Mueller report discussion thread

[RBP]

Mueller Delivers Report on Trump-Russia Investigation to Attorney General

March 22, 2019

WASHINGTON — The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, on Friday delivered a report on his inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election to Attorney General William P. Barr, bringing to a close an investigation that has consumed the nation and cast a shadow over President Trump for nearly two years.

Mr. Barr told congressional leaders in a letter that he may brief them on the special counsel’s “principal conclusions” as early as this weekend, a surprisingly fast turnaround for a report anticipated for months. The attorney general said he “remained committed to as much transparency as possible.”

In an apparent endorsement of an investigation that Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked as a “witch hunt,” Mr. Barr said Justice Department officials never had to intervene to keep Mr. Mueller from taking an inappropriate or unwarranted step. The department’s regulations would have required Mr. Barr to inform the leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees about any such interventions in his letter.

A senior Justice Department official said that Mr. Mueller would not recommend new indictments, a statement aimed at ending speculation that Mr. Trump or other key figures might be charged down the line. With department officials emphasizing that Mr. Mueller’s inquiry was over and his office closing, the question for both Mr. Trump’s critics and defenders was whether the prosecutors condemned the president’s behavior in their report, exonerated him — or neither. The president’s lawyers were already girding for a possible fight over whether they could assert executive privilege to keep parts of the report secret.

[Hikari Kisugi]

I wonder is the bold bit speculation or fact?
Seems odd they are using no name, and indeed that hasn't been briefed, mentioned or leaked.
Didn't expect anything anyway.

[lost in melb.]

They seemed to out a lot of scumbags.

Trump's proclivity for sleazy company aside :hand:, I suspect that with such a refined and expensive investigative apparatus at your disposal whether you'd net just as hefty a catch just about anywhere - including on the Dem's side.

Quite disturbing really :|

[RBP]

The MSM is already losing their collective mind.

If only there was a leftist organization who was founded on the principle that endless investigations of the President do not serve the interests of the American people and should be ended. :-k

What say you, moveon.org?

[lost in melb.]

The MSM is already losing their collective mind.

If only there was a leftist organization who was founded on the principle that endless investigations of the President do not serve the interests of the American people and should be ended. :-k

What say you, moveon.org?

:lol:

They really must have scraped right to the bottom of that massive barrel - then burnt the crud for atomic emission spectroscopic analysis :bong:


I want these dudes to do my tax return! I'd earn money! :)

[RBP]

:shocker:

:lol: Oh, the irony.

http://i67.tinypic.com/122og1g.png

[DemonGeminiX]

The report's not being hidden. Barr's following the law. If there's sensitive material in the report, it will have to be redacted before release to the general public. In either case, ain't nothing getting done as it's the weekend. And the Democrats can cry all they want, but they'd be lying their asses off if they told you they didn't already know the score.

[RBP]

September 12, 1998 headlines from CNN

"White House says Starr has no case"
"Public greets Starr report with weariness, distaste"

And this little gem:

"I think my constituents' view is very simple -- no rush to judgment, don't be hasty, don't do anything too quick," said U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer, a Brooklyn Democrat who is running for the Senate.

:lol:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/09/12/america.reacts/

[DemonGeminiX]

Lurch is a fucking asshat.

[Muddy]

Trump said immediately to release the whole damn thing. But of course the first thing that vomits out of Pelosi's mouth is release the whole thing and the president can have no interference in that. B**** did you not see that he is not trying to interfere with the stupid f****** thing? and what may happen if it's released as you get to see how many of your Democratic buddies really were the ones that are in bed with the f****** Russians

[RBP]

Mueller finds no Trump collusion with Russians, that the Russians did attempt to interfere, and no decision on whether Trump obstruction rises to level of prosecution. AG Barr released a summary, and declined to prosecute on obstruction.

Full letter available here: https://judiciary.house.gov/story-type/letter/ag-march-24-2019-letter-house-and-senate-judiciary-committees

[RBP]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hey, Democrats, remember when you were creaming all over yourselves about how clever this was? Well, chug it down, bitches... <a href="https://t.co/BCZp7Q5dub">pic.twitter.com/BCZp7Q5dub</a></p>&mdash; James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1109651845457145856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 24, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
...

[lost in melb.]

Egg boy needs to come over there and hand out some sucking eggs

[RBP]

I watched about 15 minutes of CNN today. Wow. When Wolf Blitzer is the rational one reigning in the crazy, shit has gone off the reservation.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Edmund DeMarche | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/mNWe4ubh.jpg

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., posted an ominous reply to ex-FBI-Director James Comey on Twitter Sunday after Comey seemed to sum up the summary of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation by posting a picture of a man who appeared lost in the woods.

The photo posted by Comey was of a man surrounded by tall trees, and the caption was simply: "So many questions."

Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, replied, "Could not agree more," an obvious message that he hopes to question the former FBI head.
1109984734212513793
Comey's tweet followed Attorney General William Barr’s announcement that Mueller did not find evidence that Trump’s campaign “conspired or coordinated” with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election but reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice.

Trump and his team celebrated the outcome but also laid bare his resentment after two years of investigations that have shadowed his administration. “It’s a shame that our country has had to go through this. To be honest, it’s a shame that your president has had to go through this,” he said.

Despite Trump’s claim of total exoneration, Mueller did not draw a conclusion one way or the other on whether he sought to stifle the Russia investigation through his actions including the firing of former FBI director James Comey.

According to Barr’s summary, Mueller set out "evidence on both sides of the question" and stated that "while this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The Hill reached out to Graham for clarification about his tweet and his office referred the website to a letter from Graham to the attorney general about investigating a FISA surveillance warrant against Carter Page, a former campaign adviser to then-candidate Trump.

The surveillance of Page became a contentious matter between Republicans and Democrats.

Republicans say the FBI had abused its surveillance powers and improperly obtained the warrant, a charge that Democrats rebutted as both sides characterized the documents in different ways.

Critics have charged that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who signed off on the FISA application renewals, should not have approved them without more reliable intelligence.

Trump has claimed that his campaign was “illegally” spied on for “the political gain of Crooked Hillary Clinton and the DNC.”

Fox News' Gregg Re, Catherine Herridge and the Associated Press contributed to this report

[RBP]

I think they are foolish to continue this, but they will. And to their detriment in 2020, let alone all of our detriment.

[Pony]

I think they are foolish to continue this, but they will. And to their detriment in 2020, let alone all of our detriment.

Yea, they are gonna push for full transparency and it will come out that a ton of people on the left conspired to unseat an elected president. If they want names a bunch will come out and burn down the entire house. Be careful what you wish for.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I think they are foolish to continue this, but they will. And to their detriment in 2020, let alone all of our detriment.

The left still isn't going to drop it though. They're going apeshit that there's no indictment against Trump. Rep. Degette from here in Colorado released a statement yesterday saying that the entire report needs to be released so the pubblic can 'make up their own minds' on it. :roll:

And all the far left media outlets are like this....

Bill Barr’s Weasel Words (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/mueller-report-barr-summary-obstruction-conspiracy-close-reading.html)
All the ways the attorney general is spinning the Mueller report to protect Trump.

That's from Slate :rolleyes:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWJP5m9ewYQ

[RBP]

The left still isn't going to drop it though. They're going apeshit that there's no indictment against Trump. Rep. Degette from here in Colorado released a statement yesterday saying that the entire report needs to be released so the pubblic can 'make up their own minds' on it. :roll:

And all the far left media outlets are like this....

Bill Barr’s Weasel Words (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/mueller-report-barr-summary-obstruction-conspiracy-close-reading.html)
All the ways the attorney general is spinning the Mueller report to protect Trump.

That's from Slate :rolleyes:

But they haven't read the report. :dunno: And all the demands for it's release tells me they didn't even read Barr's summary, given that he specifically stated he would release the full report.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

1109529653163679744

[lost in melb.]

The left still isn't going to drop it though. They're going apeshit that there's no indictment against Trump. Sen. Degette from here in Colorado released a statement yesterday saying that the entire report needs to be released so the pubblic can 'make up their own minds' on it. :roll:

And all the far left media outlets are like this....

Bill Barr’s Weasel Words (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/mueller-report-barr-summary-obstruction-conspiracy-close-reading.html)
All the ways the attorney general is spinning the Mueller report to protect Trump.

That's from Slate :rolleyes:

From the last paragraph:"Mueller says his report “does not exonerate” Trump.... And it doesn’t show that Trump is innocent of collusion or obstruction. It shows that collusion and obstruction were defined to exclude what he did."

I think you're either guilt of betraying your country or not. You're either a patriot or not. It should be very clear. I thought he might be guilty was when he fired Comney and in the aftermath with all the tweeting - but then I realised that's just Trump.

I try and read the fine print of accounts that he might still be 'guilty' of 'something', but they are nearly impossible to understand - which makes me think it's 'waffle'. What baffles me the most is since when did not finding evidence of non-guilt mean guilt. Our legal system(s) don't work like that.

[RBP]

From the last paragraph:"Mueller says his report “does not exonerate” Trump.... And it doesn’t show that Trump is innocent of collusion or obstruction. It shows that collusion and obstruction were defined to exclude what he did."

I think you're either guilt of betraying your country or not. You're either a patriot or not. It should be very clear. I thought he might be guilty was when he fired Comney and in the aftermath with all the tweeting - but then I realised that's just Trump.

I try and read the fine print of accounts that he might still be 'guilty' of 'something', but they are nearly impossible to understand - which makes me think it's 'waffle'. What baffles me the most is since when did not finding evidence of non-guilt mean guilt. Our legal system(s) don't work like that.

My attempt to simplify.

The report concluded their was no collusion with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election, which was the point of the inquiry.

Mueller decided that there is evidence of obstruction but not sufficient for him to prosecute. That sends the issue to the Attorney General, who, after consultation, also decided there was insufficient evidence for prosecution. This was partially based on the fact that there was no underlying crime to obstruct, which is a prerequisite to a conviction.

Edit: Not to mention that the trial would never happen because it is constitutionally questionable if a sitting President could be prosecuted at all. The ONLY reason they want the indictment is to use it to force impeachment proceedings. The Speaker of the House has made it clear that impeachment will not happen unless there is something so egregious it cannot be ignored. There is not.

[RBP]

This is deeply frustrating and a waste of our nation's focus.
It is time to move on to pressing issues facing the country.

-MoveOn.org founders, 1998

[DemonGeminiX]

From the last paragraph:"Mueller says his report “does not exonerate” Trump.... And it doesn’t show that Trump is innocent of collusion or obstruction. It shows that collusion and obstruction were defined to exclude what he did."

I think you're either guilt of betraying your country or not. You're either a patriot or not. It should be very clear. I thought he might be guilty was when he fired Comney and in the aftermath with all the tweeting - but then I realised that's just Trump.

I try and read the fine print of accounts that he might still be 'guilty' of 'something', but they are nearly impossible to understand - which makes me think it's 'waffle'. What baffles me the most is since when did not finding evidence of non-guilt mean guilt. Our legal system(s) don't work like that.

"Does not exonerate" does not imply that it implicates Trump. Muellers' words indicate that he could not determine definitively either way whether or not Trump engaged in obstruction to the point where it would constitute a federal crime. That means that it's a waste of time to charge him with a federal crime because there would likely be no way that they can prove the accusation beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. That implies "not guilty". "Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent", but "not guilty" is the legal standard the US law prescribes to be exonerated of a charge. Similarly for collusion. It cannot be proven. That's the basis for criminal cases in the US, whether or not guilt of a charge can be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. Even if there's a smidgen of reasonable doubt, he would be acquitted of any and all charges brought against him. It would a waste of time and taxpayers' dollars. The evidence is not there to justify proceeding with a criminal case. That's how a prosecutor thinks.

