Mueller Investigation pt 6

[smartcooky]

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.

Nothing huh?

1. Reaction to the continuing Russia investigation ("witch hunt" "hoax" claims).
2. Termination of Comey (and his stated reason for doing so).
3. Efforts to remove the Special Counsel (multiple).
4. Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence.
5. Efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation.
6. Efforts to have McGahn get Sessions to un-recuse himself, so that Sessions could halt the investigation
7. Asking McGahn to deny that he attempted to halt the investigation
8. Asking McGahn to put false documents in the record to hide his attempts to fire the special counsel.
9. Dangling of pardons for Flynn, Manafort.
10. Knowingly allowing Michael Cohen to testify falsely before Congress.

Enough for ya?

Let me make this clear for you. If it was was the Vice-President (who has no protection under the DoJ's OLC memo) being investigated for these things, he would already have been indicted and prosecuted.

 

[Paul2]

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

Having a handy chart to use is not the same as needing it, and I’m not even sure what the relevance is of “needing” a chart.

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.

These are not mutually exclusive for me. I fully support both.

 

[tanabear]

Do you have a quote from Soros saying that?

Have you ever asked yourself why candidates spend billions on their campaigns? Are they influencing voters or wasting their money?

It's not hard to find one or more sources that explain the Russian campaign. You've already ignored the influence of leaking the DNC and Podesta's emails. And you keep asking this question which is easily discovered online if you were actually interested. You're just avoiding the truth.


Here, I'll get you started:

538 Nate Silver: How Much Did Russian Interference Affect The 2016 Election?

FactCheck: In His Own Words: Trump on Russian Meddling

Keep in mind Clinton lost because of multiple reasons, the Russian interference was only one.

George Soros believed that Trump would crash the markets and lost quite a bit of money betting against him.

Soros lost $1B betting Trump would cause stocks to crash
- https://nypost.com/2017/01/12/soros-lost-1b-betting-trump-would-cause-stocks-to-crash/

It was economic clown Paul Krugman who said Trump would destroy the economy:

"So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight."

Yes, I've read those articles. They also don't give one example of disinformation from Russia that became widely believed by the American public. In fact Nate Silver says: "But if it’s hard to prove anything about Russian interference, it’s equally hard to disprove anything."

You could say that about practically anything.

p.s. The DNC and Podesta e-mails were not disinformation. It was true information. It was true information that made it more difficult for the FakeNews media to push their fake narratives. Are you against the American people being better informed when they vote?

Are you counting George W. Bush as a member of the media?

How much Fox News did he watch?

It was part of a disinformation campaign that came from western media and western intelligence.

Doesn't matter how many Americans believed it, because you have to establish the principle that no foreign interference is ever allowed in order to account for the case in which foreign interference might be influential.

Agreed?

So should all foreign influences not be allowed during an election? Can we not watch the BBC, the CBC, Al Jazeera etc. Can foreign leaders not make comments on our elections? This would seem like a tall order. However, foreign "interference" only became a huge issue because the 2016 election was supposed to be a coronation ceremony for Hillary Clinton and that didn't happen.

Doubtful.

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.

But it is not difficult for me to give examples of disinformation and false narratives promoted by western intelligence/media. Why is it so difficult to do for Russian disinformation campaigns? This has been one of the biggest "news" stories over the past 3 years, yet actual examples of disinformation seem to be rather sparse. I mean it's almost like "Russian disinformation" itself is a disinformation campaign by western intelligence/media.

 

[Stacyhs]

Nothing huh?

1. Reaction to the continuing Russia investigation ("witch hunt" "hoax" claims).
2. Termination of Comey (and his stated reason for doing so).
3. Efforts to remove the Special Counsel (multiple).
4. Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence.
5. Efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation.
6. Efforts to have McGahn get Sessions to un-recuse himself, so that Sessions could halt the investigation
7. Asking McGahn to deny that he attempted to halt the investigation
8. Asking McGahn to put false documents in the record to hide his attempts to fire the special counsel.
9. Dangling of pardons for Flynn, Manafort.
10. Knowingly allowing Michael Cohen to testify falsely before Congress.

Enough for ya?

Let me make this clear for you. If it was was the Vice-President (who has no protection under the DoJ's OLC memo) being investigated for these things, he would already have been indicted and prosecuted.

Hell, if he'd been Obama in his last term, he'd have been impeached so fast you'd get whiplash.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Hell, if he'd been Obama in his last term, he'd have been impeached so fast you'd get whiplash.

And one of the reason the American public is so lukewarm on impeaching Trump despite.... *gestures at everything* is that right there.

If we impeach Trump we have to do it because it's the right thing to do and/or the best thing for the country. Acting like it's one of the tribes getting back at some real or hypothetical slight, even in a joking, offhand, or in passing manner taints it.

We cannot frame an impeachment of Trump as a win for the Democrats. It can't be about that.

If we're impeaching a President nobody is winning. We shouldn't be happy about it. It's not a cause for celebration.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

Sorry, but this is a stupid comment. Things like the heat chart linked to make the complicated information easier to understand at a glance. It shows 4 times where there was clear evidence of obstruction, and another 2 where there was probably obstruction, with another 6 of possible obstruction. This is not "Nothing" and really if you want an answer to you question then you should do some reading, in particular, Volume II of the Mueller Report, it spells it all out, from trying to get the Investigation if Russia's Interference shut down, to trying to influence witnesses to either not testify or to lie.

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

The Target Audience for the Mueller Report has no jurisdiction over Putin.

 

[Frank Newgent]

[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.

Is it hypocritical for a habitual liar to say something honest?

 

[PhantomWolf]

And one of the reason the American public is so lukewarm on impeaching Trump despite.... *gestures at everything* is that right there.

If we impeach Trump we have to do it because it's the right thing to do and/or the best thing for the country. Acting like it's one of the tribes getting back at some real or hypothetical slight, even in a joking, offhand, or in passing manner taints it.

We cannot frame an impeachment of Trump as a win for the Democrats. It can't be about that.

If we're impeaching a President nobody is winning. We shouldn't be happy about it. It's not a cause for celebration.

And this is one of the big things that people on both sides need to look at.

When you take an honest and genuine look at the evidence the Bob Mueller and his team have laid out for us, if you are willing to say that it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment, then you need to answer this question.... If this is not enough, then what exact would a President have to do to be impeached from now on?

 

[Paul2]

So should all foreign influences not be allowed during an election? Can we not watch the BBC, the CBC, Al Jazeera etc. Can foreign leaders not make comments on our elections? This would seem like a tall order. However, foreign "interference" only became a huge issue because the 2016 election was supposed to be a coronation ceremony for Hillary Clinton and that didn't happen.

Good point, I was not specific enough. Foreign commentary on our elections is fine, but not foreign commentary that masquerades as something it is not. That should keep the BBC, etc, inside the wheelhouse.

 

[Meadmaker]

Enough for ya?

Nope.


Nor for the Senate.


In 1998 the Republicans sounded just as sincere, and their case was far more straightforward and far more obvious. He lied under oath, which he did. They also accused him of obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of power, and they made it sound so good. All the radio yappers were convinced that Clinton was history, and the Republicans would pick up huge gains in the off year elections.


And, no one cared, and no one should have cared, and the Republicans looked like buffoons for pursuing it. Apparently, a lot of people weren't paying attention to the lessons of 1998.


I know. I know. A whole lot of people are about to disagree. Feel free. My overall take on it is that if you can pursue impeachment, it's also the kind of thing that ought to land someone in jail. So, why should the President be thrown out of office and then, into jail? If it takes you three paragraphs to explain it, you don't have a good case.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jesus ******* Christ can we not "Buuuuuutttttt Clinton" our way into being Washington being renamed West Moscow?

 

[Meadmaker]

Jesus ******* Christ cannot we not "Buuuuuutttttt Clinton" our way into being Washington being renamed West Moscow?

Tie down those knees, Joe. If anything, my post was "BBBUUTTT GINGRICH".

The point is that there are a bunch of people who are sure, so sure, that this is so obviously a violation of the law and it's horrible and awful and we have to throw him out! I wish they were correct. However, they aren't. The Clinton impeachment is very analogous. It sounded all so good and there were a group of Congressmen and their supporters who were just certain that they had an airtight case.

They didn't. They lost. So will the Democrats if they go ahead with impeachment. Nancy Pelosi knows this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nope.


Nor for the Senate.


In 1998 the Republicans sounded just as sincere, and their case was far more straightforward and far more obvious. He lied under oath, which he did. They also accused him of obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of power, and they made it sound so good. All the radio yappers were convinced that Clinton was history, and the Republicans would pick up huge gains in the off year elections.


And, no one cared, and no one should have cared, and the Republicans looked like buffoons for pursuing it. Apparently, a lot of people weren't paying attention to the lessons of 1998.


I know. I know. A whole lot of people are about to disagree. Feel free. My overall take on it is that if you can pursue impeachment, it's also the kind of thing that ought to land someone in jail. So, why should the President be thrown out of office and then, into jail? If it takes you three paragraphs to explain it, you don't have a good case.

Lying under oath about an affair is nothing close to analogous to what Trump did. People aren't all stupid. Yes some voters blindly follow Trump. But I believe a whole lot more understand how serious an attack on our country by a foreign government is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Tie down those knees, Joe. If anything, my post was "BBBUUTTT GINGRICH".

The point is that there are a bunch of people who are sure, so sure, that this is so obviously a violation of the law and it's horrible and awful and we have to throw him out! I wish they were correct. However, they aren't. The Clinton impeachment is very analogous. It sounded all so good and there were a group of Congressmen and their supporters who were just certain that they had an airtight case.

They didn't. They lost. So will the Democrats if they go ahead with impeachment. Nancy Pelosi knows this.

People went to all that trouble to spell out the details and you're still in denial.

Amazing.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Jesus ******* Christ cannot we not "Buuuuuutttttt Clinton" our way into being Washington being renamed West Moscow?

...he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation. -Exodus 34:7

 

[Meadmaker]

Lying under oath about an affair is nothing close to analogous to what Trump did. People aren't all stupid. Yes some voters blindly follow Trump. But I believe a whole lot more understand how serious an attack on our country by a foreign government is.

If Mueller had uncovered any evidence that Trump was complicit in those attacks, Trump would be gone. There wasn't any such evidence.

 

[Meadmaker]

People went to all that trouble to spell out the details and you're still in denial.

Amazing.

And....I'm not alone.

 

[I Am The Scum]

If Mueller had uncovered any evidence that Trump was complicit in those attacks, Trump would be gone. There wasn't any such evidence.

Gosh, if only our lawmakers had the foresight to realize how serious it is for someone to corruptly obstruct the justice system. There really oughtta be a law.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well when we're squatting in our hovels trying to figure out if our shoes are edible after the social and economic collapse of the country, we can all feel warm and fuzzy that "technically he wasn't proven guilty."

 

[Tero]

I disagree with the Atlantic on impeachment. Start it now. Normally it may take months to collect anything. But this is Trump. The impeachment will take a year. And getting Trump grilled and tweeting furiously for a year will be worth it. If Trump is re-elected, the situation will be the same. But the impeachment has no impact on a coming election or Trump standing. Because he will just drag it out for another 4 years.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/impeach-trump-not-yet/590578/

Also, you have to keep hammering at Russian interference. The more you bind Trump to Russia, the better. Russia wants him re-elected. The issue has to be in the news. For months, maybe a year.