Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Mar 26, 2019 0:24:02 GMT -5
Would you say that it's quite possible that Individual 1 aided and abetted or provided comfort to a foreign adversary during and after an attack on this country? It's quite sad that the Alt Right is in Full Celebration that they in effect got away with it because through sharing the same lawyers they all kept their mouths shut. THERE WAS NO EXONERATION! Mueller didn't say Individual 1 wss innocent. Celebrating that no one on the inside of the conspiracy informed on Individual 1 in hopes of the dangled pardons is really really the lowest of bars for this country. Also isn't Obstruction of Justice by a president decided only by Congress? Not by a Partisan flunky who should have been recused on the subject because of his Cover letter? I also find it very very interesting that less than 2 months into his role as partisan flunky AG, that Special Counsel's investigation comes to an end with plenty of unanswered questions and Stone still awaiting trial. Really feels like the investigation was halted prematurely. This is the most important national security investigation of this countries history and to end it without definite answers seems very strange. I ask you SS because of your professional knowledge... 1. As a common sense matter Trump behaved horribly and in my opinion in violation of his oath of office. That doesn't mean it amounts to "aiding and abetting" in the legal sense in which a prosecutor cannot ethically bring charges if he or she doesn't believe it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I assume SCO does not have evidence to meet the elements outlined in the link below but no one knows exactly what SCO relied upon in reaching its determination absent further disclosure of the underlying facts it discovered regarding Russian interference. At minimum, SCO has at least confirmed the USIC finding that Russia interfered with the US election despite Trump's denial and siding with Putin over the USIC. Do the GOP defenders of Trump agree with this part of Mueller's report? www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2474-elements-aiding-and-abettingThe conduct by Trump not charged by the SCO is now in a Congressional lane. That being said, since impeachment is a political matter, it makes no sense to impeach since there apparently no smoking gun evidence and a Republican-controlled Senate would never convict. There is a different between crimes and matters that are subject to impeachment. 2. SCO didn't exonerate Trump from the obstruction of justice allegation. To say so is a blatant lie. Mueller merely said on balance he could not determine with the factual evidence before him that he could ethically bring an obstruction charge(s) (setting aside the OLC opinion that a sitting President is not subject to federal indictment). 3. Whether Barr acted ultra vires by offering his opinion that no obstruction of justice charge could be brought, that is interesting but ultimately for Congress to review the underlying facts on both sides of the issue to determine if impeachment is warranted. It may have a different interpretation and it is not bound by a "beyond a reasonable doubt standard." However, it is a political matter (no longer "legal" matter). Regarding whether Barr should have recused himself, I believe he should testify as part of an oversight hearing to disclose the facts surrounding his own determination not to do so. 4. Did SCO halt the investigation prematurely? I think that this is not necessarily the case as I do not believe Mueller would cave to such political pressure and if had received such pressure, would stand up to it. I am assuming that Mueller is made of stronger stuff than that and if such pressure was brought to bear, he'd investigate that! Once again, let Congress return to "regular order" and have oversight hearings on the whole matter. 5. I am interested in what foreign counterintelligence issues SCO may have discovered. Those matters do NOT typically lead to criminal investigations as mentioned elsewhere. For example, the fact that Trump continued to misrepresent during his Presidential campaign regarding whether he had any "business" with Russia -- would those misrepresentations, known to the RIS, have left him open to blackmail or leverage? Does it account for his siding with Putin over his own intelligence agencies? Did he put his personal financial benefit above the national security of the United States after he became President? (Very similar to Acting AG Yates informing the White House about Flynn's misrepresentations about his discussions of sanctions with Kisylak may have subjected him to blackmail yet the White House did nothing about it for weeks). Misrepresentations by a Presidential candidate may violate no federal statute but if the misrepresentations are known to a hostile foreign power it becomes a national security matter if it enables the hostile foreign power to gain leverage over the candidate. Just some quick thoughts. Thanks for the reply SS! Very thorough and thought provoking! Great points on Drumpf lying throughout the campaign regarding "business with Russia" and that compromising him to a foreign power. Question, if you were Barr, having written that cover letter that stated no President can be charged with obstruction to get the job, would you have recused on the obstruction count? Why do you think the SCO investigation ended at this point with Stone still to be prosecuted and other on going investigations with no real firm conclusions? Also is it possible that Barr could end SCO's investigation? Technically Barr could end the investigation prematurely ...correct? I know answering this really needs access to SCO's report but if you can answer to best of your ability? Am I right to be shocked that Drumpf Jr. that wasn't indicted on the facts we know about the meeting with Russians I the Tower and the intent behind it expressed in the email? Haven't people been indicted on conspiracy with the amount of evidence the public is aware of? How vital is "Russian government officials" in the SCO's mandate. I ask because the contacts that Drumpf campaign had with Russians were mostly with cutouts know to have ties to the government (the attorney in the Tower meeting, Kilimnik, etc.) and not actual "government officials"? Could the wording of his mandate have played a part in the decision not to charge Individual 1 and his criminal campaign organization with conspiracy? Lastly, after reading the Barr memo, am I right that SCO didn't exonerate Individual 1 on either charge. He didn't find the president innocent of conspiring with Russian government, he just didn't "establish the evidence" (i.e. smoking gun) for a slam dunk case that would be necessary to charge a sitting president per SCO mandate that stated ( paraphrasing) he could only charge a sitting president in an extrodinary case otherwise he was bound by DOJ regulations that state they can't indict a sitting president?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 1:13:18 GMT -5
Not at all, but those are all things that are in the Public record. Can you point out something that is not accurate? I don't know which of these are true or not and neither do you. Don't you think Mueller heard about these things and maybe, just maybe, he investigated them? Perhaps his group did not consider what's published in the Washington Post or New York Times as being in the public record. And, given the Post's and the Times' track records on Trump and collusion, who is to blame Mueller and his associates? Ed, nothing I said is false. Can you point to an error? These aren't things that are up to interpretation imo. These are things that came out of Trump's mouth directly. These are things people testified to under oath. For example, how can you say we don't know that Cohen is a criminal? Or that Manafort is a criminal?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,402
|
Post by SSHoya on Mar 26, 2019 5:16:06 GMT -5
[/quote]Thanks for the reply SS! Very thorough and thought provoking! Great points on Drumpf lying throughout the campaign regarding "business with Russia" and that compromising him to a foreign power. Question, if you were Barr, having written that cover letter that stated no President can be charged with obstruction to get the job, would you have recused on the obstruction count? Why do you think the SCO investigation ended at this point with Stone still to be prosecuted and other on going investigations with no real firm conclusions? Also is it possible that Barr could end SCO's investigation? Technically Barr could end the investigation prematurely ...correct? I know answering this really needs access to SCO's report but if you can answer to best of your ability? Am I right to be shocked that Drumpf Jr. that wasn't indicted on the facts we know about the meeting with Russians I the Tower and the intent behind it expressed in the email? Haven't people been indicted on conspiracy with the amount of evidence the public is aware of? How vital is "Russian government officials" in the SCO's mandate. I ask because the contacts that Drumpf campaign had with Russians were mostly with cutouts know to have ties to the government (the attorney in the Tower meeting, Kilimnik, etc.) and not actual "government officials"? Could the wording of his mandate have played a part in the decision not to charge Individual 1 and his criminal campaign organization with conspiracy? Lastly, after reading the Barr memo, am I right that SCO didn't exonerate Individual 1 on either charge. He didn't find the president innocent of conspiring with Russian government, he just didn't "establish the evidence" (i.e. smoking gun) for a slam dunk case that would be necessary to charge a sitting president per SCO mandate that stated ( paraphrasing) he could only charge a sitting president in an extrodinary case otherwise he was bound by DOJ regulations that state they can't indict a sitting president? [/quote] 1. Regarding Barr's decision not to recuse himself after having written a memo that appeared to be provide an opinion that would help secure Trump's nomination, I'd like to see Senate Judiciary to hold an oversight hearing on Barr's decision. Did he seek the guidance of the Professional Responsibility Advisory Office (PRAO) of DOJ which deals with such issues? Did he reject their guidance? Typically, DOJ attorneys will follow PRAO's guidance as it immunizes them from allegations of misconduct. If it were me, I'd have sought its guidance and followed its recommendation. As a matter of an appearance of impropriety (i.e., having prejudged a matter that may come before me) I'd likely have chosen to recuse myself, but that's just me. 2. I attended the Stone show cause hearing regarding his violation of the gag order. Both SCO and the USAO DC were present for the prosecution so I assume that with SCO standing down, the USAO will handle the prosecution. The other ongoing investigations/prosecutions are spun off to other offices because Mueller reads his mandate narrowly. Technically, Barr could terminate SCO prematurely but as I stated previously, I don't think Mueller would be pushed around by Barr. They know each from Barr's previous service as AG. 3. Trump Tower meeting - while I guess it is possible to make a case of conspiracy to violate campaign laws by accepting a "thing of value" from a foreign nation (contrary to federal campaign laws) I am guessing that SCO made the determination that purported dirt on HRC offered by Veselnitskaya (the Russian lawyer) may not have been enough to be considered a "thing of value." In any case it would only be attempted conspiracy - the case is getting thin at that point. Also, Junior is so stupid it is also possible that SCO didn't believe it could make the case that Junior knew he was doing something illegal. That being said, Trump's cover story crafted aboard Air Force One seems to indicate guilty knowledge on Trump's part doesn't it? Once again, I'd have to go back to a prosecutor's ethical obligation not to indict someone if he or she does not believe the alleged illegal conduct can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (Securing federal convictions are difficult because it is supposed to be difficult). In any case, Junior (and Individual - 1) may be in legal peril in the SDNY since his signature is on one of the hush money checks paid to Cohen and SDNY has all but named Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in the hush money campaign finance violation. “It depends on motives and knowledge at the time of the meeting. Willfully soliciting a foreign contribution is a crime,” Rick Hasen, a campaign finance expert and law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said in a statement. “You have to know you are doing something illegal and the courts would have to consider the opposition research from Russian agents a ‘thing of value’ for campaign finance purposes.” www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-we-know-about-the-2016-trump-tower-meeting-and-why-it-matters4. "Russian government officials" - in my experience the use of cutouts throws the whole sordid episode into the foreign counterintelligence realm v. criminal realm. As many have suggested, there is plenty of conduct that is deplorable and unpatriotic but it does not necessarily constitute a crime. There is also plenty of suspicious conduct to predicate not only a criminal investigation but the foreign counterintelligence investigation contrary to the ravings of Lindsey Graham. Think about the fact that the FBI warned the Trump campaign about being contacted by a hostile foreign power (Russia) yet when the campaign had over 100 contacts with Russians not one of the Trump campaign aides and/or supporters contacted the FBI. Instead, they all appeared to amenable to the approach. Then you have Trump aligning himself with Putin over the USIC over the very issue of election interference -- which Trump supporters conveniently ignore as part of SCO's findings. 5. SCO didn't find the sufficient evidence. That's true. But there is plenty of circumstantial evidence but not enough to establish a chargeable conspiracy with respect to the Russian interference in the election. Mueller would not indict a sitting president based upon the OLC's opinion (not regulation) regardless of the sufficiency of the evidence. If he had found sufficient evidence, he'd likely kick it to Congress to deal with as an impeachment matter. Read this from Lawfare: In fact, Barr’s letter quotes Special Counsel Robert Mueller as stating that the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Saying that the investigation did not establish that there was collusion is not the same thing as saying that the investigation established that there was no collusion. Two points are worth emphasizing. www.lawfareblog.com/what-does-barr-letter-actually-say-about-collusionTo my previous points about the foreign counterintelligence investigation (which most seem to be ignoring), my former boss David Kris in The Atlantic: “As described by Barr, at least, Mueller’s report was very focused on criminal-law standards and processes,” said David Kris, a founder of Culper Partners, who served as the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s National Security Division under former President Barack Obama. “We won’t know for sure if that is the case, and if it is the case, why Mueller confined himself in that way, until we see the full report.” Kris noted, however, that “there is no question that a counterintelligence investigation would have a wider aperture than a strict criminal inquiry as applied here, and would be concerned, for example, with the motivations and any sub-criminal misconduct of the principal actors.” A counterintelligence probe, he added, would ask more than whether the evidence collected is sufficient to obtain a criminal conviction—it could provide necessary information to the public about why the president is making certain policy decisions. “The American people rightly should expect more from their public servants than merely avoiding criminal liability,” Kris said. www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/barrs-summary-omits-key-aspect-muellers-report/585703/
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
|
Post by Elvado on Mar 26, 2019 5:30:11 GMT -5
Why don’t we wait and see what Barr releases before we criticize his handling?
