Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Upchurch said:
Volume II Section II.E.c is also a good one. It contains the infamous "[t]his is the end of my Presidency" line, but stops just short of "I'm ******".

Anyway, Zig, what is your problem with the report's analysis of Trump's intent in that section? I remember thinking that one was particularly cringe-worthy for Trump.
Click to expand...


Have you actually read the full report? Just a few sentences later the context is clearly explained.

Trump said:
Everyone tells me that if you get one of these special counsels, it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.
Click to expand...


From the full context, it's obvious that Trump isn't worried about being guilty of anything, but about an investigation delaying and undermining his policies, exactly as intended by the Democrats. The whole quote, in context, makes it clear that Trump wasn't worried about what a special prosecutor would find, but was worried that it would be used as cudgel against his presidency, again, exactly as intended.

This is just yet more evidence that the investigation was explicitly political in nature, rather than being concerned about any crimes.
 
Upchurch said:
My guess is that Zig is going for a "We can never really know why anyone does anything, therefore one can never prove another's intent." Perhaps with some accusations of mind-reading and whatnot.

The problem is that this is the double-edged nature of relying on the law. While one can claim that one's hero is innocent because he has not been proven guilty, you also risk a lower bar for things like determining intent. You don't need to have absolute proof that something happened to make a legal determination, just good enough.
Click to expand...
Apparently, prosecutors establish intent all the time. While the evidence has to be there, it’s not something that’s impossible to adjudicate. Acting like it’s some metaphysical issue that can never be proven is not how things actually work.
 
cmikes said:
Have you actually read the full report? Just a few sentences later the context is clearly explained.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t good because it contained the phrase. It’s especially noteworthy because of it. It’s damning because of the other thing he between our two quotes, that Trump expected Sessions, AG at the time, to protect him from investigation.

Ironically, Trump got the special council, in part, because of his attempts to obstruct justice which he then tried to obstruct even more.
 
Paul2 said:
Apparently, prosecutors establish intent all the time. While the evidence has to be there, it’s not something that’s impossible to adjudicate. Acting like it’s some metaphysical issue that can never be proven is not how things actually work.
Click to expand...

It’s just a guess. We’ll have to see what Zig has to justify his stance about the report failing to establish intent.
 
Upchurch said:
It wasn’t good because it contained the phrase. It’s especially noteworthy because of it. It’s damning because of the other thing he between our two quotes, that Trump expected Sessions, AG at the time, to protect him from investigation.

Ironically, Trump got the special council, in part, because of his attempts to obstruct justice which he then tried to obstruct even more.
Click to expand...


Why wouldn't someone want to be protected from an investigation that was explicitly intended to be a political circus rather than actually find the facts? For all the Sturm Und Drang caused by the DNC/Clinton campaign's Steele Dossier, the fact remains that the Trump campaign wasn't involved in a conspiracy with Russia. I'd be pissed too if my political opponents were trying to get me entangled in an investigation that the entire purpose wasn't to find the truth* but just to make it harder to govern.


*Really, the investigation goes out of it's way to obscure the truth of where the initial information came from by trying to hide the fact that it was paid opposition research from Russian government sources that started the whole thing.
 
cmikes said:
Why wouldn't someone want to be protected from an investigation that was explicitly intended to be a political circus rather than actually find the facts?
Click to expand...

Well, (1) that was not the explicit purpose and (2) the DOJ is not a political entity to do the President’s personal bidding, let alone protect the President from investigation.
 
cmikes said:
....

From the full context, it's obvious that Trump isn't worried about being guilty of anything, but about an investigation delaying and undermining his policies, exactly as intended by the Democrats. The whole quote, in context, makes it clear that Trump wasn't worried about what a special prosecutor would find, but was worried that it would be used as cudgel against his presidency, again, exactly as intended.

This is just yet more evidence that the investigation was explicitly political in nature, rather than being concerned about any crimes.
Click to expand...
Surprise! I predicted one of you would make up this excuse.

If Trump knew he was innocent then he still obstructed the investigation into Russian interference in our federal election.

And given some of his staff members were convicted, it's pretty hard to believe the bull **** you just posted.
 
Upchurch said:
Well, (1) that was not the explicit purpose and (2) the DOJ is not a political entity to do the President’s personal bidding, let alone protect the President from investigation.
Click to expand...


It was admitted that it was political stunt rather than a real investigation when they chose to conduct a national security investigation instead of a criminal investigation. This made it possible to go through the FISA court and better hide the origins of the DNC/Clinton campaign Steele Dossier. In an actual criminal investigation, the judge might have wanted to know where they were getting their info, which would have revealed that they were attempting to use bought and paid for (from the Russian government, no less) political opposition research as real evidence and gotten themselves laughed out of the judge's office.

As for the highlighted, really? The DOJ of Comey, Rosenstein, Strzok, Page, not to mention Mueller's "I'm with Her" hand picked team of lawyers? Not political? There aren't enough laughing dogs in the world for that one.
 
Last edited:
cmikes said:
Why wouldn't someone want to be protected from an investigation that was explicitly intended to be a political circus rather than actually find the facts?
Click to expand...
Let's start with this lie. Neither Mueller nor anyone else involved in the Mueller investigation did anything of the kind.


cmikes said:
For all the Sturm Und Drang caused by the DNC/Clinton campaign's Steele Dossier, the fact remains that the Trump campaign wasn't involved in a conspiracy with Russia. I'd be pissed too if my political opponents were trying to get me entangled in an investigation that the entire purpose wasn't to find the truth* but just to make it harder to govern.

*Really, the investigation goes out of it's way to obscure the truth of where the initial information came from by trying to hide the fact that it was paid opposition research from Russian government sources that started the whole thing.
Click to expand...
Seriously dude, you are repeating falsehoods that have been addressed ad nauseum.
 
cmikes said:
It was admitted that it was political stunt rather than a real investigation when they chose to conduct a national security investigation instead of a criminal investigation. This made it possible to go through the FISA court and better hide the origins of the DNC/Clinton campaign Steele Dossier. In an actual criminal investigation, the judge might have wanted to know where they were getting their info, which would have revealed that they were attempting to use bought and paid for (from the Russian government, no less) political opposition research as real evidence and gotten themselves laughed out of the judge's office.

As for the highlighted, really? The DOJ of Comey, Rosenstein, Strzok, Page, not to mention Mueller's "I'm with Her" hand picked team of lawyers? Not political? There aren't enough laughing dogs in the world for that one.
Click to expand...
WTF? :boggled:

Take this nonsense to the CT forum where it belongs.
 
I started to listen to the Mueller Report this week as an audio book. As an audible member, I got it as a free download. I took Mueller at his word when he said the report was his testimony.

It's so much worse than what you hear on CNN or MSN. The Trump campaign, at the highest levels knew Russia had provided the hacked e-mails to wikileaks. That's why the report didn't cite conspiracy with Russia. At the direction of Bannon, Stone contacted wikileaks to get dumps of e-mails when it would do the most good. After the pussy grabber tape, Stone was able to get wikileaks to dump a bunch of e-mails within an hour. It's not hard to discern Stone's role based on what is redacted and when. Stone's name cones up at many points where the "paragraph is redacted due to ongoing matter". It's obvious that matter is Stone and his conspiracy with Wikileaks, who had the Russian emails.
 
cmikes said:
It was admitted that it was political stunt rather than a real investigation when they chose to conduct a national security investigation instead of a criminal investigation.
Click to expand...

This is 100% a lie. Why do you lie?
 
Upchurch said:
It’s just a guess. We’ll have to see what Zig has to justify his stance about the report failing to establish intent.
Click to expand...
Probably about the same as his sooper seekrit proof that it's Obama who is a thin skinned narcissist. That "discussion" went on for pages and pages and was every bit as fruitful as this one.
 
Drawing flak. Must be over the target. The Mueller investigation was an extension of the spying surveillance operation against the Trump campaign ordered by the Obama DOJ. Andrew McCarthy at National Review puts it better than I ever could.

National Review


Russiagate has always been a political narrative masquerading as a federal investigation. Its objective, plain and simple, has been twofold: first, to hamstring Donald Trump’s capacity to press the agenda on which he ran (immigration enforcement, conservative judicial nominees, deregulation, and a military build-up, along with skepticism about military interventions, free trade, and NATO); and ultimately, to render him unelectable come autumn 2020.

That’s it. That’s what FBI agent Peter Strzok so aptly called the “insurance policy.”
Click to expand...


It had to have been clear to investigators as of late 2017 that there was no “collusion” case against the president — no proof of a conspiracy with the Kremlin to undermine the 2016 election.

In September 2017, five months after Robert Mueller took over the Russia investigation, the Justice Department stopped seeking surveillance warrants — i.e., it decided to stop peddling the Steele dossier to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That means the government no longer stood behind the Clinton-campaign-sponsored opposition-research screed, which alleged — based on anonymous Russian sources — that there was a Trump–Putin conspiracy to undermine the election.
Click to expand...


The point has never been to make a prosecutable legal case against the president. Nor is it to pursue impeachment, though there will be plenty of talk about impeachment. The point is to place the tools of the criminal-justice process in the service of the Democrats’ 2020 political campaign.

The Russia counterintelligence probe, based on the fraudulent projection of a Trump-Putin conspiracy, was always a pretext to conduct a criminal investigation despite the absence of a predicate crime. The criminal investigation, in turn, was always a pretext for congressional impeachment chatter. And the congressional impeachment chatter is a pretext for the real agenda: Making Trump an ineffective president now, and an un-reelectable president 18 months from now.

They try to make it look like law. It has always been politics.
Click to expand...


The only reason the Obama DOJ went through the FISA court was because they were worried that a criminal judge would ask too many questions about the source of their information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom