Mueller Investigation pt 6

[The Great Zaganza]

Yes, many things could have saved HRCs campaign, but any number of things on their own were enough to swing the election to Trump.

 

[dudalb]

[qimg]https://scontent-bru2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/61303701_10156901883751677_8414781973083455488_o.png?_nc_cat=107&_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.xx&oh=461dddc32a29dcd690823fffad57a020&oe=5D9EAE0A[/qimg]

The man is an idiot.

God, the man never stops to think before tweeting.

 

[dudalb]

I must say IsThisTheLife it is truly lucky for all of us that you just amazingly appeared, with full knowledge of this board and all its posters history already available to you, to fill in the blank left the by the flouncing and banning of so many unjustly persecuted conservative posters.

It truly is a miracle.

I am betting our new friend will not be with us for long........

 

[Minoosh]

We realize this. But as Mueller's investigation has ended, it's not likely that there will be any more bombshells between now and Nov. 2020.

I'm not so sure about that. Some of the incidents Mueller talked about were things Trump did very publicly and did not depend on having great investigative prowess. Trump could end up with more self-inflicted wounds.

 

[Paul2]

Wait, are you suggesting that reading Mueller's report would provide answers allegedly sought by the trollspeople in this thread?

Sorry, I don't know what came over me. I guess I better get that looked at, huh?

 

[Stacyhs]

Only in the mind of the MAGA hat crowd could a decorated war veteran, devoted public servant, and life-long Republican be called a Trump destroying tool of the Democratic Party.

I think some MAGA hats are restricting the flow of blood to the brain.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have to butt in with a question. It's a sincere question. Really.

There has been a lot of talk of impeachment lately. Some people think it is absolutely imperative that Congress step up, fulfill their duty, and throw Trump out.

My question is: What did he do?

Seriously.

I'm fairly well informed. I listen to radio news, NPR, and talk radio when driving. I see google news a lot. I haven't been reading the politics and related threads (including this one) as much as I used to, but I'm not completely in the dark. For the life of me, I have no idea what the man is alleged to have done.

I know it is something to do with "Obstruction of Justice", and I know something about what that means, but it doesn't tell me what he did. What I mean is, did he bribe investigators? Threaten witnesses? Destroy documents that were subpoenaed? How did he obstruct justice?


Literally the only thing I've heard associated with the discussions of impeachment was that he may have told his lawyer that it would be a good thing if one of the people who work for him got fired. I hope that's not all they've got, because that's nothing. If he had actually fired somebody, then it's possible there might be something there, but thinking about maybe firing someone isn't a crime.


Let me compare. About 20 years ago, the conversation would have gone like, "What did President Clinton do?"

"He committed perjury."


"Oh, that sounds very serious. What did he do?"


"What do you mean what did he do? I told you. Perjury."

"Yeah, but, I mean, I guess he lied under oath or something. What did he lie about?"


"He hid the fact that he got a blow job from an intern."

"What? Who cares?"


So, what did Trump do? Because, literally, all I hear about is whether or not they will impeach him, and it has something to do with obstruction of justice, but there's never any detail. There are things that are basically variations on, "He really didn't like the investigation." Yeah? And?


Oh, and, for what it's worth, I think Trump is pond scum. I wish we could impeach him for shredding the Paris accords, starting a trade war, being a general embarrassment to the United States, spending record amounts of money after cutting taxes resulting in huge increases to an already unacceptable debt, and...…..well, you get the idea. He's awful. But, those aren't impeachable and, sadly, a lot of those things are actually popular. Why all the talk of impeachment? What did he do?

 

[Cain]

You are making the same mistake Pelosi has been making (I have hope she'll change). That is, assuming the impeachment and conviction have to both occur.

Pelosi is pretty shrewd when it comes to political calculation. You want to say the people who have this right are the progressives that Nancy has managed to easily out-maneuver.

I can already hear the talking points: Democrats put the country through an impeachment trial for political gain. Democrats subject country to impeachment despite impossibility of conviction.

Expose Trump via impeachment, and trigger him to become absurdly preoccupied with it (because he will be) all during the campaign. People in the case of Clinton thought the impeachment was petty, there was voter backlash.

Trump will use it a cudgel for his re-election.

Impeaching Trump is far from petty, especially if it is done right showing him so dangerously close to being a dictator...

It doesn't matter if it's far from petty; what matters is how people perceive it. And without an immediate physical foreign threat, the populace prefer their dictators to be incompetent.

And while the House is at it, they can expose the Russian attack on our election that Trump and sadly much of the press is ignoring.

It's unlikely this can cause Americans to care more than they already do. That ship has sailed. A lot of this is just pie in the sky wishing. This is real life, not an Aaron Sorkin movie.

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump Tweets

Robert Mueller came to the Oval Office (along with other potential candidates) seeking to be named the Director of the FBI. He had already been in that position for 12 years, I told him NO. The next day he was named Special Counsel - A total Conflict of Interest. NICE!

Not according to what Steve Bannon said:

Former top White House adviser Steve Bannon told federal investigators that Mueller did not go to the White House seeking to become FBI director for a second time, and was instead invited to offer “a perspective on the institution” to the president.

“Bannon recalled telling the president that the purported conflicts were ‘ridiculous’ and that none of them was real or could come close to justifying precluding Mueller from serving as special counsel,” the report reads.
Mueller’s report also addressed his membership at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., saying he wrote a resignation letter in October 2011 explaining “we live in the District and find that we are unable to make full use of the club” and inquiring about a partial refund for his initiation fee. The club responded he would be put on a wait list to be refunded, according to the report, which stated the Muellers had “no further contact” with the club.
Bannon told the president that the golf-club dispute was not a true conflict and claiming so was “ridiculous and petty.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/446130-trump-escalates-attacks-on-mueller

Edited to add remaining quote

 

[Belz...]

Maybe I have read the Mueller report.

Doubtful.

But I am asking about a disinformation campaign from Russia. What was the disinformation and what percentage of Americans believed it.

How many hairs are on Donald Trump's butt?

Your question is both needlessly hard to answer and completely irrelevant. The question is whether Russia interfered, not to what extent they succeeded. That you're trying to divert from the actual question is quite revealing about your desperation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have to butt in with a question. It's a sincere question. Really.

There has been a lot of talk of impeachment lately. Some people think it is absolutely imperative that Congress step up, fulfill their duty, and throw Trump out.

My question is: What did he do?

...

Among other things, the one that stands out as a serous high crime I've said a couple times, so did Mueller in his statement and so did smartcooky in this thread:


Me: Trump obstructed the investigation into an attack on American democracy by a foreign adversary.

Here is what Mueller's statement basically says... 4. Trump obstructed the investigation, and made it difficult for us to do our job.

and finally, a verbatim quote from Mueller

5. "There were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every American"

I can only conclude that any American who still believes there was no Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election and that Trump did not obstruct justice, is either being wilfully ignorant, or working for Russia, either knowingly (a traitor to his own Country) or unknowingly (a useful idiot).

As to the specifics, he tried on multiple occasions to shut Mueller down, said that's why he fired Comey, refused to testify, called it a fake witch hunt publicly over and over while claiming the investigation was biased by political enemies....

Need more?

 

[Stacyhs]

It boggles the mind of anyone with more than half a brain that anyone would still need evidence of how Russia's disinformation campaign worked during the last election...or that many people fell for it to varying degrees. The fact that some idiots fell for the "Clinton-Pizza Parlor-child sex ring" story isn't enough evidence for them that people can be really gullible/stupid when it suits their bias. But, as we've seen in this forum, some people still refuse to believe it because Trump, that icon of truth, declares it was all a 'witch-hunt'. The following article gives a good account of just how Russia's disinformation campaigns around the world work. One example:

The hoaxes are almost impossible to eradicate. Versions of the “baby parts” story, with no ties to Russia, have driven mob lynchings in Mexico, India and other places, preceded by false reports circulating virally on WhatsApp and other messaging platforms.

During the 2016 election attack campaign by Russia, the same story appeared on a Tumblr page controlled by the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-linked online disinformation firm.

The page posted a meme to Tumblr featuring the faces of smiling black children next to a Jet magazine cover story on 800,000 missing black children. "Look up black organ harvesting," the post read. "Some one or some thing is stealing and consuming our children."

It was the same story from Honduras in the 80’s, recycled by the Russia and given a new twist to stoke modern racial divisions.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/co...sia-s-disinformation-playbook-exposed-n910316

I don't expect the article to change some people's ideas because, frankly, I don't think anything could as long as it contradicted the idea they cling so desperately to.

 

[Paul2]

. . . .
My question is: What did he do?
. . . .
I know it is something to do with "Obstruction of Justice", and I know something about what that means, but it doesn't tell me what he did. What I mean is, did he bribe investigators? Threaten witnesses? Destroy documents that were subpoenaed? How did he obstruct justice?
. . . .
Literally the only thing I've heard associated with the discussions of impeachment was that he may have told his lawyer that it would be a good thing if one of the people who work for him got fired. I hope that's not all they've got, because that's nothing. If he had actually fired somebody, then it's possible there might be something there, but thinking about maybe firing someone isn't a crime.

For a summary, see
https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map. It has a useful chart outlining the obstruction. It shows 4 incident for which Mueller lays out all the facts necessary to support an obstruction of justice charge.

The most obvious on is firing Comey for the corrupt purpose of obstructing the Russia investigation. He admitted this to Lester Holt on camera. Whether he has the authority to fire the director of the FBI, as Comey was at the time of his firing, is irrelevant to whether he obstructed justice.

 

[Meadmaker]

For a summary, see
https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map. It has a useful chart outlining the obstruction. It shows 4 incident for which Mueller lays out all the facts necessary to support an obstruction of justice charge.

The most obvious on is firing Comey for the corrupt purpose of obstructing the Russia investigation. He admitted this to Lester Holt on camera. Whether he has the authority to fire the director of the FBI, as Comey was at the time of his firing, is irrelevant to whether he obstructed justice.

Ok. I didn't read the chart, but if you need a chart.....


If the most obvious is firing Comey, then...…………..nothing.

Yeah, I know. Lots of people here will disagree on that, but, nothing.

If you go back in the forum archives, to about that time, just after Mueller was appointed, some of the conservatives were up in arms about how awful Mueller was and how he would railroad Trump. I said that I had no reason to think that Mueller would do anything other than conduct a thorough, fair, and honest investigation. Now that it's over, I still believe that.

And it found nothing.

Well, that's not quite true. It found a heck of a lot of evidence that Russians put forth a major effort to influence US elections. That's pretty important.

 

[Paul2]

If the most obvious is firing Comey, then...…………..nothing.

To be clear is it your opinion that

1. Firing Comey for the purpose of affecting the Russia investigation is not obstruction of justice?

2. Trump didn’t (or we can’t tell that he) fired Comey for that purpose?

Or, what?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Given my post was ignored, perhaps it doesn't show up for some people. It speaks for itself but I wanted to add this:

The seriousness of the Russian interference in the election is apparently not recognized by the people who see Trump's obstruction of the investigation as trivial.

How someone who is NOT a Trump worshiper can look at the list in Paul2's link and say the only thing on there was Trump firing Comey is beyond comprehension. Read the careful analysis, it's quite generous in Trump's favor and it still shows Trump's obstructive acts very clearly.

Generous to Trump is saying it wasn't certain it was established that he tried to cover up the Trump Tower meeting. He wrote Donnie Jr's excuse, then denied it then had to admit he had.

Look at this analysis:

Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

The link is very careful to spell out the act, the evidence pro and con.

People should read the analysis, not just the list.

And they should stop and think about how serious the election interference was, not just dismiss it as a weak attempt. This was a cyber attack, voter interference, massive social network campaigns, and working with a company that stole voter information data directly from FaceBook.

 

[Meadmaker]

To be clear is it your opinion that

1. Firing Comey for the purpose of affecting the Russia investigation is not obstruction of justice?

2. Trump didn’t (or we can’t tell that he) fired Comey for that purpose?

Or, what?

Both 1 and 2.

Certainly, he wanted to "affect the Russia investigation". Affecting an investigation could be a crime, but it is not necessarily a crime. The parts that would make it a crime are lacking here. It is also not necessarily the case that affecting the Russian investigation was Trump's only goal in firing Comey. It was one of his goals, but did he have others?


Any questions about motivations, questions of "why" or "purpose" rarely have simple, straightforward, answers.

 

[Meadmaker]

How someone who is NOT a Trump worshiper can look at the list in Paul2's link and say the only thing on there was Trump firing Comey is beyond comprehension.

The most obvious on is firing Comey for the corrupt purpose of obstructing the Russia investigation.

I concluded that if that was the most obvious, and the others needed a chart to explain, there was nothing worth reading.

And they should stop and think about how serious the election interference was, not just dismiss it as a weak attempt. This was a cyber attack, voter interference, massive social network campaigns, and working with a company that stole voter information data directly from FaceBook.

I absolutely agree with this part. 100%.


And the media focus on the investigation into that has been focused on one and only one question. Can we use this to get rid of Trump?

That's my problem with this whole ruckus. Not enough focus on Putin, because everyone wants to get at Trump.

Fortunately, Bob Mueller himself did in fact spend a lot of effort documenting the interference, and handed down an awful lot of indictments related to it, although those indictments were all against people who were beyond the reach of US justice. That's not Mueller's fault. He did his job.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I concluded that if that was the most obvious, and the others needed a chart to explain, there was nothing worth reading.

They didn't need a chart to explain and that suggests you missed the analysis.

Here's another example:

H. Efforts to have Sessions take over the investigation

Obstructive act (p. 111): This question “would not turn on what Attorney General Sessions would actually do if unrecused, but on whether the efforts to reverse his recusal would naturally have had the effect of impeding the Russia investigation. … The duration of the President’s efforts … and the fact that the President repeatedly criticized Sessions in public and private for failing to tell the President that he would have to recuse is relevant to assessing whether the President’s efforts to have Sessions unrecuse could qualify as obstructive acts.”

Nexus (p. 111): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge,” as well as the existence of a second grand jury empaneled in July 2017. However, “[w]hether the conduct towards the Attorney General would have a foreseeable impact on proceedings turns much of the same evidence discussed with respect to the obstructive-act element.”

Intent (p. 111): “There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President’s conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope.”

Each of the items is analyzed in a very objective way. If you didn't look past the spread sheet list, you should.

 

[Paul2]

Both 1 and 2.

Certainly, he wanted to "affect the Russia investigation". Affecting an investigation could be a crime, but it is not necessarily a crime. The parts that would make it a crime are lacking here. It is also not necessarily the case that affecting the Russian investigation was Trump's only goal in firing Comey. It was one of his goals, but did he have others?


Any questions about motivations, questions of "why" or "purpose" rarely have simple, straightforward, answers.

Pardon me, instead of “affecting,” I should have written “negatively affecting,” which is a crime, for obvious (hopefully) reasons.

The parts that make it a crime are not lacking, as reference to the chart and Mueller’s report show.

Having more than one goal, in addition to a corrupt one, is a standard that makes it impossible to convict anyone of obstruction. Anyone could claim some other motive (“I didn’t like his face.”)

The subtleties of motive do not prevent prosecutors from prosecuting and juries from convicting.