[lost in melb.]

My attempt to simplify.

The report concluded their was no collusion with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election, which was the point of the inquiry.

Mueller decided that there is evidence of obstruction but not sufficient for him to prosecute. That sends the issue to the Attorney General, who, after consultation, also decided there was insufficient evidence for prosecution. This was partially based on the fact that there was no underlying crime to obstruct, which is a prerequisite to a conviction.

Edit: Not to mention that the trial would never happen because it is constitutionally questionable if a sitting President could be prosecuted at all. The ONLY reason they want the indictment is to use it to force impeachment proceedings. The Speaker of the House has made it clear that impeachment will not happen unless there is something so egregious it cannot be ignored. There is not.


"Does not exonerate" does not imply that it implicates Trump. Muellers' words indicate that he could not determine definitively either way whether or not Trump engaged in obstruction to the point where it would constitute a federal crime. That means that it's a waste of time to charge him with a federal crime because there would likely be no way that they can prove the accusation beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. That implies "not guilty". "Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent", but "not guilty" is the legal standard the US law prescribes to be exonerated of a charge. Similarly for collusion. It cannot be proven. That's the basis for criminal cases in the US, whether or not guilt of a charge can be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. Even if there's a smidgen of reasonable doubt, he would be acquitted of any and all charges brought against him. It would a waste of time and taxpayers' dollars. The evidence is not there to justify proceeding with a criminal case. That's how a prosecutor thinks.

Thanks. Funny how a couple of dudes on the internet can explain this better:?

Ok, that kind of makes more sense. I think what alarms me and makes me the most uncomfortable about Trump is, quite frankly, abuse of his position and nepotism. I think what waters down this aspect is that he throws his weight about across the board, not in particular with the Russia investigation( he's kinda neurotic and can't keep his mouth shut)

Re. the sacking of Comney, who knows...I think Comney was against Trump not just personally but politically. Not enough room for the both of them and it would have ripped the nation apart. Does the President have to justify it? Yes/No/Maybe. As long as he has other reasons obstruction can never be proven imo.

[lost in melb.]

Or put another way it's as difficult/easy to prove that Comney was after Trump as much as Trump was after Comney. No one side can have their cake and eat it too ;)

[lost in melb.]

This is deeply frustrating and a waste of our nation's focus.
It is time to move on to pressing issues facing the country.

-MoveOn.org founders, 1998

:uhhuh:

[RBP]

:uhhuh:

That's what they said about the investigation of Bill Clinton. :dunno:

[Pony]

Or put another way it's as difficult/easy to prove that Comney was after Trump as much as Trump was after Comney. No one side can have their cake and eat it too ;)

He had plenty of reasons to fire Comey that had nothing to do with obstruction. His botched handling of the Clinton investigation, Obvious bias, Constant leaks to the media, Lying.
The whole thing is a can of worms.

[lost in melb.]

That's what they said about the investigation of Bill Clinton. :dunno:

Yes, I agree. I was just trying a new smiley. :bored: Interpret it as: good find :thumbsup:

[lost in melb.]

He had plenty of reasons to fire Comey that had nothing to do with obstruction. His botched handling of the Clinton investigation, Obvious bias, Constant leaks to the media, Lying.
The whole thing is a can of worms.

I agree. And please correct my spelling of his name.

Definitely time for bed :yawn:

[DemonGeminiX]

Thanks. Funny how a couple of dudes on the internet can explain this better:?

My momma always told me I should've been a lawyer. Add on top of that that half of my family is law enforcement and/or employed in the legal system in some way shape or form... and the fact that I was a criminal justice major for 3 quarters before I became a math major in college....

I'm seriously thinking that I should go back to school for law. I know how it works.


Ok, that kind of makes more sense. I think what alarms me and makes me the most uncomfortable about Trump is, quite frankly, abuse of his position and nepotism. I think what waters down this aspect is that he throws his weight about across the board, not in particular with the Russia investigation( he's kinda neurotic and can't keep his mouth shut)

Every President is the leader of their respective political party. And I sincerely doubt any of them know or respect what's in the Constitution, just like I sincerely doubt every Representative and Senator does either, but I digress. With that in mind, abuse of his position... we were screaming to high heaven because we believed Obama did it on a weekly basis too, and he did, they all do it. You'd be hard pressed to find a President in our history that hasn't done it. Nepotism? Come on, man... Ivanka's fucking hot, and she's pretty damn impressive, intellectually speaking too. All of his kid's are impressive, if you really sit down and take a good hard look at them. Should they not be part of it? I don't know. Who's to say? I don't think there's a specific law forbidding it, at least I don't know of one. Maybe it's unethical, but that doesn't make it illegal, per se. Throwing his weight around? Ok, but so does Nancy Pelosi, so does Mitch McConnell, so does Chuck Schumer, and if you're really paying attention, those new breed "fresh faced, so fresh, so face" idiots haven't been doing anything but throwing their weight around, including O-Casio-keyboard-Cortez-conquered-the-Aztecs. Obama did it too, just not on the foreign relations stage, the fucking pussy.

We all wish Trump would get off twitter and think twice on occasion, but he's a New Yorker... what can you do? They're all like that.


Re. the sacking of Comney, who knows...I think Comney was against Trump not just personally but politically. Not enough room for the both of them and it would have ripped the nation apart. Does the President have to justify it? Yes/No/Maybe. As long as he has other reasons obstruction can never be proven imo.

Comey, not Comney, not Commie like I to call him, just Comey. Comey was against Trump and for Clinton. If he wasn't for Clinton, he would have charged her with at least gross negligence and she would be in jail for it right now. She was guilty of that crime, Comey laid the evidence out for it in his final press conference regarding all that bullshit. He had the evidence, he had her dead to rights, and he let it go. And I'm still pissed about it. The thing is, the Justice Department should not be political at all. They should be all about the law, the whole law, and nothing but the law, so help them God. And Comey wasn't. He got a bug up his ass and started thinking of himself as a superstar, and that should have gotten him fired long before Trump became President. And no Trump doesn't have to justify; employees of the Justice Department serve at the pleasure of the President. Every employee that works in the Executive branch of government serves at the pleasure of the President. That's the way it is, that's the way it's always been. He can fire anybody in the Executive branch he wants, whenever he wants. Every President can.

[RBP]

"fresh faced, so fresh, so face"

I still laugh every time, even when you say it. :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://i.imgur.com/exg6Rinl.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://i.imgur.com/sEHir4tl.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://i.imgur.com/MDQ6W2Ol.jpg

[DemonGeminiX]

It's like the 2016 election night, all over again.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://i.imgur.com/LOK0CWs.png

[Muddy]

https://i.imgur.com/LOK0CWs.png

:lol: Yassss!!

[Pony]

:lol: that might be going on facebook.

[RBP]

Oh God. MSNBC is spinning like mad. Even going so far as to say that "the news media" is missing the point. As if they are the arbiter of reality. :lol:

[RBP]

:rofl: "but the attorney general didn't even include the number of pages in the report"

[Hal-9000]

Acting as the arbitrator of the dissenting side, is it possible something happened and they couldn't find the evidence?

Remembering that past presidencies had plenty of secrets and the government in general is not exactly known for releasing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, could it be that this type of information is easily hidden and/or removed from public record?

They're looking for evidence of collusion with a Russian agency and it's not exactly like Watergate where a phone tap/oral recording and some witness testimony sunk a President. This is more a digital crime or the mechanics of whatever claims being made may have more potential to vanish into the ether capability?

I found it strange that Trump instantly jumped all over the initial result. From what I understand not all of the report has been released. This by no means indicates guilt but can we speak freely? Even if there was wrongdoing do you think someone with Trump's power would let that information surface? Not exactly a Chappaquiddick situation but it was a presidential election and the stakes are high.

[RBP]

Acting as the arbitrator of the dissenting side, is it possible something happened and they couldn't find the evidence?

Remembering that past presidencies had plenty of secrets and the government in general is not exactly known for releasing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, could it be that this type of information is easily hidden and/or removed from public record?

They're looking for evidence of collusion with a Russian agency and it's not exactly like Watergate where a phone tap/oral recording and some witness testimony sunk a President. This is more a digital crime or the mechanics of whatever claims being made may have more potential to vanish into the ether capability?

I found it strange that Trump instantly jumped all over the initial result. From what I understand not all of the report has been released. This by no means indicates guilt but can we speak freely? Even if there was wrongdoing do you think someone with Trump's power would let that information surface? Not exactly a Chappaquiddick situation but it was a presidential election and the stakes are high.

They could have simply, for 2 years, suggest we wait for the investigation. Wait for facts. But they have lived off this for 2 years. Now they can't back down. The refusal to accept that the Attorney General provided an honest summary is nothing more than ego protection. Trump doesn't control this information. Just wait, they will say that the limited information v the Starr report is evidence of a conspiracy, and fail to report that the rules changed SPECIFICALLY because the Starr report was out of control and included details about private issues that were not crimes.

The democrats are burying themselves. I am equally opposed to investigating further what started this, which was corrupt intelligence officers using secret courts with fake information to start this process.

MoveOn.org. The work of the people is being ignored.

[DemonGeminiX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0JHCXpIlhg

Ben has laid it all out. Yes it's long, but watch it anyway, and keep in mind that Ben thinks Trump is a joke. He explains everything.

[DemonGeminiX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WEs4mCRqvI

She's hot. Period.

[lost in melb.]

:facepalm:







https://i.imgflip.com/2wwstd.jpg

:lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Ashe Schow - The Daily Wire


https://i.imgur.com/HcPAntVh.jpg

Should a person who was just determined to have not committed a crime still resign in shame?

That seems to be what MSNBC host Chris Matthews was suggesting during a panel discussion on “Morning Joe.” Matthews and his fellow panelists were discussing the report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which found “no evidence” of collusion between President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. The topic turned, naturally, to another major American investigation involving a president — Richard Nixon.

“I think Nixon had shame,” Matthews said. “It may not have been moral shame, but was political shame. He knew he blew it.”

Matthews then explained that Nixon “got caught up” in various scandals, including one during his first campaign in 1946, when he accused incumbent Democrat opponent Jerry Voorhis of having communist ties. Switching back to Nixon resigning as president over the Watergate scandal, Matthews suggested Trump should do the same.

“[Nixon] got caught, and he knew it, and he cried, and he left,” Matthews said. “Trump doesn't have that faculty."

Host Mika Brezezinski nodded her head and agreed.
1110165261385109505
Matthews made these comments the day after Attorney General William Barr released his summary of Mueller’s report, which found “no evidence” of collusion. Democrats will point to another line in the summary, which states that Mueller’s “report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Neither Barr nor Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein believed the allegations that Trump had “obstructed justice” warranted further investigation.

Still, it’s a far stretch to suggest Trump should resign over something he doesn’t appear to have done.

Earlier in the program, Matthews expressed his shock and dismay that neither Trump nor his children, associates, nor “henchmen” would be indicted.

“I think the Democrats have got to win the election,” Matthews said, hinting that the party must win in order to hold Trump accountable for the alleged crimes for which Mueller found no evidence.

Matthews has had a strained relationship with reality when it comes to Republicans, especially Trump. In December of last year, he suggested that Trump should resign as part of a deal with Mueller to ensure the president’s children were not indicted as part of the investigation.

“What if he were to say he would let the children walk if the old man does the same? That would mean giving up the presidency in exchange for acquittals all around ― not just for himself, but for all his kids," Matthews said.

Now Matthews is trying to keep the “resignation” fire lit by suggesting Trump resign just because the MSNBC host wants him to. Democrats hung their hopes on Mueller discovering evidence of collusion and obstruction that would lead to Trump’s downfall. That hasn’t happened, so the Left is stuck demanding he resign even though Mueller recommended no indictments of anyone close to Trump — or any American, for that matter — for colluding with Russia.

As for the obstruction charge, this is just the Left demanding people they believe are guilty not publicly defend themselves or suggest the investigation against them is a sham — even when it is.

[DemonGeminiX]

Chris has completely lost the plot.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Chris has completely lost the plot.

I think all his plots come from a fantasy world where the sky is a different color than the one in the real world.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Cameron Cawthorne - Washington Free Beacon



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpKw6mgC5s

Rep. Denny Heck (D., Wash.) on Monday attempted to downplay Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings stating the Trump campaign didn't collude with Russia by saying it's "just a headline."

"So when you say though that you stand by the walls closing in, has your committee found anything Mueller didn't?" CNN's OutFront host Erin Burnett said. "Mueller obviously found no collusion with Russia. That's the bottom line. It's very hard to beat around that headline."

Heck avoided directly answering Burnett's question and responded by downplaying Mueller's findings, saying it was "just a headline." He went on to say he would be willing to accept Mueller's conclusion if he was able to read the full report.

"What we got was a four-page distillation by a political appointee of the president," said Heck, referring to Attorney General William Barr.

"You'll pardon me if I don't take his word directly for it," Heck said. "Let us remember that for the last two years the administration has been engaged in a non-stop, hour-by-hour attempt to discredit the reputation of Bob Mueller."

Mueller determined Trump did not collude with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign, but he refrained from making a judgment on whether Trump attempted to impede the investigation.

"The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election," Barr wrote in a letter to Congress. "As the report states, ‘[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'"

Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein found there was "not sufficient evidence to establish the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://i.imgur.com/n4vEVok.jpg

[RBP]

If anyone got caught up in it, went way overboard, and should resign, it's Matthews, Cuomo, and Maddow.

[Godfather]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0JHCXpIlhg

Ben has laid it all out. Yes it's long, but watch it anyway, and keep in mind that Ben thinks Trump is a joke. He explains everything.

Very interesting, well worth the full listen. I love how this guy summarizes shit. He comes off as the most reasonable public figure in this entire discussion that I've heard (granted I don't pay much attention to this stuff).

[Godfather]

Fair to guess the left leaning media and politicians still won't let up on Trump or apologize for two years of dishonesty and slander... that's concerning on a massive level, and while I personally haven't paid much attention to this topic the last year or so, I can't even imagine all your frustration and disgust.

If I can digress a bit as a non-American though (and if this isn't the time/thread for it, that's understandable), but my question is... what is going to be done about Russia? At 21 minutes into the Shapiro vid he nicely recaps what we know Russia did do (and I believe they're doing this in many other countries). We know they fuck with our elections, our media, our social media, our investigations, hell even NATO satellites (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-jammed-gps-signals-during-nato-military-exercise-thats-really-big-deal-37682). They're looking to turn us in on ourselves, and it's working nicely. Can leaders ever stop talking about Trump long enough to do something meaningful about the actual threat here? Mueller indicted 12 Russian agents but you have to think that's nothing compared to Russia's efforts to subterfuge the West.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Fair to guess the left leaning media and politicians still won't let up on Trump or apologize for two years of dishonesty and slander... that's concerning on a massive level, and while I personally haven't paid much attention to this topic the last year or so, I can't even imagine all your frustration and disgust.

If I can digress a bit as a non-American though (and if this isn't the time/thread for it, that's understandable), but my question is... what is going to be done about Russia? At 21 minutes into the Shapiro vid he nicely recaps what we know Russia did do (and I believe they're doing this in many other countries). We know they fuck with our elections, our media, our social media, our investigations, hell even NATO satellites (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-jammed-gps-signals-during-nato-military-exercise-thats-really-big-deal-37682). They're looking to turn us in on ourselves, and it's working nicely. Can leaders ever stop talking about Trump long enough to do something meaningful about the actual threat here? Mueller indicted 12 Russian agents but you have to think that's nothing compared to Russia's efforts to subterfuge the West.

Yeah, I think it's been proven that the Russians tried to meddle with the Brexit vote in the UK as well, so they definitely have their fingers in a LOT of cookie jars. But at least here in the US, as long as Trump remains president, the left couldn't care less about what the Russians ACTUALLY did, they are just looking for something to pin on the president. TDS runs deep on the left in this country, and until that changes, the Russians will be on the back burner, even with the indictments of the Russian agents by Mueller. Hell, Mueller could have listed things in his report like "During the course of the investigation, we came upon files relating to successful tests of cold fusion, three separate cures for cancer, and irrefutable proof that the US military has been housing alien spacecraft and bodies at Area 51." And no one on the left would even care because Trump and Russian collusion!

I agree with you though, the West needs to do something to counter what the Russians are trying to do (which they are succeeding at IMHO).

[RBP]

Fair to guess the left leaning media and politicians still won't let up on Trump or apologize for two years of dishonesty and slander... that's concerning on a massive level, and while I personally haven't paid much attention to this topic the last year or so, I can't even imagine all your frustration and disgust.

If I can digress a bit as a non-American though (and if this isn't the time/thread for it, that's understandable), but my question is... what is going to be done about Russia? At 21 minutes into the Shapiro vid he nicely recaps what we know Russia did do (and I believe they're doing this in many other countries). We know they fuck with our elections, our media, our social media, our investigations, hell even NATO satellites (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-jammed-gps-signals-during-nato-military-exercise-thats-really-big-deal-37682). They're looking to turn us in on ourselves, and it's working nicely. Can leaders ever stop talking about Trump long enough to do something meaningful about the actual threat here? Mueller indicted 12 Russian agents but you have to think that's nothing compared to Russia's efforts to subterfuge the West.

Honestly? I think we do nothing because we do the exact same shit.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://i.imgur.com/Be1YUG4l.jpg

The left is delusional :shakehead:

[Hal-9000]

Fair to guess the left leaning media and politicians still won't let up on Trump or apologize for two years of dishonesty and slander... that's concerning on a massive level, and while I personally haven't paid much attention to this topic the last year or so, I can't even imagine all your frustration and disgust.

If I can digress a bit as a non-American though (and if this isn't the time/thread for it, that's understandable), but my question is... what is going to be done about Russia? At 21 minutes into the Shapiro vid he nicely recaps what we know Russia did do (and I believe they're doing this in many other countries). We know they fuck with our elections, our media, our social media, our investigations, hell even NATO satellites (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-jammed-gps-signals-during-nato-military-exercise-thats-really-big-deal-37682). They're looking to turn us in on ourselves, and it's working nicely. Can leaders ever stop talking about Trump long enough to do something meaningful about the actual threat here? Mueller indicted 12 Russian agents but you have to think that's nothing compared to Russia's efforts to subterfuge the West.


Yeah, I think it's been proven that the Russians tried to meddle with the Brexit vote in the UK as well, so they definitely have their fingers in a LOT of cookie jars. But at least here in the US, as long as Trump remains president, the left couldn't care less about what the Russians ACTUALLY did, they are just looking for something to pin on the president. TDS runs deep on the left in this country, and until that changes, the Russians will be on the back burner, even with the indictments of the Russian agents by Mueller. Hell, Mueller could have listed things in his report like "During the course of the investigation, we came upon files relating to successful tests of cold fusion, three separate cures for cancer, and irrefutable proof that the US military has been housing alien spacecraft and bodies at Area 51." And no one on the left would even care because Trump and Russian collusion!

I agree with you though, the West needs to do something to counter what the Russians are trying to do (which they are succeeding at IMHO).

So if it was established that 'Russia did fuck with our elections', how can you trust any result, leaving the left and right out for a moment. If they can corrupt a system we use (Americans) and have been doing it in other venues throughout the world, how can we trust any event that may have their fingerprints upon it?

[RBP]

So if it was established that 'Russia did fuck with our elections', how can you trust any result, leaving the left and right out for a moment. If they can corrupt a system we use (Americans) and have been doing it in other venues throughout the world, how can we trust any event that may have their fingerprints upon it?

They didn't "corrupt the system". There is zero evidence of any actual vote tampering by the Russians. It was an influence campaign apparently, to sow the seeds of political unrest. Did it work? Eh. That's a convenient thing for the Dems to use as a justification for their utter failure. Now, did some retards vote based on something a Russian bot said on Facebook? I can't rule that out. People are fucking stupid.

[DemonGeminiX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtbuyxxC4s8

[Hal-9000]

Fair to guess the left leaning media and politicians still won't let up on Trump or apologize for two years of dishonesty and slander... that's concerning on a massive level, and while I personally haven't paid much attention to this topic the last year or so, I can't even imagine all your frustration and disgust.

If I can digress a bit as a non-American though (and if this isn't the time/thread for it, that's understandable), but my question is... what is going to be done about Russia? At 21 minutes into the Shapiro vid he nicely recaps what we know Russia did do (and I believe they're doing this in many other countries). We know they fuck with our elections, our media, our social media, our investigations, hell even NATO satellites (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-jammed-gps-signals-during-nato-military-exercise-thats-really-big-deal-37682). They're looking to turn us in on ourselves, and it's working nicely. Can leaders ever stop talking about Trump long enough to do something meaningful about the actual threat here? Mueller indicted 12 Russian agents but you have to think that's nothing compared to Russia's efforts to subterfuge the West.


They didn't "corrupt the system". There is zero evidence of any actual vote tampering by the Russians. It was an influence campaign apparently, to sow the seeds of political unrest. Did it work? Eh. That's a convenient thing for the Dems to use as a justification for their utter failure. Now, did some retards vote based on something a Russian bot said on Facebook? I can't rule that out. People are fucking stupid.

Confused. You liked GF's post and if him and Shapiro felt the Russians have fucked with a number of things in your country (and other countries), that's not corrupting a system?

[DemonGeminiX]

Confused. You liked GF's post and if him and Shapiro felt the Russians have fucked with a number of things in your country (and other countries), that's not corrupting a system?

They attempted to corrupt the system, but they failed. They had no effect on the election, but they did try, which shows us that we need to secure our election process more and keep our eyes on Russia.

[Hal-9000]

They attempted to corrupt the system, but they failed. They had no effect on the election, but they did try, which shows us that we need to secure our election process more and keep our eyes on Russia.

After an episode of Homeland, I went down a rabbit hole featuring social media, sock puppet/troll accounts and how those entities could influence major events like elections.

It was one of those things where it influenced my trust level in general after reading/watching vids.

[RBP]

Confused. You liked GF's post and if him and Shapiro felt the Russians have fucked with a number of things in your country (and other countries), that's not corrupting a system?

The "like button" can mean a lot of things, including, but not limited to, agreement, appreciation for contributing without agreement, "I will read this another time", and "I should probably good to bed, but I was able to click on something so I'm fine for another cocktail".

[Godfather]

Hey wait a second, now my feelings are hurt :sad2:

[RBP]

Hey wait a second, now my feelings are hurt :sad2:

Awwwww... let me give you a safe space, millennial.

:dance:

[Hal-9000]

The "like button" can mean a lot of things, including, but not limited to, agreement, appreciation for contributing without agreement, "I will read this another time", and "I should probably good to bed, but I was able to click on something so I'm fine for another cocktail".

Now we've got the like definition down, you don't think when the Russians use processes like that they corrupt systems?

Not letting it go just yet..

*For me a like on this site indicates agreement, thanks, and/or a general sense of liking the post.

[RBP]

https://i.imgur.com/3LJBCKF.gif

[Hal-9000]

I'm veering dangerously into leftist territory and fulfilling some memes here I know.

I think there's evidence in that report and Donald is dirty.

Planted my flag right there. I'm good.

[RBP]

I'm veering dangerously into leftist territory and fulfilling some memes here I know.

I think there's evidence in that report and Donald is dirty.

Planted my flag right there. I'm good.

How have you read the report?

[Hal-9000]

How have you read the report?

I'm trying to get a sense of the results from you guys here. Something I always do when there's a big American thing happening.

and I'm a democrat so fuck no :lol:

[DemonGeminiX]

I'm veering dangerously into leftist territory and fulfilling some memes here I know.

I think there's evidence in that report and Donald is dirty.

Planted my flag right there. I'm good.

The question isn't whether or not he's dirty. The question is whether he committed any crime that rises to the level of an impeachable offense, and the answer is no. We know he's dirty. All rich people have skeletons in their closets. Not a single damn one of them have clean hands. We know he's arrogant. He's been arrogant in the public media for decades, his entire life. Similarly, we know he's an asshole. We knew all of that before we voted him into office. There is no evidence that he committed any crimes that rise to the level of impeachment: no collusion, no obstruction. Period. The report probably says he's an asshole. So what! Not a crime. The report probably says he rules over the White House like a tyrant. So what! It's part of the job. It goes with the territory.

There's nothing there. It's over now. Let it go.

[Hal-9000]

The question isn't whether or not he's dirty. The question is whether he committed any crime that rises to the level of an impeachable offense, and the answer is no. We know he's dirty. All rich people have skeletons in their closets. Not a single damn one of them have clean hands. We know he's arrogant. He's been arrogant in the public media for decades, his entire life. Similarly, we know he's an asshole. We knew all of that before we voted him into office. There is no evidence that he committed any crimes that rise to the level of impeachment: no collusion, no obstruction. Period. The report probably says he's an asshole. So what! Not a crime. The report probably says he rules over the White House like a tyrant. So what! It's part of the job. It goes with the territory.

There's nothing there. Now, it's over. Let it go.

Yes sir!


wow

[DemonGeminiX]

Yes sir!


wow

:slap:

Will you wait until I'm done editing? You know I have to edit 50 times before I'm happy. Dammit! :x

[Hal-9000]

:slap:

Will you wait until I'm done editing? You know I have to edit 50 times before I'm happy. Dammit! :x

Yeah but you come off sounding so sure. The only thing I'm attempting to say (with a tiny amount of humor) is that we can't always be certain of the information being released to us. Even during these types of investigations that are supposed to be non partisan. Look, I know the real purpose of this thing was for the dems to find fault with the administration. But I don't know what actually went on during the election. Do you see the difference? The report isn't the be all end all just because it didn't find any wrongdoing.


Yeah I think Donald is dirty and that's a term you can redefine forever, it still equates to being dishonest. Just seeing the amount of people in his cabinet who have quit, gotten arrested, went to trial, sends up huge smoke signals. The commonality in all of the events from Stormy to this recent report, is The Donald.

I'm allowed to be the other side of the conversation and I'm polite. You're censoring me and shutting me down :x Not a good look...

And edit all you want...you know that I typically make 75.3 edits per post so you'll never catch me.


fondest regards,
AOC-9000

[Pony]

They attempted to corrupt the system, but they failed. They had no effect on the election, but they did try, which shows us that we need to secure our election process more and keep our eyes on Russia.

Technically the social media campaign they supposedly ran could be considered an influence, as well as hacking the Lefts computers and exposing corruption.

Personally I would rather the hacking expose a corrupt politician than have that person actually get elected.

And as far as the Russians running a phony online campaign it's nothing compared to the 100's of left wing phony social media accounts, the left wing media, nearly every celebrity and knocking on doors offering to fill out ballots for people. But apparently those kinds of "influence" are OK because it's not coming from another country.

[DemonGeminiX]

Yeah but you come off sounding so sure. The only thing I'm attempting to say (with a tiny amount of humor) is that we can't always be certain of the information being released to us. Even during these types of investigations that are supposed to be non partisan. Look, I know the real purpose of this thing was for the dems to find fault with the administration. But I don't know what actually went on during the election. Do you see the difference? The report isn't the be all end all just because it didn't find any wrongdoing.


Yeah I think Donald is dirty and that's a term you can redefine forever, it still equates to being dishonest. Just seeing the amount of people in his cabinet who have quit, gotten arrested, went to trial, sends up huge smoke signals. The commonality in all of the events from Stormy to this recent report, is The Donald.

I'm allowed to be the other side of the conversation and I'm polite. You're censoring me and shutting me down :x Not a good look...

And edit all you want...you know that I typically make 75.3 edits per post so you'll never catch me.


fondest regards,
AOC-9000

With respect to the election, every politician does dirty things. That's just the hard cold truth about American politics. That Steele dossier that was the basis for this investigation was funded by Clinton and completely based off of false pretenses. Technically, if we're going by strict legal standards, this investigation should never have happened.

All politicians are dishonest. They have to be. They'd never get elected if they were telling us the truth about how fucked we really are and how they just want the power and the never ending paycheck when they leave office.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I'll do dirty deeds....and I'll do them dirt cheap :shifty:

[Pony]

I'm veering dangerously into leftist territory and fulfilling some memes here I know.

I think there's evidence in that report and Donald is dirty.

Planted my flag right there. I'm good.

There's probably evidence in that report that A LOT of people are dirty, on both sides. The left seems to think they will be able to use the info in the report to either impeach or discredit Trump to the point that he has no chance in 2020. All they want is dirt on Trump, not truth.

Personally I think releasing an unedited full report would just open a huge can of worms for everyone, on both sides.

[Hal-9000]

There's probably evidence in that report that A LOT of people are dirty, on both sides. The left seems to think they will be able to use the info in the report to either impeach or discredit Trump to the point that he has no chance in 2020. All they want is dirt on Trump, not truth.

Personally I think releasing an unedited full report would just open a huge can of worms for everyone, on both sides.

Yes you can't shake the public's faith in the electoral system and I agree with your last statement. The world and the US is already too unstable to manage a blow like honesty behind political parties and how they rise to the top.

[RBP]

Personally I think releasing an unedited full report would just open a huge can of worms for everyone, on both sides.

They can't. This isn't 1998. After the Starr report, the law was changed. It has to be heavily redacted to remove personal information that isn't related to a criminal act. Since no criminal act was found, it will (in all likelihood) be heavily redacted. You know where this is going... cue the screams that a heavily redacted report is PROOF of a coverup. Ignorance of history be damned.

[Hal-9000]

*starts to scream..

:-s

I have to pick something up.

My flag is already planted for posterity, we'll see how this thing shakes out in the future.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

They can't. This isn't 1998. After the Starr report, the law was changed. It has to be heavily redacted to remove personal information that isn't related to a criminal act. Since no criminal act was found, it will (in all likelihood) be heavily redacted. You know where this is going... cue the screams that a heavily redacted report is PROOF of a coverup. Ignorance of history be damned.

https://i.imgur.com/kdk9IED.png

[RBP]

Yes you can't shake the public's faith in the electoral system and I agree with your last statement. The world and the US is already too unstable to manage a blow like honesty behind political parties and how they rise to the top.

I think a circle jerk is a better metaphor for this than a blow, but that's just me.

[Pony]

Yes you can't shake the public's faith in the electoral system and I agree with your last statement. The world and the US is already too unstable to manage a blow like honesty behind political parties and how they rise to the top.

:lol:

[Hal-9000]

I think a circle jerk is a better metaphor for this than a blow, but that's just me.


:lol:

:lol: What...you know there's so much money behind the political process, why I would even predict the crazy theory that your next president could be someone from the corporate sector with huge interests in real estate and business, a true financial mogul without any political skill at all, a real alpha sociopath, and what would happen to your country then, huh?


:doh:

my bad and I am leaving now! :lol:

[Pony]

:lol: What...you know there's so much money behind the political process, why I would even predict the crazy theory that your next president could be someone from the corporate sector with huge interests in real estate and business, a true financial mogul without any political skill at all, a real alpha sociopath, and what would happen to your country then, huh?


:doh:

my bad and I am leaving now! :lol:

:lol: Don't get me started on my thoughts on all the corporate money behind our elections and government. In most smaller towns/counties everything they do would be considered corruption. They need to pass a law stating they must wear badges of their sponsors like in Nascar.

[Pony]

I think one of the few people left in govt with any integrity is probably Dan Crenshaw.

[DemonGeminiX]

I'll do dirty deeds....and I'll do them with sheep :shifty:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZuHAsf6qO0

[Hal-9000]

Dammit I complained about having my voice silenced. Maybe I am a democrat? :-k

[Pony]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8whOffxUvAI

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Amber Athey | White House Correspondent - The Daily Caller


https://i.imgur.com/NnouJtT.png

Democrats and the establishment media are floating conspiracy theories about special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation in order to discredit his finding of no collusion.

Mueller delivered his report to Attorney General Bill Barr last weekend, and Barr sent a letter to Congress summarizing the report’s principal findings: no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and no conclusion on obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump.

Republicans and the White House have celebrated Barr’s letter as an exoneration of the president, but Democrats and the media have seized on what they see as an elaborate cover-up by Trump’s “hand-picked” AG.

The New York Times reported Thursday, “Democrats, who like all other lawmakers have not seen the report, have all but accused Mr. Barr of covering up damaging information it contains.”

Some have indicated that because Barr summarized a 300-page report in just a four page letter, he must be oversimplifying or misinterpreting the results of Mueller’s investigation.

If Barr does not release the report in its entirety, including grand jury information, one anonymous Hill staffer told the Washington Post, then he will be participating in a “coverup.”
1111619516314710016
1111627263055970305
Jennifer Rubin, a columnist for the Washington Post, also accused Barr of a coverup, writing that the AG would “defeat the entire purpose of a special counsel by weighing in to exonerate the president of any wrongdoing and to provide a scant summary of hundreds of pages of evidence.”
1111618097499332608
1111613956500664322
1111420307359711233
Former Attorney General Eric Holder praised Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff for continuing to insist that, despite Barr’s letter, the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
1111379631121137665
“There’s a difference between compelling evidence of collusion and whether the special counsel concludes that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal charge of conspiracy,” Schiff claimed in an interview with ABC.

Meanwhile, Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders refused to respond when asked if he would accept Mueller’s report if there is indeed no evidence of collusion.

Commentator Max Boot went so far as to suggest Barr hadn’t even read the entirety of Mueller’s report before releasing his letter clearing the president, asking incredulously, “How on earth was Barr able to digest and summarize a 300+ page report in less than 48 hours?”
1111275185208991744
1111327592961839105
1111998692335255552
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who has spent much of her programming over the past two years on the Russian collusion conspiracy, has been at the forefront of the effort to delegitimize Barr and convince her viewers that Mueller could still have something on Trump.

Slate’s Willa Paskin writes about Maddow:


For Maddow, every piece of information remains a clue that might take down the Trump empire. There is no adjustment for how the report has been widely received, no skepticism about what the report might actually contain, just cockamamie connections, the feverish belief that every single thing we don’t know is the all-important fact, that the smoking gun of collusion is out there, and that, yes, Robert Mueller is still going to swoop in and save us.

Maddow’s MSNBC colleague, Joy Reid, asserted last weekend that the “seeds of a cover-up are here” because of Barr’s role in the conclusion of the investigation.

In an attempt to address the conspiracies floating around his initial letter, Barr sent a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders on Friday.

The follow-up letter indicated that yes, the full report will be made public save security-related redactions; no, the White House will not be allowed a “privilege review” before it is released; and yes, Mueller’s team is working with Barr on its release. Barr also noted that his first letter was not intended to be a summary of the entire report, rather, a summary of its principal conclusions.

The letter served to knock down claims made without evidence that Barr had wildly misrepresented Mueller’s conclusions or was planning on keeping the final report under lock and key.

[RBP]

:facepalm:

Time to moveon.org people.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

:facepalm:

Time to moveon.org people.

https://i.imgur.com/6pg6UNB.jpg