Cohen’s testimony, it became known that he had lied to our committee and that the transaction had gone on much longer than he had said, and, in fact, they had reached out directly to [spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin] Dmitry Peskov for help from the Kremlin. Someone very close to Putin, Peskov issued a statement denying that they had ever followed up on the inquiry. And Peskov was lying. So here you have the prospect of the Kremlin issuing its own false statements to help cover up for the president of the United States.

[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.

I posted Mueller's own Words. His own fn words. But I'm the one in denial.

Unfortunately, you are simply buying into the Trumpist BS, the misrepresentation of what Mueller wrote in full context.

Let's hear directly from Mueller as to what he meant, in full.
We already know that Mueller was quite upset about how the Report was being mischaracterized by Barr.

Uhh ohhh, Trump doesn't want you to hear from Mueller...gee, wonder why.

[get it to x]

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!

I almost feel sorry for those who just can’t let this go. It’s like watching someone stuck in quicksand and not having a way to help them. Then you realize they are comfortable in the quicksand and they don’t want to be saved. They would rather perish than admit the had it wrong the whole time.

[MDlaxfan76]

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!

I almost feel sorry for those who just can’t let this go. It’s like watching someone stuck in quicksand and not having a way to help them. Then you realize they are comfortable in the quicksand and they don’t want to be saved. They would rather perish than admit the had it wrong the whole time.

[old salt]

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

FTR -- I do not expect anyone to catch the leakers, although the content of the leaks compared to who had access to the leaked intel (connecting the dots) should be part of any investigation, as should an analysis of FISA intercept unmaskings.

I don't necessarily expect any indictments, but I wouldn't rule it out.
I think it is necessary to examine & report to the public the extent & details of the "spying" on Trump & associates & the predicate & who authorized what, when.

Interesting that Brennan, Comey & Clapper are now playing hot potato regarding who decided to include the dossier in Trump's briefing on the IC report. That was the media hook which enabled the MSM to publish the entire dossier (which they already had, courtesy of Fusion GPS).

[dislaxxic]

I almost feel sorry for those who just can’t let this go. It’s like watching someone stuck in quicksand and not having a way to help them. Then you realize they are comfortable in the quicksand and they don’t want to be saved. They would rather perish than admit the had it wrong the whole time.

This is what you get when a Con like this works. This guy and his apologists have been conning the country for over two years now. When he did it before, in "private practice", nobody really noticed much except for the NY tabloids and all the contractors and creditors he stiffed over the years.

It will pass. We can only hope that it passes peacefully.

..

[OCanada]

The investigation was not started because of the dossier

[LandM]

MD,
You had a person that won the election that by most accounts including his own, never thought would happen;
In winning many have given at least 100 reasons why he is not the duly elected President - from losing the most votes (that has happened before) to the Russians (this was not the first or last election they have played in) and some have declared he is not their President and were heading to some foreign land. Did not change the results and last I knew no one headed off to greener pastures as I still see them in the news. News media is making great money off it though;
Now that RunRussellRun seems to be out of the penalty box, I suggest he look at the US involvement in foreign elections, we are way more guilty then the bear;
There are at least 100 subpoenas outstanding by the democrats that will be waddled in lawsuits until I am dead;
And on this site, Vanity Fair, Esquire, Huffington Post, a blog guy with 27,000 followers, Morning Joe, and the Washington Post as experts (I googled the last guy and he has three I's after his name which means rich, privileged white guy) - I would find a few more credible sources as a lead in;
Sorry, I forgot there are now 900 prosecutors out of a population of what(?) that said he obstructed justice because like a businessman like myself, if I ask something to be done, I expect it to be done. We can debate this point all day long but he is IMHO NOT atypical of most businessmen I know - including using daddy's money, sometimes not paying vendors and failing a few/allot times - he took the risks - how many posters did? - Jobs is dead but I have enjoyed the ride at $6 a share;
Schiff and Nadler are knuckleheads to most people I associate with and the people I interact with on my drives.

So what is the end goal? What is the solution? I would like to seriously vote in 2020. Two old white guys does not get me back in the both. BTW, I am not picking on you just would appreciate your commentary and if wahoo is reading as well.
To seacoaster, I eat ice cream daily - love it

[OCanada]

You are correct in writing he won the election with s minority of votes. Distribution of votes matters as does voter suppression, reduced turnout, multiple candidates in one party, foreign interference etc. The why matters but won’t change the outcome

The USA has interfered in internal affairs and ejections foreve. So has Russia. They are not newcomers.

Today FB banned an Israeli company and related accounts HQ in Tel Aviv. It prides itself as being able to alter perception and reality. There is zero chance Mossad does not know about it.

History aside the rise of AI and tech has changed the paradigm for interference. We know it is being done globally. We are aware it will be done in 2020. In response we did not spend appropriations to prevent or mitigate and disbanded the group that was to over see it.

What aboutisms generally seem to produce circularity, hypocrisy and distraction. The USA has indulged in so many things that it condemns others for doing that doesn’t mean there should be no standard

[MDlaxfan76]

MD,
You had a person that won the election that by most accounts including his own, never thought would happen;
In winning many have given at least 100 reasons why he is not the duly elected President - from losing the most votes (that has happened before) to the Russians (this was not the first or last election they have played in) and some have declared he is not their President and were heading to some foreign land. Did not change the results and last I knew no one headed off to greener pastures as I still see them in the news. News media is making great money off it though;
Now that RunRussellRun seems to be out of the penalty box, I suggest he look at the US involvement in foreign elections, we are way more guilty then the bear;
There are at least 100 subpoenas outstanding by the democrats that will be waddled in lawsuits until I am dead;
And on this site, Vanity Fair, Esquire, Huffington Post, a blog guy with 27,000 followers, Morning Joe, and the Washington Post as experts (I googled the last guy and he has three I's after his name which means rich, privileged white guy) - I would find a few more credible sources as a lead in;
Sorry, I forgot there are now 900 prosecutors out of a population of what(?) that said he obstructed justice because like a businessman like myself, if I ask something to be done, I expect it to be done. We can debate this point all day long but he is IMHO NOT atypical of most businessmen I know - including using daddy's money, sometimes not paying vendors and failing a few/allot times - he took the risks - how many posters did? - Jobs is dead but I have enjoyed the ride at $6 a share;
Schiff and Nadler are knuckleheads to most people I associate with and the people I interact with on my drives.

So what is the end goal? What is the solution? I would like to seriously vote in 2020. Two old white guys does not get me back in the both. BTW, I am not picking on you just would appreciate your commentary and if wahoo is reading as well.
To seacoaster, I eat ice cream daily - love it

Boy, a lot in there.

If you don't vote for Trump, good enough for me.

Yes, a bunch of folks nearly lost their minds when he won.
Some because they were so disappointed that Hillary lost, others because Trump is such a horrifyingly despicable human being.

But very few actually said he wasn't 'duly elected'.
Not fairly elected, sure, but very few argued that he wasn't actually elected POTUS.

Part of the issue was that Trump himself had spent so much energy declaring that the election was 'rigged' (classic Trump projection) and that notion was deeply embedded in folks' minds as actually possible.

So, when it was learned that there actually was an effort, by the Russians no less, to 'rig' the election on behalf of Trump, that was not at all out of the question, crazy as it seemed at first. Indeed it was actually true.

But what really was digging the hole so much deeper were all the lies Trump and his various minions were telling about the contacts and relationships they had with Russians and their proxies. If he and they had simply told the truth, and expressed alarm that the Russians had sought to interfere on their behalf, this would have blown over. But no, they doubled down, lied and attempted to put an end to the investigation entirely...of the darn Russians.

On the 'businessman' aspect, I don't know what circles you run in, but most business people I know aren't crooked to their core, don't stiff their vendors and their creditors, don't lose a billion dollars in 10 years, don't get in bed with the Russian mob, etc, etc. I've bumped into some dishonest business people along the way, but they're the ones you avoid like the plague as soon as you detect it.

I don't have a problem with 'daddy's money', indeed most of us had some sort of support along the way that put us in an advantaged position to be successful (or not)...what I have a problem with are the massive lies about it. (and the tax fraud, etc); But bottomline is that this butthead has lost far more money than he ever made. Often OPM, but massively more than he's made.

So...the solution is to vote him out of office. Yeah, even if that means holding your nose.

Or stay home; that works too.

[OCanada]

Trump has been mobbed up since his dad got into bed with Luciano and later with Russian gangsters. The notion he is an ethical business man or others like him is complete and total BS. He isn’t the o my on in his inner circle either. Kelly Anne has an interesting family tree

[laxman3221]

Ted Lieu tries to bullsh*t Fox News viewers about Mueller Report, gets schooled by Harris Faulkner.

https://twitter.com/Based_Right/status/ ... 7710269441

Th deer in the headlights look is

[old salt]

Ted Lieu tries to bullsh*t Fox News viewers about Mueller Report, gets schooled by Harris Faulkner.

https://twitter.com/Based_Right/status/ ... 7710269441

Th deer in the headlights look is

Was Lieu one of the prosecutors who signed the letter ?

Now you see why Nadler is afraid to let his members question Barr.

[laxman3221]

Ted Lieu tries to bullsh*t Fox News viewers about Mueller Report, gets schooled by Harris Faulkner.

https://twitter.com/Based_Right/status/ ... 7710269441

Th deer in the headlights look is

Was Lieu one of the prosecutors who signed the letter ?

Now you see why Nadler is afraid to let his members question Barr.

Has to be why they wanted staff lawyers to question him. If AOC was on that committee I would tune in for that comedy gold. But Ted might provide enough,

[get it to x]

Ted Lieu tries to bullsh*t Fox News viewers about Mueller Report, gets schooled by Harris Faulkner.

https://twitter.com/Based_Right/status/ ... 7710269441

Th deer in the headlights look is

Was Lieu one of the prosecutors who signed the letter ?

Now you see why Nadler is afraid to let his members question Barr.

Still doesn't top Maxine asking the bankers what they were doing about student loans when Uncle Sugar took them over 8 years ago.

[get it to x]

Off topic, but LandM, I am down to once a week on the ice cream for health reasons. My local Mother's in Arnold makes their own. If I'm having my cheat dinner it will be three dips. Blueberry Coconut is amazing.