Mueller Investigation pt5

[Foolmewunz]

Charge: make an accusation or assertion that.

Petty.

Chris B.

Ignorant. In a discussion on reports from a special investigator and the interpretations of the Attorney General of the United States of America, "charged" has a specific meaning. Ziggurat is correct.

What the media (and various media and political personalities) did was to "accuse" him.

 

[theprestige]

I'm sure we will be able to move on. The PDJT won't. I'm sure he's preparing his "I punch back 10 times harder!" retaliation strategy at this very moment.

I wonder if we can turn this into a testable prediction.

 

[Belz...]

This will make the DNC and Hillary very sad after spending all that money on dirt from Russia.

You guys really can't let Hillary go, can you?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

2 years of investigation and we're right back at square one, the same square we would have been at if the Mueller report showed incontrovertible evidence of wrong doing on Trump's part.

Nobody was waiting on the Mueller report to tell them if Trump was guilty or not. Everybody's already made their mind up about that. Everyone was just waiting for the results so they can either go "See I told you!" if the results agreed with him or play the already preformatted "Here's why the results don't matter" card they already had ready to put down.

Will you knock it off with the self-righteous bothsidesism crap? Plenty of people, myself included, would be fine with an exonerating report. Frankly it'd be a relief to know that 2016 was some weird fluke with terrible optics and an entire political party was not subservient to a hostile foreign government. But a weasel-worded 4 page summary written by an appointee of the lead suspect in less time than it takes people to judge youtube videos does not impart anything close to the level of confidence required.

 

[Belz...]

Man, you must be pissed at Obama for not doing anything.

Are you concerned in any way by those cyber-attacks?

 

[Belz...]

Who publicly asked a foreign adversary for help to win an election?

Where have you been for the last three years?

 

[phiwum]

They had a meeting after receiving this email from Rob Goldstone. The meeting waa attended by Paul Manafort, Trump Campaign Manager, Rick Gates, Trump Deputy Campaign Manager and Don Jr. A meeting that Trump Jr and Trump Sr lied about

Rob Goldstone to Don Jr.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?


How is this not evidence of a conspiracy?

I agree it's evidence. Apparently, it wasn't sufficient evidence.

That it is not enough to convict is a different bar. What you're saying is akin to saying that the multiple occasions where John Gotti wasn't convicted or charged with crimes meant that he was innocent.

No, I'm saying that this is as close to clearing as one can expect. If the phrase, "He was cleared of this charge," means anything at all in a legal context, it must mean that there was not sufficient evidence found. I suppose some may mean that evidence he didn't do it was found, which doesn't apply here far as I know, but that's a rarity.

I don't conclude that no collusion occurred.

I think this is a mere semantic difference. We both agree that there's no official word he's been declared innocent of these charges, but that doesn't really happen when one is deciding whether or not to prosecute, except perhaps in exceptional circumstances (the accused thief was undeniably in another country, for instance).

Also, you should keep in mind that this was a letter from Barr, Trump's toadie.

I hope we'll see a substantial portion of the Mueller report. Until then, you're right that we have to be sure that our trust in Mueller is not accidentally transferred to Barr.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you asking me?

No, I don't think it's been overblown by the media.

You don't remember the breathless claims about how Mueller was going to nail Trump? That the walls were closing in on him? That he wouldn't finish his term in office, that he would be forced to resign over these scandals?

Yeah, it was overblown by the media.

There are lots of odd events that happened, including but not limited to the Trump Tower meeting, which I thought and still think is good evidence of a willingness to accept Russian help.

What's wrong with accepting information from a foreign source? Hillary's campaign did. So did the FBI.

This was and is a newsworthy story.

You can still have overblown coverage of a newsworthy story.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Will you knock it off with the self-righteous bothsidesism crap? Plenty of people, myself included, would be fine with an exonerating report. Frankly it'd be a relief to know that 2016 was some weird fluke with terrible optics and an entire political party was not subservient to a hostile foreign government. But a weasel-worded 4 page summary written by an appointee of the lead suspect in less time than it takes people to judge youtube videos does not impart anything close to the level of confidence required.

No. If you don't like it, ignore me.

The very fact that that any suggestion that the Democrats could be handling this a little better gets the old "OMG SO UR JUST SAYING BOTH SIdES ARE DA SaME!" crap proves people still need to hear it.

Saying the Republicans are openly dangerous and the Democrats are just comically ineffective is not "Bothsideism."

Right now Donald Trump represents a clear and direct threat to this country's longterm political and social stability and that is not a phrase I thrown around lightly if I have to present my "Here's how much I hate Trump" credentials to pass your speechcheck.

 

[theprestige]

Where have you been for the last three years?

Why does this canard still fly?

Might as well say that Ronald Reagan publicly declared nuclear war on the Soviet Union.

 

[wareyin]

I agree it's evidence. Apparently, it wasn't sufficient evidence.



No, I'm saying that this is as close to clearing as one can expect. If the phrase, "He was cleared of this charge," means anything at all in a legal context, it must mean that there was not sufficient evidence found. I suppose some may mean that evidence he didn't do it was found, which doesn't apply here far as I know, but that's a rarity.

I don't conclude that no collusion occurred.

I think this is a mere semantic difference. We both agree that there's no official word he's been declared innocent of these charges, but that doesn't really happen when one is deciding whether or not to prosecute, except perhaps in exceptional circumstances (the accused thief was undeniably in another country, for instance).



I hope we'll see a substantial portion of the Mueller report. Until then, you're right that we have to be sure that our trust in Mueller is not accidentally transferred to Barr.

It wasn't sufficient evidence to indict a President when the DOJ's opinion is that a sitting President can't be indicted and Barr's stated opinion is the nixonian 'when the President does it it's not illegal' viewpoint. Those are some pretty high hurdles, I think.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you concerned in any way by those cyber-attacks?

Yes. And anyone else who is should be disappointed by Obama's failures in that regard.

But I'm even more concerned by China's cyber attacks, which were far more severe and consequential, and which have gone unanswered. But they don't play into the anti-Trump narrative, so they don't get much attention even though they deserve more.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Wonder what this "exoneration" means for people like Manafort and Stone. Does Trump feeling safer mean a pardon is more or less likely?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Wonder what this "exoneration" means for people like Manafort and Stone. Does Trump feeling safer mean a pardon is more or less likely?

//Gut feeling// Stone yes, Manafort no.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Please urge Democrat Representatives to impeach Trump. Demand they investigate until they find something, no matter the consequences. Demand that they subpoena Mueller and grill him until he breaks. Let the subpoenas number in the thousands. Don't let Trump get away with this collusion. He's making fools of you and laughing about it on National television.

Chris B.

Mueller was obviously a Trump plant. Why else would he have fired James Comey? He had to get Comey off the case so Mueller could take over the investigation. Mueller needs to be subpoenaed to appear before Congress to explain why he refused to investigate Trump's ties to Russia. It's obvious Trump colluded with Russia and stole the 2016 election, the evidence has been in the public domain for years. Trump is still an illegitimate President and should be impeached ASAP. We should not accept the results of this fake investigation. Trump has been pulling the strings since the beginning.

Chris B.

Amusing yourself, are you? Well, everyone should have a hobby.

 

[newyorkguy]

I didn't find the media coverage -- whether print or broadcast -- to be reporting that Mueller was going to nail Trump, it was just a matter of time. I wonder sometimes if people making those claims actually read or watch the news. I generally find reporting -- I'm not talking about op-eds (which are not reporting) -- to be pretty neutral.

This is from an NPR report of almost one year ago

Most of the questions the Times printed focus on whether Trump may have obstructed justice or tried to frustrate the FBI's Russia investigation, including whether he asked then-FBI Director James Comey to lay off then-national security adviser Mike Flynn, whether he leaned on others to pressure Comey, and why he fired Comey...

Trump has said in the past that he wanted to talk with Mueller but that he would follow the advice of his attorneys. Outside lawyers have said they would counsel Trump against talking with Mueller. The dangers are too great, in this view, that if the president exaggerated or prevaricated, he would fall into a "perjury trap." NPR link

I don't find anything breathless or even unusual about this report, it seems like straight-up news reporting of the kind that most news media organizations routinely produce. Not to say there wasn't a lot of bad news involving Trump. There definitely was. But it was news.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

No. If you don't like it, ignore me.

The very fact that that any suggestion that the Democrats could be handling this a little better gets the old "OMG SO UR JUST SAYING BOTH SIdES ARE DA SaME!" crap proves people still need to hear it.

Saying the Republicans are openly dangerous and the Democrats are just comically ineffective is not "Bothsideism."

Right now Donald Trump represents a clear and direct threat to this country's longterm political and social stability and that is not a phrase I thrown around lightly if I have to present my "Here's how much I hate Trump" credentials to pass your speechcheck.

If you don't want to be accused of saying both sides are the same, stop saying both sides are the same. If instead you want to say that Democrats need to handle this a little better, say that instead.

 

[beren]

Yes. And anyone else who is should be disappointed by Obama's failures in that regard.

But I'm even more concerned by China's cyber attacks, which were far more severe and consequential, and which have gone unanswered. But they don't play into the anti-Trump narrative, so they don't get much attention even though they deserve more.

I for one am disappointing in Obama in this regard. I am an Obama supporter, but this is one of several things I think he got wrong.

For the record, are you also disappointed in McConnell's role in this?

 

[Iamafalser]

?

You should hilite the part of your post I hilited and right click Search Google. Like this.

I've looked before. All I've ever seen in conjecture. Do you know the difference between conjecture and evidence?

 

[plague311]

Yes. And anyone else who is should be disappointed by Obama's failures in that regard.

But I'm even more concerned by China's cyber attacks, which were far more severe and consequential, and which have gone unanswered. But they don't play into the anti-Trump narrative, so they don't get much attention even though they deserve more.

You don't know **** about cyber attacks, or how they work. Please don't try to blame something on Obama, it makes you look foolish more foolish. You think Obama was sitting at the keyboard? You think he was updating AV keys and ****** Do you think he even had a clue who was in charge of those updates? If that's what you think then you have to be so pissed at Trump it's not funny. The attacks happened, and not only has Trump NOT done anything, but he actually decreased money for protections. He then openly stated he wasn't doing more to prevent attacks.

Seriously, at least pretend like your argument isn't complete ********.

That's why I haven't "blamed" Trump for the security issues that are currently happening. Not only is he entirely too stupid to understand any of it, but that's not what he's supposed to be doing. The only difference between Trump and Obama is it had never been done with the amount of organization that it happened under Obama. Trump has seen it, and still refuses to do ****.