Mueller Investigation pt 6

[JoeMorgue]

I think everybody above the age of five knows Trump colluded with Russia to help him win the 2016 election. I think the only people who deny this do so, not because they don't believe it, but because they don't care.

They've rationalized it as "Yeah but it kept crooked Killary out of office so..."

 

[autumn1971]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1154567847500242944



Video embedded in tweet.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1153443510122700800



Article embedded in tweet.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1153443780617547778

This is traitorous.

I keep hearing from magatrash that there may be an amendment that allows the people to keep traitors from positions of power where the traitors actively sell America to its enemies.

I forget which two now.

 

[applecorped]

I thought this Dead End Road ended a long time ago but people keep pushing onward good luck with that

 

[applecorped]

time well spent

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I thought this Dead End Road ended a long time ago but people keep pushing onward good luck with that

As long as hostile foreign powers continue to infiltrate our election systems, it remains quite relevant.

 

[tanabear]

To all those Trump supporting forum members who insist that Russia interfering with the 2016 didn't happen and its all just a hoax:

If you won't believe those of us who have been paying attention, then pay attention to the members of your own Senate Intelligence Committee. This report was released on a bi-partisan basis, with the full support of Republican members of that committee....

I notice a shift in the propaganda. The Left and the fake news mainstream media were claiming that Trump colluded with Russia to sway an election. Our news cycle has been dominated by this false narrative for over two years now. Saying that Russia "interfered" in our election is something different. I am sure many countries "interfere" in our elections including the British, the Australians, the Israelis, the Russians, the Chinese etc. However, there is no reason to impeach Trump if he wasn't involved in this Russian interference campaign. So why are the Dems still so eager to impeach Trump? Because the Trump-Russia collusion story was just a pre-text to overthrow a President they hate. The pre-text might evaporate but their hatred and desire to impeach Trump does not.

Trump Tweets

“One of the biggest things to come out of Mueller’s testimony was the fact that when he was asked, was there ANYTHING that impeded your investigation, the answer was a clear, unequivocal, NO.” Misty Marris @FoxNews

True, but many other great “exonerating” things came out. Robert Mueller’s testimony, and the Mueller Report itself, was a disaster for this illegal Democrat inspired Witch Hunt. It is an embarrassment to the USA that they don’t know how to stop. They can’t help themselves, they are totally lost, they are Clowns!

It is called Clown World for a reason.

The real Collusion, the Conspiracy, the Crime, was between the Clinton Campaign, the DNC, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele.....(and many others including Comey, McCabe, Lisa Page and her lover, Ohr and his wonderful wife, and on and on!).

The Democrats are still doing the Russians dirty work as they continue to push the fake crime. Media credibility is now shot, Democrat credibility is shot, they’ve wasted over 100 hearings on a Hoax, they’ve done nothing on Infrastructure, drug prices, trade

Yes. Read through the Steele Dossier. It is sourced to high-level Russian intelligence agents:

"sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively..."

The only Russian disinformation campaign that was widely believed by Americans was "Trump-Russia collusion". It was the fake news Leftoid media that was responsible for spreading this nonsense.

This is how our modern-day police-state Liberal society works:

Scenario 1: A Republican presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for colluding with a foreign power to sway an election.

Scenario 2: A Democratic presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for whatever the alleged crimes are.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

wow.
Amazing how the entire Intelligence Community - globally - got it wrong, and only Conspiracy Theorists have figured out that the Russia-collusion was False Flag.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

tanabear,

what did Christopher Steele get in return for his work for Fusion GPS (which was hired by the HRC campaign)?

what did the Russian operatives and trolls get for their work for Trump?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I notice a shift in the propaganda. The Left and the fake news mainstream media were claiming that Trump colluded with Russia to sway an election. Our news cycle has been dominated by this false narrative for over two years now. Saying that Russia "interfered" in our election is something different. I am sure many countries "interfere" in our elections including the British, the Australians, the Israelis, the Russians, the Chinese etc. However, there is no reason to impeach Trump if he wasn't involved in this Russian interference campaign. So why are the Dems still so eager to impeach Trump? Because the Trump-Russia collusion story was just a pre-text to overthrow a President they hate. The pre-text might evaporate but their hatred and desire to impeach Trump does not.









It is called Clown World for a reason.







Yes. Read through the Steele Dossier. It is sourced to high-level Russian intelligence agents:



"sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively..."



The only Russian disinformation campaign that was widely believed by Americans was "Trump-Russia collusion". It was the fake news Leftoid media that was responsible for spreading this nonsense.



This is how our modern-day police-state Liberal society works:



Scenario 1: A Republican presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for colluding with a foreign power to sway an election.



Scenario 2: A Democratic presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for whatever the alleged crimes are.

Fringe reset detected.

 

[johnny karate]

Where would anyone ever get the idea that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to interfere in the election?

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump caumpaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump—helped along by Aras and Emin.

Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Where would anyone ever get the idea that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to interfere in the election?

And Trump personally authored the first lie about that meeting in an attempt to hide the fact that he and his team welcomed Russia's support and entertained a meeting to find out what the Russians had and what they wanted for it.

 

[Aridas]

And Trump personally authored the first lie about that meeting in an attempt to hide the fact that he and his team welcomed Russia's support and entertained a meeting to find out what the Russians had and what they wanted for it.

Need we add the part where it was found that Trump proceeded to try to get multiple members of his campaign to get Hillary's e-mails from the Russians and the polling data that Manafort was feeding them?

Mueller's investigation pretty much completely ignored criminal violations of campaign finance law completely, which would be what most of the notable coordination and collaboration that was found could potentially be prosecuted under. Trump's campaign directly involving itself in the Russian hacking operation was, in fact, not really something that virtually anyone expected to find. Seeking to benefit from it, sure, being actively involved, not so much. And obstruction of justice, obviously, doesn't deal much with whether the Trump campaign actually colluded or not.

That Mueller didn't prosecute the crime that "the left" was actually calling attention to is telling in a few ways... and also makes the "No collusion" crowd's arguments based on the lack of indictments related to that in the report worthless.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Scenario 1: A Republican presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for colluding with a foreign power to sway an election.

Scenario 2: A Democratic presidential campaign gets dirt on their political opponent from foreign sources, so investigate the Republican candidate and his campaign for whatever the alleged crimes are.

Fringe reset indeed . I suppose people will have to keep replies to you handy so they can re-post them when you pretend to have forgotten what they've told you.

 

[The Shrike]

Starve those trolls my friends!

 

[The Norseman]

I tend to agree more with the article than I disagree with it, but I do get a whiff of "he's playing 10-d chess!" from it.

I think a lot of how he acted came down to choosing his works carefully in order not to be used politically by either side, and, in fact, I'd guess that his request to the DoJ for limits on what he could and could not say was to enable him to do so, but a fair bit also came down (as you say) to being 74 and somewhat deaf.

I'd also like to note that a common criticism of Mueller is that he had to refer to his report, which some are painting as him not knowing what was in it or not really being in charge of the investigation. I think that a more parsimonious explanation is that he didn't want to be seen to agree to or disagree with a re-phrasing of anything in the report that could subtly alter its meaning - which is why he kept asking to be referred to the exact quotes, or saying variations on "I refer you to the report on that issue" and "if that's how it's phrased in the report, then I agree with it" - and, of course, that it's a long report which is worded very precisely and, as such, he doesn't have the entire thing memorised.

And I think he's absolutely right to have taken such care. We've seen pro-Trump people claiming that the report exonerates Trump or says that Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy, and we've seen anti-Trump people pouncing on the two slightly ambiguous statements he did make and interpreting them to mean that Mueller said that Trump is liable to prosecution once he leaves office, and that Mueller would have indicted Trump if it weren't for DoJ policy. That's happened with how careful he's been with his language - both in the report and in his testimony. Can you imagine what it would have been like if he'd casually spoken off-the-cuff?

Apparently that conclusion is substantiated by around a thousand former federal judges, so maybe it's much more solid than you're giving credit for?

 

[theprestige]

Hence my use of the words "flirted pretty close with". Jesus Christ, catch up already, bro. LOL!

You lost me. What does "flirted pretty close with" even mean in this context?

I didn't make the argument you were objecting to. What's the basis of your objection, and why does it even involve me at all?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Apparently that conclusion is substantiated by around a thousand former federal judges, so maybe it's much more solid than you're giving credit for?

Mueller refused to endorse that letter when he was specifically asked about it, so I feel pretty confident in saying that he didn't intend to say at a different point in time that he agreed with it:

SWALWELL: Director Mueller, going back to the president’s obstruction via Corey Lewandowski, it was referenced that a thousand former prosecutors who served under Republican and Democratic administrations with 12,000 years of federal service wrote a letter regarding the president’s conduct. Are you familiar with that letter?

MUELLER: I’ve read about that letter, yes.

SWALWELL: Some of the individuals who signed that letter, the statement of former prosecutors, are people you worked with. Is that right?

MUELLER: Quite probably. Yes.

SWALWELL: People that you respect?

MUELLER: Quite probably yes.

SWALWELL: And in that letter, they said all of this conduct, trying to control and impede the investigation against the president by leveraging his authority over others is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions. Are they wrong?

MUELLER: They have a different case.

SWALWELL: Do you want to sign that letter, Director Mueller?

MUELLER: No. They have a different case.

Which isn't to say that those prosecutors are wrong. It's to say that what they are saying is something that Mueller has been very careful not to himself say in public.

 

[Cabbage]

You lost me. What does "flirted pretty close with" even mean in this context?

I didn't make the argument you were objecting to. What's the basis of your objection, and why does it even involve me at all?

Already addressed, bro:

You were being an apologist for social media evidence in a thread where second hand social media evidence was being used to support a conspiracy theory.

It really is as simple as that, despite your protestations.

I never made claim nor judgment of what your actual intentions with that post were (beyond the immediately obvious (social media evidence apologist), as noted above), hence the term "flirt".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/1154741172620972032

Article embedded in tweet.

More GOP hypocrisy. Bill Clinton lied under oath about an affair. The right still goes nuts to this day, including more than a few right wingers in this forum, reminding everyone the impeachment was for the horrendous crime of perjury, , not for his affair.

Perhaps I'll hunt a few of those quotes down.

I'll be fair. I know what my response to that was. I thought is was clear entrapment. What was Clinton supposed to do, tell his wife he was cheating again right there in the spotlight? And I noted how often perjury is not prosecuted in many divorce cases.

Sex with Monica was an embarrassing question, not one that involved lying about a foreign government (or just some Russians if you want to use that BS excuse that all the trolls and bots are not connected to the Kremlin) interfering with the election.

Of course there is also the issue that if Trump knew about a Wilileaks release before it happened and did nothing, one has to wonder how that doesn't make him part of the conspiracy.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

More GOP hypocrisy. Bill Clinton lied under oath about an affair. The right still goes nuts to this day, including more than a few right wingers in this forum, reminding everyone the impeachment was for the horrendous crime of perjury, , not for his affair.

Perhaps I'll hunt a few of those quotes down.

I'll be fair. I know what my response to that was. I thought is was clear entrapment. What was Clinton supposed to do, tell his wife he was cheating again right there in the spotlight? And I noted how often perjury is not prosecuted in many divorce cases.

Sex with Monica was an embarrassing question, not one that involved lying about a foreign government (or just some Russians if you want to use that BS excuse that all the trolls and bots are not connected to the Kremlin) interfering with the election.

Of course there is also the issue that if Trump knew about a Wilileaks release before it happened and did nothing, one has to wonder how that doesn't make him part of the conspiracy.

https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2474-elements-aiding-and-abetting

I think the sticking point in making a case here is that we'll almost certainly never see a conviction in any court for the underlying crime, putting an already enormous burden on the prosecution to get 12 average Americans to follow a lot of technical jargon.