Democrat partisans have waited for this moment like a five year old for Christmas. Instead of the bright shiny bike or dollhouse, they got socks.
They are behaving as five year olds. And the right is childishly filling the role of older bully sibling mocking their disappointment.
They all need a time out while the grown ups figure out how to release as much of this report as they can without violating law and common sense.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,965
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 26, 2019 7:25:21 GMT -5
Why don’t we wait and see what Barr releases before we criticize his handling? Democrat partisans have waited for this moment like a five year old for Christmas. Instead of the bright shiny bike or dollhouse, they got socks. They are behaving as five year olds. And the right is childishly filling the role of older bully sibling mocking their disappointment. They all need a time out while the grown ups figure out how to release as much of this report as they can without violating law and common sense. I don’t agree with the analogy Elvado, socks aren’t exciting but they’re very useful.. Socks would have been nice in this instance, hell a lump of coal could be turned into something useful.. Let’s be real Barr gave the Trump opposition nothing yesterday, call me cynical but it sure seems like he’s trying to figure out how to show as little of the report as possible right now...
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
|
Post by Elvado on Mar 26, 2019 7:42:31 GMT -5
Why don’t we wait and see what Barr releases before we criticize his handling? Democrat partisans have waited for this moment like a five year old for Christmas. Instead of the bright shiny bike or dollhouse, they got socks. They are behaving as five year olds. And the right is childishly filling the role of older bully sibling mocking their disappointment. They all need a time out while the grown ups figure out how to release as much of this report as they can without violating law and common sense. I don’t agree with the analogy Elvado, socks aren’t exciting but they’re very useful.. Socks would have been nice in this instance, hell a lump of coal could be turned into something useful.. Let’s be real Barr gave the Trump opposition nothing yesterday, call me cynical but it sure seems like he’s trying to figure out how to show as little of the report as possible right now... I will reserve judgment on his actions until he acts... But I get your point.
|
|
puthath
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 349
|
Post by puthath on Mar 26, 2019 13:04:43 GMT -5
I don’t agree with the analogy Elvado, socks aren’t exciting but they’re very useful.. Socks would have been nice in this instance, hell a lump of coal could be turned into something useful.. Let’s be real Barr gave the Trump opposition nothing yesterday, call me cynical but it sure seems like he’s trying to figure out how to show as little of the report as possible right now... I will reserve judgment on his actions until he acts... But I get your point. Another excellent article by Trump opponent, but honest writer, Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, no less: Taibbi: As the Mueller Probe Ends, New Russiagate Myths Begin Donald Trump couldn’t have asked for a juicier 2020 campaign issue www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/taibbi-russia-investigation-conclusions-813171/
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,224
|
Post by hoyarooter on Mar 26, 2019 21:38:49 GMT -5
I don’t agree with the analogy Elvado, socks aren’t exciting but they’re very useful.. Socks would have been nice in this instance, hell a lump of coal could be turned into something useful.. Let’s be real Barr gave the Trump opposition nothing yesterday, call me cynical but it sure seems like he’s trying to figure out how to show as little of the report as possible right now... I will reserve judgment on his actions until he acts... But I get your point. Agree. And if I had 10 thumbs (my wife sometimes thinks that I do), I'd give your original post 10 thumbs up.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Mar 27, 2019 13:35:15 GMT -5
Why are Republicans so against releasing this report? Seems like they’d want every detail of a full exoneration made public. Leave no doubt, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 12:30:33 GMT -5
|
|
puthath
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 349
|
Post by puthath on Mar 28, 2019 12:56:24 GMT -5
It is so refreshing to see how thorough a job Robert Mueller did in coming to the conclusion that our president did not collude with a foreign power. Aren’t you, as an American citizen, happy that this did not occur?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 13:02:16 GMT -5
It is so refreshing to see how thorough a job Robert Mueller did in coming to the conclusion that our president did not collude with a foreign power. Aren’t you, as an American citizen, happy that this did not occur? Sure, but how about the fact that Trump was pursuing business ventures in Russia while he was running for President as his party's nominee? The fact that after he was briefed by intelligence officials that it was the Russians his response was to give them an alibi by claiming it could be the Chinese Government or a 400 pound hacker? The fact that he used information stolen by the Russians and laundered through wikileaks as a major part of his campaign speech and messaging? His consistent and constant praise for Putin while this was happening. The Trump Tower meeting with Jr that he only took because he was promised dirt on HRC. The fact that his campaign and administration told many many lies about their contacts with the Russians during the campaign and afterwords? The fact that after all this he tried to drop sanctions on Russia his first month in office? Then there's the fact that his campaign seemed to be littered with criminals and grifters. Manafort, Cohen, Gates etc... And then there's the whole *obstruction of justice thing. Robert Mueller concluded there’s not enough *evidence to file charges that Trump or any of his campaign aides conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election. However, there's a lot more on the bad side that shouldn't be dismissed because it didn't rise to the level of Criminal Conspiracy. Don't you agree?
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,332
|
Post by tashoya on Mar 28, 2019 14:01:50 GMT -5
Why are Republicans so against releasing this report? Seems like they’d want every detail of a full exoneration made public. Leave no doubt, right? I found this funnier than I should have.
|
|
puthath
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 349
|
Post by puthath on Mar 28, 2019 14:53:24 GMT -5
It is so refreshing to see how thorough a job Robert Mueller did in coming to the conclusion that our president did not collude with a foreign power. Aren’t you, as an American citizen, happy that this did not occur? Sure, but how about the fact that Trump was pursuing business ventures in Russia while he was running for President as his party's nominee? The fact that after he was briefed by intelligence officials that it was the Russians his response was to give them an alibi by claiming it could be the Chinese Government or a 400 pound hacker? The fact that he used information stolen by the Russians and laundered through wikileaks as a major part of his campaign speech and messaging? His consistent and constant praise for Putin while this was happening. The Trump Tower meeting with Jr that he only took because he was promised dirt on HRC. The fact that his campaign and administration told many many lies about their contacts with the Russians during the campaign and afterwords? The fact that after all this he tried to drop sanctions on Russia his first month in office? Then there's the fact that his campaign seemed to be littered with criminals and grifters. Manafort, Cohen, Gates etc... And then there's the whole *obstruction of justice thing. Robert Mueller concluded there’s not enough *evidence to file charges that Trump or any of his campaign aides conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election. However, there's a lot more on the bad side that shouldn't be dismissed because it didn't rise to the level of Criminal Conspiracy. Don't you agree? I suggest that you read this excellent analysis - not Fox News or others you do not like - I think this sums it all up: "The special counsel lasted 674 days, during which millions of people who believed Mueller was going to turn up conclusive evidence of Trump’s devious conspiracies with the Kremlin have become wrapped up in a collective hallucination that has destroyed the remaining credibility of the American press and the D.C. expert class whose authority they promote. Mueller knew that he wasn’t ever going to find “collusion” or anything like it because all the intercepts were right there on his desk. As it turned out, two of his prosecutors, including Mueller’s so-called “pit bull,” Andrew Weissman, had been briefed on the Steele dossier prior to the 2016 election and were told that it came from the Clintons, and was likely a biased political document. Weissman left, or was pushed out of, his employment with the special counsel a few weeks ago, after the arrival of a new attorney general, William Barr, who had deep experience in government, including stints at the Justice Department and the CIA. Knowing what we know now, here’s what seems most likely to have just happened: Barr looked at the underlying documents on which Mueller’s investigation was based. First, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s May 17, 2017, memo appointing the former FBI director to take supervision of the FBI’s investigation of Trump. And more importantly, the Aug. 2, 2017, memo from Rosenstein outlining the scope of the investigation. Among the scope memo’s few unredacted lines are allegations regarding Paul Manafort’s “colluding with Russian government officials … to interfere with the 2016 elections.” The only known source for those allegations is the Steele dossier. What that strongly suggests is that under those redactions are other fabricated allegations that were also drawn from the Clinton-funded smear campaign—a dirty-tricks operation that was led by Fusion GPS founder and conspiracy theorist Glenn Simpson. And now, after all the Saturday Night Live skits, the obscenity-riddled Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert routines, the half a million news stories and tens of millions of tweets all foretelling the end of Trump, the comedians and the adult authority figures are exposed as hoaxsters, or worse, based on evidence that was always transparently phony." www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/282448/system-fail
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 15:08:53 GMT -5
Sure, but how about the fact that Trump was pursuing business ventures in Russia while he was running for President as his party's nominee? The fact that after he was briefed by intelligence officials that it was the Russians his response was to give them an alibi by claiming it could be the Chinese Government or a 400 pound hacker? The fact that he used information stolen by the Russians and laundered through wikileaks as a major part of his campaign speech and messaging? His consistent and constant praise for Putin while this was happening. The Trump Tower meeting with Jr that he only took because he was promised dirt on HRC. The fact that his campaign and administration told many many lies about their contacts with the Russians during the campaign and afterwords? The fact that after all this he tried to drop sanctions on Russia his first month in office? Then there's the fact that his campaign seemed to be littered with criminals and grifters. Manafort, Cohen, Gates etc... And then there's the whole *obstruction of justice thing. Robert Mueller concluded there’s not enough *evidence to file charges that Trump or any of his campaign aides conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election. However, there's a lot more on the bad side that shouldn't be dismissed because it didn't rise to the level of Criminal Conspiracy. Don't you agree? I suggest that you read this excellent analysis - not Fox News or others you do not like - I think this sums it all up: "The special counsel lasted 674 days, during which millions of people who believed Mueller was going to turn up conclusive evidence of Trump’s devious conspiracies with the Kremlin have become wrapped up in a collective hallucination that has destroyed the remaining credibility of the American press and the D.C. expert class whose authority they promote. Mueller knew that he wasn’t ever going to find “collusion” or anything like it because all the intercepts were right there on his desk. As it turned out, two of his prosecutors, including Mueller’s so-called “pit bull,” Andrew Weissman, had been briefed on the Steele dossier prior to the 2016 election and were told that it came from the Clintons, and was likely a biased political document. Weissman left, or was pushed out of, his employment with the special counsel a few weeks ago, after the arrival of a new attorney general, William Barr, who had deep experience in government, including stints at the Justice Department and the CIA. Knowing what we know now, here’s what seems most likely to have just happened: Barr looked at the underlying documents on which Mueller’s investigation was based. First, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s May 17, 2017, memo appointing the former FBI director to take supervision of the FBI’s investigation of Trump. And more importantly, the Aug. 2, 2017, memo from Rosenstein outlining the scope of the investigation. Among the scope memo’s few unredacted lines are allegations regarding Paul Manafort’s “colluding with Russian government officials … to interfere with the 2016 elections.” The only known source for those allegations is the Steele dossier. What that strongly suggests is that under those redactions are other fabricated allegations that were also drawn from the Clinton-funded smear campaign—a dirty-tricks operation that was led by Fusion GPS founder and conspiracy theorist Glenn Simpson. And now, after all the Saturday Night Live skits, the obscenity-riddled Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert routines, the half a million news stories and tens of millions of tweets all foretelling the end of Trump, the comedians and the adult authority figures are exposed as hoaxsters, or worse, based on evidence that was always transparently phony." www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/282448/system-fail*Written by Lee Smith. 🤔 The same Lee Smith that wrote this, correct? Idk... He doesn't seem like a reasonable fellow. Robert Mueller concluded there’s not enough *evidence to file charges that Trump or any of his campaign aides conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election. However, there's a lot of bad and immoral things that they did do that shouldn't be dismissed because it didn't rise to the level of Criminal Conspiracy. Don't you agree?
|
|
puthath
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 349
|
Post by puthath on Mar 28, 2019 15:48:28 GMT -5
I suggest that you read this excellent analysis - not Fox News or others you do not like - I think this sums it all up: "The special counsel lasted 674 days, during which millions of people who believed Mueller was going to turn up conclusive evidence of Trump’s devious conspiracies with the Kremlin have become wrapped up in a collective hallucination that has destroyed the remaining credibility of the American press and the D.C. expert class whose authority they promote. Mueller knew that he wasn’t ever going to find “collusion” or anything like it because all the intercepts were right there on his desk. As it turned out, two of his prosecutors, including Mueller’s so-called “pit bull,” Andrew Weissman, had been briefed on the Steele dossier prior to the 2016 election and were told that it came from the Clintons, and was likely a biased political document. Weissman left, or was pushed out of, his employment with the special counsel a few weeks ago, after the arrival of a new attorney general, William Barr, who had deep experience in government, including stints at the Justice Department and the CIA. Knowing what we know now, here’s what seems most likely to have just happened: Barr looked at the underlying documents on which Mueller’s investigation was based. First, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s May 17, 2017, memo appointing the former FBI director to take supervision of the FBI’s investigation of Trump. And more importantly, the Aug. 2, 2017, memo from Rosenstein outlining the scope of the investigation. Among the scope memo’s few unredacted lines are allegations regarding Paul Manafort’s “colluding with Russian government officials … to interfere with the 2016 elections.” The only known source for those allegations is the Steele dossier. What that strongly suggests is that under those redactions are other fabricated allegations that were also drawn from the Clinton-funded smear campaign—a dirty-tricks operation that was led by Fusion GPS founder and conspiracy theorist Glenn Simpson. And now, after all the Saturday Night Live skits, the obscenity-riddled Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert routines, the half a million news stories and tens of millions of tweets all foretelling the end of Trump, the comedians and the adult authority figures are exposed as hoaxsters, or worse, based on evidence that was always transparently phony." www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/282448/system-fail*Written by Lee Smith. 🤔 The same Lee Smith that wrote this, correct? Idk... He doesn't seem like a reasonable fellow. Robert Mueller concluded there’s not enough *evidence to file charges that Trump or any of his campaign aides conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election. However, there's a lot of bad and immoral things that they did do that shouldn't be dismissed because it didn't rise to the level of Criminal Conspiracy. Don't you agree? Immoral - no. Questionable judgment - yes as to meeting the Russian woman who worked for Fusion GPS and who met with Simpson the day before and the day after the meeting with Trump Jr. et al. While it may Have been foolish to take the meeting, the conclusive proof is that the Russian lawyer immediately pitched the repeal of the Magnitsky Act and had zero dirt on Clinton. Don’t you think that if there was anything on value exchanged in that meeting, that Mueller would have found it? He interviewed every participant, and squeeze the Manafort, yet mother came up with zero proof of a quid pro quo. Again, stupid, yes – – and moral or illegal – Dash now. This meeting pales in comparison to the proven collusion between Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Russian sources that spread this information through the dirty dossier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 16:28:14 GMT -5
*Written by Lee Smith. 🤔 The same Lee Smith that wrote this, correct? Idk... He doesn't seem like a reasonable fellow. Robert Mueller concluded there’s not enough *evidence to file charges that Trump or any of his campaign aides conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election. However, there's a lot of bad and immoral things that they did do that shouldn't be dismissed because it didn't rise to the level of Criminal Conspiracy. Don't you agree? Immoral - no. Questionable judgment - yes as to meeting the Russian woman who worked for Fusion GPS and who met with Simpson the day before and the day after the meeting with Trump Jr. et al. While it may Have been foolish to take the meeting, the conclusive proof is that the Russian lawyer immediately pitched the repeal of the Magnitsky Act and had zero dirt on Clinton. Don’t you think that if there was anything on value exchanged in that meeting, that Mueller would have found it? He interviewed every participant, and squeeze the Manafort, yet mother came up with zero proof of a quid pro quo. Again, stupid, yes – – and moral or illegal – Dash now. This meeting pales in comparison to the proven collusion between Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Russian sources that spread this information through the dirty dossier. Looks immoral to me, but maybe we have a different set of morals. A more ethical person would never take that meeting. The problem here is it shows that in this instance they wanted to *collude, but the dirt wasn't good enough. He showed up to this meeting expecting to get the goods with the campaign manager, and the campaign head by his side. They didn't go to the FBI. They took the meeting, then they lied about it until they got busted. The standard should be higher than not a criminal imo, and that goes beyond questionable judgement.
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Mar 28, 2019 16:39:51 GMT -5
*Written by Lee Smith. 🤔 The same Lee Smith that wrote this, correct? Idk... He doesn't seem like a reasonable fellow. Robert Mueller concluded there’s not enough *evidence to file charges that Trump or any of his campaign aides conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election. However, there's a lot of bad and immoral things that they did do that shouldn't be dismissed because it didn't rise to the level of Criminal Conspiracy. Don't you agree? Immoral - no. Questionable judgment - yes as to meeting the Russian woman who worked for Fusion GPS and who met with Simpson the day before and the day after the meeting with Trump Jr. et al. While it may Have been foolish to take the meeting, the conclusive proof is that the Russian lawyer immediately pitched the repeal of the Magnitsky Act and had zero dirt on Clinton. Don’t you think that if there was anything on value exchanged in that meeting, that Mueller would have found it? He interviewed every participant, and squeeze the Manafort, yet mother came up with zero proof of a quid pro quo. Again, stupid, yes – – and moral or illegal – Dash now. This meeting pales in comparison to the proven collusion between Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Russian sources that spread this information through the dirty dossier. Why are you still so focused on the dossier? Before the FBI even had it, they were concerned about Russian behavior vis-a-vis the Trump campaign:
|
|
puthath
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 349
|
Post by puthath on Mar 28, 2019 16:57:24 GMT -5
Immoral - no. Questionable judgment - yes as to meeting the Russian woman who worked for Fusion GPS and who met with Simpson the day before and the day after the meeting with Trump Jr. et al. While it may Have been foolish to take the meeting, the conclusive proof is that the Russian lawyer immediately pitched the repeal of the Magnitsky Act and had zero dirt on Clinton. Don’t you think that if there was anything on value exchanged in that meeting, that Mueller would have found it? He interviewed every participant, and squeeze the Manafort, yet mother came up with zero proof of a quid pro quo. Again, stupid, yes – – and moral or illegal – Dash now. This meeting pales in comparison to the proven collusion between Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Russian sources that spread this information through the dirty dossier. Why are you still so focused on the dossier? Before the FBI even had it, they were concerned about Russian behavior vis-a-vis the Trump campaign: The problem is that resistance hero Mueller found no collusion. End of story. Please, stop grasping at straws.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Mar 28, 2019 17:00:59 GMT -5
it would be nice to know what he found.
|
|