Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
Oooh, I don't think there is much need to take any notice of what the Megabitch-in-Chief says....

“The idea that any of us, and me as a campaign manager, would cheat, steal, lie, cut corners, talk to Russians, was an insult from the beginning.”


Really, Kellyanne? Really?

Cheat: Ahem, Paul Manafort was one of you.

Steal: Ahem, Rick Gates was one of you.

Lie: Ahem, Donald "9179 lies and counting" Trump IS one of you!

Cut Corners: ahem, National Emergency to build a vanity project.

Talk to Russians: OMG, who do I begin with? Michael Flynn, Don Jr, Paul Manafort, Ivanka, Jared Kushner.... and there are probably more.

Goodness Kellyanne. It looks to me like you've been taking Lyin' Lessons from The Master of Deceit.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can be called a master of deceit when nobody is deceived.
 
Bogative said:
How dare a Republican use a Nazi comparison against his political opposition, that should be strictly reserved for Democrats and the media.


(The "yeah, but, Trump really is like Hitler" response is going to be lit)
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Your protestations might be more meaningful if the GOP hadn't literally chosen to elect actual Nazis in their primaries. As it stands, though, accuracy is important. If something validly applies to the Democrats, it's fair game, just like if something validly applies to a Republican, it's fair game. A problem here, though, is that projection and lies do not make something actually true.

WilliamSeger said:
When a basketball team wins a game by a score of 99 to 98, some people will insist on attributing the win to the player who scored the most points or to the last basket, when in fact it should be attributed to scoring a total of 99 points.
Click to expand...

That might not be the best analogy here. If you want to make it more accurate, you should have the gap be greater and add, say... multiple incidents of members of the audience running onto the court and interfering with the team that eventually lost, helping the team that eventually won score a number of points that were counted as valid, despite such behavior being not allowed.

acbytesla said:
This may or may not have anything to do with Trump or the Mueller investigation. The mystery company that refused the subpoena that was handled in secrecy. I'm curious about people's perspective that they should have been allowed that secrecy. They are still requesting secrecy. This goes entirely against US principles.

Supposedly, the government...meaning Trump "prefers" that it not be revealed. To hide it breaks every precedence. I'm curious about people's opinion on this.

What is your position?
Click to expand...

I think... that we simply don't have enough information to give a meaningful response about the mystery company's case. I will grant that there could be legitimate reasons to keep the company secret, in short, especially if counter-intelligence is involved, but that we have no way to tell if the reasoning is legitimate or not from our current position.

acbytesla said:
Nonsense. You think just because something may not be illegal makes it right?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you ignored the actual usage of the "unethical" part there.

Ziggurat said:
And the anti-Trump crowd is insisting that we need the latter, even though the former is all that's ever possible. Like Russel's teapot.
Click to expand...

Not really. Rather, we need the evidence that points pretty clearly towards collusion to actually be dealt with and the reasoning for why it's not what it pretty clearly looks like to be elaborated upon. I'm willing to give the reasoning a fair hearing, as it is, but without that reasoning, I have no good reason to treat it as anything other than what it clearly looks like.

theprestige said:
You knew the report was going to need redactions before publication, right?
Click to expand...

Necessary redactions are one thing. Giving the White House free rein to continue its incredible abuse and misuse of executive privilege is something entirely different.
 
I don't think trying to sit on this report - if that's what happens - is really going to work out well for the Trump administration.
 
smartcooky said:
Obviously not... and why care anyway? They're only brown people after all.
Click to expand...


Ah, yes, the only reason anyone could disagree with you is because they're racist. That's the biggest problem with progressives. They've gone so long without having to make any arguments that they're no longer capable of it.
 
On a more serious note, I kind of agree with David Bahnsen at National Review, the whole thing has been a debacle for both sides, although more for the Democrats in this particular case.


National Review


A couple of things that hopefully everyone will be able to agree on.


David Bahnsen said:
Trump’s innocence in the collusion charge notwithstanding, there is no reason to give him a pass for his ridiculous choice of lieutenants throughout the campaign, the early part of his administration, and for much of his adult life. A very simple question can be asked here: Would there ever have been an investigation had President Trump not retained the services of a lowlife such as Paul Manafort, or used Roger Stone as a political consultant, or rebuffed the advice of everyone under the sun to avoid Michael Flynn, or hired a degenerate like Michael Cohen? I am not suggesting that President Trump deserved this attack, because he did not. I am not advocating for a guilt-by-association ethic. I am merely saying the same thing I say to my own kids: Never forget that whom you associate with will end up sticking to you, either positively or negatively.
Click to expand...


David Bahnsen said:
And last but not least, there is a significant amount of shame that ought to be spread around here. Yes, I agree with my friend David French that the Sean Hannity/Seth Rich conspiracy should not be forgiven. But as it pertains to this case, the opportunism of James Comey, the outrageous behavior of John Brennan, and of course the media coverage (from CNN to MSNBC to Buzzfeed to the major networks) have been nothing short of despicable. They ought not be forgotten, and all of these people deserve the humiliation they are enduring this week.

The aftermath to the special counsel’s report is playing out much the same way that the lead-up did: in line with each observer’s own tribalistic instincts. This is the state of American politics now, and there is no real end in sight. The Left has beclowned itself throughout this saga, and yet the points I make above (see Nos. 3–5 in particular) are likely to be met with opposition from many on the Right, for the simple reason that they don’t go along with a narrative many want. I believe it is up to the president to lead the way out of this mess, to bring the China trade deal to a close, and to spend the next 18 months leading, guiding, and speaking with a more credible and morally authoritative voice.

And as has been the case since January 2017, the last thing I worry about in that objective for the president is Russian collusion. Rather, I just worry about his own temperament and discipline. But at least for this week, he has the benefit of achieving a major victory over a powerful enemy who wished to do him harm. His move.
Click to expand...


My bolding is the real takeaway here, at least in my view. Politics back to the beginning of time has been an "us vs them" game, but when people lose sight of other peoples humanity over politics and refuse to even acknowledge other points of view it starts to get really dangerous. Both sides have to be able to consider other points of view, otherwise you end up like all the people that were shocked that Mueller has been investigating collusion for two years and couldn't find any evidence. And the same on the right. It's obvious that Trump surrounds himself with some very questionable people, but some people act like to acknowledge that would give some some sort of victory to the left.
 
cmikes said:
My bolding is the real takeaway here, at least in my view.
Click to expand...

The most distinct failing here, though, is that we're NOT at the aftermath, yet. We only have an extremely short "summation" by someone who was specifically put there to protect the President from exactly this, by a group of people who have somewhat shamelessly been spinning black as white and white as black throughout this entire process, when they weren't outright lying. Nothing was presented that actually addresses the numerous examples of deeply concerning behavior by Trump and his campaign members except simple assertion that also happens to leave huge holes in which nigh everything still fits. Taken alone, the summation would seem to be crafted to mislead one into thinking that quite a bit of relevant condemnatory information from various Mueller indictments simply... didn't exist, for that matter. So again, no, we're most definitely not at the aftermath of handling something that hasn't actually been presented in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Two comparisons come to mind with regards to the Barr Summary:

First, the 2018 Midterms:
Pundits left and right claim that the Trump Collusion/Blue Wave was a mirage, a hype that was completely unwarranted in hindsight.
But this is very short-sighted. The Barr not-exoneration is the best thing Trump can hope for - everything more we learn from the Mueller report will make it worse for him, just like the results of the Midterms slowing trickling in showed that, yes, Democrats had taken critical control over more than expected.

and Second: the Comey testimony.
Like Comey, Barr (and by proxy Mueller) seem to say: the person we've investigated has recklessly disregarded the rules and should have known better: it just doesn't rise to the level of criminality.
But Comey's "exoneration" of Clinton was devastating to her campaign. It didn't matter that we knew she was never going to be indicted - Trump fans still got to chant "lock her up".
Well, Dems are now fully justified in chanting "lock him up", based on the ambiguity Mueller left us with. And it will cost Trump swing voters.
 
Last edited:
Aber said:
Citation required.
Click to expand...


CNN

William Barr said:
The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Click to expand...


Do you believe that Mueller found evidence that "members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" and choose to cover it up? Why would he do that? Do you really believe that Mueller's hand picked "I'm with Her" lawyers wouldn't leak that if he attempted to do so for whatever reason?
 
cmikes said:
Do you believe that Mueller found evidence that "members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" and choose to cover it up? Why would he do that?
Click to expand...

"Cover it up?" Why would you think that he would be need to be covering it up, rather than say, try to assemble a report that was expected to be reviewed fairly thoroughly by Congress, who would be the people who could actually take action or choose not to take action with far less questionable legitimacy, and inserting relevant bits into various indictments. As it was, quite a bit was apparently to be found in the indictments that were actually issued, including stuff like Manafort passing some of the most valuable data that the Trump campaign had for planning strategy to someone with notable ties to Russia's intelligence, even if he may not have been part of Russia's intelligence himself. It's true that "conspiracy" and "coordination" with the "Russian government" is not the case if it was indeed a "Yes, we know that you and your government are trying to help us. Have a "gift" as thanks, private citizen of Russia. Do with it what you want." kind of scenario, for example. That wouldn't make it any less wrong.

cmikes said:
Do you really believe that Mueller's hand picked "I'm with Her" lawyers wouldn't leak that if he attempted to do so for whatever reason?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Trump Tweets

Congressman Adam Schiff, who spent two years knowingly and unlawfully lying and leaking, should be forced to resign from Congress!
 
Interesting point made by one of the posters in SBs link

"700 pages and Barr spent - what - less than 48 hours to summarize his conclusion? That's 14.5 pagesa an hour - if he didn't sleep at all during that time... Impressive."

So lets subtract 6 hours sleep on Friday and Saturday nights, 48-12 = 36 hours.

That is one page every three minutes, to read, analyse, cross check, cross reference, co-ordinate, think about a conclusion and write the report.

Of course, if he already had his report written sorted because he actually shut the SCO investigation down, that might explain a few things.

The more I hear about what Barr has been, and is, doing, the more I detect the distinct and rancid stench of a cover up.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to know what the House Democrats are waiting on. Do they really think giving the White House a chance to redact "sensitive information" is going to be conducted honestly? They're clearly going to have to subpoena the unredacted report and all the evidence anyway, they ought to start the fight over it now.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
I'd like to know what the House Democrats are waiting on. Do they really think giving the White House a chance to redact "sensitive information" is going to be conducted honestly? They're clearly going to have to subpoena the unredacted report and all the evidence anyway, they ought to start the fight over it now.
Click to expand...

Do they have a choice in the matter? Can they subpoena the full report before the DOJ sends it to their boss?
 
Beelzebuddy said:
I'd like to know what the House Democrats are waiting on. Do they really think giving the White House a chance to redact "sensitive information" is going to be conducted honestly? They're clearly going to have to subpoena the unredacted report and all the evidence anyway, they ought to start the fight over it now.
Click to expand...

I think this is the best reason why all the “advice” the Dems are getting to drop it and move on because it’s politically bad to keep it in the news cycle is BS. If anyone ever wants some answers as to what Mueller determined happened, the only way they’re going to get them is if someone fights for it. Otherwise you’re just letting Bart hand Trump a black marker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom