Mueller's investigation

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10429
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8126

Post by Mikedunford » Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:35 pm

Jeffrey wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:19 pm
Sure, but being willing to collude with Russia and actually colluding are different things.
They're different in that one is a crime and the other is just something that would have ended any other presidency - but not this one, because a collection of degenerates who often brag about being patriots are still strong supporters of the "willing to collude with Russia" campaign.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16793
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8127

Post by Suranis » Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:44 pm

kate520 wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:22 pm
I’m heartsick. I’m going to go do sudoku puzzles for a few weeks.
Ok, since people are ready to :panic: at this point let me lay out a couple of facts

(a) Trump stopped tweeting for over 24 hours when this dropped and then started tweeting nonsense. This happens when something BAAAD Happens

(b) Barr took 2 days to write this. If it was cut and dried as this, it would not have taken this long.

(c) How many times have these guys released something that they said was BAAAD and then people got a hold of it and it turned out to be the opposite?

(d) This is NOT, NOT, NOT The Mueller report. People have been shouting all over to reserve judgement till we actually read the thing ourselves. This is one guys summation and Its probaboly biased. The fact is that the best they could come up with is that WHILE THE RUSSIANS DID INTERFERE (Donald has been denying this for 3 years now) there was not direct agreements with the Trump Campaign and if you squint a lot you cant see whether or not Donald obstructed Justice.

I mean ffs Roger Stone was a guy associated with the Trump Campaign and he did work with Wikileaks and by extension the Russians, so that has to be a bald faced lie right there.

That's the best spin they can put on this. The actual report is likely to be much worse. And the Democrats will be looking at the unredacted report and if there is anything untword (like the Roger Stone crap) they will be screaming about it. Schiff has declassified stuff before when the Republicans played games.

AND no matter what, the SDNY investigation will destroy Trump and his family. Guaranteed.

I hate to be the Polyanna here but ease off on the suicide notes at least. Have a little faith. :)
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15679
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8128

Post by kate520 » Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:46 pm

:roll: I said Sudoku, not suicide.
► Show Spoiler
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 2993
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8129

Post by Turtle » Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:48 pm

Dolly wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:57 pm
Trump: "hopefully somebody is going to be looking at the other side"
Fox News is live now. <Video under the Spoiler>
about a minute ago ·

President Donald J. Trump speaks to reporters following the release of Attorney General William Barr's letter summarizing "principal conclusions" of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's completed Russia probe. https://fxn.ws/2TuDYFt

Tune in to Fox News Channel for continuing coverage.
► Show Spoiler
By "other side," I hope he means Russia.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10429
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8130

Post by Mikedunford » Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:51 pm

Suranis wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:44 pm
I mean ffs Roger Stone was a guy associated with the Trump Campaign and he did work with Wikileaks and by extension the Russians, so that has to be a bald faced lie right there.
Pulling this because I want to highlight something - agree with a lot of the rest of the post.

Here's the thing. If Stone was just talking to Wikileaks and getting information about when stuff was going to be released, it's probably not a lie to say that wasn't conspiracy or coordination with the Russian government. From a criminal perspective, it might not even have been a conspiracy or coordination with WikiLeaks, let alone the Russians - to get to that level, there would have to be proof not just that they were giving him information about what they were going to do, but he would also have to be giving them suggestions about what/when to release.

There is a hell of a lot of ratfuckery that is clearly in the category of "shit that everyone knows is wrong" but isn't technically illegal. A lot of the stuff we've seen about the connections between the Trump campaign and Russia could easily fall into that category.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
tek
Posts: 3611
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8131

Post by tek » Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:52 pm

Turtle wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:48 pm

By "other side," I hope he means Russia.
:rotflmao:

No, Clinton, Obama, Comey, etc etc

:sick:
There's no way back
from there to here

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6112
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8132

Post by neonzx » Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:59 pm

Text just in from Trump Campaign:
Pres Trump: NO COLLUSION & COMPLETE EXONERATION! Dems raised millions off a lie. Now we FIGHT BACK! Donate in the NEXT HOUR & it'll be QUADRUPLED:
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9772
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8133

Post by GreatGrey » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:03 pm

I got $5 that sez Trump flies some pardons based upon Barr’s letter.
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 5017
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8134

Post by MsDaisy » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:21 pm

GreatGrey wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:03 pm
I got $5 that sez Trump flies some pardons based upon Barr’s letter.
I've got $10 that sez Cohen the rat won't get one.
Birfers are toast

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9772
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8135

Post by GreatGrey » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:30 pm

And another...
Orlylicious wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:30 pm

Lastly, since Fox et al are saying this is the end of it, since the Clinton email investigation was also concluded, will the GOP give it a rest? Let's see who overplays their hand more here :roll:


1062BEEF-A62A-4CDA-93B6-F820B0FE9741.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
Lani
Posts: 4787
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:01 pm
Location: Some island in the Pacific

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8136

Post by Lani » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:38 pm



George Conway
@gtconway3d
You misspelled “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Pls fix. Thx.

Sarah Sanders✔
@PressSec
The Special Counsel did not find any collusion and did not find any obstruction. AG Barr and DAG Rosenstein further determined there was no obstruction. The findings of the Department of Justice are a total and complete exoneration of the President of the United States.”

30.4K 10:26 AM - Mar 24, 2019 · Washington, DC
Insert signature here: ____________________________________________________

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 14090
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8137

Post by Dolly » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:49 pm

Mueller probe: A timeline from beginning to end
BY OLIVIA BEAVERS,JACQUELINE THOMSEN AND BRETT SAMUELS - 03/24/19 07:36 PM EDT

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... ing-to-end
Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1780
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am
Location: The Left Coast

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8138

Post by much ado » Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:05 pm

The Republicans want to burn a report that, according to Sanders, is a "total and complete exoneration of the President"? They should be trying to force everyone to read it. Something does not compute, as they say.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 13978
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8139

Post by Kendra » Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:06 pm

I am just as sick at heart as the of you, but I have Preet's new book at hand, and some of his observations about why prosecutors make those hard decisions are helping. A little, but the jigsaw puzzle helps more. Had to turn off the news so I could digest dinner.
We could demand that our prosecutors explain at length their decisions to walk away, especially when the smell of smoke is strong in public nostrils, so citizens can be satisfied about the rectitude of those decisions. But prosecutors can get into deep trouble, if they talk too much about a decision not to prosecute

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 2993
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8140

Post by Turtle » Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:38 pm

I wonder how much of the Trump financial stuff will be in the report. If the proposed Moscow deal was part of the investigation, should be some documentation around that at least.

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 14090
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8141

Post by Dolly » Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:40 pm

Speaking of Preet...
03/24/19 10:45 AM EDT
Bharara: 'Donald Trump is not out of legal jeopardy'

Former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara cautioned Sunday that President Trump is “not out of legal jeopardy” with the conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

“People shouldn’t be taking victory laps or jumping off bridges” because Mueller ended his investigation without recommending further indictments, Bharara said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Bharara, who served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York before being fired by the president, reminded host Dana Bash that state and federal investigations into matters such as Trump’s inaugural committee and charitable foundation remain open.

The Southern District of New York, Bharara noted, “did not have the narrow mission that the special counsel had.”

“They’re aggressive and tough and independent and fair and apolitical, and if there’s things that they think are worth pursuing and charging, they will do so,” Bharara said. <SNIP>
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-tal ... te-mueller


tweets with video in the article:
State of the Union ✔
@CNNSotu
Former US Attorney @PreetBharara: “Donald Trump is not out of legal jeopardy and the Southern District of New York did not have the narrow mission that the special counsel had. … If there’s things that they think are worth pursuing and charging, they will do so” #CNNSOTU

6:55 AM - Mar 24, 2019
► Show Spoiler
State of the Union ✔
@CNNSotu
.@PreetBharara: “To me, the fact that the Mueller folks have said no more indictments forthcoming means you’re not going to see an American charged in some form of conspiracy, otherwise known as collusion…to hack or interfere with the election in this investigation" #CNNSOTU

6:47 AM - Mar 24, 2019
► Show Spoiler
Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9772
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8142

Post by GreatGrey » Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:46 pm

Another one....

Orlylicious wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:30 pm

Lastly, since Fox et al are saying this is the end of it, since the Clinton email investigation was also concluded, will the GOP give it a rest? Let's see who overplays their hand more here :roll:
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6520
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8143

Post by Slim Cognito » Sun Mar 24, 2019 10:13 pm

If Barr really believed there was something to investigate, wouldn't he have ordered a new investigation? And he's privy to Huber`s ongoing one, so I'm guessing he won't. Why risk trumps wrath when they turn up nothing (again)? Better to let them scream "Lock her up!" believing it still may happen.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 33899
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8144

Post by Addie » Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:17 pm

Slate - Mark Joseph Stern
William Barr Did What Donald Trump Hired Him to Do

His partisan conclusions provide another reason why we need to see the report. ...


Fast forward to Sunday, when Barr released his summary of Mueller’s report after absorbing it for less than 48 hours. Barr outlined one key finding unambiguously: The Trump campaign, he wrote, did not coordinate with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election. That conclusion will come as a great relief to the president and his supporters, if Mueller’s report is as clear-cut as Barr indicates. But the attorney general’s summary includes a second finding that is confusing and equivocal. Mueller, Barr wrote, left “unresolved” the question of whether Trump obstructed justice. He instead laid out “evidence of both sides” and allowed Barr, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, to use those findings to determine whether the president committed obstruction. On the basis of this evidence and analysis—which we cannot yet evaluate—Barr and Rosenstein decided that Trump did not commit such an offense.

This portion of the summary will remain a puzzle until Mueller’s report is released to the public. But Barr provided a clue to his reasoning, by suggesting that he did not see evidence Trump hampered the Russia probe with “corrupt intent.” As former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal has noted, it is hard to understand how Barr, or Mueller, or anyone, could gauge Trump’s intent, because the president has not been interviewed about his intentions. Why not? We know at least one person vigorously opposed compelling Trump to submit to an interview: Bill Barr, whose 2018 memo declared that Mueller could not legally do so.

Here, then, is the current state of play on the lingering possibility that Trump obstructed justice. Mueller laid out “evidence” that he may have, but allowed the attorney general to draw his own conclusions. He noted that his report “does not conclude that the President committed a crime,” but “also does not exonerate him.” Barr received this report (whose length remains unknown) on Friday afternoon. Less than 48 hours later, he informed Congress that he and Rosenstein had decided, in fact, that the evidence was “not sufficient to establish” that Trump committed a criminal offense. Which means that instead of attempting to gather more evidence—by, say, interrogating Trump about his intent—Barr decided he’d seen enough to wrap the Justice Department’s investigation and announce “no obstruction.”

These are precisely the actions you would expect of the loyal Republican who wrote the 2018 memo he wrote. And they are unnerving. As Ken White wrote in the Atlantic, “we don’t know whether Barr concluded that the president didn’t obstruct justice or whether he couldn’t obstruct justice.” But Barr’s lightning-fast judgment certainly points toward the latter possibility. We know that the report does not “exonerate” Trump of obstruction, and that Mueller himself felt it appropriate to leave certain “legal conclusions” to the attorney general. Mueller’s considerable deference to Barr could allow the attorney general to take a step the special counsel never did—interview the president. The fact that Barr choose to issue his judgment without doing so raises the strong possibility that he felt the obstruction was simply not worth pursuing because it is constitutionally untenable, an argument that Barr has already endorsed.

There is a second problem with the obstruction analysis in Barr’s summary: Rosenstein’s participation. Remember that Rosenstein wrote the memo that justified Trump’s termination of Comey, on grounds that Trump later revealed to be pretext. The New York Times has reported that Rosenstein believed the “White House used him to rationalize the firing” and deeply regretted his role in the incident. Former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has written that Rosenstein wrote the memo under duress under orders from Trump. At a minimum, Rosenstein has a massive conflict of interest with regard to these obstruction allegations. And yet he consulted with Barr in deciding that Trump did not engage in “obstructive conduct.” It is bewildering that Barr invited Rosenstein to help him decide whether conduct that Rosenstein helped to justify legally might have been illegal.
Adding:
Politico Mag - Renato Mariotti: William Barr Has Some Explaining to Do

The attorney general’s reasoning on obstruction of justice is shaky. That makes it imperative that we see all the evidence Mueller gathered.

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2917
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8145

Post by Fortinbras » Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:28 am

OK, so Donald Trump himself did not collude with Russia.

But I have this suspicion that someone else (probably more than one) in Trump's circle did have something going on with the Russians. And that's why I'd like the entire report made available.

In the meantime, remember that Mueller was responsible only on the issue of collusion with Russia; lots of other kinds of chicanery are being investigated by bunches of other people.

Also, Mueller does make the point that Russia positively did do a lot of interference with our 2016 Election to make sure that Trump won. Even without a wink-wink nudge-nudge before Election or even before Inauguration (nor even any direct conversation on this topic now), the Russians know that Trump knows they helped him, and they expect some industrial strength quid pro quo, especially if he hopes for similar help in the 2020 Election.

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8125
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8146

Post by RVInit » Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:23 am

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. When the Russians reached out directly to the campaign with an offer to give them dirt on Hillary the first thing Trump did was run off to a rally and brag that he was going to be revealing new information "next week", which just happens to be the same week the meeting with Russians was to take place. There is no doubt in my mind that the Russians, being fairly intelligent, must certainly have realized it would be risky to involve the Trump campaign directly. I would have, and I've said so on this forum long ago.

The Russians committed actual crimes in their efforts to help Trump win . Why would they risk getting directly in bed with a fellow criminal that can't keep his damn mouth shut? If I have plans to rob a bank and the first thing one of my crew does is get on national TV and start bragging that "next week I'm going to be a millionaire", I am going to damn sure change my plans around that particular crew member. The Trump campaign never did get that dirt about Hillary because why would the Russians go ahead and give that information to someone who clearly was going to put the whole criminal enterprise in jeopardy because he can't keep his damn mouth shut?
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

DrIrvingFinegarten
Posts: 682
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:11 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8147

Post by DrIrvingFinegarten » Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:35 am

Are there any legitimate legal reasons for investigating Clinton or anyone in the Obama administration or would that be just purely political?

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10429
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8148

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:52 am

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:35 am
Are there any legitimate legal reasons for investigating Clinton or anyone in the Obama administration or would that be just purely political?
Please tell me you know the answer to this already.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 13978
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8149

Post by Kendra » Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:52 am

On CNN New Day, they have scheduled an interview with Sarah Succubus is the next hour. Hoping for tough questions, they sure had her in circles the morning Stone was arrested.

I do hope we get to read the report, it does seem that Barr's wording was very careful.

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 15917
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: Mueller's investigation

#8150

Post by ZekeB » Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:57 am

From Wikipedia:
Religious traditions hold that repeated sexual activity with a succubus may result in the deterioration of health or even death.
Now we know why Donald is who he is.
Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.

Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”