Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Aridas]

Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS were peddling the information in the dossier to the FBI and media BEFORE the election.

True.

On 09/23/2016 Michael Isikoff published a Yahoo News article about Carter Page's trip to Moscow in July of 2016 based off information in the dossier. New York Magazine published on November 1st, 2016 an article entitled,

"Final ‘October Surprises’ Reveal FBI Is Probing Trump’s Alleged Russia Ties."
- http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/11/final-october-surprises-fbi-probing-trumps-russia-ties.html

It reads in part,
"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid alleged that the FBI is sitting on “explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government.” Reid has been known to make wild accusations close to an election, but apparently this one was (sort of) true. According to the New York Times, the FBI spent much of the summer investigating the many allegations regarding Trump’s ties to Russia. The wide-reaching probe, which is reportedly ongoing, looked at his advisers, his financial activities, and the hack of Democratic officials..."

Read the article, it is replete with BS from the dossier.

Note: This is before the election. So information in the dossier was put out to the media and influenced the election of 2016.

Media which was generally cautious about such and did some checking first. Still, I apologize, I stated the position a little bit too strongly.

Yahoo News, New York Magazine, and Harry Reid certainly get more views than "Facebook ads."

Heh. Not necessarily. Going beyond that, much of the social media stuff was pointedly targeted at specific groups that were viewed as easily influenced, while the articles you pointed at very much weren't. Also, there was a heck of a lot more social media manipulation than just the Facebook ads.

So Christopher Steele(a foreigner) reached out to other foreigners(Russians) and created disinformation on Trump and it was put out to the FBI and media BEFORE the election.

...You're really pushing the disinformation angle, despite most of it having been backed up on investigation.

So why weren't the DNC, the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele investigated for colluding with Russia?

Is it your intent to play the part of a fool? The post that you were responding to lists several substantial points that you seem intent on ignoring. That's before getting to further discussion.

And why isn't the Left outraged that disinformation from Russian sources was used to influence the 2016 election in this manner?

Emptily asserting that it's disinformation, despite the evidence to the contrary, isn't particularly convincing.

Because this entire Russian collusion nonsense is just a pre-text to launch a coup against Trump.

Pence is behind it all, then, with the Left secretly working with him in a giant conspiracy?

p.s. If Joseph Mifsud is a Russian agent then why is he being protected by western governments?

Who is protecting him, exactly?

 

[Ambrosia]

No, that was a crazy, zone-eyed conspiracy nutter in the Conspiracy episode of Penn & Teller’s Bull$h*t.

Definitely Bill Hicks.



Of course despite being possibly the greatest comedian who ever lived, Bill was also something of a conspiracy nut, so there is that...

 

[Lurch]

As I indicated before, I really don't have anything more to say on this subject, but I did want to respond to this direct question. I will preface my remarks by saying that I'm not here to try and persuade anyone. Future events will tell whether I am right or wrong, and until then, it's just us folks yapping. Unfortunately, it's usually just us folks talking past each other.

That being said.....

I think the definition of "obstruction of justice" being used by those who want to see Trump prosecuted (either by impeachment or post-term in a real court) is overly broad. Right now, we're all talking through a cacophony of government and media voices, mostly with very strong political motives. It's hard to make sense out of all of them. I think that if a jury were to hear a coherent defense related to both the law and the facts of the case, they would conclude that Trump did not, in fact, commit a criminal act worthy of prosecution.


Now, I could pursue that line of thought further. Indeed, it would be an interesting intellectual exercise. However, I have also concluded that a reasonable conversation on the subject simply cannot take place on this forum. There are just too many voices all talking from all sorts of different directions. A coherent exploration of the issues just wouldn't happen. Instead, there would be a few people trying to hold a coherent conversation regarding the concept of "corrupt intent", while there would be a bunch of sniping from the sides saying, "Meadmaker must think....(insert something stupid here)".


So, instead, I'll bow out, unless someone can make some sort of suggestion of how we might be able to avoid the unpleasant aspects of that sort of conversation. Time will tell if I am correct in my assessment of the associated legalities.

Do you think your reasoning here would impress the 1000+ former career prosecutors who're all stating that anyone but the Prez would be charged based on nothing more than what Mueller has reported? Would your wishes change their minds?

Do you realize that your misguided flailings are possible only because of the DOJ's OLC *guideline* (a.k.a. *opinion*)? In another Universe where more than lip service is paid to the notion that no man is above the Law, Donny would have been indicted. No question whatsoever.

 

[Lurch]

No. He said that if the investigation proved he didn't commit a crime, he would say so. But the possibility remains that the President didn't commit a crime but the investigation couldn't prove he didn't. That distinction is extremely important, and you're getting it wrong.

Instead of focusing so fixedly on parsing a sentence at a time, survey and appreciate the totality. Why do you think Mueller so carefully presented the multiple instances of obstruction, noting how each met the criteria (or not) legally for a charging? He sure as heck didn't go through the effort for ***** 'n giggles. It's him buttressing his case that, while he cannot himself present a charge, that body actually having the power to act will now have the *evidence* of obstruction.

Stop with the pretence that Mueller had any power whatsoever to make the call.

 

[Belz...]

Is there a practical difference?

If someone respond to a request for evidence by saying they refrain from providing it, is that practically any different from refusing?

The result is the same, but yes, there's a significant difference. "Refuse" implies resisting the suggestion, when in fact he couldn't do much else. Maybe that's not what Zig wanted to imply, but in that case it was a poor choice of words.

THE actual quote? No, an actual quote, and not the only one addressing the topic.

It was the one Ginger was refering to, so it's a lot more relevant than yours.

 

[Belz...]

Actually, it is mine. You haven't proven that I lied, you've proven that your reading comprehension sucks.

See, this is why you can't just pick a horse and bet your whole fortune on it. If the horse loses, you're left to find excuses as to why he really won.

Ok the analogy's a bit twisted, but the point is that picking a "side" inevitably results in stuff like this; a desperate attempt to appear correct when you're not.

Observe:

Everything you said there except one you have exactly backwards

"No, you!"

I'm the one who presented evidence, and you're the one ignoring and denying it.

No one's denying evidence. The quote you posted and the quote I posted are both correct. But Ginger was refering to the one I posted, though she reworded it in order to support a different point of view. You, however, are trying to make that piece of evidence irrelevant because reasons -- presumably it makes your "side" look bad. Who's ignoring evidence again?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, the War on Terror is really a thing. Iraq had WMD and links to Al-Qaeda, and we are fighting all these wars in the middle-east to spread democracy. Why would anyone question any of those things?

You're all over the place.

No one's saying that you shouldn't question information. But you have to be able to verify the information and come to a conclusion. You can't just throw your arms in the air and deny the very concept of knowlege, or worse, pick a conclusion from a hat and stick with it despite the evidence.

The evidence is clear, and multiple intelligence agencies in the US and abroad, whose job it is to discover these things, have agreed: Russia has attempted to interfere with the 2016 US presidential elections. To what extent they succeeded is debatable, but that's not what we're discussing.

 

[Ziggurat]

The result is the same, but yes, there's a significant difference. "Refuse" implies resisting the suggestion, when in fact he couldn't do much else.

He could do much else. He couldn't indict, but it was absolutely within his power to conclude that crimes were committed by Trump. He chose not to. "Refuse" is an appropriate description of that choice.

It was the one Ginger was refering to, so it's a lot more relevant than yours.

Skeptic ginger's quote is not a real quote, so no, it is not more relevant than a real quote.

 

[Ziggurat]

See, this is why you can't just pick a horse and bet your whole fortune on it. If the horse loses, you're left to find excuses as to why he really won.

And now we're done. I keep telling you not to personalize these debates, and you keep doing it anyways. And it's always you that does it, not me. Every single time.

 

[Ziggurat]

Instead of focusing so fixedly on parsing a sentence at a time, survey and appreciate the totality. Why do you think Mueller so carefully presented the multiple instances of obstruction, noting how each met the criteria (or not) legally for a charging? He sure as heck didn't go through the effort for ***** 'n giggles. It's him buttressing his case that, while he cannot himself present a charge, that body actually having the power to act will now have the *evidence* of obstruction.

Stop with the pretence that Mueller had any power whatsoever to make the call.

It was absolutely within Mueller's power to conclude that Trump committed a crime. That's not a pretense, that's simply a fact. Mueller never claimed otherwise. As for motives, I think he wanted to make a partisan hatchet job that didn't look like a partisan hatchet job, but both my speculated motive and yours are just that: speculation. Either way, my description of what he did remains correct.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations." -Mueller

 

[PhantomWolf]

Actually, it is mine. You haven't proven that I lied, you've proven that your reading comprehension sucks.

The problem with your version is that had their been insufficient evidence of a crime, they would have cleared him, just as they cleared for insufficient evidence over conspiracy.

We're left with...

• We can't indict
• If we could clear we would have
• We do clear on conspiracy because of insufficient evidence
• Based on the evidence of Obstruction, we can't clear him.

You are basically left with the only possibility of not having actually committed a crime is that all the evidence says he did, but somehow it's all wrong and he didn't. That is a pretty slim possibility and clearly not what Mueller's and his team were saying.

 

[Upchurch]

It was absolutely within Mueller's power to conclude that Trump committed a crime. That's not a pretense, that's simply a fact. Mueller never claimed otherwise.

You are arguing from a position of willful ignorance. Come back once you’ve read the report and maybe it will sound less like you get all your information from Trumpian mouth-breathers.

 

[Ziggurat]

The highlighted is especially important when it comes to your line of argument. Sorry, your argument is simply wrong-headed. He refused explicitly because there could be no court resolution because of the circumstances. Nothing to do with whether it would qualify as a crime or not.

I didn't make any claim as to why he refused to do so, so how is it possible for a stated motive to contradict a position that doesn't depend upon motive?

But if you want to get into it, his stated motive is transparently bull ****. The exact thing he claims he wanted to avoid is the exact thing he actually achieved: making a party look guilty without offering them a formal process to defend themselves.

 

[Belz...]

He chose not to. "Refuse" is an appropriate description of that choice.

- "Meh. I have socks to buy but I don't feel like it. I'm not going to the mall today"
- "Why do you REFUSE to go to the mall?"
- "I'm not refusing anything. I just don't feel like going, that's all."
- "You chose not to. "Refuse" is an appropriate description of that choice."

Skeptic ginger's quote is not a real quote, so no, it is not more relevant than a real quote.

She. Was. Refering. To. That. Quote. Not to the one you dug up from the report. Stop being contrarian.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem with your version is that had their been insufficient evidence of a crime, they would have cleared him

No, this is wrong. Mueller said if the investigation proved he was innocent, he would have said so. But having insufficient evidence of a crime is different than having proof of innocence. Mueller never said that if there was insufficient evidence to charge, he would have said so. That is in fact the standard he explicitly refused to use, because the other side of that standard is saying that a crime was committed if there is sufficient evidence of a crime to charge, and Mueller didn't want to do that.

 

[Belz...]

And now we're done. I keep telling you not to personalize these debates, and you keep doing it anyways. And it's always you that does it, not me. Every single time.

What are you talking about? Where in that post did I personalize anything?

If it's off-limits to discuss your opinions because, being yours, they are personal, then no discussion is ever possible. I suspect that's the whole point, though. Increasingly you've been labeling as "personalising" things that are nothing of the sort. Either you're looking for an out, or you don't know what personalising is.

One way or another, your "woe is me, you're a big meanie!" routine is getting stale. Either you're able to discuss your own positions, or you're not.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No, this is wrong. Mueller said if the investigation proved he was innocent, he would have said so. But having insufficient evidence of a crime is different than having proof of innocence. Mueller never said that if there was insufficient evidence to charge, he would have said so. That is in fact the standard he explicitly refused to use, because the other side of that standard is saying that a crime was committed if there is sufficient evidence of a crime to charge, and Mueller didn't want to do that.

You seem to be forgetting that he actually did exactly that as far as the Trump Campaign and Conspiracy with Russia was concerned. You are claiming that he didn't do exactly what he did do.

Since he conducted both sections under the same rules, if their was insufficient evidence for Volume II, just as he stated that there was for Volume I, then it is clear that he would have, in fact he would have had to have come to the same conclusion. He didn't. He concluded that the evidence he had showed that unlike in the first Volume, he could not clear the President based on the evidence. In other words, unlike in Volume I when he says he has insufficient evidence, in Volume II he clearly has enough evidence, and it does not clear the President.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Mueller could not have declared that Trump committed a crime without risking a legal challenge.
In the Cohen fillings, Trump is already named as an un-indicted co-conspirator.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Mueller could not have declared that Trump committed a crime without risking a legal challenge.
In the Cohen fillings, Trump is already named as an un-indicted co-conspirator.

No he is not. That is Individual One, who Cohen helped become president. That could be anyone, but Trump is certainly not named.