Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
I for one (and I'm certain that I'm not the only one) believe that Barr MUST release every bit of the report that he is legally able to or else the country could become even more divided. I really need to see exactly how Mueller worded the report. Did he categorically state that there was NO collusion? Or was it that there was no organized, directed collusion but rather several acts by people who could plausibly claim that they were not aware that they were dealing with Russian agents or that they were tricked into meetings by Russian agents? (Sorry, but I'm having a hard time believing that people are going to jail for lying about things that they had no good motive to lie about.)
 
Paul2 said:
Unbelievably, this leads to a silver lining to today's dark cloud. The extent that trumpistas accept the Mueller report is the extent to which they cannot honestly or logically claim that the deep state fudged the 2020 elections.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.

What Trumpistas can claim is limited only by their conspiracy-theorizing imaginations.
 
I read the Barr letter.

One huge unexpected bonus: Mueller peddled the long-ago debunked "Russian Hacking" story: that any incriminating emails from Podesta, the DNC, Hillary Clinton et. al were STOLEN by those horrible Russian hackers who turned them over to Wikileaks.

I thought it both bizarre and hilarious. Very telling.

They REALLY don't want the Seth Rich murder tied to the wikileaks publication of all those emails. Because it isn't Nixon's bungling burglars trying to bug an office. It's first degree murder, an assasination hit by top political operatives.
 
We don't know the report concluded there was no collusion. We've only heard from a Trump supporter and their kind can't be trusted. Trump supporters have integrity problems. We need to see the full report or at least hear the summary from a loyal American.
 
How could Mueller not have any indictments or examples of collusion from the Trump Tower meeting with Manafort, Jr., the Russian lawyer, etc.? Can't wait for Congress to tell us the details about that one.

Given all the bootlicking of Russians by Trump, his financial entanglements, all the lying leading to jail time about Russia by Trump's cronies, etc, etc., how can it be that Mueller is basically neutral?

What the **** is going on?
 
Paul2 said:
How could Mueller not have any indictments or examples of collusion from the Trump Tower meeting with Manafort, Jr., the Russian lawyer, etc.? Can't wait for Congress to tell us the details about that one.

Given all the bootlicking of Russians by Trump, his financial entanglements, all the lying leading to jail time about Russia by Trump's cronies, etc, etc., how can it be that Mueller is basically neutral?

What the **** is going on?
Click to expand...

The simplest explanation for that meeting is exactly what the parties said. The attorney lied to get them in the room to talk about the magnitsky act.
 
Ziggurat said:
First off, Mueller isn't talking about his final report.

In regards to the indictments which have already been filed, you're half right. Mueller didn't say that no Americans were colluding with Russia. But he DID say that his indictments do not accuse anyone of colluding with Russia. Your statement indicates that there is evidence of collusion just not enough, and Mueller has never said that publicly. We do not know if such a claim is contained within his report.
Click to expand...
Due to FBI rules that they cannot comment on ongoing cases, or evidence that might affect ongoing cases, he may have been unable to include incriminating evidence in his report. Equally the DoJ may also not be able to comment on them. That does not mean the evidence does not exist.

I wonder if any of the really juicy Mueller stuff is going to turn up in state-based cases against Trump instead. We know for sure Mueller has been sharing this evidence with New York, and possibly other states that have racketeering-type cases against Trump. So sure, Mueller won't indict NOW, and the DoJ won't indict NOW. Because that is in the federal domain, and as is noted in a footnote in the Barr letter about the DoJ ruling about indicting a sitting president.

But the states just might indict based on Mueller's evidence. Where it will be impossible for Trump to pardon himself or anyone else, even if he is a sitting president.
 
Paul2 said:
What the **** is going on?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a puzzler. I'm ignoring those guys dancing in the end zone (since it ain't football) until some significant loose ends get tied up. I need some credible explanation for what we do know, and if Mueller is simply saying he didn't find evidence that would support more criminal indictments, we need to know that, but we still need to know what, if anything, he did find. I trust that Mueller has done his job with diligence and integrity, so I'm perfectly willing to modify my own conspiracy theories to agree with whatever he found or didn't find. But Barr's summary certainly won't do .
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Hostile aren't we? I find it useless to converse with someone who cannot debate a topic without resorting to pettiness and insults. If your position is so weak it cannot withstand civil discussion, perhaps you should rethink where you are.
Click to expand...

What's uncivil in asking you, twice, to support your claim? You've now refused, twice, to support your claim. Presumably, because you cannot support your claim. If you think calling you on your inability to support your claim is uncivil, then you, again, don't know what you're talking about.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
I read the Barr letter.

One huge unexpected bonus: Mueller peddled the long-ago debunked "Russian Hacking" story: that any incriminating emails from Podesta, the DNC, Hillary Clinton et. al were STOLEN by those horrible Russian hackers who turned them over to Wikileaks.

I thought it both bizarre and hilarious. Very telling.

They REALLY don't want the Seth Rich murder tied to the wikileaks publication of all those emails. Because it isn't Nixon's bungling burglars trying to bug an office. It's first degree murder, an assasination hit by top political operatives.
Click to expand...

What in the blue hell are you babbling about?
 
WilliamSeger said:
Yeah, that's a puzzler. I'm ignoring those guys dancing in the end zone (since it ain't football) until some significant loose ends get tied up. I need some credible explanation for what we do know, and if Mueller is simply saying he didn't find evidence that would support more criminal indictments, we need to know that, but we still need to know what, if anything, he did find. I trust that Mueller has done his job with diligence and integrity, so I'm perfectly willing to modify my own conspiracy theories to agree with whatever he found or didn't find. But Barr's summary certainly won't do .
Click to expand...

Why do you need an explanation for it?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
I for one (and I'm certain that I'm not the only one) believe that Barr MUST release every bit of the report that he is legally able to or else the country could become even more divided.
Click to expand...

The country will become even more divided anyway. Another big election is coming, and Russia is gearing up again. Objective: divide and conquer. This time, I expect them to try to make it look like the election was stolen, in hopes of touching off a civil war. It could work. The frogs are almost boiled.

TellyKNeasuss said:
I really need to see exactly how Mueller worded the report. Did he categorically state that there was NO collusion?
Click to expand...

Not according to Barr. He said Mueller did not find collusion. When you can't find your keys, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Legalese is very precise.

TellyKNeasuss said:
Or was it that there was no organized, directed collusion but rather several acts by people who could plausibly claim that they were not aware that they were dealing with Russian agents or that they were tricked into meetings by Russian agents?
Click to expand...

That plausibility would introduce reasonable doubt. You could reasonably doubt that Roger Stone broke in and stole your keys, and it is unlikely that you would find compelling evidence of a Stone break-in even if that is what happened.

But if you looked out your window and saw someone who looked like Stone running away clutching a small object in his hand, would that be sufficient evidence that Roger Stone broke in and stole your keys? Maybe to your satisfaction, but not in a courtroom. You couldn't prove it was Stone you saw. You couldn't prove the runner was clutching your keys.

We all know Stone has been up to no good. We just know it. We can see it in his shifty, lying eyes. But we may not ever find out exactly what that scoundrel has been up to. But maybe we get him on tax evasion. That, we can prove.

TellyKNeasuss said:
(Sorry, but I'm having a hard time believing that people are going to jail for lying about things that they had no good motive to lie about.)
Click to expand...

You have not yet mastered Trumpthink. You require further indoc...er, education.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Do you disagree my answer is the simplest explanation of why Mueller didn't turn up collusion from that meeting?
Click to expand...
No, I don't agree.

The exact situation is that Mueller didn't turn up evidence, or sufficient evidence, of collusion at that meeting that was actionable. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. As I was being sarcastic, they weren't there to talk about orphans, which was the bull-**** story about the meeting Trump concocted on AF1 later on.

Trump doesn't keep records or recordings - he's notorious for it. E.g. the "private" meetings with Putin.
 
538.jpg


(In reference to Seth Rich conspiracy theories and so on)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom