Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
You don't know what is in the report other than what Barr said was in the report.

I never thought Trump would be removed from office. I have seen how spineless and principle deficient the Republican party has become.
Click to expand...

Mueller, the FBI, and the entire DOJ believes that a sitting President can't be indicted. Barr was hired precisely because he publicly stated that Presidents are above the law. McConnell and the rest of the Republicans in the Senate wouldn't vote to remove Trump no matter how damning the evidence was. Sadly, this is the only way this was ever going to play out.
 
The standard play in the Trumpistas' playbook, we can now see clearly, is to obfuscate complex issues and play up the most broad generalizations - or even lies, especially as in the case of the President - knowing that the voters they need to keep on board, and hopefully enough of the fence-sitters, won't be able or care enough to sort through the details, even if the details would change the generalization.

Even if there is a sliver of word-play ("totally exonerated" when the report said the opposite), use it and never give it up.
 
smartcooky said:
Your wish is my command

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...alling-on-barr-to-release-full-mueller-report
Click to expand...


Weak sauce.

You need to provide evidence that the report is ready to be released, after all, Barr said in his letter to Congress that he would need time to go over the report with the special counsel before releasing it.

In order for McConnell to be blocking its release, you need to provide evidence that it is in the hands of the U.S. Congress and they are blocking its release.

Until then, this is nothing more than political grandstanding by Schumer.

Schumer: release the report!

McConnell: I can't, the Atty. Gen. Barr still has it.

Schumer whispers into McConnell's ear: "I know that, silly, but I gotta keep the rubes wound up."
 
Ziggurat said:
A lot more than the report should be released. We should also see the letter outlining the authorized scope of Mueller's investigation. We should see the FISA application on Carter Page, who was alleged to be a foreign agent but who has after all this surveillance and investigation not been charged with anything. We should see exactly what the FBI was doing with the dodgy dossier. We should see exactly who unmasked Flynn. Etc, etc. Mueller's report is just one piece of the puzzle.
Click to expand...

I think it's on the authorizing order.
 
Bob001 said:
If this report "exonerates" Trump, why would McConnell block its release?
Click to expand...
Does it? McConnell hasn't seen it yet, right? Wouldn't he at least want to read it first?

Schumer knows that even if it doesn't put Trump away, his faction can still mine it for spinnable passages. Why would McConnell give Schumer a free pass on that, sight unseen?

Besides, if it really does "exonerate" Trump, there's something to be said for the strategy of holding onto it until the election. Let the suspense build up. Let the progressives and the media* continue beclowning themselves with speculation masquerading as news. Then, the One Thing That Puts Trump Away turns out to be yet another nothingburger, and Trump rides to reelection on a massive wave of Democrat humiliation.

Another distinct possibility is that McConnell would like to read the thing himself, and see if it offers an opportunity to get rid of Trump without sabotaging the GOP in the process. Why would he want Schumer to get the jump on him?

---
*But I repeat myself.
 
wareyin said:
Can you remind me again what the longstanding position the DOJ takes with regard to its job and whether the sitting President can be indicted? I know I've heard it somewhere, but for some reason I'm drawing a black on exactly what it is.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to. It is DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president.

Now, can you tell me what AG Barr's said about Mueller's report specifically and the DOJ's policy of not indicting a sitting president?

I'll give you a hint, go to the section of the letter Barr gave to Congress that is titled "obstruction of justice". It's the last sentence of the second paragraph.
 
Ziggurat said:
I make no claims about the media you personally consume, merely that there was lots of overblown coverage.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the media that I'm not familiar with. I'm sure coverage was overblown in some places. Arguably, WaPo spends too much ink on these issues, but I find them fairly careful.

Is that the alleged problem here? Merely a campaign finance law violation?

Because 1) that's going to be hard to get people really upset about, and 2) free speech makes the legal theory that merely talking is criminal an extremely suspect position.
Click to expand...

I don't reckon that accepting help from Russia in order to win an election is a dull bit of campaign finance esoterica. You might disagree, I suppose, but it's not similar to filling out one's forms improperly and without intention.
 
theprestige said:
And the other is a colloquial term for a crime.

Do you have any examples of anyone using the term to imply that the acts occurred but were not crimes?

I've asked this question several times now. Why won't you answer it?
Click to expand...

I did answer it. You just refuse to accept the answer by continuing to be a fine example of it.
 
Belz... said:
What are you talking about? They could just redact whatever information pertains to ongoing investigations.
Click to expand...

And information that involves the grand jury, because it's illegal to release that information.

And any classified information, because it's illegal to release that information.
 
Ziggurat said:
I was expecting more. A Congressional statement doesn’t do anything real. It would have changed nothing had McConnell signed off on it. Was that Obama’s best plan of response?
Click to expand...
I am not an expert on foreign policy, nor do I portray one on the Internet. I just happened to be reading through this thread, and noticed that someone posting under the Ziggurat pseudonym professed ignorance of McConnell's role in limiting the US response to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Despite my vast lack of expertise, I realized I was not so poorly informed as to be unable to assist said Ziggurat in this matter.

Unless your only alternative would be to ask your question of the current administration or to get your information from Fox News, I don't see why you'd ask me to analyze the historical situation for you and tell you the best option(s) available to Obama. Recognizing, however, that those may indeed be (in your mind) the only alternatives you have to asking me, I will tell you of a few things Obama actually did. I do not mean to suggest that the responses listed below were the best possible, but the fact that these responses were actually made serves as evidence that they were among the responses Obama could have made.

  • Obama and his DNI could have offered a straightforward public acknowledgement that Russia was behind the DNC hack. That would have been (and was, because that is what they did) a lot better than saying the reporting on that hack was a hoax, as was repeatedly alleged by then-candidate Trump.
  • Obama could have allowed the FBI to open an investigation into Russian influence leading up to the 2016 election. That would have been (and was, because that is what Obama did) a lot better than firing the FBI director because of "the Russia thing".
  • Obama could have used the opportunity presented by a G20 meeting to tell Putin, face to face, to "cut it out". That would have been (and was, because that is what Obama did) a lot better than standing before reporters at Helsinki and responding to a question about Russian interference by saying "President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be."
  • Obama could have asked two of his highest-ranking intelligence officials to issue a statement saying "The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." That would have been (and was, because that is what Obama did) a lot better than taking Putin's side and belittling American intelligence agencies at every opportunity.
  • Obama could have expelled 35 Russian diplomats. That would have been (and was, because that is what Obama did) at least a little bit better than resisting sanctions imposed by Congress while praising Putin.

There are many here who are far more qualified than I to help you to remedy your ignorance of recent American history, but I'm the one you chose to ask for that help.
 
@W.D.Clinger

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12645287#post12645287


I am not an expert on foreign policy, nor do I portray one on the Internet. I just happened to be reading through this thread, and noticed that someone posting under the Ziggurat pseudonym professed ignorance of McConnell's role in limiting the US response to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Despite my vast lack of expertise, I realized I was not so poorly informed as to be unable to assist said Ziggurat in this matter.

Unless your only alternative would be to ask your question of the current administration or to get your information from Fox News, I don't see why you'd ask me to analyze the historical situation for you and tell you the best option(s) available to Obama. Recognizing, however, that those may indeed be (in your mind) the only alternatives you have to asking me, I will tell you of a few things Obama actually did. I do not mean to suggest that the responses listed below were the best possible, but the fact that these responses were actually made serves as evidence that they were among the responses Obama could have made.

Obama and his DNI could have offered a straightforward public acknowledgement that Russia was behind the DNC hack. That would have been (and was, because that is what they did) a lot better than saying the reporting on that hack was a hoax, as was repeatedly alleged by then-candidate Trump.
Obama could have allowed the FBI to open an investigation into Russian influence leading up to the 2016 election. That would have been (and was, because that is what Obama did) a lot better than firing the FBI director because of "the Russia thing".
Obama could have used the opportunity presented by a G20 meeting to tell Putin, face to face, to "cut it out". That would have been (and was, because that is what Obama did) a lot better than standing before reporters at Helsinki and responding to a question about Russian interference by saying "President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be."
Obama could have asked two of his highest-ranking intelligence officials to issue a statement saying "The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." That would have been (and was, because that is what Obama did) a lot better than taking Putin's side and belittling American intelligence agencies at every opportunity.
Obama could have expelled 35 Russian diplomats. That would have been (and was, because that is what Obama did) at least a little bit better than resisting sanctions imposed by Congress while praising Putin.

There are many here who are far more qualified than I to help you to remedy your ignorance of recent American history, but I'm the one you chose to ask for that help.
Click to expand...
Masterly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom