Mueller Investigation pt5

[JoeMorgue]

That's hardly an answer to the questions asked. How about actually giving serious answers a try?

It's no news that Trump is a prolific liar. There are over 9K examples recorded. But that does not answer the question of why did he lie about those things The Animus listed.

Because I don't think Trump lies in the same way other people do. He doesn't mentally choose to tell a falsehood because he doesn't make any mental distinction between his thoughts and reality. He's not lying, he just has no filter. Everything that pops in his head he says, he's pure ID driven and factually wrong most of the time.

He's more a "Falsehood Fountain" then a liar in the classic sense.

 

[newyorkguy]

One example of a news story that did not get ahead of itself is hardly convincing.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

Here's an entire chapter of an upcoming book full of examples of media being overly exuberant, many of which still have no corrections or retractions.

ETA: In my life, it seems, it's the information I want to be true that is often the most disappointing.

I understand what you're saying but I just don't agree. I used one story -- found completely at random -- to illustrate my point. I could have found dozens but what's the point?

The book you refer to is the subject of another thread. And as I stated, it's interesting but I have some problems with it. Please, go to the other thread and make your point. And like me, give an example so we know exactly what you're referring to when you write something like, "the media being overly exuberant, many of which still have no corrections or retractions."

One question that needs to be considered is, what is news? I've heard journalists talk about this. They report news, what's happening, they're not trying to construct a partisan narrative or push a partisan agenda. The egregious examples of that are the smaller non-mainstream outlets like Breitbart, Gateway Pundit. If intelligence officials are reaching out to the media, alleging that the president has had multiple contacts with a foreign power that does not share Western concepts of liberty or justice, a president who is as ethically-challenged as the current man in the White House is, what is a reporter/editor supposed to do? This is something that has never really happened before in the U.S. If that's not legitimate news, what is?

 

[phiwum]

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.

Not so.

I'm willing to defer to Mueller, unless I see evidence to be concerned about the breadth and fairness of the investigation. I'm in favor of disclosing the report as much as possible in order to understand why he reached this conclusion.

 

[theprestige]

This word "collusion" has always been a distraction. If people work together to commit or plan a crime, they are engaging in a conspiracy, a crime in itself. If they are working together for a legal purpose, they may be cooperating or coordinating or collaborating in ways that are not criminal. Trump may not have actively conspired with Russia, but using his position to promote his financial interests in Russia and elsewhere and publicly embracing Putin against American intelligence agencies led by his own appointees sure is not the conduct we expect from our President.

Can someone explain to me why the conversation has to come to a screeching halt every time someone uses the word "collusion" as a quick summary of what we're talking about?

You might have a point worth addressing, but I don't know. As soon as I saw you use 'collusion', my brain went into thesaurus mode, and now I can't think about anything else. Conversation over. Full stop.

 

[theprestige]

That's hardly an answer to the questions asked. How about actually giving serious answers a try?

It's no news that Trump is a prolific liar. There are over 9K examples recorded. But that does not answer the question of why did he lie about those things The Animus listed.

Of course it answers the question. Behold!

Q. Why did Trump lie about those things?

A. Because he's a stupid liar, as has been demonstrated over nine thousand times.

 

[phiwum]

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.

If Mueller came to the same conclusion (and here I omit obstruction), then I don't think this characterization is apt. If Mueller discovered that there was strong evidence the President committed a crime, I'm sure his report will say so, whether the President is indictable or not.

 

[Ziggurat]

Did the Chinese actually attack the US government, or private companies?

You didn't know?
Office of Personnel Management data breach

That's probably the highest profile case, but it's far from unique. Furthermore, while private companies are responsible for their own security, they are not capable of retaliating against state-sponsored hackers. The US government is the only entity positioned to do so, and should do so in order to protect US national interests.

 

[theprestige]

By this time tomorrow, the conventional wisdom will be that the Mueller report contains a smoking gun, and that Barr is covering it up.

 

[wareyin]

If Mueller came to the same conclusion (and here I omit obstruction), then I don't think this characterization is apt. If Mueller discovered that there was strong evidence the President committed a crime, I'm sure his report will say so, whether the President is indictable or not.

We may never know what was in Mueller's report. All we know now is what we have been told by Barr, an man hired specifically because of his position that Trump is above the law, and that Mueller and the DOJ both do not believe a sitting President can be indicted.

If a sitting President can't be indicted, does it matter how strong the evidence he committed a crime is?

 

[Horatius]

Okay so Trump didn't collude.

Why did he lie about the Russian Trump Tower deal? Why did he and Jr. repeatedly lie and change their story about the meeting at Trump Tower? Why did numerous members of Trump's staff lie about connections/ meetings with Russian agents? Why did they intentionally have meetings with no records of it, or what they talked about? Why did he repeatedly attempt to obstruct the investigation like firing Comey "over that whole Russia thing"?

I think the take-away here is that, while Trump did not collude with Russia, it was clear that Russia wanted to collude with Trump. That's what those meetings were all about.

So Trump falls into the strange grey area: Stupid enough to take the meetings, not realizing that's what Russia was interested in, but smart enough not to say yes to their plans.

But that's where the lies come in: because they're just cunning enough to know that admitting the Russians did approach them with the intent to collude would sway at least some voters, even if Trump did not ultimately collude with the Russians.

So, as always, it's the cover up that killed them. It made Trump et al look guilty as hell, because they really were lying about those meetings. It's just that their lies were not the lies we expected.

A man of good character would have blown the whistle on all this as it happened, and trust in others to see that he was being honest. Which is of course why Trump probably never even considered that route.

 

[wareyin]

By this time tomorrow, the conventional wisdom will be that the Mueller report contains a smoking smocking gun, and that Barr is covering it up.

ftfy
If you must do the yeoman's work for your hero, you should at least use his spelling.

 

[theprestige]

If a sitting President can't be indicted, does it matter how strong the evidence he committed a crime is?

Yes it does. It matters for impeachment. While the criteria for impeachment is entirely up to the House's subjective majority opinion, it's a lot easier to sell "high crimes and misdemeanors" if you actually have strong evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. A lot easier to sell to your fellow congressmen, and to the public at large. Hell, if the evidence is clear enough, and widely published, the public at large will be asking you to impeach.

I predict that next, a House subcommittee will review the full Mueller report. They'll refer it to the full committee... and the full committee will recommend no action, because there's nothing in the report to hang an impeachment on.

I also predict that along the way there will be plenty of grandstanding by Democrat committee members, implying that redactions in the report are suspicious, that the report itself is unreliable (because it's not saying what we wish it said), etc.

 

[theprestige]

ftfy
If you must do the yeoman's work for your hero, you should at least use his spelling.

If you don't have something on topic to contribute, that isn't about me instead of the actual topic, please don't quote my posts to get your jibes in. It's uncivil towards me personally, and for what? I haven't insulted you, have I?

 

[plague311]

You didn't know?
Office of Personnel Management data breach

That's probably the highest profile case, but it's far from unique. Furthermore, while private companies are responsible for their own security, they are not capable of retaliating against state-sponsored hackers. The US government is the only entity positioned to do so, and should do so in order to protect US national interests.

These two breaches are still not the same thing. I don't know what Obama should have done in that circumstance. Did you want some form of sanctions?

The Chinese did not release any of the information publicly, at least not to according to your link. I'm not showing how they used the information against the United States, whereas Russia actively changed an election. I still don't get how these two cases are comparable outside of them both involving hacking of the government.

I recognized this after you linked to it, but admittedly didn't stay on top of the story. What did the Chinese end up doing with the information? See, I didn't blame Putin, Russia, or anyone else for the DNC hacking either. It's their own fault, they're a private organization.

 

[phiwum]

We may never know what was in Mueller's report. All we know now is what we have been told by Barr, an man hired specifically because of his position that Trump is above the law, and that Mueller and the DOJ both do not believe a sitting President can be indicted.

If a sitting President can't be indicted, does it matter how strong the evidence he committed a crime is?

Mueller's job was to investigate what crimes were committed. Even if the President is unindictable, it was his job to say that there is good enough evidence to indict if that is the case.

You're right we might not know what's in the Mueller report, but I'll wait to bitch about that when enough time has passed. I expect for now that we'll see large portions of it. Whether we'll see as much as we ought is another matter.

 

[dejudge]

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

Replucicans must be extremely that Manafort, Cohen, Flynn and Papadopolus must be were jailed or convicted because of the "nothingburger" from Russia and that Trump wasn't.

 

[acbytesla]

I think the take-away here is that, while Trump did not collude with Russia, it was clear that Russia wanted to collude with Trump. That's what those meetings were all about.

So Trump falls into the strange grey area: Stupid enough to take the meetings, not realizing that's what Russia was interested in, but smart enough not to say yes to their plans.

But that's where the lies come in: because they're just cunning enough to know that admitting the Russians did approach them with the intent to collude would sway at least some voters, even if Trump did not ultimately collude with the Russians.

So, as always, it's the cover up that killed them. It made Trump et al look guilty as hell, because they really were lying about those meetings. It's just that their lies were not the lies we expected.

A man of good character would have blown the whistle on all this as it happened, and trust in others to see that he was being honest. Which is of course why Trump probably never even considered that route.

How do you know he didn't say yes and they simply failed to uncover the evidence?

And here's the thing. Taking the meeting is evidence of conspiracy of the people that took the meeting. And Trump writing his son's false statement about the meeting makes him a party to it. ALL Barr's statement says is they didn't find enough evidence to ask for an indictment they were never going to ask for to begin with.

Barr's letter is a political statement written by a partisan toadie.

 

[phiwum]

These two breaches are still not the same thing. I don't know what Obama should have done in that circumstance. Did you want some form of sanctions?

The Chinese did not release any of the information publicly, at least not to according to your link. I'm not showing how they used the information against the United States, whereas Russia actively changed an election. I still don't get how these two cases are comparable outside of them both involving hacking of the government.

I recognized this after you linked to it, but admittedly didn't stay on top of the story. What did the Chinese end up doing with the information? See, I didn't blame Putin, Russia, or anyone else for the DNC hacking either. It's their own fault, they're a private organization.

Surely, then, you shouldn't complain about Russian disinformation on Facebook, right? Just like the hack of the DNC, they did it to (or through) a private organization in order to influence the election.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Sure, and that's one big problem with the media now and forever. One has to filter the information they give us.

 

[wareyin]

Yes it does. It matters for impeachment. While the criteria for impeachment is entirely up to the House's subjective majority opinion, it's a lot easier to sell "high crimes and misdemeanors" if you actually have strong evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. A lot easier to sell to your fellow congressmen, and to the public at large. Hell, if the evidence is clear enough, and widely published, the public at large will be asking you to impeach.

I predict that next, a House subcommittee will review the full Mueller report. They'll refer it to the full committee... and the full committee will recommend no action, because there's nothing in the report to hang an impeachment on.

I also predict that along the way there will be plenty of grandstanding by Democrat committee members, implying that redactions in the report are suspicious, that the report itself is unreliable (because it's not saying what we wish it said), etc.

If you know that a Republican majority Senate will not impeach no matter the evidence or crime, it still doesn't matter how strong the evidence.